Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!gmm
From: gmm@bunker.UUCP (Gregory M. Mandas)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Re: Primary Aircraft Proposal (long again)
Message-ID: <658@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 15:19:39 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.658
Posted: Fri Jan 11 15:19:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 08:15:20 EST
References: <693@ihnp4.UUCP> <797@amdahl.UUCP> <242@terak.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 81

> OH, goody, goody, another chance to spout off...
> 
> > I am glad to see that even experienced pilots can see that 100 mph
> > in the air is faster that 55 on the ground.
> 
> Wrongo!  The "overhead" time associated with flying virtually wipes
> out the speed difference.  This overhead consists (in part) of:

   [ removed was a long discussion of anything under the sun Doug Pardee
     could think of that may take some time.]

From personal experience in a Piper 140D:

	Trip				Flying T.   Groud T.  Driving T.
        ----                            ---------   --------  ----------
	Dayton Oh. - Ft Bragg. NC	5 Hrs	    1          15hrs
	Dayton Oh. - New Haven Ct.	6 Hrs	    1          14Hrs	

15 hours in my posh german-mobile is not more comfortable than 5
in a Pa-28-140D. I've been there.
	
> 
> > Seriously folks, anything
> > that increases the supply of bottom end aircraft and reduces the
> > maintenance costs will reduce the cost of flying.
> 
> Agreed, but what evidence do we have that the Primary Aircraft
> proposal will do either of those things in the current situation?
> Manufacturers aren't producing planes that are already certified,

	Oh, yes they are.

	I think you should go back and read the AOPA's article on the
	subject. The Cherokee was certified back when the first one 
	rolled off the line bound for a customer, and it has NEVER
	been recertified since. Piper may be selling Warriers and Arrows
	but they are simple modifications to the cherokee and need only
	the equivilant of an STC. 150s, 172s, Barons, Bonanzas and 
	Cherokees are all flying on the original certification. AND
	I doubt very much that the cost to certify a plan 30+ years ago
	is still considered in the purchase price.

	In light of the problems and cost to certify the Malibu, 
	Perigrin and FAN, what manufacturer in his right mind would
	give up the luxery of building airplanes under a 30+ year old
	certification [without the primary aircraft proposal]?
	
> > > These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft,
> > > depends on the attitude of the pilot.
> 
> Yep.  The pilot's attitude determines whether or not a small plane
> can be used as dependable transportation.  All he needs to do is
> sacrifice either affordability or safety.  Either spend more money
> than it's worth, or "cut some corners" on little details like
> maintenance and weather avoidance.
 
	This remark was uncalled for. I think my training qualifies me
	to make better decisions that pilots are assumed to make here.	

> 
> > > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short.  The industry needs
> > > this type of airplane.
> > > 
> But the "industry" is sure that the way to riches is paved with
> ever-more expensive airplanes (what a metaphor -- did I really
> write that?).

	Because they can not affort to certify inexpensive ones.

	Since the cost of certification is not proportional [1:1] to 
	the cost of the airplane, [ WAIT!! I'll admit that a 747 is 
	more costly to certify than a Beach Baron; BUT a Baron is not 
	that much more than a Piper 140D.] Profit margins dictate that
	the more costly the plane the less the certification costs
	per unit are. ERGO lower the certification costs and the
	Industry can build less expensive planes.
> 
> Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug

Greg Mandas
Bunker!gmm