Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Primary aircraft proposal. Message-ID: <214@terak.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 11:56:47 EST Article-I.D.: terak.214 Posted: Fri Dec 7 11:56:47 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:26:20 EST References: <4@decvax.UUCP> <213@terak.UUCP> <17427@lanl.ARPA> Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 49 > If a plane seats at least two people, has luggage space for two suitcases > for each person seated, flies 150-200 Kts, has a range of 1000+ miles, > has a service ceiling of 14000+ feet, and gets good fuel economy, then > such a plane IS a Transportation aircraft!!! I think that most folks would insist on at least 4 seats, plus IFR capability. > If the new category goes into effect, I expect that planes > with the specs above would be available for a reasonable price within a few > years. This is where we differ. The Primary Aircraft proposal is an attempt to bring back planes like the Piper Cub and the Aeronca. The limitations imposed in this category virtually preclude the certification of high-performance aircraft as Primary Aircraft. Further, I submit that if a manufacturer DID find a way to meet the limitations while providing the kind of performance cited, the FAA would add further restrictions in order to prevent any further certifications. Remember, the FAA is in the business of protecting both the flying and non-flying public. It will almost certainly perceive a high-performance aircraft whose design has not been rigorously tested to be a hazard to the public. ESPECIALLY in an IFR environment. > Just because YOU don't think that 'TOY' airplanes are useful for > YOUR application, don't assume that there aren't lots of us out here who > would love to have these aircraft for TRANSPORTATION. Easy, there. I happen to LIKE Toy airplanes. My plane is a Cessna 120, which I've owned for 5-1/2 years. I've flown it out of the state only 8 times in those 5 years. And each time, driving would have been more practical. I flew because I like to fly. It's fun. What I don't care for is the AOPA, FAA, GAMA, NATA, and every other alphabet soup organization except the EAA all claiming that flying just for the fun of it is nonexistent-thank-God. It doesn't hurt me personally (it's just as much fun whether they think so or not), but it keeps a lot of folks who would like to fly from getting into aviation, and I think that's a shame. By the way, my definition of a Toy airplane is a C-150 or smaller -- 2 people without luggage, 100 kts. A C-182 is definitely a Transportation plane in my book, and a C-172 can go either way. Here in the mountain West, a 172 is basically a Toy plane. In the flatlands, it is a Transportation plane. Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug