Not sure if uglytruth knows about this site. He posted at AC&E (a little odd since one post is repeated four times and the other five--maybe just a connection issue):
Not sure if it's the real uglytruth. Here's the post:
"The real Gadfly is a great guy that I learned a lot from. I have emailed him privatly. I enjoyed reading his posts as most were educational. He and a whole host of others were passing along their knowledge.
The imposter must be an old Microsoft employee that after stealing peoples money for his wet dream has nothing better to do than try to impersonate a real person. Please go back in your closet & put your panites on your head like you usually do."
Very nice first paragraph. Kind of odd second paragraph. :-)
I just got here. I think they call it fashionably late. Yes I posted the same posts 4-5 times so if someone (like me) just did a quick look it would catch their eye in the middle of all the fake "gadfly" posts. I thought he tried to bury my post.
Welcome! Glad it's you. Posts on the other board seem to trigger the bot and there isn't anybody watching the board (if you hadn't heard, Phil disappeared from the forum).
There seems to be some things missing in our “blog” these days. Let me explain.
Andy, our gracious host, seems to have it, . . . all together. A young man with over 4,000 hours in his log . . . obviously excited with the privilege of flying . . . and it is a privilege.
But the discussion too often goes to the financial aspect of aviation . . . nothing really wrong with that. However, we may miss the foundation of “General Aviation”. No matter how you slice it, the “finances” seldom justify flying a small jet, be it twin or single . . . etc., etc., . . . you fill in the blanks.
You see, without a firm foundation, you cannot build a future.
You want to justify owning and/or flying a small aircraft? Turn it in another direction: The experience of “walking on the wings of the wind” (Psalm 104:3 “. . . Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind.”)
There is an excitement connected with flight that cannot be fully explained in human terms. The psalmist, close to three thousand years ago, put it into those beautiful words, speaking of God in His creation. Sixty-three years ago, I sat in the prison of my fifth-grade grammar school class in Burbank, California . . . and watched out the window at the seagulls gliding on unseen air currents over the playground. They simply “hung” in space. My “notes” were drawings of wing designs . . . put together deep into the night, with balsa wood, double-edged razor blades, straight-pins and Tester’s cement . . . purchased with money earned from mowing lawns, etc. Glider designs filled my mind (except for a cute little blond girl that came to our school that year).
Of course, my Dad had already worked on the “YP-38" proto-type Lockheed fighter/bomber . . . and was now inventing control systems for aircraft . . . that even, today, remain the “de-facto” system that keeps control cables at constant tension through all flight conditions.
Not long after my Dad died . . . and I got out of the Submarine Service, I read about the five missionaries, who were killed by the Auca Indians in Ecuador . . . and the story of Nate Saint, flying into the jungles, etc. And I went on to get my pilot’s and “A&P” training at Moody Bible Institute, etc., . . . old history.
But throughout, I’ve never lost that excitement of flying. It has little to do with the financial part . . . but goes back to that part of “walking on the wings of the wind”.
Once you have a foundation, the building is easy. But without a firm foundation, you have nothing.
gadfly
(The “bean counters” don’t really have a clue . . . but the dreamers of flight . . . they, alone, can carry aviation into the future. Think about it.)
Steve Saint . . . Steve's Dad, Nate, was one of those five missionaries, murdered on a beach, along a river in Equador . . . what! . . . fifty six years ago? Steve grew up with those folks . . . and today is developing a flying car, already successful, to minister to folks in remote areas of the world. Look it up . . . watch the “You Tube” videos. Will it be successful? . . . It’s built on a firm foundation . . . the love of flying.
Steve’s Dad, Nate, worked out a way to drop a bucket on a long line behind a small plane . . . the bucket would come to a point where it would be almost stationary on the ground . . . and a transfer of information or small objects was possible, between circling aircraft and ground.
Now, I don't know Steve . . . but the story of his Dad, and the other four missionaries affected my own life . . . long, long ago. In fact, I made a total change in direction in 1958 because of those events.
You can look up the “Life” magazine headlines . . . do a search, “Life Auca 1955" . . . you will get countless stories about Jim Elliot, read the book, “Through Gates of Splendor” . . . Nate Saint and “Jungle Pilot” . . . a pivotal point in aviation history. That will lead to “JAARS”, “Jungle Aviation And Radio Service” . . . one of their pilots (Leo Lance) was my flight instructor, back at Moody Airport . . . he flew a “chopped wing” PBY “Catalina” in and out of narrow South American rivers (“chopped”, because the rivers are very narrow), and other famous aircraft . . . DC3 (taking supplies across the Gulf of Mexico), Nordyne “Norseman” . . . serious aircraft that excite true pilots. Paul Wertheimer . . . a short little pilot, my favorite instructor . . . a Hebrew Christian . . . Bob Rich (shop instructor) that spent time as a B-17 bomber pilot over Europe . . . good men, all . . . with a love of God, a love of humans, and a love of flying.
Take all this in any direction you wish. If only from the standpoint of getting in-to and out-of difficult places, look at that aircraft company, Quest, . . . and the Kodiak. All that came out of the events in Equador . . . so long ago.
And who was the very first pilot of Missionary Aviation Fellowship? . . . Betty Greene, a “WASP” pilot of WWII . . . http://www.maf.org/history.
Well, enough of all this. The point being that once you have a foundation, there is nothing that will prevent building on that foundation.
gadfly
(If you wish to earn riches preceded by a dollar sign, go in another direction. Aviation is not for you. The profit of aviation has yet to be clearly defined in a “P&L” ledger.)
As human/consumers we seek two types of products/items.
Those the we *need*.
and
Those that we *want*.
Light/Personal GA is mostly about wants than needs - and that is perfectly fine.
I've never heard a Ferrari buyer trying to demonstrate the financial sense of owning one. You own one for personal enjoyment, personal growth (e.g. learning to drive on a track), and whatever else float your boat.
This is the problem with GA....
Lets compare say the 1955 Bonanza with the 1555 Chevy and the 1955 Corvette. The sophistication of the Bonanza (all aluminum engine, fuel injection, dual ignition, avionics, auto pilot, interior, presence, etc) were substantially above the two cars.
So the Bonanza was a truly desirable luxury item. Back then you could ride on a low tech car, watch a ball game, 3 channels of TV, go to the movies or read a paper. By comparison, flying your own sophisticated flying machine had to rank way up there. Probably just below sex :)
Fast forward to today. A ZR1 Corvette vs the Bonanza. The Bonanza is virtually the same airframe, flying behind basically the same engine, with some upgrades to avionics.
Lets be honest. We are all aviation enthusiasts here. But if we were offered the choice of say driving a ZR1 at Laguna Seca for a couple of hours or flying the Bonanza to get a burger, which would most choose?
The level of sophistication of cars, and our entertainment options from iPads to VODs to affordable vacation and air travel, completely drown out the Bonanza.
Cirrus had success and took sales from Cessna and Beech and killed Mooney in the process, because they tried to make the plane be like a BMW or ZR1. But it was still flying behind the same Bonanza engine from 1955. The interior was still third rate compared to a luxury car. The performance was still about the same as the Bonanza.
And here is the killer factor. A modern car is so much incredibly safer and more reliable than a 1955 car. But a modern light GA plane still has basically the same levels of reliability and safety as the 1955 model.
Try plugging in a diagnostics computer to the Bonanza. There is no Plug.
What is the point?
Want to revive light GA? Make the product (which is a $100K-$1M *want*) as refined, sophisticated, safe as a $100K-$1M sports/luxury car.
Light GA is the ONLY product that is stuck in the 50s.
Would you buy a 1955 computer for your daily use? Would you use a 1955 TV to watch the Superbowl?
The type of people with the disposable income to buy a new light GA plane, is buying Ferraris and Toyotas that are in a different plane of refinement and sophistication.
The light GA plane was the most sophisticated product individuals could own in 1955. Now they are the most backwards.
Many years ago Cessna had a print advertisement that compared a new Cessna 150 to a new Corvette, with a photo of each with the assumption that young people would be blown away by the idea that they could own an airplane for the same cost as the Corvette. For myself, a committed aviation enthusiast, I would have jumped on the Corvette in a heart beat. The Cessna 150 just was no comparison in engineering and workmanship, desirability, or utility even back then.
“Light GA is the ONLY product that is stuck in the 50s.”
Actually, that is not true. Any device that runs on liquid fuel is locked into a technology that goes back well over a century. The first cars used engines that ran on Benzine, and used pistons, valves and crank-shafts. The so-called turbine engine . . . the Titanic used both piston and turbine engines . . . and propellers (the center prop was turbine driven).
Digital technology goes back to Samuel Morse and the telegraph . . . but his wasn’t the first. The man that knocked on a door, with the right “rhythm” of “knocks”, identified himself. Virtually all mechanical devices were identified and cataloged by Franz Reuleaux . . . with a complete set of models prior to 1876. Even the “Preacher” three thousand years ago, said, “That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Comparing a “car” to an “airplane” is using confusion in an attempt to prove a point. ‘Looking back at engine design over 100 years, I find it almost amusing that the Chevy Corvette still uses “push rods”, etc., . . . recognized as a cheap compromise over an overhead cam, a century ago. But that begs the arguments.
The internal combustion piston engine is far from the best design . . . except that it has been “refined” to a point of great reliability, because thousands . . . even millions of common folks have had access to the technology, and almost everything that can be improved, has been improved.
But the best platform for a car still uses four wheels, with the steering wheels “up front”. It’s difficult to fight success.
Airplanes still use “wings” . . . and whether a car or an aircraft, there are certain basic principles that apply to each . . . and all the gimmicks, whether electronic or mechanical . . . each lives in it’s own domain. An attempt to compare one with the other only muddies the logic.
You want to go from point A to point B, . . . say from Los Angeles to San Bernardino . . . go by Corvette. You can even stop along the way for an “In-N-Out” double-double animal style with fries and coffee. You want to go from Long Beach to Avalon . . . your better choice is a Cessna 150. Even a good running start along the pier at Santa Monica won’t help much in the Corvette.
The Cessna 150, in which I first soloed, cost $5,000 around 1960 . . . and it had another $7,000 in instruments . . . “solid state”, I might add. Moody Airport put in the finest equipment available, at the time . . . to safely fly in the shadow of O’Hare and Midway airports. And then came the frivolous lawsuits, and the (so-called) legal system . . . and the cost of a basic aircraft rose to the point of almost destroying the entire small aircraft industry.
If you love to fly . . . you are stuck with something that flies . . . and that Corvette simply won’t safely get off the ground. But the basic technology in either case has not changed in a century.
gadfly
(Whoops! . . . big mistake! The Cessna and the Corvette will both get safely off the ground . . . and both will return. The problems are related to duration between takeoff and landing . . . and the effects of the sudden stop. Watching some of my classmates making their first solo landings . . . except for that great Cessna landing gear, the Corvette might have had the advantage.)
After entering a room, or a building, one sometimes has to retrace his steps . . . go back out and carefully read the sign over the entrance. So, I went back out and read, “Aviation Enthusiasts”! That’s good . . . for that’s where I thought I came in.
Getting the wrong direction on a blog site is not so tragic . . . but disrupts the flow, causing confusion for the rest of the normal traffic.
If the purpose (of this blog site) is based on aviation, and those that are primarily “enthusiasts”, then the discussion should center on the main subject . . . “Aviation” and “Enthusiasm”, dealing with those subjects that either contribute or detract from aviation.
My greatest challenge, as a teacher, has been to so teach a subject, to keep the full attention of my class . . . sometimes adults, sometimes children . . . in every case, looking at the subject being taught, through the eyes and understanding of the students . . . reaching inside the mind of the “learner”, bringing understanding, and creating a hunger, a thirst to learn more . . . and beyond.
It has been said that “ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever” . . . or . . . “ignorance is a condition, but stupid is a choice.”
Here, I was about to quote a line or two from a man buried at Holy Cross Cemetery, Scopwick in Linclonshire, England . . . having died in December 1941, after a collision in his Spitfire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gillespie_Magee,_Jr. ), but his entire poem is relevant:
“High Flight
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there, I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark or even eagle flew — And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, - Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”
. . . John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
gadfly
(If this poem touches your heart . . . and the very nerves of your soul, you belong here.)
A footnote to the last comments, with your forgiveness:
The poem, “High Flight”, was written by a man who flew in a piston powered aircraft, designed and manufactured over seventy years ago, powered by one of the greatest double six row V-12 engines ever built. Would it have mattered if he had flown in the “Great War” (WWI) behind an Hispano-Suiza V-8, or a Gnome 7 cylinder rotary? . . . or even before? Somehow, I think not! He recognized the privilege . . . the shear joy of flying . . . and it would seem, he recognized the One who had created the elements, the physical laws, that made that flight possible . . . and took hold of all that, carrying it to the extreme limits available to him at the time.
My favorite dreams . . . deep in the morning hours of night involve “flying”. Somehow, by shear “will”, I can glide down stairwells, never touching a step . . . or sometimes escaping danger, going higher and higher, always just out of reach of some bad thing. It occurs to me that God puts certain desires, and dreams into our very ‘psyche’ (soul), in anticipation of His plan for us.
C. S. Lewis, wrote about such things in books like “Till We Have Faces” (which I do not recommend), . . . but better understood in the clear atmosphere of “The Great Divorce” (C.S. Lewis) . . . a picture of wonderful things offered, yet refused by many.
Back to aviation . . . we, who have a license to fly, have had a taste of the great things . . . the limits of enjoying God’s creation, as never before enjoyed by earlier generations.
Sometimes, it doesn’t matter . . . the financial part. The shear joy, the pleasure of flying trumps all. Man was created to survive on earth . . . but his spirit, his soul, longs for greater heights.
gadfly
(‘Funny thing about “old engines” and certain designs . . . the “straight six” remains the best balanced engine. The “twin six” . . . the V-12, was simply two “six” in-line engines, attached. The “V-8" and the “V-6" are merely compromises to something a century old, that (so far) has not found a better form.)
When I was a child my grandfather took my sister and I out to a small cemetary in rural Iowa where his grandfather was buried. He told us that his gravestone read, "May my bones rest here until men learn to fly like birds." As hard as we tried, we could not find his grave. Now whether my grandfather (Truman) was making this up or not, he was making a point about modernity to two girls who couldn't imagine a world without airplanes.
FC As I recall my highschool car the old 68 Mustang did fly on several occaisions even though it didn't have wings! Rocky mountain "high" in Colorado!
The comparison that Cessna itself sought to make between a 70s Corvette and the Cessna 150 was heavily skewed in favor of the Corvette with most red-bloodied American kids (even the die-hard aviation enthusiasts).
If you were to make the comparison today between the current Cessna "Skycatcher" and the 2011 Chevy Corvette, the difference in favor of the "Vette is even more pronounced. Baron is right, aviation is not just slipping backwards, it is running backwards as fast as it can.
A lot of the Corvette enthusiasts in the 70s wound up in the front and back seats of McDonnell-Douglas F-4s during the Vietnam War. The Cessna 150 was deservedly....forgotten.
‘Dating myself, I was in flight school when one of the instructors purchased the first version of the “Mustang”. In retrospect, it was a bare-bones car . . . four wheels, an un-exceptional engine, two seats, . . . and frankly, nothing special. But that was its claim to fame. It simply brought the driver into a certain amount of control with going from one place to another. In a sense, it was the remaking of Ford’s “Model T”. From there, Ford made the mistake of putting fancy things into it . . . and it eventually got lost in the crowd of other cars, with un-needed gadgets, etc.
Airsafetyman
But for a small blind spot in my right eye, I would have been a naval officer and pilot, rather than serving in the “Silent Service”, aboard a submarine. I met all the other requirements. (From the time I could remember, I wanted both . . . submarines and flying . . . by God’s grace, I did both.)
However, I still had a love of flight, and eventually was able to experience the wonders that only a pilot can know. Whether a Cessna 150, or 140, or a Luscombe “Silvaire”, an Aronca, or the lowly J-3 . . . ‘like the Ford Mustang, there is a certain pleasure to sit on little more than a bucket seat, and explore the invisible treasures of the sky.
Few can have the training, the privilege, of flying at trans-sonic speeds . . . they are out of financial reach of most. But a J-3, a “150", . . . or even the ancient “Taylorcraft”. There is an as yet unexplored market, simple as the Ford Mustang, or the Model T . . . dirt simple, relatively cheap, etc., that would allow thousands to have the excitement of “walking on the wings of the wind”.
