OT Interesting video - Page 15

01-28-2007, 05:22 AM

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Jan 27, 7:42 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> But compare the numbers to the 152...
>>
>> 44" wide ****pit
>> 85 horsepower watercooled Rotax 912S
>> 620 pounds
>> Cruise: 161mph
>> Range: 590 miles
>> Takeoff roll: 541 feet
>>
>> 152
>> ****pit width: 40" ??? (is it even that wide? I know that I was
>> wedged into the 150 I used to fly if the instructor was on board))
>> 110 horsepower
>> Useful load: 589 pounds
>> Cruise: 115mph
>> Range: 477 miles
>> Takeoff roll: 750 feet
>>
>> And... the Rotax is a LOT quieter than the Lycoming O-235.
>>
>ahh geezzz..this is so apples and oranges...these LSA are all 'home
>builts', very limited to both who can fly them(meaning sport pilots
>can fly these ONLY) and what they are. Remember a sport pilot can't
>even fly a C-152 legally. Great that there is a way for people to fly
>more cheaply and easier but this program really is a 'bicycle with
>training wheels'.

There are a lot more aircraft out there that are far too fast to
qualify for SP flying, and many of the LSA are becoming available as
factory-built aircraft as well (it's a very new field, but IIRC there
are 40-50 types available now).

>I can't imagine any SP would stay that way, would
>get another 20 hours and be a genuine private pilot, with all the
>benefits that carries, like the ability to get an instrument rating.

It's still up in the air as to how successful the SP rating will be.
Certainly there are some limitations - one passenger, limited to a
certain cruise speed, no night / instrument flying. But in reality,
that's pretty much what 50% of the potential pilots would limit
themselves to anyway (if only for financial reasons). Add to that the
fact that there's no medical requirement for a SP certificate, and
that means that a lot of those who (for whatever reason) can't pass
the stringent requirements for a private pilot certificate now have a
way to fly (assuming they transition to SP BEFORE losing their
medical). My dad lost his medical after having a heart attack and had
to give up flying.

>BUT these are not 'trainers', will not be used for anybody wanting to
>get a private ticket. This is a formal way for sombody to fly an
>ultralight...not much more.

I'm a little confused by your terminology though - if you consider a
plane that's faster, bigger, and all-around more capable than the
venerable Cessna 152 an "ultralight", you certainly have to consider
the 152 as an "ultralight" as well, right?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

01-28-2007, 05:25 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>What are you guys arguing about this for?

You call that arguing? ;-)

>If it flies I'll fly it. My
>personal favorite is a simple J-3 Cub. It gets off the ground, can
>manage 80 MPH air speed, has a real stick, and lands at just over
>walking speed. I can't knock a 152 either, even though they sound ready
>to fall apart just idling on the ground, they rarely crash except for an
>incompetent pilot. I almost bought a new Cessna back in 1978 after a
>dealer demo flight, where I fell in love with the airplane, except that
>my wife almost had a heart attack when she found out the salesman was
>not the one flying the plane. The whole steering wheel approach has me
>put off a bit though, kind of like flying a car. 43 years of flight
>training and I still haven't gotten my license. That has to be a record
>of some kind for procrastination.

Hey Bill, you're supposed to get in about 40 HOURS before getting the
ticket, not 40 YEARS! ;-)

I'm running a close second though - I was soloing in two types by 16,
and ready to get my ticket by 17, but the airport burned down (all the
aircraft in one huge hangar). Sigh... I plan to return to my avian
ways in the not TOO distant future - guess I'll have to do so before
I'm 60 to keep from taking the lead from you (assuming you do
something about it soon, that is).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

