I think everyone has to respect Helen and her point of view. On the other hand, a private owner who desires the better speed and efficiency of a slick glass plane, and their superior strength and resistance to corrosion, could make a decision for a plastic plane and it would be the right choice. One thing I have been wondering about Helen, did the insurance companies share your view of increased cost of repair? How much higher were the insurance premiums?
--- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@... > wrote:
>
> Yea, I saw that picture. It was a cool shot. I had heard that safety
> reasons were the reason that they wanted to grind up even the privately
> owned ones, but I'm in no position to prove or disprove that comment. It
> might have been just a rumor. As to the original question as to why Helen
> didn't chose composite, as a flight school owner, I would have to agree.
> And she has provided evidence when she stated they have had two of them with
> de-lamination problems. I'm not opposed to composite airplanes, but I would
> rather have easily (and quickly) repaired metal aircraft in a flight school.
> If I had to park on the ramp and not sit in a hangar, metal would be my only
> choice, including over fabric for the same reasons. UV rays are devastating
> to composites and fabric. Fabric has a test method to make sure it is still
> serviceable. I am not aware of such a test for composites. However, I'm
> not a mechanic and may just be ignorant of such a test. Are there 50 year
> old composite airplanes still flying? Are there 50 year old fabric
> airplanes that haven't been recovered still flying? I don't know the
> answer to that question and it is a serious question. I do know there are
> many 50 year old metal airplanes with their original skins still intact.
> Likewise, there are some very young metal airplanes (around the coasts) that
> look like swiss cheese.
>
> It's all about the situation. A metal airplane vs composite airplane in
> Florida for 20 years? I'd probably go with the composite. Metal vs
> composite in Leadville, CO with the high UV energy we get here in high
> altitudes, I'd probably go with metal. No such thing as a one size fits all
> when it comes to aircraft or materials.
>
> From: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of dongeneda2000
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:16 AM
> To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
>
>
>
>
> Real simple, lack of buyers, partially due to high price (close to 5 million
> dollars) and the economy at the time. Only a handful of the 53 made were
> ever sold, Beech "hid" them where I was working at the time, did not want
> people to see a ramp full of new unsold planes..
> Being composite was not the reason, in fact it was a reason to own one. One
> was recently used as chase plane for Rutan spaceship - also composite by the
> way.
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com> , "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@> wrote:
> >
> > What was the reason that Beech decommissioned them?
> >
> > From: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com> ] On Behalf Of dongeneda2000
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:41 AM
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I sure do, I used to park my Cherokee in a hangar under the wings of 12 of
> them during their decomisioning.
> > The airframe was far stronger than any aluminum aircraft ever built, and
> is actually stronger now then when built! Never had a delamination problem,
> and your point was???
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com> , "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember the Beech Starship?
> > >
> > > From: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com> ] On Behalf Of pwrsport@
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:29 AM
> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> > > Subject: RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer
> Aircraft?
> > >
> > >
> > > Are any composite LSA’s coming apart do to fatigue? Ramos, CT and
> the Storm Rally that is flying over ten years now with zero problems. One of
> the most popular GA composite plane flying, the Cirrus â€" fatigue
> problems, I think not. The new airliners that you will be flying in will be
> mostly â€Å"all compositeâ€Â�. Carbon fiber, stronger that steel with
> much less weight. However, the all metal Zenair 601 is shedding wings to the
> point the some countries will not allow it to fly in their airspace. The
> NTSB is very unhappy with it here in the US. And then there is that nasty
> (hidden stuff) in metal airplanes called â€" corrosion. Kind of bothers
> me too.
> > >
> > > Ed Snyder
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lyle Cox
> > > Sent: Oct 13, 2009 8:53 PM
> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> > > Subject: RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer
> Aircraft?
> > >
> > >
> > > All good reasons, Helen, PLUS, you can’t tell they getting
> fatigued until they separate. That kinda bothers me.
> > >
> > > From: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com> ] On Behalf Of Helen Woods
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:29 PM
> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> <mailto:Sport_ Aircraft% 40yahoogroups. com>
> > > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer
> Aircraft?
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. When they crash, they shatter. (By comparison, we had a student
> > > cartwheel a Tecnam down the runway and the only thing that broke off was
>
> > > the gear. Student walked away without a scratch.)
> > > 2. Even a little bit of damage is expensive and time consuming to fix.
> > > (A wing ding cost several thousand to fix.)
> > > 3. There is no A&P in the entire state of Maryland willing and capable
> > > of doing composite structural work on an LSA.
> > >
> > > We have three composite planes all of which have required composite
> > > work, all which we've had to ship out of state, all of which were down
> > > for approximately a year during repairs, all of which cost a small
> > > fortune to repair. Composite LSAs are not suitable in my opinion for
> > > primary training for these reasons. By contrast, on our metal Tecnams,
> > > even the worst bang ups (excluding the aforementioned cartwheel which
> > > was totaled by the insurance company) are fixed in a matter of days.
> > >
> > > That being said, we're putting a composite hulled SeaRey on the line. I
> > > think composites are fine for rated and proficient pilots and especially
>
> > > seaplanes, just not primary training.
> > >
> > > Helen
> > >
> > > dongeneda2000 wrote:
> > > > And you consider that to be a BAD thing because?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment