Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

In article ne.com,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

My brother in law has [an SUV]. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle....

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

Have you seen the President and his cabinet? It looks like an oil
company board meeting. I think it's fairly obvious why a tax break for
fuel-thirsty vehicles is on the books, while the tax credit for hybrids
is whittled away.

Dave Stadt wrote:

Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement.
Most do
not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
safety aspect is suspect.

Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
However, they may tow it every weekend. Would you rather they waste the
resources and have two vehicles, one for the weekend and one to drive to
work? The energy required to make the car and operate it is much
greater than the incremental gas required to drive the SUV to work
during the week and not have a second vehicle.


Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...


Dave Stadt wrote:



Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far

more


people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain


I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
firewood with a car.

Matt


Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a mission
that required one.

And I know a number of people for whom an SUV is an ideal vehicle. They
routinely haul 7 people and tow trailers and boats. I have two minivans
and a pickup as I also routinely haul 7 people and a camper, but not at
the same time. If I needed to do both simultaneously, then I'd like own
an SUV also.


Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...


Dave Stadt wrote:



Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far

more


people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain


I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
firewood with a car.

Matt


Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a mission
that required one.

Most airplanes are flown much of the time by a single pilot. Do you
think we should all have only single pax airplanes and not have the
typical 4-place light plane?


Matt

Jase Vanover wrote:

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
172's.

Maybe. However, ask those same 10 people what image the Cirrus brand
conjures up for them and they'll either say "a what?" or they'll say it
isn't a bad car as Chryslers go.


Matt

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Bob Noel said:

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

no worse than other vehicles.


Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.

You obviously haven't driven many SUVs and are just reading what others
write, who also haven't driven SUVs.


I've gotten into a lot more trouble when I can't stop when it's snowing
than I have when I can't go. "Can't go" is an inconvenience, "can't stop"
is life threatening.

True. And this has exactly what to do with SUVS vs. cars? Cars have
the same problem stopping on slick surfaces as do SUVs.


Matt

john smith wrote:

Only two situations I can think of where having a BRS would save my
butt...
1.) mid-air collision
2.) loss of prop and/or engine (due to vibration from broken prop).
Yes, I have seen the Sean Tucker video.

What Tucker video? Is available online?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...


Dave Stadt wrote:



Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far

more


people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain


I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
firewood with a car.

Matt


Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a
mission
that required one.

Most airplanes are flown much of the time by a single pilot. Do you
think we should all have only single pax airplanes and not have the
typical 4-place light plane?


Matt

Quite a few people I know are moving from 4 place to 2 place airplanes.
I'll let you figure out the reason. One can ususlly rent a four place when
the need arises.

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

john smith wrote:

Only two situations I can think of where having a BRS would save my
butt...
1.) mid-air collision
2.) loss of prop and/or engine (due to vibration from broken prop).
Yes, I have seen the Sean Tucker video.

What Tucker video? Is available online?

Sean Tucker took his niece out for a ride in a Pitts.
After some easy maneuvers to get her accustomed to acro, he pulled up
into a hammerhead. While going vertical, the prop went one way and the
Pitts another. Immediately recognizing the situation, he go the nose
down and continued to fly the airplane. While calmly and repeatedly
assuring his niece that "everything is alright", he found a suitable
landing site and set up his approach. He executed a flawless landing and
they walked away. The whole thing was recorded on a cockpit audio/video
device. From the loss of the prop to rolling to a stop was less than two
minutes. It is one of the most incredible videos I have seen
demonstrating cockpit cool under pressure. Airspeed to maintain control
was around 140 kts, including the approach and touchdown.
I do not know if it is on his website. He shows it during his Oshkosh
presentations.

In a previous article, Matt Whiting said:
And folks that don't understand probability very will also buy lottery
tickets.

So will folks who find a momentary thrill is worth a buck. I've paid more
for less.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Get with the program, jeffrey. No one is 'wrong' on Usenet. They are
either 100% totally correct, or they are 'a lying, scum sucking weasel.'
There is no in-between. -- Garrett Johnson