01-28-2007, 07:16 AM

On Jan 28, 7:22 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 27, 7:42 am, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> But compare the numbers to the 152...
>
> >> 44" wide ****pit
> >> 85 horsepower watercooled Rotax 912S
> >> 620 pounds
> >> Cruise: 161mph
> >> Range: 590 miles
> >> Takeoff roll: 541 feet
>
> >> 152
> >> ****pit width: 40" ??? (is it even that wide? I know that I was
> >> wedged into the 150 I used to fly if the instructor was on board))
> >> 110 horsepower
> >> Useful load: 589 pounds
> >> Cruise: 115mph
> >> Range: 477 miles
> >> Takeoff roll: 750 feet
>
> >> And... the Rotax is a LOT quieter than the Lycoming O-235.
>
> >ahh geezzz..this is so apples and oranges...these LSA are all 'home
> >builts', very limited to both who can fly them(meaning sport pilots
> >can fly these ONLY) and what they are. Remember a sport pilot can't
> >even fly a C-152 legally. Great that there is a way for people to fly
> >more cheaply and easier but this program really is a 'bicycle with
> >training wheels'.There are a lot more aircraft out there that are far too fast to
> qualify for SP flying, and many of the LSA are becoming available as
> factory-built aircraft as well (it's a very new field, but IIRC there
> are 40-50 types available now).
>
> >I can't imagine any SP would stay that way, would
> >get another 20 hours and be a genuine private pilot, with all the
> >benefits that carries, like the ability to get an instrument rating.It's still up in the air as to how successful the SP rating will be.
> Certainly there are some limitations - one passenger, limited to a
> certain cruise speed, no night / instrument flying. But in reality,
> that's pretty much what 50% of the potential pilots would limit
> themselves to anyway (if only for financial reasons). Add to that the
> fact that there's no medical requirement for a SP certificate, and
> that means that a lot of those who (for whatever reason) can't pass
> the stringent requirements for a private pilot certificate now have a
> way to fly (assuming they transition to SP BEFORE losing their
> medical). My dad lost his medical after having a heart attack and had
> to give up flying.

Sorry, don't agree with this one. Passing a not rigorous medical once
every year is a GOOD idea. I have had yearly medical exams when flying
in the USN and have had FAA medicals the the FAA ones are a sliver of
what the military ones were. Knowing that somebody is going flying w/o
a potentially serious medical condition is a GOOD thing.
>
> >BUT these are not 'trainers', will not be used for anybody wanting to
> >get a private ticket. This is a formal way for sombody to fly an
> >ultralight...not much more.I'm a little confused by your terminology though - if you consider a
> plane that's faster, bigger, and all-around more capable than the
> venerable Cessna 152 an "ultralight", you certainly have to consider
> the 152 as an "ultralight" as well, right?

Apples and oranges...again. LSA are 'baby' a/c, really just a warmed
over ultralight or homebuilt, now regulated by the FAA. As I have said
3 times now, good that it is easier for a new pilot to fly, with less
hours and less restrictions(altho not cheaper)..good, but these are
not for any pilot that wants to have a long term flying 'career',
IMO.. I have had a private ticket for 37 years, a instrument ticket
for 34 years, an ATP for 15 years but if new, I would just step up to
the Cessna 152/172 plate and press towards a private ticket, then an
instrument rating, which gives a pilot much more versatility.
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

01-28-2007, 03:29 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
<Snip>
> I have had a private ticket for 37 years, a instrument ticket
> for 34 years, an ATP for 15 years but if new, I would just step up to
> the Cessna 152/172 plate and press towards a private ticket, then an
> instrument rating, which gives a pilot much more versatility.

I agree in principle here but having flown with a guy with an instrument
rating in a 152 who damn near killed us both, versatility is not a good
thing for all pilots. Their are idiots with IFR ratings, just like their
are crummy car pilots. We flew, on instruments, from San Jose to Tulare
county airport in serious cloud cover right down to about 50 feet off
the ground. When he was lining up to land we popped out of the cloud
cover and just barely made a field goal between two high voltage towers
and under the wires.
I never flew with him again because of that. The FAA map should have had
those transmission lines in bold or this guy was just an idiot. I
haven't heard of him since that since we were just flying partners.
These days there seems to be an idiot to be found for just about any
activity.
Bill Baka

01-28-2007, 03:31 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> What are you guys arguing about this for?
>
> You call that arguing? ;-)
>
>> If it flies I'll fly it. My
>> personal favorite is a simple J-3 Cub. It gets off the ground, can
>> manage 80 MPH air speed, has a real stick, and lands at just over
>> walking speed. I can't knock a 152 either, even though they sound ready
>> to fall apart just idling on the ground, they rarely crash except for an
>> incompetent pilot. I almost bought a new Cessna back in 1978 after a
>> dealer demo flight, where I fell in love with the airplane, except that
>> my wife almost had a heart attack when she found out the salesman was
>> not the one flying the plane. The whole steering wheel approach has me
>> put off a bit though, kind of like flying a car. 43 years of flight
>> training and I still haven't gotten my license. That has to be a record
>> of some kind for procrastination.
>
> Hey Bill, you're supposed to get in about 40 HOURS before getting the
> ticket, not 40 YEARS! ;-)

