Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
There's no good argument for using them in the States.

"One fuel fits all" is a great argument, IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

But nearly all of our engines can run just fine on high-grade unleaded.
That's what
will be in the pumps a few years from now. Diesels are popular in Europe
because
gasoline costs four times what diesel costs. They will also be a good idea
for pilots
who fly to places where gas is hard to get, like some parts of Canada and
Alaska. As
long as there's something at the airport or the corner gas station that
makes an
O-whatever work well, and that fuel isn't significantly more expensive
than diesel,
diesels will not be common in U.S. GA aircraft.

Lead in the Hogwash: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.

I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
to.

One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.

Another comment was from a municipal airport who said he never got
complaints about noise from the jets, just the piston planes? They will not
take any more GA tenants, and though they are building new T hangers, the
old ones are being knocked down even though they are still in demand.



"Dude" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our
ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
airports that
you would likely want to use.


Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support
"limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of
jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
"Cubs"
parked at the airport.

Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
if you are long, and doomed if you are short.

The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the
two
big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
them will care.

In article ,
Jeremy Lew wrote:
Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

Since they send out annual renewals starting about 4 months into the
year they might have counted a few people twice. From what I can tell
they spent about my entire membership fee sending me renewal notices.
I'm going to save them the trouble by letting my membership lapse.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.


Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

G.R.,

Diesels are popular in Europe because
gasoline costs four times what diesel costs.


Two to three times. But still...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dude,

The Centurion could, if well supported, and up to its marketing, replace
about every engine in the 140 to 180 HP range.


IMHO, the Centurion 1.7 simply is lacking the necessary power. 135 HP is
not enough. The sma design has its problems, namely weight, size and
price. But Thielert has seen the light: A V8, 300-HP version is in the
works for 2006, and a 6-cylinder around-200-HP version is at least
rumoured about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

I separated "airlines" from "biz jets." Apparently, you don't see the
difference.

Dude wrote:

Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.

I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
to.

One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.


I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Sure, the biz jet crowd wants a
nice, upscale FBO. So, isn't that the American Way? Also, if the airport has
any federal grant money in it, the fair use conditions are beyond the control of
the airport manager.

My home field, KCRQ, was extensive light aircraft and biz jet operations. In
fact, it also has several commuter flights a day. It all seems to work quite
well and has for many years.

I will concede that the primary noise complaints come from light aircraft pilots
who fail to maintain altitude on downwind leg, something the biz jet pilots
avoid doing.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.


Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

So, what's your point? If it weren't for the airlines the common-use en route
structure and facilities would likely not exist at all, at least not in their present
robust form.

I don't know about your part of the world, but in the U.S. far more RNAV approaches
have been placed into service for non-air carrier airports than for air carrier
airports.

The guy at Northworst is a big mouth. But, he doesn't set national policy and his
influence wanes rapidly except for the airports where his airline has a major
presence.