Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Primary Aircraft Proposal (long and warm) Message-ID: <797@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 17:20:48 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.797 Posted: Fri Dec 21 17:20:48 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 01:49:44 EST References: <693@ihnp4.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 71 > I am all for the primary aircraft proposal. I am also all for > cheap, two-seat, VFR aircraft. I like antiques, old 150's, and > the like. > ... > What is a bummer about this particular conversation is the statement > that old aircraft should be scrapped because of high maintenance > or to allow the manufacturers to sell new airplanes. > ... > Really, gang, the slow two-place airplane is really a good thing > to have around. Sure they are slow. The Funk is about 100 mph. > In the last two years I have taken it (known as Phoebe) from the > Chicago area to New Jersey (for business), then to Kitty Hawk, > and finally home. > ... > ... Certainly you need to plan for stops fairly frequently > for fuel, but the Cessna 150 is still faster than driving, and almost > as fast as a Cessna 172. > I am glad to see that even experienced pilots can see that 100 mph in the air is faster that 55 on the ground. Seriously folks, anything that increases the supply of bottom end aircraft and reduces the maintenance costs will reduce the cost of flying. (If you want credentials to back up my economic claims, I could mention a degree in economics... but then again, given the reputation of economists, that might not be wise... :-)) > Years ago, I used to ferry Cessnas from the factory in Wichita > to Canada, Miami, Chicago, and other points. Fewer than 1 in 10 trips > got cancelled or even got into trouble because of weather. > ... In a Cessna 152. VFR. > In California it should be even better odds. For casual transportation to family events or get togethers with friends, odds of less than 100% are acceptable. (Even in a car one has less than 100% probability of arival on time...) > These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft, > depends on the attitude of the pilot. If you are not comfortable > in something with less than 4 seats, or with only one radio (or no radio > for that matter), or without a full IFR panel, then this class of airplane > is not for you. If, however, you are willing to get your hands dirty, > fly low and slow, and put some effort into learning about your airplane > and the environment in which you fly, this class of airplane is a good > alternative for you. > Ah, a voice of reason! Recognition that we are not all alike, that each individual has different needs and wants, that transportation for one is not the same as for another. That minimal needs vary. (My God, this posting is running the risk of becomming fan mail...) It is important to open options, even if they are for people whose needs are not the same as yours. > Of course, these are my opinions. But, they are based on a bit of > experience. My credentials include: > ... *long list of impressive credentials* ... > > As a piece of advice, do look at the low and slow airplane. They > are fun. Support the joint AOPA and EAA primary aircraft proposal. > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short. The industry needs > this type of airplane. > > Jeff Williams > AT&T Bell Laboratories > ihnp4!cfiaime Couldn't (and didn't) have said it as well my self. Thanks! -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.