Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Andreus writes:

We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a
little TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing
symptoms.

In the case of heavy-metal poisoning, when symptoms appear it may be
too late. This is most true with very young victims, as the poisoning
may cause permanent neurological damage including mental retardation,
blindness, etc.

Among adults, clinical manifestations of lead poisoning due to lead in
fuel have not been observed in the general population, as far as I
know, but higher lead levels in vivo for this population have been
documented. The effects of these higher but still low levels is
indeterminate. What is known is that young people are much more
sensitive to this type of poisoning, and even if adults are not
significantly affected by it, children might be.

Thus, getting rid of the lead is a good idea. It will come to
aviation in time as well.


You have no idea of whence you speak

As usual.



Bertie

"Martin Hotze" wrote

No wonder they love you so much.

You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
lecture me, on ANYTHING.

RE-plonked.
--
Jim in NC

"Martin Hotze" wrote

In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports about
innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just crawl out
from under?


What would you do if some foreign troops (without declaring war or
anything else international recognised) comes to your place and demand
that they have every say and that you are nothing but a ****ing
nonbeliever (and worser things)? Can you seriously come up with some
arguments what YOU would do?
Most of the people in Iraq want us there. Have you not been following the
news of towns turning against the insurgents? Yep, sounds like they really
hate us.

It is not too much of a stretch to say that a majority of the insurgents are
from other countries than Iraq.
Have you missed that, too?

If you believe all that you read from the liberal press, you need to open
your ears to the other news. You know, all the good stuff that happens,
that does not make the mainstream news.

You don't need to reply. I won't be reading your vile.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
No wonder they love you so much.

You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
lecture me, on ANYTHING.

RE-plonked.

In other words, you can't answer his arguments.

No problem, here is a link that explains how and why TEL was originally
added.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/5

It's also somewhat one sided. but does explain the benefits. I agree that
lead was removed because it was incompatible with the catalytic converter,
not because the lead levels were found to be harmful. Although there seems
to some revisionist history going on, I can't say definitively that the
levels of lead at the time were proving harmful. I work in a industry where
I was exposed to solder fumes for hours every day, and likely picked up a
lot of lead from my hands working in that area, I have been checked for lead
and the levels were elevated but not considered harmful. That exposure has
to be many times what one would collect from Avgas. I don't believe that the
lead from avgas poses anywhere near the health risk that the replacement
compounds do. On the other hand I also believe that except for the pesky
problem of poor economics and heat for weight issues alchohol is a much
better fuel.

"Airbus" wrote in message
...
In article ,



Thanks for pointing to this interesting article.
Though strongly one-sided, the article is well prepared, and a good basis
for
discussion - exactly the opposite of any response the flight-sim guy would
have
given.

Morgans schrieb:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
No wonder they love you so much.

You, with your stand on various things over the years have NO right to
lecture me, on ANYTHING.

u-uhh, arguments. *HAHA*

RE-plonked.

*wow* maybe you should go to Iraq and plonk all the people there that
don't love you, too. Else you might bring them to Gitmo, and on the way
make a stopover in Syria for some torture.

ROTFL, #m

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...


*wow* maybe you should go to Iraq and plonk all the people there that
don't love you, too. Else you might bring them to Gitmo, and on the way
make a stopover in Syria for some torture.


You're getting Bush's wars confused. The "guests" in Spa Gitmo are from
Afghanistan for the most part, I understand some are Arabs. The
waterboarding team from Iraq are being hosted at Abu Greab where sports like
naked piling, box standing, corpse posing and poo painting were being
developed by Lynndie England without the knowledge of her boss Sgt Schultz.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Andreus writes:

We do come into contact with fuel so it is possible to meet up with a little
TEL, I'll worry when the high time pilots start showing symptoms.

In the case of heavy-metal poisoning, when symptoms appear it may be too late.
This is most true with very young victims, as the poisoning may cause
permanent neurological damage including mental retardation, blindness, etc.

Among adults, clinical manifestations of lead poisoning due to lead in fuel
have not been observed in the general population, as far as I know, but higher
lead levels in vivo for this population have been documented. The effects of
these higher but still low levels is indeterminate. What is known is that
young people are much more sensitive to this type of poisoning, and even if
adults are not significantly affected by it, children might be.

Thus, getting rid of the lead is a good idea. It will come to aviation in
time as well.

The two major, and just about only, sources of lead exposure for normal
people was white lead paint, long ago banned in the US, being injested
by infants and Mexican folk medicine.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Airbus writes:

When and how do we inhale significant amounts of these?

They are exhausted into the air by engines that use leaded fuel. We then
inhale the air and the lead it contains.

Along with a huge number of other toxic substances, all of which are at
too low a level to cause harm.

Why are these additives in the fuel in the first place?

To prevent detonation (knocking).

You get half credit on that one; knocking wasn't the only reason.

I would like you to explain to us what was the impetus for removing lead
from automotive fuels, and why it has remained in aviation fuel.

Lead was removed from automotive fuels because it is toxic. I presume that it
remains in aviation fuels because the difficulty of eliminating it entirely
and ensuring that the resulting fuels and engines would remain safe is thought
to be greater than the risk from lead in the fuel.

Totally wrong.

Lead was phased out because it ruined catalytic converters and replaced
with something even more toxic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jan 5, 3:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:







On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
aa53-
:

On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
b5ff-
:

On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
ever.

I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
HAving
said
that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
do

Bertie

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? *

Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
They do the job, though.

I would sonner buy them over the new one and

just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
that's
just me.

About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
The
150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got a plane Bertie? *Love to see pics if you do. *My email is
good.

Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I took an aerobatic ride in a Citabria once years ago. It was a
blast. I'll never forget at the top of the loop looking through the
ceiling window at the ground. That is a fun airplane.

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
weight in the reg.

Phil