A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kitplanes December



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th 04, 04:06 AM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kitplanes December

Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.

Question #9
Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most like
to build?

The poll revealed:
Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%

Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.

There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and never
heard of the plane or company.

Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.

Dale


  #2  
Old November 13th 04, 01:32 PM
Lou Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dale" wrote in message ...
Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.

Question #9
Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most like
to build?

The poll revealed:
Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%

Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.

There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and never
heard of the plane or company.

Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.

Dale


Don't get to worried about it Dale, it's kitplanes. Not exactly the
brightest writers or staff. Their information and articles are written
so bad I cancled my subscription years ago. Their staff is so bad, I
keep getting the magazine for free. You have to pressume that if they
did any kind of examining or cross refenceing of the information they
recive, that maybe the magazine would take some time to publish and
you wouldn't get Decembers issue in October.
Lou
  #3  
Old November 13th 04, 05:20 PM
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dale" wrote in message ...
Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.

Question #9
Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most
like to build?

The poll revealed:
Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%

Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.

There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and
never heard of the plane or company.

Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.

Dale


Consider that Kitplanes doesn't have a particularly large circulation.
Also, consider that not many of their subscribers are going to respond to a
poll. Then, consider that if a the survey is mentioned in a type specific
newsgroup or e-mail forum, it might result in builders/flyers of that
aircraft responding to the poll, which could/would lead to biased results..
Same thing with any uncontrolled poll. Take 'em with a grain of salt.

KB


  #5  
Old November 14th 04, 09:05 AM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:16:31 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:23:48 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:

:I BEG your pardon? Some of those not bright writers lurk in here. {;-)
:
:The pot calling the kettle black? too, not to. Kitplanes, not kitplanes.
:canceled, not cancled. presume, not pressume. referencing, not refenceing.
:receive, not recive. December's, not Decembers.
:
:Jim

Trying to spell everything with precision...

Any idea why the survey results were so strange?


Don't recall seeing the survey, but the most likely answer is a small sample
size. With few participants, a couple of well-meaning fans can skew the results
without deliberately trying to stuff the ballot box.

Ron Wanttaja
  #6  
Old November 15th 04, 01:02 PM
Lou Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Weir wrote in message . ..
I BEG your pardon? Some of those not bright writers lurk in here. {;-)

The pot calling the kettle black? too, not to. Kitplanes, not kitplanes.
canceled, not cancled. presume, not pressume. referencing, not refenceing.
receive, not recive. December's, not Decembers.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com


Jim,
As much as I value both yours and Ron's information and idea's, how
many chapters does it take to tell how a piston engine produces power?
I lost interest months ago. Many of the articles in this publication
seem to be 50% fluff or filler or something to take up space. It's as
if the editors are sitting on their ass'es and trying to pay people by
the word not the context.

Look at Decembers issue. Go on-line to some of the companies that
have a kit listed. 1/2 the prices are way off, the performances are
off, even some of the web addresses are wrong. What did the writer do,
send out a post card asking for information? Obviously nothing was
investigated to see what was true or false. Last year they stopped
printing the engine directory. Thats only half the cost of your plane,
so why bother? Every month there is an apology for something wrong
only because a subscriber has to point it out. Maybe it's time they
knew the truth. They need help at the information business.

Lou
  #7  
Old November 15th 04, 05:18 PM
Jim Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't know which end of the
soldering iron got hot. I bitched EVERY MONTH to the editor with factual
information as to what was correct and what was wrong. He finally got so tired
of my bitching that he offered me the chance to do it better.

So far, every month for fifteen years I've been doing it better. Why not get on
the editor's case and show where the errors are. Don't be MEAN about it, but be
persistent. We don't get paid a hell of a lot, but it buys a case of iced
orangeade from time to time.

Something about lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness...

Jim



(Lou Parker)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


Every month there is an apology for something wrong
-only because a subscriber has to point it out. Maybe it's time they
-knew the truth. They need help at the information business.
-
- Lou

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com
  #8  
Old November 15th 04, 11:50 PM
TaxSrv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Weir" wrote:
Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't
know which end of the soldering iron got hot.
....


A classic was in Custom Planes, whose avionics writer had nothing in
his bio I found elsewhere to suggest he should be. He was explaining,
in an article entitled "Understanding Parallel Feeds," series verses
parallel wiring in a airplane, for practical reasons hard to fathom
once you thought you understood the title. He described an example of
a builder wiring two 14V radios in series in a plane with a 14V system
(who would?), but his reasons this wouldn't work -- he said both
displays would be dim -- missed the problem of the physical
installation resulting in a common ground. One will work just fine,
the other won't at all.

In another article, he explained Watt's Law to say that if your
battery voltage were to drop to 11 volts, your circuit breakers can
pop, because when voltage goes down, current must go up. So use
bigger breakers. And you'll like his explanation of how all avionics
work, I guess Circuit Design 101:

"Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
map displays."

Fred F.

  #9  
Old November 15th 04, 11:58 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TaxSrv" wrote


"Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
map displays."

Fred F.



You sure that was not Jim W's work? I could have sworn that was the
explanation I heard him give, one time. VBG (ducking and running)

Actually, Jim is so far above my head, I seldom understand all of what he
writes. Even I can see the BS meter pegging, on that previous one.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/10/2004


  #10  
Old November 16th 04, 04:08 PM
Drew Dalgleish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:50:02 -0500, "TaxSrv"
wrote:

"Jim Weir" wrote:
Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't
know which end of the soldering iron got hot.
....


A classic was in Custom Planes, whose avionics writer had nothing in
his bio I found elsewhere to suggest he should be. He was explaining,
in an article entitled "Understanding Parallel Feeds," series verses
parallel wiring in a airplane, for practical reasons hard to fathom
once you thought you understood the title. He described an example of
a builder wiring two 14V radios in series in a plane with a 14V system
(who would?), but his reasons this wouldn't work -- he said both
displays would be dim -- missed the problem of the physical
installation resulting in a common ground. One will work just fine,
the other won't at all.

In another article, he explained Watt's Law to say that if your
battery voltage were to drop to 11 volts, your circuit breakers can
pop, because when voltage goes down, current must go up. So use
bigger breakers. And you'll like his explanation of how all avionics
work, I guess Circuit Design 101:

"Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
map displays."

Fred F.

I stopped reading custom planes after I bought the issue with the
bearhawk on the cover and found out it was written by budd davisson
the owner of the quick build company. I don't really expect unbiased
reviews from any mag but that was way over the top.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
unfair cartoon in October 2004 issue of KITPLANES Bob Kaplow Home Built 31 August 29th 04 02:00 PM
Kitplanes August Issue Badwater Bill Home Built 28 July 6th 04 08:26 PM
Kitplanes Columns Jim Weir Home Built 30 April 14th 04 08:23 PM
KitPlanes - Home Page by Ron Wanttaja RobertR237 Home Built 40 August 12th 03 10:17 PM
Jim Weir's CO Detector in Kitplanes June edition. Michael Home Built 0 July 29th 03 01:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.