After the “Great War”, thousands of young Germans built model gliders, then gliders in which they could fly, and created the “Luftwaffen”. Better yet, a generation of young people in our own nation could explore and experience the pleasures of flight. And, I believe, there is a great opportunity to “keep it simple” and build a great business.
gadfly
(But remember, If you don’t truly love what you’re doing, the business is not likely to succeed.)
I am all for simplicity and all for classics but the Cessna 150 is neither and the Skycatcher is neither. They are just built cheap. And priced very high for the value they deliver.
Consider Japanese motorcycles today that also appeal to young people. They will go close to 200 miles an hour, have liquid-cooled computer-controlled fuel-injected engines, anti-skid disk brakes, and computer-controlled transmissions and sell for less than $10,000. The Skycatcher goes for $112,000 and has NONE of the bikes advancements, not even a fuel-injected engine that TCM wanted badly to sell to Cessna. It was already produced, already certified, and would have would have put an end to carburetor icing crashes. How can Cessna justify not using a fuel-injected engine that will be flown by inexperienced instructors and students? How can Cessna justify producing a "trainer" that cannot be used in spin training?
No wonder the aviation enthusiasts high-school and college age just buckle down, get their college degree and go into Navy or Air Force pilot training. The civilian general aviation industry industry has failed them miserably. So the kids make an end run to the military - and good for them.
Did Pelton's wife ever take her solo maiden voyage as promised in a Skycatcher? Not that I can find. No, Pelton knows she would be in danger. Yet the Skycatchers seem to be consumed like Chinese fortune cookies.... but by whom?
You are right young inspired aviation enthusiasts have no where to go but to the military and then these days directy to war. Is that a choice?
Sir Gadfly:
You are also right the 68 Mustang offered nothing special except a fast engine, bucket seats that flopped around, an AM radio, and the cool factor. It was however solid enough to withstand the test of time and a wild teenage girl.
FC
Funny enough, today I started to look at Corvettes - like perhaps one day soon I could buy one of these to replace my sedate 96 Volvo. My brother in law works for GM... I wouldn't get it in red however, just because.
Gadfly said..."Actually, that is not true. Any device that runs on liquid fuel is locked into a technology that goes back well over a century."
You've got to be kidding me. The 1955 Vette had less than 200HP (net) and most had three speeds. The 2010 ZR1 has over 600HP and six speeds. And it has better gas mileage.
The reliability, handling, braking, etc is not even comparable. The 55 Vette brakes would disintegrate (literally) after 3-4 laps at Laguna Seca. The 2010 ZR1 will run about 100-200 laps there, before needing brakes.
The 55 Vette would kill its occupants on the mildest of accidents. The 2010 Vette enables the occupants to walk away from catastrophic crashes.
And it is not even the most sophisticated of cars. I have a 4,400lbs family sedan that goes to 60MPH in 4.3 secs, that I have taken my kids to school in the morning and 2 hrs later was on a race track (no mods) running 2 hrs hard including braking from 145 MPH to 55 MPH every lap for 4 30-min sprints. I can hit another parked car head on at 70MPH and everyone walks away.
That is utility and entertainment value.
Meanwhile, what improvements in performance, safety, etc has the 2010 Bonanza provided above the 1955 one? Better GPS/MAP navigation - that is about it.
Young, affluent, type-A folks (the universe of light owner/flow GA candidates) is NOT going to be impressed.
There are NO durable consumer products that have shown so little improvement in the past 3-4-5 decades as light GA planes.
For crying out loud, I'm typing this on a tablet computer that has better GPS, accelerometers and gyros than the best innovation of GA - the G1000.
Meanwhile, no one in my family, but me, can manage to close the freaking door on the plane - it is that bad. I have to drain fuel/fluid from freaking 12 points and even in the desert there is still water in the freaking tank - go figure.
Can you imagine, if you parked your Corvette at the mall, and before starting it you had to crawl under it to drain fuel from 12 different points? People would call the police thinking you were crazy and about to blow up the place. Yet, in GA, that is considered "normal".
Baron . . . thanks for proving my points. And I might suggest that you trade in your “twelve point” drain point aircraft for a Cessna 150 . . . as I recall, I only had the hit “two” drains, . . . or was it three? . . . prior to firing up the old Continental engine. But who’s counting!
Now, if I want something that can crash “head on” into another like vehicle at seventy miles per hour (and maybe walking away), I’ll check back as to which car you own and drive. Frankly, I’d rather fly . . . and avoid all the excitement and trauma.
Once, we purchased a car that was touted as the safest on the road . . . a brand new “Volvo”. It was, indeed, safe. It kept falling apart before it could get up enough momentum to hit anything of consequence . . . we sold the thing before all the transmission fluid leaked out.
But I think the subject was something about aircraft, and exploring a potential market with something to excite an entire new generation, with the fun, the pleasures of flying.
There are many possible directions . . . some are underway . . . and many more have yet to be explored. And I recall one that still might have some excellent possibilities:
This little aircraft isn’t what first caught my attention because of it’s shape, but that the designer carefully considered the basic cost . . . using, for instance, a standard sheet of aluminum (European . . . one by two meters) folded over, for each wing, and the horizontal tail.
“Some dogs like Alpo . . . and some don’t.” . . . a favorite expression of a neuro-surgeon, with whom I used to work. Some folks like to drive a “Vette” . . . and some (of us) don’t. But I would rather explore future possibilities . . . and not get trapped into what all the others have done wrong.
The technology is mostly in place . . . ‘don’t have the time nor the money to change it. But there is a vast landscape of possible directions to go. And with modern machinery . . . three, four, and five axis machines . . . plasma and water-jet cutting . . . 2D laser machines . . . Wirecut-EDM machines . . . high-end CAD systems, such as Co-Create, etc., . . . there is no excuse to not explore countless possibilities.
Shucks, I produced a family of “2 gram” 7075-T6 tissue covered gliders . . . almost indestructible (just for fun) . . . and began a series of .015" thick plywood gliders . . . can’t be done? . . . we did it! But, like I said, that was “just for fun” . . . maybe just to prove that making a metal glider, with a seven inch wing span, can be made . . . and stand up to the conditions of a kid having a ball, flying something inside a building . . . or outside in a light rain. (The little planes could crash into a chain-link fence . . . get soaked in a rain-puddle . . . be repaired and/or rebuilt in less than an hour, and back into service. Not bad for a delicate little model.)
‘Put available technology together with the right motivation, and the willingness to take a “personal” risk, and there are yet opportunities, yet un-explored, in general aviation.
gadfly
(What prevents the gadfly from pursuing the above? . . . Age, mostly . . . I had the opportunity, and found success in other things . . . such as the vascular clip system. But I’d enjoy helping someone else to go on . . . what’s to lose? . . . my reputation? Big deal!)
Thinking back, I remember my own Dad telling about building a "primary glider", and flying down a slope, as a teen-ager. That was about the time when he built his first car at age sixteen (1929), with front-wheel drive, and a Henderson 4-cylinder in-line, shaft-drive motorcycle engine (talking about "old technology"). The car was successful . . . and with that, and $350, he purchased his first (of two) Duesenbergs. But that's another story.
The primary glider was simply "fun" . . . and put an interest of aviation into the minds, and hearts, of many a kid, when few folks had the money to put food on the table.
Back in Burbank, I once made a model of a "primary glider" . . . it cost me about a dime . . . but it was one of the best flying gliders, ever. Had it been the "real thing", it would have been a safe way to explore flying.
Allow your mind to explore everything . . . and don't be intimidated by the most simple. Not everything fast, and new, is the best. There are great pleasures in the simple, the slow, the most basic. And from there, the next step is much easier.
gadfly
('Ever watch a grand-child attempt to go upstairs? Take their hand . . . and patiently give them your hand and security . . . allow them to discover each step, knowing that you won't let them fall. Before long, they'll "get it", and do far better than the ones that are left to find out, "alone". Do you get it?
Dr. J. Vernon McGee often said, "Keep the cookies on the bottom shelf, so the 'kiddies' can reach them." . . . and what a joy it is, to help the next generation "reach the cookies".)
So many thoughts . . . thinking back over the history of this blog . . . three or more generations past. ‘Much has (or could have) been learned. We’ve discussed much of the basics of aviation . . . business wise, basic design, manufacturing, political aspects, . . . and countless other subjects. Where will it go? So often, it stalls as one person attempts to “prove” their viewpoint “correct”, and the other “totally wrong”. But so often an opportunity is lost, to learn another point of view . . . and to stay on subject.
Where are we? We’re no longer under attack, when some of us were accused of stealing secrets . . . it no longer matters that it was a rather silly thing, by an ego-centric “paranoid”, who had his own serious problems, and is long gone . . . who knows where! And, frankly, who cares (as long as he doesn’t attempt to enter the industry with another fraudulent scheme).
There are, within the blog participants, many folks with good . . . maybe great ideas. We need to hear from them, without “putting them down”. As a “some-times” teacher, I have found that there is no such thing as a stupid question, from a willing student, nor a stupid suggestion, from a student that is attempting to learn.
Bottom line? . . . Courtesy, and a desire to understand the other’s point of view . . . nothing more nor less. Some of us (myself, for instance) are secure enough to ignore the “put down” . . . it doesn’t matter. Self worth is secure, in another “bank”. But many, who have good ideas, are not up to the criticism that can so easily destroy a person’s confidence. The quiet voice from the “back of the class” may have wisdom that “blows away” all the other comments. That voice should be heard.
gadfly
(Once, I taught a class . . . the deepest and most thoughtful questions came from a certain family of kids . . . teenagers, then. Today, they are still not considered among the “popular” folk . . . but their thoughts, their understanding . . . far beyond the norm . . . wisdom that is not measured by “IQ”.)
Let’s talk about aviation, as it applies to GA in the USA. It’s easy to detect problems . . . or some of the perceived problems. It’s not so easy to come up with solutions.
However, if you should come up with a solution, the first thing you may encounter is, “It can’t be done!” Behind that statement are many probable reasons . . . the first may simply be a certain resentment, that you (rather than “they”), have a true solution.
(The solution for that is somewhat easy . . . you include them in the family, of having solved the solution . . . and are willing to share the royalties, etc., and credit . . . even stepping back into the shadows of the “acclaim”, while still earning the lion’s share of the “royalties” . . . but in the shadows, etc.)
Another “biggy” is that someone else is making a profit on the status quo . . . and does not want an improvement. This second blockage is not so easily overcome. In the first case, you have a single person . . . or only a few, that are fighting the improvements. Their greatest assets are their “ego” and/or maybe an established position in some institution. But if it comes down to an established industry, you must be ready to fight on “their” terms . . . and that may involve industries of vast resources. Your only resource, in that case, is to gain the interest of a competing industry, that will use your ideas, not to help you, but to battle against their competition. This last case was where we came in, with our vascular clip . . . battling against the company that “owns” 70 percent of the free-world medical suture market. One thing you learn . . . company names that imply “ethical” . . . that’s a red flag . . . beware!
But back to aviation. Many of us know the problems . . . popping the drain valves, to get rid of condensed water in the fuel systems . . . that’s a known. Congress has solved the problem with automobiles . . . there so much ethanol in the system, water is not a problem . . . even though your “gas mileage” suddenly drops ten to twenty percent, instantly, every winter.
If you know a problem . . . you should explore the solution to that problem. Sometimes, is as easy as a slight “wash-in” at the wing tips (a very slight decrease in the angle of incidence), to prevent an early stall, while making a steep low speed turn. (Did you know that the Mitsubishi “Zero” had that simple feature, and our own nation did not discover it until a “Zero” was recovered in the Aleutians?)
Back to the original premise: If you see a problem (that’s easy), apply your grey cells to come up with a solution. Sure, you will find resistence . . . for many reasons. “Pride”, financial status, laziness on the part of others . . . or maybe yourself. Maybe your ideas for a solution are not viable . . . but don’t give up, and don’t discourage others that may be attempting a solution.
gadfly
(Back about eighty years ago, a German chemist discovered some new plastic . . . but not wanting a “mess” in his lab, washed it down the drain before he went home. Some US company, with a French name, soon discovered the same thing . . . didn’t wash it down the drain, and put Dupont “Nylon” into our vocabulary . . . and maybe helped win WWII.)
Correction: The statement should be "wash out", not "wash in'. "Wash out" refers to a decrease in the angle of attack, built into the wing tips, that prevents an early "stall" at the wing tips . . . rather than a sudden loss of lift, the wing loses lift, first near the fuselage, and then progresses out toward the wing tips . . . allowing recovery and some control as the pilot discovers that critical "stall speed".
gadfly
(One day . . . the day of my "father-in-law's-to-be funeral", I took the little "J-3" out over Itasca, Illinois, practicing "slow flight" and "stalls". It was a very cold day, with a strong and steady wind from the north. I brought up the nose, backed off on the throttle, pulled it back into a "stall", dropped the nose to recover . . . etc., . . . and spent at least a half hour, in one spot over an intersection. I had no desire to do anything that day . . . went back to the grass strip at Moody, landed, put the little aircraft away in a "Tee" hangar, and went to the funeral. It was a cold day in September, 1962, in more ways than one. We got married, 22 December 1962 . . . in a snow storm.)
our special friend or guest Roel Pieper is still in business: Roel P. as CEO The company (which is loss-making and barely generates any revenue)got a market value of almost half a billion British pounds in December 2010. Now the market cap. is about £ 280.01 M. But he is also working for an university: Roel P. At U of Twente(NL) Life goes on!
From Gad: "Andy, our gracious host, seems to have it, . . . all together. A young man with over 4,000 hours in his log . . . obviously excited with the privilege of flying . . . and it is a privilege."
Thanks, Gad. :-) Right on all counts. 'Seems to have it together' is a good description, as well, because I'm still working on actually having it together. ;-) It takes a big effort to keep things organized and priorities straight.
‘Nothing to do with aircraft, except that both small submarines and aircraft have much in common, the Comcast “military channel” has on, just now, a program about small subs. The German sub, just shown . . . there was one back at Submarine School in Groton, Connecticut. I have pictures of my cousin and me . . . crawling out of the “conning tower” of the one on permanent display . . . plus the one and two man Japanese submarines, mounted on concrete supports, at the training base. The Japanese one-man sub was clearly a “suicide” sub . . . basically, a manned torpedo. The Japanese two-man sub had two torpedoes, much larger, and could (conceivably) escape and survive, after an attack. It was one of those had been used, 7 December 1941, at “Pearl”. The German sub had “clamps” on each side, holding two torpedoes. It looked like a vertical flat fish, carrying two “flat bags”, one in each hand . . . or “fin”.
The old 35mm pictures are in my files.
gadfly
(Those subs would never work, today . . . the picture of my “six foot four” cousin looks like he’s trying to remove a tight girdle, as he exits the Japanese sub. It somehow reminds me of the “Eclipse 500" . . . except the hatch is on the top.)
This blog has the potential of encouraging some excitement in a new generation for flying. Where will it go? . . . Who can tell! Sometimes, as you well know, it's good to simply begin at the beginning . . . helping folks discover the fun, the excitement, of "getting off the ground". How far someone goes, after takeoff is up to them . . . but once a person "takes off", there is no going back.
Too much is made of "speed" and the "gimmicks" of flight, and so little of the simple pleasure of "looking down" over the world in a new perspective.
gadfly
(Andy, keep up the good work . . . you are performing a much needed service, and at least some of us are most thankful for your efforts.)
julius There are many others that can intelligently discuss "Roel Pieper", etc. I've worked for such people, long ago . . . but never fully understood why they seemed to succeed, for a time.
That world, to me, is a "dark world" . . . I better stick to what I know best, and watch history play out, should I live so long.
gadfly
(It is a known principle, out our way, that all chickens come home to roost, if they don't get eaten by a coyote in the mean time. Right now, I'm a wondering about our ex-governor, Bill Richardson. The problem being, "Where's his roost?")
Responding to your post right above this, thanks again! I was actually in the middle of responding to your post from yesterday which looked back and forward.
Regarding potential, I agree. And, frankly, I think this format limits the potential. I understand that some people like this "free flow" format (I do on some levels, as well), and it's easy to keep up, so I'm not checking out. :-) That said, information posted here ends up fragmented like shot-pellets fired into the air which, in my opinion, tremendously waters down the potential effectiveness of the blog. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to overstate its importance. However, there is a really good group of posters here (and a much bigger group—including you guys—that frequented this blog's predecessors), and having relevant information readily available would tremendously expand the appeal, in my opinion.
A great example would be the posts here (and on EAC and EACNG) about the Piper Jet (just using that at random). There has been a lot of really interesting and useful discussion that you’d never find in an airplane magazine. Say I’m interested in the jet: How in the world would I even begin to pull together all of the relevant information here? Unless I had been following the blog for a long time, I wouldn’t even know anything more than a post or few had ever mentioned it (rather than dozens). Even if I did know, there’s no good way (other than a time consuming scan through tens-of-thousands of posts) to consolidate that information.
Another random example would be a great discussion that occurred on EACNG a couple years ago about concealed carry. Wisconsin is slated to pass this finally after Republicans nearly swept the elections here last year, so it’s something I want to learn more about. What a great topic for “off-topic” discussion! I understand it’s a hot topic, as well, but that just keeps things interesting and it’s so important to hear and at least consider alternate viewpoints. I recall you and Baron were in on that discussion (and there were some good suggestions regarding the best CC weapons), but good luck to me in finding it. :-)
Finally, a lot of people enjoy reading your widely varied commentary. I do, as well. Full disclosure: I nod off to some of them ;-), but many keep me completely engaged and waiting for your next post. :-) You’ve had some wonderful posts that should be available at a click, but again, good luck with this blog format.
…had to split this due to blog limitation (at least it said it was too many characters—maybe it was talking about all of us ;-)).
This brings me to my present plan as a possible solution: I’ve mentioned it before (at EACNG), but given the time involved on the admin side, I’ve been putting it off. What I am going to do in the near future is start a forum with minimal moderation like this blog where topics can freely flow in their own threads. Going back to the Piper Jet, when somebody has some new information, a couple of clicks and that post can be added in-line with previous Piper Jet posts. It doesn’t mean somebody would have to post there. Just that anybody interested could find a long string of posts on the topic without having to scroll through thousands of posts.
In order to keep it as much like this blog as possible for those that want it that way, there will be a button to view all threads inline so that you don’t have to click between forums. You can set a bookmark in your browser (I’ve got this site set as a link toolbar button) to go straight there, so with two clicks from anywhere, you’re reading a thread. There’s another advantage in forum software in that you can click to see only unread posts (and quickly toggle back to “view all” if you like). No scrolling down to get to the spot where you left off previously. There are numerous other advantages, as well, like easy posting of blogs, videos, pictures and hyperlinks (which is a pain in the butt here).
Anonymous posting as well as users will be allowed. If you prefer that, I’d recommend using your EACNG/ACE/AE handle as a user name. One thing I’d like to stay away from is personal attacks (which have been virtually non-existent in this latest version of the blog anyway). No good comes from those.
Some here will think this is a bad idea. That’s fine. Let me reiterate that this “Aviation Enthusiasts” blog will remain open and current. And, please, nobody take this as me trying to dictate something. I’m just a guy that came aboard the EAC blog after being amazed at the caliber of many of the posters (including Eclipse supporters at the time, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with them)…who then goes out and makes gold records (sorry, bad Christopher Walken SNL reference :-)). Many of those posters remain (some as blog followers) today, and I’d really like to expand the discussion on aviation with some off-topic stuff in its own forum thrown in on the side (sometimes, that’s as interesting to me as the aviation stuff). With all of the talent on this blog, I'd love to see it expand to a wider audience.
There are lots of aviation forums on the internet (as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve got thousands of posts on COPA—95% from previous years that I wasn’t so busy), but I like the idea of expanding from this excellent core group (including EAC and EACNG posters—and I guess I can’t forget about ACE).
For some here that might be tentatively interested, it will be really hard to form an opinion with the limited information I’ve put forth. That’s also fine. I’m going to get a site set up, and then anybody can obviously stay out of the proverbial pool, dip a toe in, or dive head first (don’t worry, I’ll fill it first—I’ve been typing too long as that’s an especially bad joke).
I’m going to stop now because I think I’ve used up my quotient of “really’s” and emoticons. ;-)
Okay, one more paragraph. Something else I’ve been thinking about is figuring out a way to export all of the EAC, EACNG, ACE and AE posts into a forum format where everything is indexed and easily searchable. These blogs have had an amazing run (and this one will continue) thanks to you guys, and I’d love for that rich history (complete with the inevitable warts) to be readily accessible.
From Gad: "This blog has the potential of encouraging some excitement in a new generation for flying. Where will it go? . . . Who can tell! Sometimes, as you well know, it's good to simply begin at the beginning . . . helping folks discover the fun, the excitement, of "getting off the ground". How far someone goes, after takeoff is up to them . . . but once a person "takes off", there is no going back."
Side note: Another nice feature about forums is it's super easy to quote people.
Gad, that's a great paragraph! I've got some other ideas I'm thinking about and I'm hoping to eventually tie everything together into something that's positive for aviation (especially general aviation) and fun for all involved.
One program that I think has been wonderful over the years is EAA's Young Eagles Program. I've done over 50 flights and it has always been a great time.
I went back and checked, and saw that the last Young Eagles flight I did was almost 10 years ago, so I better change that to it always "was" a great time. I can't use being too busy as an excuse for an entire decade, but I guess I was more motivated when the million kid goal was in play. I definitely need to get involved again as my schedule lightens up. It's been neat to hear from fighter and airline pilots (among others) who's first flight was a Young Eagles ride.
Brunei's ambassador to the US visited Piper in Vero on Friday. I am sure the ambassador is a big bud of the Sultan himself, as Piper's acting head, Geoffrey Berger, is not. I doubt if the ambassador was impressed with the plywood and cardboard mock-up of the Altaire. In any event he was undoubtedly sent by the Sultan to see where the money went and where it is going. I would give it until the first of June before the ex-Beech marketing dude and all his acolytes are out on the street. Maybe the Chinese firm that bought Continental Motors will take the company off the Sultan's hands soon. Stay tuned.
With a little salt and vinegar I am sure those ex-Beecher dudes can make a cardboard flounder fly down the Brunei Ambassador's throat a whole lot easier! Yikes, I feel sorry for those folks in fish wrapper land. Sultan is not gonna to be happy with his US of A investment is he? Probably he should have stuck to stock piling expensive cars!
Andy: Organizing comments into searchable items is a great idea! Go for it! Don't forget the good humor man....
It’s easy, today, to think all problems are solved by the “left” or “right click” on a mouse, but building a business . . . or an industry still takes time, because God did not program humans to “instantly” respond to the click of a switch.
So it is with the future of general aviation . . . you have alluded to that fact! For a future market to exist, there must be a foundation, or a “field”, to be cultivated. It all takes time.
In our own family of nineteen, going on twenty grand kids (Lord willing in May), the oldest (the one serving aboard a “boomer” submarine) has a love of flying . . . spending his “in port” time, taking lessons, etc., in the lowly Cessna 172 . . . or there-a-bouts. Another “two”, a grandson of 17, and a grand-daughter of 13, are taking “ground school” lessons, and sometimes “flight lessons”, to someday, soon, earn their credentials, to be pilots. And even a “first cousin” is part of that program.
Once the “ flight bug bites”, there is no known remedy . . . the malady is terminal. Once you find that your feet can leave the ground, and not suddenly return . . . it matters not whether you glide down a slope . . . or head for a nearby field . . . or head up into the realms where the sky takes on the indigo blue, that I’ve seen about thirty feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.
The old “gadfly” has done many things, that I wish I could share . . . but whether above, or below the ocean . . . each person is left to explore all that, for himself (or “herself” . . . not to leave anyone out).
But it comes down to the personal thing . . . the “one-on-one” thing . . . it takes time and effort and personal involvement. You take a child . . . one of these “little ones” . . . and demonstrate, by your love for them, and the excitement of “whatever” . . . flying? . . . sure, flying . . . or plunging into the depths of the ocean in a submarine. The system works . . . the ones that you love will catch your fire, and follow you to the ends of the universe.
You like flying? . . . and want others to catch that excitement? Show your interest in them, and carry them into your “true love”. It’s like a contagious virus . . . it cannot be ignored.
What matter, if it’s a “primary glider”, a “model airplane”, a “jet fighter, paid for by the US taxpayers” . . . that isn’t what cuts it.
Play with a computer game . . . and you’ll end up with nothing but the silly stuff that computer programmers can . . . program. Big deal! What a waste of “grey cells”, etc.
But take a single ride . . . and take the controls of something as simple as a “J-3" Cub . . . and you’ve “got the virus” . . . there is no cure. You have been “inflicted” for life.
gadfly
(Where was I, when I needed all this wisdom . . . har, har!)
One more comment for the day . . . How many computer programmers have ever flown, or landed an aircraft? . . . one in a thousand? Actually . . . it don’t matter, no-how! . . . any correct answer would be a total disappointment.
It all comes back to taking the risk . . . beginning that first series of lessons . . . and one day, the instructor get’s out of his position from the “right seat”, and says, “OK, you take it around, this time!” . . . and you are immediately stuck with the finality of the thing . . . you will take this aircraft, into the air, bring it around in a normal flight pattern, and land it, safely . . . taxi the beast up into the area of your “flight instructor”, and be declared a “student pilot”.
That was the day! . . . and miracle of miracles . . . the aircraft did not crash, the world did not come to an end . . . the aircraft was still in “one piece” . . . and life went on. And aerodynamics took on an entirely new level of understanding.
gadfly
(Even after that first “go-around”, in the summer of 1962 . . . all the other flights dim compared to that first “solo” . . . I successfully “took off” (to the south, on that grass strip), turned left, . . . another left turn, headed north, turned west (with ORD to my back . . . although, O’Hare meant nothing to me, at that moment), turned another left, south, and attempted to get down to the ground. I pulled the flaps back . . . .20 . . . 30 . . . 40 degrees . . . and I thought I would never get down . . . that little Cessna 150 seemed to be hung on some sort of cable . . . it just wouldn’t go “down” . . . but it did, and I flared out . . . actually, rather good . . . and coasted into a rather mundane, and smooth landing . . . taxied back up the “turf”, (82 acres of grass, that I would spend the next three months mowing every two weeks, to earn my way through flight school) . . . my biggest trial seemed to be over . . . in reality, my biggest battle was earning room and board, but when I “touched down” . . . that single battle was “enough’.)
Great stories! I am glad you are back. To be able to learn to fly on one's own cognition is a true privledge that you have provided for yourself and even the youngest of your family. What a gift from above!!!!
Alas, some of us are bound to earth by material means and can only learn about aviation from the armchair, a good imagination, and great flying dreams, of which I have many!
I love to sit and write on the blog and stare out my kitchen window that looks to the south and watch the many airplanes and hot air balloons cross my path in Albuquerque. It is a joy for me, (as are birds) expecially as I learn more and more about aviation, and while I fly in my mind. There is nothing wrong with that my friend.
Hey Andy, Concealed Carry is no longer that controversial, since so many states now have it.
But Winsconsin is in the news on a much hotter topic. Union reform!!!!
at least nine states beyond Winconsin are trying to enact right to work laws and/or public union restrictions. First big battle is in Winsconsin.
Hopefully, this is just the first wave of a movement that will slowly end the extrusion of taxpayers by public unions, and the soviet-style-laws that force workers to pay dues to a union against their wish.
The reason manufacturing (auto, aviation, etc) is moving to the US Sounth is simply their right to work laws. When mossy US states pass them, and we AGAIN welcome immigrants then we will see a Renaissance in US manufacturing.
Until them, China will continue to kick our ass. Democrats must really like to take it in the .....
I AM so totally with you on this one! It is TIME for unions that are bringing manufacturing in the US to its knees to GO! And I AM a democrat(albeit a very moderate one sitting on the fence anymore.)
Turns out ex-eclipse piper dude finally sees writing on the wall. (Maybe after recent diplomat visit.) He's now looking for another job. I feel badly for his situation, because the bottom falling out of GA in general is the perfect storm.
Fish wrapper land soon to turn to vinegar, I'm afraid. You saw it coming many nautical miles ago....
Hark! All is not lost. Honda Aircraft is hiring in Greensboro, NC, and Gulfstream may be hiring in Savannah, Ga. Both wonderful small cities to live in. American Eurocopter near Dallas, Texas, also is hiring in some areas. They complete and outfit basic helicopters made in Euroland for the US market. All three are class companies. Parts of GA are on the uptick, but Piper is beyond hope; I don't think the Chinese would take it off the Sultan's hands. For him there is no "greater fool" theory. When the Sultan-dude looks in the mirror he is it.
Excellent! This morning I almoast trashed my comment from last night, because I knew there were some good things happening in GA and the bottom has not fallen out. This thread started that way...
Now if the ex-exlipser now soon to be ex-piper dude can land himself a job at a good company (for a change) then all shall be well. But his life has practically nothing to do with mine any more and quite honestly he made some rather bad choices in his life and well, let the chips fall where they may. He's talkin Canada???
I am happy for GA in the good ole US of A! Today, I wanted to buy two teaspoons (really) and could only find cutlery made in China. Returned a crap coffee maker (Cuisinart) made in China. I will use my old French press coffee maker and old teaspoons until I can find these thngs MADE in the USA. Remember to buy USA! A little makes a big diference.
The bottom of owner flown certified GA has fallen off. Largest biz jets that offer meaningful enhancements - think G650, Legacy 500, Phenom 100/300, CJ4, etc, will continue to have good-modest success.
Your friend isn't going to stay around to see how the new Hannibal Lecter film ends? One of the film highlights is coming up when the new president gets hired only to realize everyone else in the company owes his job to Hannibal. I'm not sure Canada is far enough away to escape H-man before he implodes. New Zealand?
I'm the Jodi Foster who investigated situation so thoroughly, there is no turning back. This guy doesn't even have a clue! Poor egotistical dear. Shane would GET this one. Hey, if you are reading....
Congratulations to Embraer on opening TODAY its first US plant in Melbourne, FL for final assembly, completion and delivery of Phenom planes, employing 200 people.
Congrats to Embraer as well. The newspaper article indicates that only 60 of the 200 have been hired to date. Still a start.
The same paper had an article on the 8,000 people who are going to be let go when the shuttle program comes to an end soon at the nearby Cape.
Between the redundant shuttle workers and Piper employees breaking down the doors to get out of the Sultan's Factory, Embraer is sitting pretty with respect to employee selection.
Well in addition to Embraer having a good gain, Airbus business jets were up 18%, Boeing business jets were up 150%, Dassault was up 23%, and Gulfstream and SOCOTA showed 5% gains. Even tiny American Champ showed a 42% gain. All are 2010 over 2009 figures.
Obviously Lloyd Bankfein is running Hawker-Beech in the dirt and Textron is micro-managing Cessna into oblivion. What else is new?
I wished these companies were traded as independent stocks so I could short them.
Remember how the Cessna boy was saying how things were getting better?
And he loses more than half his production volume to Embraer? Is that his definition of better? And that is with a 100% currency appreciation of the $BRL vs the $USD.
Let's go back a few months . . . or years, into the earlier versions of this blogsite.
Eclipse was attempting to set the entire personal jet set on its ear . . . with, so-called, "new technology" (?) . . . and it was obvious that the "human element" was being ignored . . . especially, those humans that would be required to put the thing into production, and keep the little birds flying . . . both pilots and maintenance crews, etc., etc.. ‘Just for starters, the little bird gained 1,200 pounds in slight "modifications", with little regard to basic design.
Here's an item worth reading, about another "90 day wonder":
Now, as you read this article, remember (in the back of your mind) that plastics, virtually "all plastics", are "hygroscopic" . . . that is, they "love water", and absorb it . . . sometimes like a sponge. In itself, that may not matter, but temperature cycling from liquid to frozen form, especially in the normal flight patterns of any jet, . . . "Houston, we have a problem!"
‘Just as the "Eclipse" was designed on the cutting edge of the technology that the "founder" understood (and little more), so there was no "Kelly Johnson" to control the overall design of the "Dreamliner". Now, take all that, and spread the technology, or "lack of understanding, thereof", over half the globe, and the problems multiply. No longer can a problem be understood, corrected and/or fixed "on the spot", but now we have any number of bureaucratic systems to overcome (which not one in a thousand understands, nor is there any need for one in a thousand), but there are unions, and any number of excuses for delays, etc., etc., etc..
