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!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Primary Aircraft Proposal (long again)
Message-ID: <242@terak.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 12:47:51 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.242
Posted: Thu Jan  3 12:47:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 02:35:10 EST
References: <693@ihnp4.UUCP> <797@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 127

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:
driving to the airport (Murphy says it's in the opposite direction
from where you're going), unloading the baggage from the car into
the plane, preflighting the plane, calling FSS for a briefing,
refueling stops (10 minutes in a car, an hour for a plane),
tying down the plane at the destination, arranging with the FBO for
overnight tiedown and fuel, obtaining a rental car, transferring the
baggage from the plane to the rental car, and driving to your
destination (Murphy says you overflew it 40 miles back!).

Additional concerns:  on the average, you'll have about 10 mph of
headwind, cutting the 100 mph airspeed to 90 mph groundspeed.
Climb-out in a 100 mph plane is typically around 70 mph for
the first 50 miles of each leg.  Minus 10 mph headwind.
Weather delays, deviations around bad weather, delays caused
by equipment failure (you can drive without a speedometer nor
tachometer, but you are required to have both to fly) all figure in.

If we allow an hour of overhead for each leg (preflight/FSS/etc
for the first leg, refueling for the rest), make each leg 3 hours
of flight time, and amortize say 30 minutes tail-end overhead
across 3 legs, we have a 4-hour-10-minute leg giving:
  0 miles   overhead, 70 minutes at 0mph on the ground
 50 miles   climb-out, 50 minutes at 70mph w/10mph headwind
195 miles   cruise, 130 minutes at 100mph w/10mph headwind
---------
245 miles   total in 250 minutes elapsed, or 59 mph average.
            Shorter legs or fewer legs make things worse.

A less obvious point is that in many instances "wall-clock" time
is more important.  Speaking for myself, 7 hours in my 100 mph plane
is all I can endure in one day, but I have driven 15 hours in
one day many times without becoming exhausted.  Also, in my car
I usually have a passenger who can swap off driving while I rest.

Other problems are caused because, right now, businesses don't EXPECT
anyone to be flying late at night.  After sundown, it becomes
more and more difficult to get fuel, food, and other necessities.
If I arrive at 2 A.M. by plane, I probably won't be able to get
a rental car until morning.  No problem if I arrive by car, eh?

> 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,
that have the design costs long-ago amortized, because they can't
make a profit.  Why should anybody expect to make a profit on
a plane which has design costs to amortize, and some certification
costs as well?

And there's little indication that the Primary Aircraft proposal
will impact maintenance costs.

> > 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.
> >

Sounds about right to me.  But you didn't have a schedule.  You could
take as long as reasonably necessary to arrive at your destination.  If
you got there a couple of days late, OK, no sweat.  And driving or
taking an airliner was no option; I mean, nobody cared if YOU got
there, just if the AIRPLANE arrived.

Further, 1 in 10 flights cancelled means to the average bloke, making
round trips (which ferry flights ain't), that 1 in 10 trips are
cancelled, but worse, 1 in 9 of the trips that he DOES make will end
with him having to abandon his plane at his destination, pay for
airline tickets for both himself and everyone with him to get back
home, then buy another airline ticket for himself to go retrieve his
plane the next weekend.

The alternative is to succumb to Get-home-itis, as far too many pilots
do.  The disease is often fatal.

> 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...)
> 
What about the odds of getting home, to your job?  Sure, if you can't
get to Aunt Martha's it's no big deal.  But if you get there and can't
get home, you've got a problem.  Since you're probably NOT travelling
alone, you also have the responsibility for getting your passengers
home to work/school/whatever.  Perfect setup for Get-home-itis.

> > 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.

> > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short.  The industry needs
> > this type of airplane.
> > 
The idea is great.  After all, none of the "universal" problems with
planes certified under the old CAR 3 (such as cracks at the vertical
fin attachment points, cracking exhaust systems, and flutter) have
been prevented nor even addressed by the current certification
requirements.  Those requirements seem to be unnecessarily tough.

On the other hand, the "industry" doesn't "need this type of airplane."
What the industry needs is PILOTS willing to buy and fly "this
type of airplane."  And that's not likely to happen until the
"industry" gets its collective head out of its collective backside
and sees that they've been promoting AGAINST flying for fun.
That they've been promoting "an IFR turbo-retractable on every
tiedown".

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?).

Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug