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