And don't for an instant forget that once (if ever) the "Dreamliner" ever gets out on the tarmac, there are thousands of humans with "A&P" in their job description and title, that must repair and maintain the beasts . . . who wouldn't know a carbon filament from a hair on a black cat . . . and how to mix up a batch of epoxy beyond the "two tubes of repair" from the local Home Despot.
This isn't a "put-down" of the many folks who fly and maintain the birds, but a demonstration that going from an "all aluminum bird" to one based on something so new as carbon fiber re-enforced plastic, is not a walk in the park. Couple that with a government, that has vowed to bring down almost everything, that up ‘til 2008, were things that we thought would remain somewhat stable, and we have an extremely serious problem . . . or two . . . or maybe three.
gadfly
(Good grief . . . ‘Just figure how many "carbon credits" each Dreamliner will cost . . . paid, no doubt, in "gold or silver coin" to our environmental friend, "Al", so he can plant enough trees to save the planet. By the way, where is "Al"? . . . I thought he might stick around to see the temperatures drop to minus 27 the other day, just twenty miles due east of Albuquerque.)
And a note to FC: There will be a special about the Grand Canyon on National Geographic, on 24 February 2011, and our friend, Carol Hill, is part of that study. Watch the "preview" at:
"Apologies" for the format of the "above". It seems that Microsoft or Java or Goofle or something has suddenly, and without warning, decided that the "tracking cookies" and other settings, want more control over what we put on the internet. If I were a smarter "gadly", I would share the info . . . but I'm not that smart. What worked a few days ago, doesn't seem to work today. But I'm working on it.
NO need to worry about fomatting,I think many of us are always more than happy to hear your fine words of wisdom.
I will watch for PBS special and learn more about Hill's project.
Hey, remember when you and I came up with a really interesting application of Kyvlar for composites in aviation? I think we were on to something--really. Should we talk?
The differences between a fiber reenforced “flying body” and one fabricated from sheet metal are vast. In fact, there are almost no similarities between the two. Metal products are made under carefully controlled conditions in a mill and then “fabricated” into the final product by machining and forming, and fastened together. Fiber reenforced plastics are made “in the final manufacturing process” . . . and not machined and fastened after the fact. Unlike metal products, machining takes away from the critical strength of reenforced plastics.
“Kevlar” (aramid) fibers mixed with carbon filaments offer much, but cannot be an “add-on” . . . but must be “in the mix” from the beginning.
The problem among manufacturers is often the idea that one can merely substitute the fiber reenforced plastic for metal. It might be easier to compare a suit of armor with a dress suit made of wool knit . . . there is almost no point of similarity. Or maybe compare a pair of “knit sox” with a pair of sox machined or cast from aluminum.
Assumptions are dangerous. And the idea that a crew that normally handles metals can suddenly transition to fiber-reenforced plastics is begging for serious problems. At one time, as mentioned earlier, I had the job (among other things) of attempting to re-train “fiberglass experts” from what they “knew” with other fiberglass products to fabricating huge self-supporting panels for major structures. In three years, we made some progress, but some of the crew carried with them their old ideas . . . and refused to understand the required differences. Multiply that times the vast army of employees at Boeing, etc., that maybe have seen the manufacture of a surf board, or a fiberglass speed boat . . . I shudder to think that such assumptions will find their way into putting together a full size commercial aircraft.
gadfly
(By the way . . . NOT PBS, but National Geographic . . . Comcast Channel 52 or Channel 223 (HD) at 5PM, Mountain Time, 24 Feb 2011.)
Well Boeing just won the tanker contract over EADS who had a newer generation and far superior aircraft and was going to assemble it in Mobile, Alabama, with US workers. Boeing, of course, is based in Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel-ville). The contract is a payoff to unions for Obama's upcoming re-election bid. The unions will now cough up millions for the already underway propaganda effort. At least its not a tanker version of the Boeing 787 disaster.
Obamavation. GREAT. Just what this country needs! At least its within the US for the moment...
What is a tanker contract?
Sir Gadfly:
I know we talked about some application to Kevlar that had some possiblity and now I can't seem to find it. Remeber I sent you a link to a Materials Science paper?
Also, I am afraid I can't watch National Geographic without cable. I'm a rabbit ears and convertor box kinda gal.
FC . . . Let’s see if we can wrap it up in few words: Carol Hill , Geologist, is married to the inventor of the CO2 High Powered laser . . . the kind that can shoot down a missile at long range. Both are, like me, Southern California natives, that, by nature, seem to think “outside the box”.
Their kids, and ours, went to school together . . . and in short order . . . we came to know them, in the Albuquerque “East Mountain” area. The “Hills” attended my Bible class at church . . . I was teaching Genesis . . . and the fact that the evidence is there for a universe that goes back billions of years. Since there was much in similar work, in science and research, we discovered that we don’t often follow the “beaten path”. Our #2 son went with Carol and their #2 son on certain trips, including going down into the “lower cave” at Carlsbad, and to an international conference for “cave” experts, back East, where Carol was a conference speaker, etc.
Carol has a theory, based on sound evidence, that the Grand Canyon may have been formed by the erosion of calcium layers, deep underground, that suddenly collapsed, and changed the direction of flow of the Colorado River . . . and caused the apparent “erosion” of the rift. Look up the meaning of “karst” . . . too long to deal with, here.
In time, I worked on critical components for Alan’s high powered lasers, based on my earlier experience with high powered plasma generators (up to 2.5 million watts, continuous) . . . out in Santa Ana, California, . . . to test the ablative heat shield material for re-entry vehicles . . . Apollo, etc., etc., . . . my immediate boss was “Adriano Ducati” . . . the oldest of the three brothers, famous for the Ducati motorcycle, early shortwave radio receivers, and plasma propulsion systems for inter planetary space vehicles.
All that, coupled with my own family’s inventions for aircraft flight control, and safety restrain systems, brings me back to a keen respect for folks like Carol Hill, and those that can “think outside the box” . . . and demonstrate practical application to the “real world”.
It’s not enough to think up new stuff . . . it must be based on real-world experience, skills, and hard won knowledge . . . more often than not, based on having “been there / done that”.
The “fiber reenforced plastic” thing should be based on hard-won “dirty finger nail” experience. Aircraft design needs to be based on actual “fabrication of airfoil ribs”, “building an actual spar”, “covering a wing”, “welding up actual 4130 chrome-moly steel engine mounts”, “inspecting for inter-granular corrosion” back in the hidden spaces in a fuselage, “testing cable pulleys in heat and cold, and a complete spectrum of vibration, right up to failure” . . . and the list goes on and on.
Granted, not many folks can have experienced all this sort of thing . . . but on the other hand, having a diploma from some university doesn’t cut it . . . and when someone comes along, like Carol Hill, who has squeezed through the narrow underground passages in deep caves, etc., . . . examined the evidence, and with no “bone to pick” makes careful observations . . . I take notice.
Had someone evaluated such things as the “Eclipse (toy) jet”, and maybe even the Boeing 787, we would be looking at a whole different landscape (so to speak).
gadfly
(In the background, a "submarine" program on the TV . . . explaining the basics . . . little has changed since I first went under, almost sixty years ago.)
FC, you may be sorry you asked. Here's an extremely condensed version.
By the early 90's, the US Air Force realized they needed to replace their aerial refueling tanker-the KC-135. Since the KC-135 dates back to the Eisenhower administration (although they've been updated-for example, through a re-engining program) at some point you need a replacement. A quick summary of USAF's attempts so far-
Round 1-Awarded a lease deal to Boeing for a 767 based tanker, which unraveled when a certain Arizona Senator (John McCain) poked around and found enough dubious behavior that the governments procurement lead and Boeings CFO did prison time. So we're on to-
Round 2-This time they held a competition, which Airbus won with a design based on the A330. But Boeing filed a protest, because the government had used things as critical selection criteria without telling the competing parties they were going to (can't do that). Boeing won it's protest, so they started again with-
Round 3-Another competition that was supposed to be a level playing field and "transparent". In fact, it was so transparent that the government mistakenly sent Boeings bid information to Airbus, and vice versa. That's a huge no-no, but they didn't want to start over, so they eventually decided that "sending each the other guys data was the plan all along", and (today) awarded the contract to Boeing.
But the seeds of yet another protest have already been planted by the government, when they misaddressed the bid responses-so round 4 is a distinct possibility.
Once in a while, something good comes along . . . and has no negative impact on taxes, etc. Here’s a quote from this month’s MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) newsletter:
“Through the prayers and gifts of generous supporters, MAF took delivery of two new KODIAK aircraft in 2010. One was deployed to Papua, Indonesia, while the second joined the MAF fleet in Central Asia. These remarkable planes allow MAF to serve remote villages with short, rough airstrips. KODIAKs are very cost-effective to operate and run on jet fuel rather than avgas, which is expensive and difficult to obtain in the isolated areas where MAF works.”
An accompanying picture shows a KODIAK turbo-prop about to take off, from a short-field strip atop a mountain in Papua. It’s obvious, from the picture (and the testimony of pilots from that area), that there is no opportunity for a “go-around”, nor for an “almost takeoff”, to try a second time . . . and yet, this is simply the normal daily routine.
And it’s built in Idaho. ‘How ‘bout them pertaters!
gadfly
(Take a look at http://www.questaircraft.com/ ...’talk about icing!)
No_Skids, Thanks for the quick read on the tanker contract for FC. One of the Department of Defense own procurement people, a Ms Runyon, also did jail time when she sought favors (including jobs from Boeing for her daughter and son-in-law and a future job for herself) for supporting the Boeing proposal.
The name of the former Pentagon official who was working at Boeing at the time she was convicted was Darleen Druyun, not Runyon. At the time she was convicted she was pulling down $250,000 a year at Boeing after trashing your tax dollars as an Air Force procurement official in the Pentagon on the tanker contract. She did nine months in prison. Michael M. Sears, the Boeing Chief Financial Officer at the time also did prison time for the same crime.
Yikes! I am glad I asked....I think. Thank you and ASM for explanation.
Millions and millions of tax dollars are wasted, and not to forget, good men and women serving our country put in harms way. (I am shaking my head back and forth.)
How do people like Darleen Druyun live with themselves? Where is the dragon lady now? Do you lose your honorable discharge if you betray your country and go to jail for it?
I hope things work out with the Boeing contract to make this horrible story just go away once and for all.
FC
Does make Eclipse and Piper seem rather silly doesn't it?
Darleen was a civilian working for the Pentagon, not a member of the uniformed military services so she would not be subject to any kind of honorable, dishonorable, or administrative discharge. At the time of her felony conviction she was a $250,000 year worker-bee at Boeing. I don't know if her previous civil service pension would be affected or not - probably not.
There is much wisdom and knowledge related to GA and Commercial Aviation among the bloggers on this website. And there are at least three types of bloggers . . . pro-active, re-active, and in-active . . . and a final group that “haven’t a clue” what’s happening.
This is nothing new . . . an extremely “few”, even among the “pro-active” will take the “common knowledge”, and apply it to the problems that many, maybe most, have correctly identified. Corruption in high places . . . plain stupidity in design . . . incompetence in manufacturing . . . and all the other problems that go into any mature industry . . .all are present and accounted for . . . !
Wise entrepreneurs will carefully note all the above, and find a way to “leap frog” the problems . . . leaving the pockets of “status quo” to die of starvation, forever waiting for the world to come to their aid. It’s dangerous to wait for the world to come to our aid . . . sometimes, probably most of the time, the best course of action is to take the best of the past, and leap into the future . . . leaving the “status quo” to wonder, “What happened?” and “Why didn’t someone tell me what’s going on?”
gadfly
(It’s amazing to read about the leap-frogged pockets in the Pacific . . . that in some cases took decades to understand that the war was over . . . and surrender in time to meet their grand-children.)
Speaking of “leaping into the future”, I read (again) Mark Twain’s famous tale of “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” . . . which might help to explain some of the problems of GA (General Aviation).
Over time, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) told the story every which way but south . . . but the bones of the story remained the same: “Jim Smiley” would bet on anything . . . and in either direction . . . ‘didn’t matter which. And he had a frog . . . you all know the story . . . how a stranger came into “Angel’s Camp” (in the Gold Rush days), . . . there was a bet on the frog, that it could out-jump any other frog . . . there was a $40 bet . . . the stranger filled Jim Smiley’s frog with about two pounds of “Quail Shot” . . . and the frog couldn’t get off the ground.
Well, it would appear that the “GA” has had a whole bunch of folks, pourin’ lead shot down the gullet of the GA industry . . . includin’ the president, and a whole bunch of other folks, as well. But the mystery to me is that some of the folks with stock in the lead trade seem to be employed by the aircraft industry . . . and must be makin’ profits bettin’ ‘gainst their own companies.
Now, ‘peers to me, that if you want a company to thrive in the good old “US of A”, you don’t go sharin’ your trade secrets with folks ‘cross the Pacific Ocean (or the “Pond” on the other side, for that matter . . . but those other folks don’t seem to matter much at the moment). But you work on a plan to keep your brand new product at home . . . and only when you find you must get some outside help, . . . then, you go courtin’ the neighbor folks.
But then, if you want to make a quick buck . . . It’s been my observation that the biggest sucker is the one lookin’ for a sucker.
In nuclear physics I think the principle is called, “Achieving Critical Mass” . . . you get all of one thing together in one big organization and bad things happen . . . and nobody has time to figure out “what happened” . . . It’s all over but the credits.
gadfly
(Whatever . . . don’t take the word of an insect!)
New post up. It took me a very long time to prepare so please read carefully. ;-) Yes, I'm kidding, in case the wink doesn't go far enough to imply that. :-)
Gad,
ReplyDeleteNot sure if uglytruth knows about this site. He posted at AC&E (a little odd since one post is repeated four times and the other five--maybe just a connection issue):
http://aviationcriticenthusiast.blogspot.com/2010/07/still-some-gloomy-weather.html?commentPage=3
Says he emailed you privately. If so, tell him to come here if you don't mind.
Not sure if it's the real uglytruth. Here's the post:
ReplyDelete"The real Gadfly is a great guy that I learned a lot from. I have emailed him privatly. I enjoyed reading his posts as most were educational. He and a whole host of others were passing along their knowledge.
The imposter must be an old Microsoft employee that after stealing peoples money for his wet dream has nothing better to do than try to impersonate a real person. Please go back in your closet & put your panites on your head like you usually do."
Very nice first paragraph. Kind of odd second paragraph. :-)
Andy
ReplyDeleteYes, the botfly seems to have got himself trapped in a "fruit jar" at the old site . . . buzzing round and round . . . and round.
An email has been sent to the person that might be "uglytruth" . . . 'can't be sure.
gadfly
(There's a plethora of information on the internet for the removal of "botflies", but not on blog sites.)
I just got here. I think they call it fashionably late. Yes I posted the same posts 4-5 times so if someone (like me) just did a quick look it would catch their eye in the middle of all the fake "gadfly" posts. I thought he tried to bury my post.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Gad!
ReplyDeleteUglytruth,
ReplyDeleteWelcome! Glad it's you. Posts on the other board seem to trigger the bot and there isn't anybody watching the board (if you hadn't heard, Phil disappeared from the forum).
There seems to be some things missing in our “blog” these days. Let me explain.
ReplyDeleteAndy, our gracious host, seems to have it, . . . all together. A young man with over 4,000 hours in his log . . . obviously excited with the privilege of flying . . . and it is a privilege.
But the discussion too often goes to the financial aspect of aviation . . . nothing really wrong with that. However, we may miss the foundation of “General Aviation”. No matter how you slice it, the “finances” seldom justify flying a small jet, be it twin or single . . . etc., etc., . . . you fill in the blanks.
You see, without a firm foundation, you cannot build a future.
You want to justify owning and/or flying a small aircraft? Turn it in another direction: The experience of “walking on the wings of the wind” (Psalm 104:3 “. . . Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind.”)
There is an excitement connected with flight that cannot be fully explained in human terms. The psalmist, close to three thousand years ago, put it into those beautiful words, speaking of God in His creation. Sixty-three years ago, I sat in the prison of my fifth-grade grammar school class in Burbank, California . . . and watched out the window at the seagulls gliding on unseen air currents over the playground. They simply “hung” in space. My “notes” were drawings of wing designs . . . put together deep into the night, with balsa wood, double-edged razor blades, straight-pins and Tester’s cement . . . purchased with money earned from mowing lawns, etc. Glider designs filled my mind (except for a cute little blond girl that came to our school that year).
Of course, my Dad had already worked on the “YP-38" proto-type Lockheed fighter/bomber . . . and was now inventing control systems for aircraft . . . that even, today, remain the “de-facto” system that keeps control cables at constant tension through all flight conditions.
Not long after my Dad died . . . and I got out of the Submarine Service, I read about the five missionaries, who were killed by the Auca Indians in Ecuador . . . and the story of Nate Saint, flying into the jungles, etc. And I went on to get my pilot’s and “A&P” training at Moody Bible Institute, etc., . . . old history.
But throughout, I’ve never lost that excitement of flying. It has little to do with the financial part . . . but goes back to that part of “walking on the wings of the wind”.
Once you have a foundation, the building is easy. But without a firm foundation, you have nothing.
gadfly
(The “bean counters” don’t really have a clue . . . but the dreamers of flight . . . they, alone, can carry aviation into the future. Think about it.)
Think of dreamers, who knew the joys of flying:
ReplyDeleteSteve Saint . . . Steve's Dad, Nate, was one of those five missionaries, murdered on a beach, along a river in Equador . . . what! . . . fifty six years ago? Steve grew up with those folks . . . and today is developing a flying car, already successful, to minister to folks in remote areas of the world. Look it up . . . watch the “You Tube” videos. Will it be successful? . . . It’s built on a firm foundation . . . the love of flying.
Steve’s Dad, Nate, worked out a way to drop a bucket on a long line behind a small plane . . . the bucket would come to a point where it would be almost stationary on the ground . . . and a transfer of information or small objects was possible, between circling aircraft and ground.
Now, I don't know Steve . . . but the story of his Dad, and the other four missionaries affected my own life . . . long, long ago. In fact, I made a total change in direction in 1958 because of those events.
You can look up the “Life” magazine headlines . . . do a search, “Life Auca 1955" . . . you will get countless stories about Jim Elliot, read the book, “Through Gates of Splendor” . . . Nate Saint and “Jungle Pilot” . . . a pivotal point in aviation history. That will lead to “JAARS”, “Jungle Aviation And Radio Service” . . . one of their pilots (Leo Lance) was my flight instructor, back at Moody Airport . . . he flew a “chopped wing” PBY “Catalina” in and out of narrow South American rivers (“chopped”, because the rivers are very narrow), and other famous aircraft . . . DC3 (taking supplies across the Gulf of Mexico), Nordyne “Norseman” . . . serious aircraft that excite true pilots. Paul Wertheimer . . . a short little pilot, my favorite instructor . . . a Hebrew Christian . . . Bob Rich (shop instructor) that spent time as a B-17 bomber pilot over Europe . . . good men, all . . . with a love of God, a love of humans, and a love of flying.
Take all this in any direction you wish. If only from the standpoint of getting in-to and out-of difficult places, look at that aircraft company, Quest, . . . and the Kodiak. All that came out of the events in Equador . . . so long ago.
And who was the very first pilot of Missionary Aviation Fellowship? . . . Betty Greene, a “WASP” pilot of WWII . . . http://www.maf.org/history.
Well, enough of all this. The point being that once you have a foundation, there is nothing that will prevent building on that foundation.
gadfly
(If you wish to earn riches preceded by a dollar sign, go in another direction. Aviation is not for you. The profit of aviation has yet to be clearly defined in a “P&L” ledger.)
As human/consumers we seek two types of products/items.
ReplyDeleteThose the we *need*.
and
Those that we *want*.
Light/Personal GA is mostly about wants than needs - and that is perfectly fine.
I've never heard a Ferrari buyer trying to demonstrate the financial sense of owning one. You own one for personal enjoyment, personal growth (e.g. learning to drive on a track), and whatever else float your boat.
This is the problem with GA....
Lets compare say the 1955 Bonanza with the 1555 Chevy and the 1955 Corvette. The sophistication of the Bonanza (all aluminum engine, fuel injection, dual ignition, avionics, auto pilot, interior, presence, etc) were substantially above the two cars.
So the Bonanza was a truly desirable luxury item. Back then you could ride on a low tech car, watch a ball game, 3 channels of TV, go to the movies or read a paper. By comparison, flying your own sophisticated flying machine had to rank way up there. Probably just below sex :)
Fast forward to today. A ZR1 Corvette vs the Bonanza. The Bonanza is virtually the same airframe, flying behind basically the same engine, with some upgrades to avionics.
Lets be honest. We are all aviation enthusiasts here. But if we were offered the choice of say driving a ZR1 at Laguna Seca for a couple of hours or flying the Bonanza to get a burger, which would most choose?
The level of sophistication of cars, and our entertainment options from iPads to VODs to affordable vacation and air travel, completely drown out the Bonanza.
Cirrus had success and took sales from Cessna and Beech and killed Mooney in the process, because they tried to make the plane be like a BMW or ZR1. But it was still flying behind the same Bonanza engine from 1955. The interior was still third rate compared to a luxury car. The performance was still about the same as the Bonanza.
And here is the killer factor. A modern car is so much incredibly safer and more reliable than a 1955 car. But a modern light GA plane still has basically the same levels of reliability and safety as the 1955 model.
Try plugging in a diagnostics computer to the Bonanza. There is no Plug.
What is the point?
Want to revive light GA? Make the product (which is a $100K-$1M *want*) as refined, sophisticated, safe as a $100K-$1M sports/luxury car.
Light GA is the ONLY product that is stuck in the 50s.
Would you buy a 1955 computer for your daily use? Would you use a 1955 TV to watch the Superbowl?
The type of people with the disposable income to buy a new light GA plane, is buying Ferraris and Toyotas that are in a different plane of refinement and sophistication.
The light GA plane was the most sophisticated product individuals could own in 1955. Now they are the most backwards.
If you don't fix that, nothing will improve.
Many years ago Cessna had a print advertisement that compared a new Cessna 150 to a new Corvette, with a photo of each with the assumption that young people would be blown away by the idea that they could own an airplane for the same cost as the Corvette. For myself, a committed aviation enthusiast, I would have jumped on the Corvette in a heart beat. The Cessna 150 just was no comparison in engineering and workmanship, desirability, or utility even back then.
ReplyDelete“Light GA is the ONLY product that is stuck in the 50s.”
ReplyDeleteActually, that is not true. Any device that runs on liquid fuel is locked into a technology that goes back well over a century. The first cars used engines that ran on Benzine, and used pistons, valves and crank-shafts. The so-called turbine engine . . . the Titanic used both piston and turbine engines . . . and propellers (the center prop was turbine driven).
Digital technology goes back to Samuel Morse and the telegraph . . . but his wasn’t the first. The man that knocked on a door, with the right “rhythm” of “knocks”, identified himself.
Virtually all mechanical devices were identified and cataloged by Franz Reuleaux . . . with a complete set of models prior to 1876. Even the “Preacher” three thousand years ago, said, “That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Comparing a “car” to an “airplane” is using confusion in an attempt to prove a point.
‘Looking back at engine design over 100 years, I find it almost amusing that the Chevy Corvette still uses “push rods”, etc., . . . recognized as a cheap compromise over an overhead cam, a century ago. But that begs the arguments.
The internal combustion piston engine is far from the best design . . . except that it has been “refined” to a point of great reliability, because thousands . . . even millions of common folks have had access to the technology, and almost everything that can be improved, has been improved.
But the best platform for a car still uses four wheels, with the steering wheels “up front”. It’s difficult to fight success.
Airplanes still use “wings” . . . and whether a car or an aircraft, there are certain basic principles that apply to each . . . and all the gimmicks, whether electronic or mechanical . . . each lives in it’s own domain. An attempt to compare one with the other only muddies the logic.
You want to go from point A to point B, . . . say from Los Angeles to San Bernardino . . . go by Corvette. You can even stop along the way for an “In-N-Out” double-double animal style with fries and coffee. You want to go from Long Beach to Avalon . . . your better choice is a Cessna 150. Even a good running start along the pier at Santa Monica won’t help much in the Corvette.
The Cessna 150, in which I first soloed, cost $5,000 around 1960 . . . and it had another $7,000 in instruments . . . “solid state”, I might add. Moody Airport put in the finest equipment available, at the time . . . to safely fly in the shadow of O’Hare and Midway airports. And then came the frivolous lawsuits, and the (so-called) legal system . . . and the cost of a basic aircraft rose to the point of almost destroying the entire small aircraft industry.
If you love to fly . . . you are stuck with something that flies . . . and that Corvette simply won’t safely get off the ground. But the basic technology in either case has not changed in a century.
gadfly
(Whoops! . . . big mistake! The Cessna and the Corvette will both get safely off the ground . . . and both will return. The problems are related to duration between takeoff and landing . . . and the effects of the sudden stop. Watching some of my classmates making their first solo landings . . . except for that great Cessna landing gear, the Corvette might have had the advantage.)
After entering a room, or a building, one sometimes has to retrace his steps . . . go back out and carefully read the sign over the entrance. So, I went back out and read, “Aviation Enthusiasts”! That’s good . . . for that’s where I thought I came in.
ReplyDeleteGetting the wrong direction on a blog site is not so tragic . . . but disrupts the flow, causing confusion for the rest of the normal traffic.
If the purpose (of this blog site) is based on aviation, and those that are primarily “enthusiasts”, then the discussion should center on the main subject . . . “Aviation” and “Enthusiasm”, dealing with those subjects that either contribute or detract from aviation.
My greatest challenge, as a teacher, has been to so teach a subject, to keep the full attention of my class . . . sometimes adults, sometimes children . . . in every case, looking at the subject being taught, through the eyes and understanding of the students . . . reaching inside the mind of the “learner”, bringing understanding, and creating a hunger, a thirst to learn more . . . and beyond.
It has been said that “ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever” . . . or . . . “ignorance is a condition, but stupid is a choice.”
Here, I was about to quote a line or two from a man buried at Holy Cross Cemetery, Scopwick in Linclonshire, England . . . having died in December 1941, after a collision in his Spitfire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gillespie_Magee,_Jr. ), but his entire poem is relevant:
“High Flight
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew —
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”
. . . John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
gadfly
(If this poem touches your heart . . . and the very nerves of your soul, you belong here.)
A footnote to the last comments, with your forgiveness:
ReplyDeleteThe poem, “High Flight”, was written by a man who flew in a piston powered aircraft, designed and manufactured over seventy years ago, powered by one of the greatest double six row V-12 engines ever built. Would it have mattered if he had flown in the “Great War” (WWI) behind an Hispano-Suiza V-8, or a Gnome 7 cylinder rotary? . . . or even before? Somehow, I think not! He recognized the privilege . . . the shear joy of flying . . . and it would seem, he recognized the One who had created the elements, the physical laws, that made that flight possible . . . and took hold of all that, carrying it to the extreme limits available to him at the time.
My favorite dreams . . . deep in the morning hours of night involve “flying”. Somehow, by shear “will”, I can glide down stairwells, never touching a step . . . or sometimes escaping danger, going higher and higher, always just out of reach of some bad thing. It occurs to me that God puts certain desires, and dreams into our very ‘psyche’ (soul), in anticipation of His plan for us.
C. S. Lewis, wrote about such things in books like “Till We Have Faces” (which I do not recommend), . . . but better understood in the clear atmosphere of “The Great Divorce” (C.S. Lewis) . . . a picture of wonderful things offered, yet refused by many.
Back to aviation . . . we, who have a license to fly, have had a taste of the great things . . . the limits of enjoying God’s creation, as never before enjoyed by earlier generations.
Sometimes, it doesn’t matter . . . the financial part. The shear joy, the pleasure of flying trumps all. Man was created to survive on earth . . . but his spirit, his soul, longs for greater heights.
gadfly
(‘Funny thing about “old engines” and certain designs . . . the “straight six” remains the best balanced engine. The “twin six” . . . the V-12, was simply two “six” in-line engines, attached. The “V-8" and the “V-6" are merely compromises to something a century old, that (so far) has not found a better form.)
Sir Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a child my grandfather took my sister and I out to a small cemetary in rural Iowa where his grandfather was buried. He told us that his gravestone read, "May my bones rest here until men learn to fly like birds." As hard as we tried, we could not find his grave. Now whether my grandfather (Truman) was making this up or not, he was making a point about modernity to two girls who couldn't imagine a world without airplanes.
FC
As I recall my highschool car the old 68 Mustang did fly on several occaisions even though it didn't have wings! Rocky mountain "high" in Colorado!
The comparison that Cessna itself sought to make between a 70s Corvette and the Cessna 150 was heavily skewed in favor of the Corvette with most red-bloodied American kids (even the die-hard aviation enthusiasts).
ReplyDeleteIf you were to make the comparison today between the current Cessna "Skycatcher" and the 2011 Chevy Corvette, the difference in favor of the "Vette is even more pronounced. Baron is right, aviation is not just slipping backwards, it is running backwards as fast as it can.
A lot of the Corvette enthusiasts in the 70s wound up in the front and back seats of McDonnell-Douglas F-4s during the Vietnam War. The Cessna 150 was deservedly....forgotten.
Floating Cloud
ReplyDelete‘Dating myself, I was in flight school when one of the instructors purchased the first version of the “Mustang”. In retrospect, it was a bare-bones car . . . four wheels, an un-exceptional engine, two seats, . . . and frankly, nothing special. But that was its claim to fame. It simply brought the driver into a certain amount of control with going from one place to another. In a sense, it was the remaking of Ford’s “Model T”. From there, Ford made the mistake of putting fancy things into it . . . and it eventually got lost in the crowd of other cars, with un-needed gadgets, etc.
Airsafetyman
But for a small blind spot in my right eye, I would have been a naval officer and pilot, rather than serving in the “Silent Service”, aboard a submarine. I met all the other requirements. (From the time I could remember, I wanted both . . . submarines and flying . . . by God’s grace, I did both.)
However, I still had a love of flight, and eventually was able to experience the wonders that only a pilot can know. Whether a Cessna 150, or 140, or a Luscombe “Silvaire”, an Aronca, or the lowly J-3 . . . ‘like the Ford Mustang, there is a certain pleasure to sit on little more than a bucket seat, and explore the invisible treasures of the sky.
Few can have the training, the privilege, of flying at trans-sonic speeds . . . they are out of financial reach of most. But a J-3, a “150", . . . or even the ancient “Taylorcraft”. There is an as yet unexplored market, simple as the Ford Mustang, or the Model T . . . dirt simple, relatively cheap, etc., that would allow thousands to have the excitement of “walking on the wings of the wind”.
After the “Great War”, thousands of young Germans built model gliders, then gliders in which they could fly, and created the “Luftwaffen”. Better yet, a generation of young people in our own nation could explore and experience the pleasures of flight. And, I believe, there is a great opportunity to “keep it simple” and build a great business.
gadfly
(But remember, If you don’t truly love what you’re doing, the business is not likely to succeed.)
I am all for simplicity and all for classics but the Cessna 150 is neither and the Skycatcher is neither. They are just built cheap. And priced very high for the value they deliver.
ReplyDeleteConsider Japanese motorcycles today that also appeal to young people. They will go close to 200 miles an hour, have liquid-cooled computer-controlled fuel-injected engines, anti-skid disk brakes, and computer-controlled transmissions and sell for less than $10,000. The Skycatcher goes for $112,000 and has NONE of the bikes advancements, not even a fuel-injected engine that TCM wanted badly to sell to Cessna. It was already produced, already certified, and would have would have put an end to carburetor icing crashes. How can Cessna justify not using a fuel-injected engine that will be flown by inexperienced instructors and students? How can Cessna justify producing a "trainer" that cannot be used in spin training?
No wonder the aviation enthusiasts high-school and college age just buckle down, get their college degree and go into Navy or Air Force pilot training. The civilian general aviation industry industry has failed them miserably. So the kids make an end run to the military - and good for them.
ASM:
ReplyDeleteDid Pelton's wife ever take her solo maiden voyage as promised in a Skycatcher? Not that I can find. No, Pelton knows she would be in danger. Yet the Skycatchers seem to be consumed like Chinese fortune cookies.... but by whom?
You are right young inspired aviation enthusiasts have no where to go but to the military and then these days directy to war. Is that a choice?
Sir Gadfly:
You are also right the 68 Mustang offered nothing special except a fast engine, bucket seats that flopped around, an AM radio, and the cool factor. It was however solid enough to withstand the test of time and a wild teenage girl.
FC
Funny enough, today I started to look at Corvettes - like perhaps one day soon I could buy one of these to replace my sedate 96 Volvo. My brother in law works for GM... I wouldn't get it in red however, just because.
Gadfly said..."Actually, that is not true. Any device that runs on liquid fuel is locked into a technology that goes back well over a century."
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be kidding me. The 1955 Vette had less than 200HP (net) and most had three speeds. The 2010 ZR1 has over 600HP and six speeds. And it has better gas mileage.
The reliability, handling, braking, etc is not even comparable. The 55 Vette brakes would disintegrate (literally) after 3-4 laps at Laguna Seca. The 2010 ZR1 will run about 100-200 laps there, before needing brakes.
The 55 Vette would kill its occupants on the mildest of accidents. The 2010 Vette enables the occupants to walk away from catastrophic crashes.
And it is not even the most sophisticated of cars. I have a 4,400lbs family sedan that goes to 60MPH in 4.3 secs, that I have taken my kids to school in the morning and 2 hrs later was on a race track (no mods) running 2 hrs hard including braking from 145 MPH to 55 MPH every lap for 4 30-min sprints. I can hit another parked car head on at 70MPH and everyone walks away.
That is utility and entertainment value.
Meanwhile, what improvements in performance, safety, etc has the 2010 Bonanza provided above the 1955 one? Better GPS/MAP navigation - that is about it.
Young, affluent, type-A folks (the universe of light owner/flow GA candidates) is NOT going to be impressed.
There are NO durable consumer products that have shown so little improvement in the past 3-4-5 decades as light GA planes.
For crying out loud, I'm typing this on a tablet computer that has better GPS, accelerometers and gyros than the best innovation of GA - the G1000.
Meanwhile, no one in my family, but me, can manage to close the freaking door on the plane - it is that bad. I have to drain fuel/fluid from freaking 12 points and even in the desert there is still water in the freaking tank - go figure.
Can you imagine, if you parked your Corvette at the mall, and before starting it you had to crawl under it to drain fuel from 12 different points? People would call the police thinking you were crazy and about to blow up the place. Yet, in GA, that is considered "normal".
Baron . . . thanks for proving my points. And I might suggest that you trade in your “twelve point” drain point aircraft for a Cessna 150 . . . as I recall, I only had the hit “two” drains, . . . or was it three? . . . prior to firing up the old Continental engine. But who’s counting!
ReplyDeleteNow, if I want something that can crash “head on” into another like vehicle at seventy miles per hour (and maybe walking away), I’ll check back as to which car you own and drive. Frankly, I’d rather fly . . . and avoid all the excitement and trauma.
Once, we purchased a car that was touted as the safest on the road . . . a brand new “Volvo”. It was, indeed, safe. It kept falling apart before it could get up enough momentum to hit anything of consequence . . . we sold the thing before all the transmission fluid leaked out.
But I think the subject was something about aircraft, and exploring a potential market with something to excite an entire new generation, with the fun, the pleasures of flying.
There are many possible directions . . . some are underway . . . and many more have yet to be explored. And I recall one that still might have some excellent possibilities:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0275.shtml
This little aircraft isn’t what first caught my attention because of it’s shape, but that the designer carefully considered the basic cost . . . using, for instance, a standard sheet of aluminum (European . . . one by two meters) folded over, for each wing, and the horizontal tail.
“Some dogs like Alpo . . . and some don’t.” . . . a favorite expression of a neuro-surgeon, with whom I used to work. Some folks like to drive a “Vette” . . . and some (of us) don’t. But I would rather explore future possibilities . . . and not get trapped into what all the others have done wrong.
The technology is mostly in place . . . ‘don’t have the time nor the money to change it. But there is a vast landscape of possible directions to go. And with modern machinery . . . three, four, and five axis machines . . . plasma and water-jet cutting . . . 2D laser machines . . . Wirecut-EDM machines . . . high-end CAD systems, such as Co-Create, etc., . . . there is no excuse to not explore countless possibilities.
Shucks, I produced a family of “2 gram” 7075-T6 tissue covered gliders . . . almost indestructible (just for fun) . . . and began a series of .015" thick plywood gliders . . . can’t be done? . . . we did it! But, like I said, that was “just for fun” . . . maybe just to prove that making a metal glider, with a seven inch wing span, can be made . . . and stand up to the conditions of a kid having a ball, flying something inside a building . . . or outside in a light rain. (The little planes could crash into a chain-link fence . . . get soaked in a rain-puddle . . . be repaired and/or rebuilt in less than an hour, and back into service. Not bad for a delicate little model.)
‘Put available technology together with the right motivation, and the willingness to take a “personal” risk, and there are yet opportunities, yet un-explored, in general aviation.
gadfly
(What prevents the gadfly from pursuing the above? . . . Age, mostly . . . I had the opportunity, and found success in other things . . . such as the vascular clip system. But I’d enjoy helping someone else to go on . . . what’s to lose? . . . my reputation? Big deal!)
Thinking back, I remember my own Dad telling about building a "primary glider", and flying down a slope, as a teen-ager. That was about the time when he built his first car at age sixteen (1929), with front-wheel drive, and a Henderson 4-cylinder in-line, shaft-drive motorcycle engine (talking about "old technology"). The car was successful . . . and with that, and $350, he purchased his first (of two) Duesenbergs. But that's another story.
ReplyDeleteThe primary glider was simply "fun" . . . and put an interest of aviation into the minds, and hearts, of many a kid, when few folks had the money to put food on the table.
A quick search came up with the following:
http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2008/017-eFLYER-FA02-1929-Replica-Glider-Launch.html
Back in Burbank, I once made a model of a "primary glider" . . . it cost me about a dime . . . but it was one of the best flying gliders, ever. Had it been the "real thing", it would have been a safe way to explore flying.
Allow your mind to explore everything . . . and don't be intimidated by the most simple. Not everything fast, and new, is the best. There are great pleasures in the simple, the slow, the most basic. And from there, the next step is much easier.
gadfly
('Ever watch a grand-child attempt to go upstairs? Take their hand . . . and patiently give them your hand and security . . . allow them to discover each step, knowing that you won't let them fall. Before long, they'll "get it", and do far better than the ones that are left to find out, "alone". Do you get it?
Dr. J. Vernon McGee often said, "Keep the cookies on the bottom shelf, so the 'kiddies' can reach them." . . . and what a joy it is, to help the next generation "reach the cookies".)
So many thoughts . . . thinking back over the history of this blog . . . three or more generations past. ‘Much has (or could have) been learned. We’ve discussed much of the basics of aviation . . . business wise, basic design, manufacturing, political aspects, . . . and countless other subjects. Where will it go? So often, it stalls as one person attempts to “prove” their viewpoint “correct”, and the other “totally wrong”. But so often an opportunity is lost, to learn another point of view . . . and to stay on subject.
ReplyDeleteWhere are we? We’re no longer under attack, when some of us were accused of stealing secrets . . . it no longer matters that it was a rather silly thing, by an ego-centric “paranoid”, who had his own serious problems, and is long gone . . . who knows where! And, frankly, who cares (as long as he doesn’t attempt to enter the industry with another fraudulent scheme).
There are, within the blog participants, many folks with good . . . maybe great ideas. We need to hear from them, without “putting them down”. As a “some-times” teacher, I have found that there is no such thing as a stupid question, from a willing student, nor a stupid suggestion, from a student that is attempting to learn.
Bottom line? . . . Courtesy, and a desire to understand the other’s point of view . . . nothing more nor less. Some of us (myself, for instance) are secure enough to ignore the “put down” . . . it doesn’t matter. Self worth is secure, in another “bank”. But many, who have good ideas, are not up to the criticism that can so easily destroy a person’s confidence. The quiet voice from the “back of the class” may have wisdom that “blows away” all the other comments. That voice should be heard.
gadfly
(Once, I taught a class . . . the deepest and most thoughtful questions came from a certain family of kids . . . teenagers, then. Today, they are still not considered among the “popular” folk . . . but their thoughts, their understanding . . . far beyond the norm . . . wisdom that is not measured by “IQ”.)
Let’s talk about aviation, as it applies to GA in the USA. It’s easy to detect problems . . . or some of the perceived problems. It’s not so easy to come up with solutions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you should come up with a solution, the first thing you may encounter is, “It can’t be done!” Behind that statement are many probable reasons . . . the first may simply be a certain resentment, that you (rather than “they”), have a true solution.
(The solution for that is somewhat easy . . . you include them in the family, of having solved the solution . . . and are willing to share the royalties, etc., and credit . . . even stepping back into the shadows of the “acclaim”, while still earning the lion’s share of the “royalties” . . . but in the shadows, etc.)
Another “biggy” is that someone else is making a profit on the status quo . . . and does not want an improvement. This second blockage is not so easily overcome. In the first case, you have a single person . . . or only a few, that are fighting the improvements. Their greatest assets are their “ego” and/or maybe an established position in some institution. But if it comes down to an established industry, you must be ready to fight on “their” terms . . . and that may involve industries of vast resources. Your only resource, in that case, is to gain the interest of a competing industry, that will use your ideas, not to help you, but to battle against their competition. This last case was where we came in, with our vascular clip . . . battling against the company that “owns” 70 percent of the free-world medical suture market. One thing you learn . . . company names that imply “ethical” . . . that’s a red flag . . . beware!
But back to aviation. Many of us know the problems . . . popping the drain valves, to get rid of condensed water in the fuel systems . . . that’s a known. Congress has solved the problem with automobiles . . . there so much ethanol in the system, water is not a problem . . . even though your “gas mileage” suddenly drops ten to twenty percent, instantly, every winter.
If you know a problem . . . you should explore the solution to that problem. Sometimes, is as easy as a slight “wash-in” at the wing tips (a very slight decrease in the angle of incidence), to prevent an early stall, while making a steep low speed turn. (Did you know that the Mitsubishi “Zero” had that simple feature, and our own nation did not discover it until a “Zero” was recovered in the Aleutians?)
Back to the original premise: If you see a problem (that’s easy), apply your grey cells to come up with a solution. Sure, you will find resistence . . . for many reasons. “Pride”, financial status, laziness on the part of others . . . or maybe yourself. Maybe your ideas for a solution are not viable . . . but don’t give up, and don’t discourage others that may be attempting a solution.
gadfly
(Back about eighty years ago, a German chemist discovered some new plastic . . . but not wanting a “mess” in his lab, washed it down the drain before he went home. Some US company, with a French name, soon discovered the same thing . . . didn’t wash it down the drain, and put Dupont “Nylon” into our vocabulary . . . and maybe helped win WWII.)
Correction: The statement should be "wash out", not "wash in'. "Wash out" refers to a decrease in the angle of attack, built into the wing tips, that prevents an early "stall" at the wing tips . . . rather than a sudden loss of lift, the wing loses lift, first near the fuselage, and then progresses out toward the wing tips . . . allowing recovery and some control as the pilot discovers that critical "stall speed".
ReplyDeletegadfly
(One day . . . the day of my "father-in-law's-to-be funeral", I took the little "J-3" out over Itasca, Illinois, practicing "slow flight" and "stalls". It was a very cold day, with a strong and steady wind from the north. I brought up the nose, backed off on the throttle, pulled it back into a "stall", dropped the nose to recover . . . etc., . . . and spent at least a half hour, in one spot over an intersection. I had no desire to do anything that day . . . went back to the grass strip at Moody, landed, put the little aircraft away in a "Tee" hangar, and went to the funeral. It was a cold day in September, 1962, in more ways than one. We got married, 22 December 1962 . . . in a snow storm.)
gadfly,
ReplyDeleteour special friend or guest Roel Pieper is
still in business:
Roel P. as CEO
The company (which is loss-making and barely generates any revenue)got a market value of almost half a billion British pounds in December 2010. Now the market cap. is about £ 280.01 M.
But he is also working for an university:
Roel P. At U of Twente(NL)
Life goes on!
From Gad: "Andy, our gracious host, seems to have it, . . . all together. A young man with over 4,000 hours in his log . . . obviously excited with the privilege of flying . . . and it is a privilege."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Gad. :-) Right on all counts. 'Seems to have it together' is a good description, as well, because I'm still working on actually having it together. ;-) It takes a big effort to keep things organized and priorities straight.
‘Nothing to do with aircraft, except that both small submarines and aircraft have much in common, the Comcast “military channel” has on, just now, a program about small subs. The German sub, just shown . . . there was one back at Submarine School in Groton, Connecticut. I have pictures of my cousin and me . . . crawling out of the “conning tower” of the one on permanent display . . . plus the one and two man Japanese submarines, mounted on concrete supports, at the training base. The Japanese one-man sub was clearly a “suicide” sub . . . basically, a manned torpedo. The Japanese two-man sub had two torpedoes, much larger, and could (conceivably) escape and survive, after an attack. It was one of those had been used, 7 December 1941, at “Pearl”. The German sub had “clamps” on each side, holding two torpedoes. It looked like a vertical flat fish, carrying two “flat bags”, one in each hand . . . or “fin”.
ReplyDeleteThe old 35mm pictures are in my files.
gadfly
(Those subs would never work, today . . . the picture of my “six foot four” cousin looks like he’s trying to remove a tight girdle, as he exits the Japanese sub. It somehow reminds me of the “Eclipse 500" . . . except the hatch is on the top.)
Andy
ReplyDeleteThis blog has the potential of encouraging some excitement in a new generation for flying. Where will it go? . . . Who can tell! Sometimes, as you well know, it's good to simply begin at the beginning . . . helping folks discover the fun, the excitement, of "getting off the ground". How far someone goes, after takeoff is up to them . . . but once a person "takes off", there is no going back.
Too much is made of "speed" and the "gimmicks" of flight, and so little of the simple pleasure of "looking down" over the world in a new perspective.
gadfly
(Andy, keep up the good work . . . you are performing a much needed service, and at least some of us are most thankful for your efforts.)
julius There are many others that can intelligently discuss "Roel Pieper", etc. I've worked for such people, long ago . . . but never fully understood why they seemed to succeed, for a time.
ReplyDeleteThat world, to me, is a "dark world" . . . I better stick to what I know best, and watch history play out, should I live so long.
gadfly
(It is a known principle, out our way, that all chickens come home to roost, if they don't get eaten by a coyote in the mean time. Right now, I'm a wondering about our ex-governor, Bill Richardson. The problem being, "Where's his roost?")
Gad,
ReplyDeleteResponding to your post right above this, thanks again! I was actually in the middle of responding to your post from yesterday which looked back and forward.
Regarding potential, I agree. And, frankly, I think this format limits the potential. I understand that some people like this "free flow" format (I do on some levels, as well), and it's easy to keep up, so I'm not checking out. :-) That said, information posted here ends up fragmented like shot-pellets fired into the air which, in my opinion, tremendously waters down the potential effectiveness of the blog. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to overstate its importance. However, there is a really good group of posters here (and a much bigger group—including you guys—that frequented this blog's predecessors), and having relevant information readily available would tremendously expand the appeal, in my opinion.
A great example would be the posts here (and on EAC and EACNG) about the Piper Jet (just using that at random). There has been a lot of really interesting and useful discussion that you’d never find in an airplane magazine. Say I’m interested in the jet: How in the world would I even begin to pull together all of the relevant information here? Unless I had been following the blog for a long time, I wouldn’t even know anything more than a post or few had ever mentioned it (rather than dozens). Even if I did know, there’s no good way (other than a time consuming scan through tens-of-thousands of posts) to consolidate that information.
Another random example would be a great discussion that occurred on EACNG a couple years ago about concealed carry. Wisconsin is slated to pass this finally after Republicans nearly swept the elections here last year, so it’s something I want to learn more about. What a great topic for “off-topic” discussion! I understand it’s a hot topic, as well, but that just keeps things interesting and it’s so important to hear and at least consider alternate viewpoints. I recall you and Baron were in on that discussion (and there were some good suggestions regarding the best CC weapons), but good luck to me in finding it. :-)
Finally, a lot of people enjoy reading your widely varied commentary. I do, as well. Full disclosure: I nod off to some of them ;-), but many keep me completely engaged and waiting for your next post. :-) You’ve had some wonderful posts that should be available at a click, but again, good luck with this blog format.