Tell me about it. I almost had it done when I got married. Who knew she
would be so anti-airplane? Thems the breaks.
>
> I'm running a close second though - I was soloing in two types by 16,
> and ready to get my ticket by 17, but the airport burned down (all the
> aircraft in one huge hangar). Sigh... I plan to return to my avian
> ways in the not TOO distant future - guess I'll have to do so before
> I'm 60 to keep from taking the lead from you (assuming you do
> something about it soon, that is).
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

01-28-2007, 03:40 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> I'm running a close second though - I was soloing in two types by 16,
> and ready to get my ticket by 17, but the airport burned down (all the
> aircraft in one huge hangar). Sigh... I plan to return to my avian
> ways in the not TOO distant future - guess I'll have to do so before
> I'm 60 to keep from taking the lead from you (assuming you do
> something about it soon, that is).

Being married, I would have to get 'permission'! Even if I do finish up
I don't think I will ever have to worry about the passenger issue unless
one of my grandkids wanted to take a scenic fly around. That's really
all I fly for, just to enjoy the scenery and maybe take some aerial
photos of things for my collection. I used to have a set of photos of
Campbell, California taken in 1966 and blown up to 8" by 10" for a
senior year high school project. They got lost in a move somehow but I
was thinking how neat it would be to take another set and compare the
town 40 years later. The only point of reference left might be the
railroad tracks, since the town has been overdeveloped along with the
rest of 'Silicon Valley'.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

01-28-2007, 05:08 PM

On Jan 28, 5:29 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:<Snip>
> > I have had a private ticket for 37 years, a instrument ticket
>
> > for 34 years, an ATP for 15 years but if new, I would just step up to
> > the Cessna 152/172 plate and press towards a private ticket, then an
> > instrument rating, which gives a pilot much more versatility.I agree in principle here but having flown with a guy with an instrument
> rating in a 152 who damn near killed us both, versatility is not a good
> thing for all pilots. Their are idiots with IFR ratings, just like their
> are crummy car pilots. We flew, on instruments, from San Jose to Tulare
> county airport in serious cloud cover right down to about 50 feet off
> the ground.

Well shoot, he busted mins by more than 950 ft. guessing that there
might be only a non precision approach to that airpatch..even with a
ILS, still only down to 200ft ceiling, 1/2 mile vis. Broke the rules,
doesn't make the rules or training bad.

When he was lining up to land we popped out of the cloud
> cover and just barely made a field goal between two high voltage towers
> and under the wires.
> I never flew with him again because of that. The FAA map should have had
> those transmission lines in bold or this guy was just an idiot. I
> haven't heard of him since that since we were just flying partners.
> These days there seems to be an idiot to be found for just about any
> activity.
> Bill Baka

01-28-2007, 06:47 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 5:29 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:<Snip>
>> > I have had a private ticket for 37 years, a instrument ticket
>>
>>> for 34 years, an ATP for 15 years but if new, I would just step up to
>>> the Cessna 152/172 plate and press towards a private ticket, then an
>>> instrument rating, which gives a pilot much more versatility.I agree in principle here but having flown with a guy with an instrument
>> rating in a 152 who damn near killed us both, versatility is not a good
>> thing for all pilots. Their are idiots with IFR ratings, just like their
>> are crummy car pilots. We flew, on instruments, from San Jose to Tulare
>> county airport in serious cloud cover right down to about 50 feet off
>> the ground.
>
> Well shoot, he busted mins by more than 950 ft. guessing that there
> might be only a non precision approach to that airpatch..even with a
> ILS, still only down to 200ft ceiling, 1/2 mile vis. Broke the rules,
> doesn't make the rules or training bad.

The rules are good but the pilot was another story. This was back in
1969 and the airport was not developed to any extent. I haven't been to
that airport since so I don't know if anybody had the sense to figure
out that high voltage towers should not be placed near the end of a
runway. While I was on the ground the wind was so strong that another
small plane took off with only about a ten foot roll and then climbed
while moving backwards with respect to the ground. That was a very
unforgettable sight. He got up a little airspeed and rose vertically
like a helicopter then turned to go where he wanted and shot out of
sight in a flash with the wind boost. A video camera would have been
nice, but it was after all, 1969.
Bill Baka
>
> When he was lining up to land we popped out of the cloud
>> cover and just barely made a field goal between two high voltage towers
>> and under the wires.
>> Bill Baka
>