Let's Get Real Here.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:37:20 -0700, Bret Ludwig
wrote:

On Aug 28, 9:47 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.

And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.

Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
is horse**** and I can prove it.

I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
times, and strut inside...


Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly

You have to learn how to fly. On a bike you only need to learn where
the gear positions, brakes, and starter are located.


dead.

IMHO, the weight limits on Light Sport are the totally unreasonable
determination of a bunch of desk jockeys. At the very least, they should
have accomodated the weights of two seat basic trainers commonly made and
used in the United States. The cost to build and maintain an aircraft of
750KG gross weigth would not be substantially more than for a 600KG
aircraft--and would very likely be less. In attition, it would have put
more companies and craftsmen back to work here in the USA.


Someone else said the utterly obvious ten years ago-if a light
airplane is arbitrarily defined at 12,500 lbs, an ultralight ought to
be 1250 lbs.

On Aug 30, 9:59 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
dead.

Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
something about it.

A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that Bret
knows no more than the rest of us.

We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!


Oh, sorry. Got busy with other things. Well, I'm not sure it accounts
for all of it, but motorcycles were subject to severe social
opprobrium in the 50s and 60s. Outlaw motorcycle outfits that
terrorized the populace and the cultural treatment of same allowed
the Japanese companies to market their "safe, inoffensive, and
economical" products as a counterpoint. The yuppie fascination with
Harleys would not exist today if they didn't conjure up images of the
forbidden, in doctors and accountants whose fathers would have whipped
their ass if they had bought one in high school.

Cessna and Piper and Beech put out all that horse**** about the light
airplane as a business tool. People don't want them as a business
tool, they want to play fighter pilot. Light aircraft are generally
speaking worthless for business use. That's the purview of crew
operated miniature airliners and turbine helicopters. When the rich
started getting richer faster under Senileman and Bush I the market
for toys and collectibles of all kinds exploded, but Wichita went
into a recession. The reason was that Wichita, a town in which I have
spent way too much time, is loaded with fundamentalist morons and
idiot kids who prefer driving lowriders up and down Kellogg at 3" AGL
to learning to fly.

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_082307.htm

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 30, 9:59 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is
nearly
dead.

Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe
do
something about it.

A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that
Bret
knows no more than the rest of us.

We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!


Oh, sorry. Got busy with other things. Well, I'm not sure it accounts
for all of it, but motorcycles were subject to severe social
opprobrium in the 50s and 60s. Outlaw motorcycle outfits that
terrorized the populace and the cultural treatment of same allowed
the Japanese companies to market their "safe, inoffensive, and
economical" products as a counterpoint. The yuppie fascination with
Harleys would not exist today if they didn't conjure up images of the
forbidden, in doctors and accountants whose fathers would have whipped
their ass if they had bought one in high school.

Cessna and Piper and Beech put out all that horse**** about the light
airplane as a business tool. People don't want them as a business
tool, they want to play fighter pilot. Light aircraft are generally
speaking worthless for business use. That's the purview of crew
operated miniature airliners and turbine helicopters. When the rich
started getting richer faster under Senileman and Bush I the market
for toys and collectibles of all kinds exploded, but Wichita went
into a recession. The reason was that Wichita, a town in which I have
spent way too much time, is loaded with fundamentalist morons and
idiot kids who prefer driving lowriders up and down Kellogg at 3" AGL
to learning to fly.

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_082307.htm



Wow!

There is a lot there with which to dissagree and much of it is a diatribe of
party politics, way off topic, and extremely bigotted as well.

However, it does also illustrate a current marketing adage: "People decide
on emotion and then they justify their decisions with logic."

"You meet the nicest people on a Honda" was certainly a successful marketing
campaign. However, much of the social stigma attached to motorcycles may
have resulted from their use as props in action/adventure movies of the
1950's. The war was over, and new villains and new props may have been
easier to obtain than new and untested plots. IMHO, motorcycles may have
simply resumed their earlier place in the transportation and recreation mix.
Of course, the Harley Davidson policy of restricting production to support
the resale value of thier recent production did help to support the logic
with which the customers justified their purchase.

Piper and Beech are exactly correct about the use of light planes as
business tools, and it would be even better if they cost half as much; but
the cost part is only relevant to the trade-in and move-up market. The real
problem is that the cost justification is only the SECOND half of the
decision process--which leaves the basic emotional marketing issue
unresolved.

Peter

Piper and Beech are exactly correct about the use of light planes as
business tools, and it would be even better if they cost half as much; but
the cost part is only relevant to the trade-in and move-up market. The real
problem is that the cost justification is only the SECOND half of the
decision process--which leaves the basic emotional marketing issue
unresolved.

There are legitimate utility and commercial uses of light recip
aircraft as we all know, Alaskan bush flying, pipeline patrol, a great
number of things but all niche and fairly limited markets. The kind of
"business flying" the lightplane people were pushing for decades-
flying for sales and meeting purposes, etc, is patent horse****. LIGHT
AIRCRAFT ARE TOYS. When a single pilot Cat II or IIIA approved known
icing approved light twin with single lever power control meeting
transport category single engine takeoff minimums can be had for less
than ten times the annualized cost of first class airline
tickets....we may reappraise this statement.

A motorcycle and a light aircraft have EXACTLY the same justification
and EXACTLY the same business utilization. An airplane is probably
properly more expensive but not twenty or even ten times. You ought to
be able to buy a two seat day VFR airplane for less than a Corvette,
very certainly. But it should be fully aerobatic and climb out at a
smart angle at an impressive rate of climb and make a lot of noise.