To be continued...
…had to split this due to blog limitation (at least it said it was too many characters—maybe it was talking about all of us ;-)).
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my present plan as a possible solution: I’ve mentioned it before (at EACNG), but given the time involved on the admin side, I’ve been putting it off. What I am going to do in the near future is start a forum with minimal moderation like this blog where topics can freely flow in their own threads. Going back to the Piper Jet, when somebody has some new information, a couple of clicks and that post can be added in-line with previous Piper Jet posts. It doesn’t mean somebody would have to post there. Just that anybody interested could find a long string of posts on the topic without having to scroll through thousands of posts.
In order to keep it as much like this blog as possible for those that want it that way, there will be a button to view all threads inline so that you don’t have to click between forums. You can set a bookmark in your browser (I’ve got this site set as a link toolbar button) to go straight there, so with two clicks from anywhere, you’re reading a thread. There’s another advantage in forum software in that you can click to see only unread posts (and quickly toggle back to “view all” if you like). No scrolling down to get to the spot where you left off previously. There are numerous other advantages, as well, like easy posting of blogs, videos, pictures and hyperlinks (which is a pain in the butt here).
Anonymous posting as well as users will be allowed. If you prefer that, I’d recommend using your EACNG/ACE/AE handle as a user name. One thing I’d like to stay away from is personal attacks (which have been virtually non-existent in this latest version of the blog anyway). No good comes from those.
Some here will think this is a bad idea. That’s fine. Let me reiterate that this “Aviation Enthusiasts” blog will remain open and current. And, please, nobody take this as me trying to dictate something. I’m just a guy that came aboard the EAC blog after being amazed at the caliber of many of the posters (including Eclipse supporters at the time, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with them)…who then goes out and makes gold records (sorry, bad Christopher Walken SNL reference :-)). Many of those posters remain (some as blog followers) today, and I’d really like to expand the discussion on aviation with some off-topic stuff in its own forum thrown in on the side (sometimes, that’s as interesting to me as the aviation stuff). With all of the talent on this blog, I'd love to see it expand to a wider audience.
There are lots of aviation forums on the internet (as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve got thousands of posts on COPA—95% from previous years that I wasn’t so busy), but I like the idea of expanding from this excellent core group (including EAC and EACNG posters—and I guess I can’t forget about ACE).
For some here that might be tentatively interested, it will be really hard to form an opinion with the limited information I’ve put forth. That’s also fine. I’m going to get a site set up, and then anybody can obviously stay out of the proverbial pool, dip a toe in, or dive head first (don’t worry, I’ll fill it first—I’ve been typing too long as that’s an especially bad joke).
I’m going to stop now because I think I’ve used up my quotient of “really’s” and emoticons. ;-)
Okay, one more paragraph. Something else I’ve been thinking about is figuring out a way to export all of the EAC, EACNG, ACE and AE posts into a forum format where everything is indexed and easily searchable. These blogs have had an amazing run (and this one will continue) thanks to you guys, and I’d love for that rich history (complete with the inevitable warts) to be readily accessible.
From Gad: "This blog has the potential of encouraging some excitement in a new generation for flying. Where will it go? . . . Who can tell! Sometimes, as you well know, it's good to simply begin at the beginning . . . helping folks discover the fun, the excitement, of "getting off the ground". How far someone goes, after takeoff is up to them . . . but once a person "takes off", there is no going back."
ReplyDeleteSide note: Another nice feature about forums is it's super easy to quote people.
Gad, that's a great paragraph! I've got some other ideas I'm thinking about and I'm hoping to eventually tie everything together into something that's positive for aviation (especially general aviation) and fun for all involved.
One program that I think has been wonderful over the years is EAA's Young Eagles Program. I've done over 50 flights and it has always been a great time.
I went back and checked, and saw that the last Young Eagles flight I did was almost 10 years ago, so I better change that to it always "was" a great time. I can't use being too busy as an excuse for an entire decade, but I guess I was more motivated when the million kid goal was in play. I definitely need to get involved again as my schedule lightens up. It's been neat to hear from fighter and airline pilots (among others) who's first flight was a Young Eagles ride.
ReplyDeleteFC,
ReplyDeleteBrunei's ambassador to the US visited Piper in Vero on Friday. I am sure the ambassador is a big bud of the Sultan himself, as Piper's acting head, Geoffrey Berger, is not. I doubt if the ambassador was impressed with the plywood and cardboard mock-up of the Altaire. In any event he was undoubtedly sent by the Sultan to see where the money went and where it is going. I would give it until the first of June before the ex-Beech marketing dude and all his acolytes are out on the street. Maybe the Chinese firm that bought Continental Motors will take the company off the Sultan's hands soon. Stay tuned.
ASM:
ReplyDeleteWith a little salt and vinegar I am sure those ex-Beecher dudes can make a cardboard flounder fly down the Brunei Ambassador's throat a whole lot easier! Yikes, I feel sorry for those folks in fish wrapper land. Sultan is not gonna to be happy with his US of A investment is he? Probably he should have stuck to stock piling expensive cars!
Andy:
Organizing comments into searchable items is a great idea! Go for it! Don't forget the good humor man....
FC
Andy
ReplyDeleteIt’s easy, today, to think all problems are solved by the “left” or “right click” on a mouse, but building a business . . . or an industry still takes time, because God did not program humans to “instantly” respond to the click of a switch.
So it is with the future of general aviation . . . you have alluded to that fact! For a future market to exist, there must be a foundation, or a “field”, to be cultivated. It all takes time.
In our own family of nineteen, going on twenty grand kids (Lord willing in May), the oldest (the one serving aboard a “boomer” submarine) has a love of flying . . . spending his “in port” time, taking lessons, etc., in the lowly Cessna 172 . . . or there-a-bouts. Another “two”, a grandson of 17, and a grand-daughter of 13, are taking “ground school” lessons, and sometimes “flight lessons”, to someday, soon, earn their credentials, to be pilots. And even a “first cousin” is part of that program.
Once the “ flight bug bites”, there is no known remedy . . . the malady is terminal. Once you find that your feet can leave the ground, and not suddenly return . . . it matters not whether you glide down a slope . . . or head for a nearby field . . . or head up into the realms where the sky takes on the indigo blue, that I’ve seen about thirty feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.
The old “gadfly” has done many things, that I wish I could share . . . but whether above, or below the ocean . . . each person is left to explore all that, for himself (or “herself” . . . not to leave anyone out).
But it comes down to the personal thing . . . the “one-on-one” thing . . . it takes time and effort and personal involvement. You take a child . . . one of these “little ones” . . . and demonstrate, by your love for them, and the excitement of “whatever” . . . flying? . . . sure, flying . . . or plunging into the depths of the ocean in a submarine. The system works . . . the ones that you love will catch your fire, and follow you to the ends of the universe.
You like flying? . . . and want others to catch that excitement? Show your interest in them, and carry them into your “true love”. It’s like a contagious virus . . . it cannot be ignored.
What matter, if it’s a “primary glider”, a “model airplane”, a “jet fighter, paid for by the US taxpayers” . . . that isn’t what cuts it.
Play with a computer game . . . and you’ll end up with nothing but the silly stuff that computer programmers can . . . program. Big deal! What a waste of “grey cells”, etc.
But take a single ride . . . and take the controls of something as simple as a “J-3" Cub . . . and you’ve “got the virus” . . . there is no cure. You have been “inflicted” for life.
gadfly
(Where was I, when I needed all this wisdom . . . har, har!)
One more comment for the day . . . How many computer programmers have ever flown, or landed an aircraft? . . . one in a thousand? Actually . . . it don’t matter, no-how! . . . any correct answer would be a total disappointment.
ReplyDeleteIt all comes back to taking the risk . . . beginning that first series of lessons . . . and one day, the instructor get’s out of his position from the “right seat”, and says, “OK, you take it around, this time!” . . . and you are immediately stuck with the finality of the thing . . . you will take this aircraft, into the air, bring it around in a normal flight pattern, and land it, safely . . . taxi the beast up into the area of your “flight instructor”, and be declared a “student pilot”.
That was the day! . . . and miracle of miracles . . . the aircraft did not crash, the world did not come to an end . . . the aircraft was still in “one piece” . . . and life went on. And aerodynamics took on an entirely new level of understanding.
gadfly
(Even after that first “go-around”, in the summer of 1962 . . . all the other flights dim compared to that first “solo” . . . I successfully “took off” (to the south, on that grass strip), turned left, . . . another left turn, headed north, turned west (with ORD to my back . . . although, O’Hare meant nothing to me, at that moment), turned another left, south, and attempted to get down to the ground. I pulled the flaps back . . . .20 . . . 30 . . . 40 degrees . . . and I thought I would never get down . . . that little Cessna 150 seemed to be hung on some sort of cable . . . it just wouldn’t go “down” . . . but it did, and I flared out . . . actually, rather good . . . and coasted into a rather mundane, and smooth landing . . . taxied back up the “turf”, (82 acres of grass, that I would spend the next three months mowing every two weeks, to earn my way through flight school) . . . my biggest trial seemed to be over . . . in reality, my biggest battle was earning room and board, but when I “touched down” . . . that single battle was “enough’.)
Dearest Sir Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteGreat stories! I am glad you are back. To be able to learn to fly on one's own cognition is a true privledge that you have provided for yourself and even the youngest of your family. What a gift from above!!!!
Alas, some of us are bound to earth by material means and can only learn about aviation from the armchair, a good imagination, and great flying dreams, of which I have many!
I love to sit and write on the blog and stare out my kitchen window that looks to the south and watch the many airplanes and hot air balloons cross my path in Albuquerque. It is a joy for me, (as are birds) expecially as I learn more and more about aviation, and while I fly in my mind. There is nothing wrong with that my friend.
FC
Hey Andy, Concealed Carry is no longer that controversial, since so many states now have it.
ReplyDeleteBut Winsconsin is in the news on a much hotter topic. Union reform!!!!
at least nine states beyond Winconsin are trying to enact right to work laws and/or public union restrictions. First big battle is in Winsconsin.
Hopefully, this is just the first wave of a movement that will slowly end the extrusion of taxpayers by public unions, and the soviet-style-laws that force workers to pay dues to a union against their wish.
The reason manufacturing (auto, aviation, etc) is moving to the US Sounth is simply their right to work laws. When mossy US states pass them, and we AGAIN welcome immigrants then we will see a Renaissance in US manufacturing.
Until them, China will continue to kick our ass. Democrats must really like to take it in the .....
B95:
ReplyDeleteI AM so totally with you on this one! It is TIME for unions that are bringing manufacturing in the US to its knees to GO! And I AM a democrat(albeit a very moderate one sitting on the fence anymore.)
FC
"end the extrusion of taxpayers by public unions.."
ReplyDeleteThose taxpayers are so hard to extrude sometimes! Chemical milling works much better. Just dip them in an acid vat and draw them out slowly.
ASM:
ReplyDeleteAlmost as good as "flying on your own cognition..." - FC
And exactly what, what WAS I thinking?!
FC
Agrrrr - typed on an iPhone - hate that autocorrection sometimes ;)
ReplyDeleteextrusion was supposed to be extortion, but now I like extrusion better ;)
mossy = most
etc... ;)
And FC, by Democrats, I mean the Union-financed Democrat politicians, not regular voters.
I have nothing against democrat voters - some of the hottest chicks are democrats - LOL
(now I'm in trouble - I'll be extruded)
LOL! And I will fly by the seat of my own pants!
ReplyDelete(No double dipping here.)
FC
ASM:
ReplyDeleteTurns out ex-eclipse piper dude finally sees writing on the wall. (Maybe after recent diplomat visit.) He's now looking for another job. I feel badly for his situation, because the bottom falling out of GA in general is the perfect storm.
Fish wrapper land soon to turn to vinegar, I'm afraid. You saw it coming many nautical miles ago....
FC
Hello, did we not expect this to happen?
FC,
ReplyDeleteHark! All is not lost. Honda Aircraft is hiring in Greensboro, NC, and Gulfstream may be hiring in Savannah, Ga. Both wonderful small cities to live in. American Eurocopter near Dallas, Texas, also is hiring in some areas. They complete and outfit basic helicopters made in Euroland for the US market. All three are class companies. Parts of GA are on the uptick, but Piper is beyond hope; I don't think the Chinese would take it off the Sultan's hands. For him there is no "greater fool" theory. When the Sultan-dude looks in the mirror he is it.
ASM:
ReplyDeleteExcellent! This morning I almoast trashed my comment from last night, because I knew there were some good things happening in GA and the bottom has not fallen out. This thread started that way...
Now if the ex-exlipser now soon to be ex-piper dude can land himself a job at a good company (for a change) then all shall be well. But his life has practically nothing to do with mine any more and quite honestly he made some rather bad choices in his life and well, let the chips fall where they may. He's talkin Canada???
I am happy for GA in the good ole US of A! Today, I wanted to buy two teaspoons (really) and could only find cutlery made in China. Returned a crap coffee maker (Cuisinart) made in China. I will use my old French press coffee maker and old teaspoons until I can find these thngs MADE in the USA. Remember to buy USA! A little makes a big diference.
FC
The bottom of owner flown certified GA has fallen off. Largest biz jets that offer meaningful enhancements - think G650, Legacy 500, Phenom 100/300, CJ4, etc, will continue to have good-modest success.
ReplyDeleteFC,
ReplyDeleteYour friend isn't going to stay around to see how the new Hannibal Lecter film ends? One of the film highlights is coming up when the new president gets hired only to realize everyone else in the company owes his job to Hannibal. I'm not sure Canada is far enough away to escape H-man before he implodes. New Zealand?
ASM:
ReplyDeleteWould that be:
Hannibal Lector I - Vern?
Hannibal Lector II - Sultan?
Hannibal Lector III - Ex-Beach (Nut) Dudes?
Hey, no skin off my teeth!
I'm the Jodi Foster who investigated situation so thoroughly, there is no turning back. This guy doesn't even have a clue! Poor egotistical dear. Shane would GET this one. Hey, if you are reading....
FC
Congratulations to Embraer on opening TODAY its first US plant in Melbourne, FL for final assembly, completion and delivery of Phenom planes, employing 200 people.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to Embraer as well. The newspaper article indicates that only 60 of the 200 have been hired to date. Still a start.
ReplyDeleteThe same paper had an article on the 8,000 people who are going to be let go when the shuttle program comes to an end soon at the nearby Cape.
Between the redundant shuttle workers and Piper employees breaking down the doors to get out of the Sultan's Factory, Embraer is sitting pretty with respect to employee selection.
From the FAA daily accident run:
ReplyDeleteRegis#: 5204R,
CESSNA 162 SKYCATCHER
Date: 02/18/2011 Time: 2136
LOCATION
City: PHOENIX State: AZ Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT WHILE INFLIGHT, THE LEFT DOOR SEPARATED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, PHOENIX
DEER VALLEY, AZ
It is a feature - quick release door.
ReplyDeleteNew GAMA report out. State of GA...
ReplyDelete2010 vs 2009 (which was a terrible year)...well 2010 was even more terrible.
Pistons - down 8%
Turboprops - down 18%
Jets - down 13%
US Billings - DOWN 13%
Embraer GA - UP 19%
HBC Jet - down 24%
Cessna Jet - down 58%
Yes, it's the quick, get rid of the wife feature, only those in the know talk about. Shhhh...
ReplyDeleteDarn, if only I had added the extra get rid of hubbie feature added to the Chinese package!
More details....
ReplyDeletePhenom 100/300 decimates Mustang (down 42%), CJ1+ (down 79%), CJ3 (down 50%).
Lets hear every one say how all is well in US GA.
Well in addition to Embraer having a good gain, Airbus business jets were up 18%, Boeing business jets were up 150%, Dassault was up 23%, and Gulfstream and SOCOTA showed 5% gains. Even tiny American Champ showed a 42% gain. All are 2010 over 2009 figures.
ReplyDeleteObviously Lloyd Bankfein is running Hawker-Beech in the dirt and Textron is micro-managing Cessna into oblivion. What else is new?
I wished these companies were traded as independent stocks so I could short them.
ReplyDeleteRemember how the Cessna boy was saying how things were getting better?
And he loses more than half his production volume to Embraer? Is that his definition of better? And that is with a 100% currency appreciation of the $BRL vs the $USD.
Let's go back a few months . . . or years, into the earlier versions of this blogsite.
ReplyDeleteEclipse was attempting to set the entire personal jet set on its ear . . . with, so-called, "new technology" (?) . . . and it
was obvious that the "human element" was being ignored . . . especially, those humans that would be required to put
the thing into production, and keep the little birds flying . . . both pilots and maintenance crews, etc., etc.. ‘Just for
starters, the little bird gained 1,200 pounds in slight "modifications", with little regard to basic design.
Here's an item worth reading, about another "90 day wonder":
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/02/20/the-787-runs-out-of-time-and-lies/
Now, as you read this article, remember (in the back of your mind) that plastics, virtually "all plastics", are
"hygroscopic" . . . that is, they "love water", and absorb it . . . sometimes like a sponge. In itself, that may not
matter, but temperature cycling from liquid to frozen form, especially in the normal flight patterns of any jet, . . .
"Houston, we have a problem!"
‘Just as the "Eclipse" was designed on the cutting edge of the technology that the "founder" understood (and little
more), so there was no "Kelly Johnson" to control the overall design of the "Dreamliner". Now, take all that, and
spread the technology, or "lack of understanding, thereof", over half the globe, and the problems multiply. No
longer can a problem be understood, corrected and/or fixed "on the spot", but now we have any number of
bureaucratic systems to overcome (which not one in a thousand understands, nor is there any need for one in a
thousand), but there are unions, and any number of excuses for delays, etc., etc., etc..
And don't for an instant forget that once (if ever) the "Dreamliner" ever gets out on the tarmac, there are thousands
of humans with "A&P" in their job description and title, that must repair and maintain the beasts . . . who wouldn't
know a carbon filament from a hair on a black cat . . . and how to mix up a batch of epoxy beyond the "two tubes of
repair" from the local Home Despot.
This isn't a "put-down" of the many folks who fly and maintain the birds, but a demonstration that going from an "all
aluminum bird" to one based on something so new as carbon fiber re-enforced plastic, is not a walk in the park.
Couple that with a government, that has vowed to bring down almost everything, that up ‘til 2008, were things that
we thought would remain somewhat stable, and we have an extremely serious problem . . . or two . . . or maybe three.
gadfly
(Good grief . . . ‘Just figure how many "carbon credits" each Dreamliner will cost . . . paid, no doubt, in "gold or
silver coin" to our environmental friend, "Al", so he can plant enough trees to save the planet. By the way, where is
"Al"? . . . I thought he might stick around to see the temperatures drop to minus 27 the other day, just twenty miles
due east of Albuquerque.)
And a note to FC: There will be a special about the Grand Canyon on National Geographic, on 24 February 2011,
and our friend, Carol Hill, is part of that study. Watch the "preview" at:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/6114/Overview#tab-Videos/09723_00
"Apologies" for the format of the "above". It seems that Microsoft or Java or Goofle or something has suddenly, and without warning, decided that the "tracking cookies" and other settings, want more control over what we put on the internet. If I were a smarter "gadly", I would share the info . . . but I'm not that smart. What worked a few days ago, doesn't seem to work today. But I'm working on it.
ReplyDeletegadfly
(It seems the "blowflies" are in control.)
Sir Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteNO need to worry about fomatting,I think many of us are always more than happy to hear your fine words of wisdom.
I will watch for PBS special and learn more about Hill's project.
Hey, remember when you and I came up with a really interesting application of Kyvlar for composites in aviation? I think we were on to something--really. Should we talk?
FC
The differences between a fiber reenforced “flying body” and one fabricated from sheet metal are vast. In fact, there are almost no similarities between the two. Metal products are made under carefully controlled conditions in a mill and then “fabricated” into the final product by machining and forming, and fastened together. Fiber reenforced plastics are made “in the final manufacturing process” . . . and not machined and fastened after the fact. Unlike metal products, machining takes away from the critical strength of reenforced plastics.
ReplyDelete“Kevlar” (aramid) fibers mixed with carbon filaments offer much, but cannot be an “add-on” . . . but must be “in the mix” from the beginning.
The problem among manufacturers is often the idea that one can merely substitute the fiber reenforced plastic for metal. It might be easier to compare a suit of armor with a dress suit made of wool knit . . . there is almost no point of similarity. Or maybe compare a pair of “knit sox” with a pair of sox machined or cast from aluminum.
Assumptions are dangerous. And the idea that a crew that normally handles metals can suddenly transition to fiber-reenforced plastics is begging for serious problems. At one time, as mentioned earlier, I had the job (among other things) of attempting to re-train “fiberglass experts” from what they “knew” with other fiberglass products to fabricating huge self-supporting panels for major structures. In three years, we made some progress, but some of the crew carried with them their old ideas . . . and refused to understand the required differences. Multiply that times the vast army of employees at Boeing, etc., that maybe have seen the manufacture of a surf board, or a fiberglass speed boat . . . I shudder to think that such assumptions will find their way into putting together a full size commercial aircraft.
gadfly
(By the way . . . NOT PBS, but National Geographic . . . Comcast Channel 52 or Channel 223 (HD) at 5PM, Mountain Time, 24 Feb 2011.)
Well Boeing just won the tanker contract over EADS who had a newer generation and far superior aircraft and was going to assemble it in Mobile, Alabama, with US workers. Boeing, of course, is based in Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel-ville). The contract is a payoff to unions for Obama's upcoming re-election bid. The unions will now cough up millions for the already underway propaganda effort. At least its not a tanker version of the Boeing 787 disaster.
ReplyDeleteASM:
ReplyDeleteObamavation. GREAT. Just what this country needs! At least its within the US for the moment...
What is a tanker contract?
Sir Gadfly:
I know we talked about some application to Kevlar that had some possiblity and now I can't seem to find it. Remeber I sent you a link to a Materials Science paper?
Also, I am afraid I can't watch National Geographic without cable. I'm a rabbit ears and convertor box kinda gal.
FC
PS Andy, how's that blog index going?
FC . . . Let’s see if we can wrap it up in few words: Carol Hill , Geologist, is married to the inventor of the CO2 High Powered laser . . . the kind that can shoot down a missile at long range. Both are, like me, Southern California natives, that, by nature, seem to think “outside the box”.
ReplyDeleteTheir kids, and ours, went to school together . . . and in short order . . . we came to know them, in the Albuquerque “East Mountain” area. The “Hills” attended my Bible class at church . . . I was teaching Genesis . . . and the fact that the evidence is there for a universe that goes back billions of years. Since there was much in similar work, in science and research, we discovered that we don’t often follow the “beaten path”. Our #2 son went with Carol and their #2 son on certain trips, including going down into the “lower cave” at Carlsbad, and to an international conference for “cave” experts, back East, where Carol was a conference speaker, etc.
Carol has a theory, based on sound evidence, that the Grand Canyon may have been formed by the erosion of calcium layers, deep underground, that suddenly collapsed, and changed the direction of flow of the Colorado River . . . and caused the apparent “erosion” of the rift. Look up the meaning of “karst” . . . too long to deal with, here.
In time, I worked on critical components for Alan’s high powered lasers, based on my earlier experience with high powered plasma generators (up to 2.5 million watts, continuous) . . . out in Santa Ana, California, . . . to test the ablative heat shield material for re-entry vehicles . . . Apollo, etc., etc., . . . my immediate boss was “Adriano Ducati” . . . the oldest of the three brothers, famous for the Ducati motorcycle, early shortwave radio receivers, and plasma propulsion systems for inter planetary space vehicles.
All that, coupled with my own family’s inventions for aircraft flight control, and safety restrain systems, brings me back to a keen respect for folks like Carol Hill, and those that can “think outside the box” . . . and demonstrate practical application to the “real world”.
It’s not enough to think up new stuff . . . it must be based on real-world experience, skills, and hard won knowledge . . . more often than not, based on having “been there / done that”.
The “fiber reenforced plastic” thing should be based on hard-won “dirty finger nail” experience. Aircraft design needs to be based on actual “fabrication of airfoil ribs”, “building an actual spar”, “covering a wing”, “welding up actual 4130 chrome-moly steel engine mounts”, “inspecting for inter-granular corrosion” back in the hidden spaces in a fuselage, “testing cable pulleys in heat and cold, and a complete spectrum of vibration, right up to failure” . . . and the list goes on and on.
Granted, not many folks can have experienced all this sort of thing . . . but on the other hand, having a diploma from some university doesn’t cut it . . . and when someone comes along, like Carol Hill, who has squeezed through the narrow underground passages in deep caves, etc., . . . examined the evidence, and with no “bone to pick” makes careful observations . . . I take notice.
Had someone evaluated such things as the “Eclipse (toy) jet”, and maybe even the Boeing 787, we would be looking at a whole different landscape (so to speak).
gadfly
(In the background, a "submarine" program on the TV . . . explaining the basics . . . little has changed since I first went under, almost sixty years ago.)
What is a Tanker Contract?
ReplyDeleteFC, you may be sorry you asked. Here's an extremely condensed version.
By the early 90's, the US Air Force realized they needed to replace their aerial refueling tanker-the KC-135. Since the KC-135 dates back to the Eisenhower administration (although they've been updated-for example, through a re-engining program) at some point you need a replacement. A quick summary of USAF's attempts so far-
Round 1-Awarded a lease deal to Boeing for a 767 based tanker, which unraveled when a certain Arizona Senator (John McCain) poked around and found enough dubious behavior that the governments procurement lead and Boeings CFO did prison time. So we're on to-
Round 2-This time they held a competition, which Airbus won with a design based on the A330. But Boeing filed a protest, because the government had used things as critical selection criteria without telling the competing parties they were going to (can't do that). Boeing won it's protest, so they started again with-
Round 3-Another competition that was supposed to be a level playing field and "transparent". In fact, it was so transparent that the government mistakenly sent Boeings bid information to Airbus, and vice versa. That's a huge no-no, but they didn't want to start over, so they eventually decided that "sending each the other guys data was the plan all along", and (today) awarded the contract to Boeing.
But the seeds of yet another protest have already been planted by the government, when they misaddressed the bid responses-so round 4 is a distinct possibility.
Your tax dollars at work!?!?!?!?!?!?
Once in a while, something good comes along . . . and has no negative impact on taxes, etc. Here’s a quote from this month’s MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) newsletter:
ReplyDelete“Through the prayers and gifts of generous supporters, MAF took delivery of two new KODIAK aircraft in 2010. One was deployed to Papua, Indonesia, while the second joined the MAF fleet in Central Asia. These remarkable planes allow MAF to serve remote villages with short, rough airstrips. KODIAKs are very cost-effective to operate and run on jet fuel rather than avgas, which is expensive and difficult to obtain in the isolated areas where MAF works.”
An accompanying picture shows a KODIAK turbo-prop about to take off, from a short-field strip atop a mountain in Papua. It’s obvious, from the picture (and the testimony of pilots from that area), that there is no opportunity for a “go-around”, nor for an “almost takeoff”, to try a second time . . . and yet, this is simply the normal daily routine.
And it’s built in Idaho. ‘How ‘bout them pertaters!
gadfly
(Take a look at http://www.questaircraft.com/
...’talk about icing!)
No_Skids, Thanks for the quick read on the tanker contract for FC. One of the Department of Defense own procurement people, a Ms Runyon, also did jail time when she sought favors (including jobs from Boeing for her daughter and son-in-law and a future job for herself) for supporting the Boeing proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe name of the former Pentagon official who was working at Boeing at the time she was convicted was Darleen Druyun, not Runyon. At the time she was convicted she was pulling down $250,000 a year at Boeing after trashing your tax dollars as an Air Force procurement official in the Pentagon on the tanker contract. She did nine months in prison. Michael M. Sears, the Boeing Chief Financial Officer at the time also did prison time for the same crime.
ReplyDeleteASM-
ReplyDeleteYep, it was Darleen Druyun. But to just give her credit for trashing the tanker program isn't fair. She caused far more damage than that-
The Dragon Ladies Trail of Tears
And even that discounts the damage her internal initiatives did-running into many millions.
On the blog, we have commonly (and justifiably) ripped Eclipse, Piper, and others for being poorly and/or dishonestly run.
But DOD puts them all to shame when it comes to mismanaging programs.
No-skids
ReplyDeleteYikes! I am glad I asked....I think. Thank you and ASM for explanation.
Millions and millions of tax dollars are wasted, and not to forget, good men and women serving our country put in harms way. (I am shaking my head back and forth.)
How do people like Darleen Druyun live with themselves? Where is the dragon lady now? Do you lose your honorable discharge if you betray your country and go to jail for it?
I hope things work out with the Boeing contract to make this horrible story just go away once and for all.
FC
Does make Eclipse and Piper seem rather silly doesn't it?
FC
Darleen was a civilian working for the Pentagon, not a member of the uniformed military services so she would not be subject to any kind of honorable, dishonorable, or administrative discharge. At the time of her felony conviction she was a $250,000 year worker-bee at Boeing. I don't know if her previous civil service pension would be affected or not - probably not.
ReplyDeleteThere is much wisdom and knowledge related to GA and Commercial Aviation among the bloggers on this website. And there are at least three types of bloggers . . . pro-active, re-active, and in-active . . . and a final group that “haven’t a clue” what’s happening.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new . . . an extremely “few”, even among the “pro-active” will take the “common knowledge”, and apply it to the problems that many, maybe most, have correctly identified. Corruption in high places . . . plain stupidity in design . . . incompetence in manufacturing . . . and all the other problems that go into any mature industry . . .all are present and accounted for . . . !
Wise entrepreneurs will carefully note all the above, and find a way to “leap frog” the problems . . . leaving the pockets of “status quo” to die of starvation, forever waiting for the world to come to their aid. It’s dangerous to wait for the world to come to our aid . . . sometimes, probably most of the time, the best course of action is to take the best of the past, and leap into the future . . . leaving the “status quo” to wonder, “What happened?” and “Why didn’t someone tell me what’s going on?”
gadfly
(It’s amazing to read about the leap-frogged pockets in the Pacific . . . that in some cases took decades to understand that the war was over . . . and surrender in time to meet their grand-children.)
Speaking of “leaping into the future”, I read (again) Mark Twain’s famous tale of “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” . . . which might help to explain some of the problems of GA (General Aviation).
ReplyDeleteOver time, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) told the story every which way but south . . . but the bones of the story remained the same: “Jim Smiley” would bet on anything . . . and in either direction . . . ‘didn’t matter which. And he had a frog . . . you all know the story . . . how a stranger came into “Angel’s Camp” (in the Gold Rush days), . . . there was a bet on the frog, that it could out-jump any other frog . . . there was a $40 bet . . . the stranger filled Jim Smiley’s frog with about two pounds of “Quail Shot” . . . and the frog couldn’t get off the ground.
Well, it would appear that the “GA” has had a whole bunch of folks, pourin’ lead shot down the gullet of the GA industry . . . includin’ the president, and a whole bunch of other folks, as well. But the mystery to me is that some of the folks with stock in the lead trade seem to be employed by the aircraft industry . . . and must be makin’ profits bettin’ ‘gainst their own companies.
Now, ‘peers to me, that if you want a company to thrive in the good old “US of A”, you don’t go sharin’ your trade secrets with folks ‘cross the Pacific Ocean (or the “Pond” on the other side, for that matter . . . but those other folks don’t seem to matter much at the moment). But you work on a plan to keep your brand new product at home . . . and only when you find you must get some outside help, . . . then, you go courtin’ the neighbor folks.
But then, if you want to make a quick buck . . . It’s been my observation that the biggest sucker is the one lookin’ for a sucker.
In nuclear physics I think the principle is called, “Achieving Critical Mass” . . . you get all of one thing together in one big organization and bad things happen . . . and nobody has time to figure out “what happened” . . . It’s all over but the credits.
gadfly
(Whatever . . . don’t take the word of an insect!)
New post up. It took me a very long time to prepare so please read carefully. ;-) Yes, I'm kidding, in case the wink doesn't go far enough to imply that. :-)
ReplyDelete