showed up here at the flight school to do a demo for us. I was
impressed and familiar with the plane from reading their web site. Well
when I met the salesman man, he started handling me his brochures and
I'm sure was about to show me the vanity mirror when I walked past him,
climbed into the plane and pulled out the W&B. Surprise, surprise.
Almost 100 pounds less than advertised. I turned around and asked him
about this only to watch a wonderful demonstration of hemming and hawing.
The old Check (sp?) Airworks company I think took the cake on this
though. We had had a SportCruiser on the line for a while and as you'll
note I was a bit appaluled at some of the company's advertising
practices. (I noticed that Piper has finally corrected the numbers on
their web site instead of just quoting the previously published ones as
they did in their initial press release.) They advertised 600lbs of
useful load. They advertised their giant baggage area and wing lockers
and giant man size seats with the 600lb useful load to convince you that
this was a true "large man" plane. Funny thing was though, at shows,
they would never let you get into the plane. Instead they had a cockpit
mock up with stairs on the side to let large customers waddle up into
the plane and try out the giant seats. Well the reasoning was simple.
In addition to the actual plane having only 520-525lbs of useful load,
the whole plane would tip over if a giant man tried to climb in via the
step on the back of the plane! Giant men also did not have the
flexibility to reach the grab bar in the center of the plane to support
them when getting into the plane and instead would grab the backs of
the seats. Our seat back were broken within 300 hours.
With the change in US leadership, Tecnam has gotten into this game too.
The new brochures they have on their web page sport an extra 25lbs on
their Sierra, 50lbs on their Eagles, and more than 100lbs on their
P2010! Tecnams are still great planes though IMHO. Just contact me
though if you really want to know the useful load.
I honestly think a better discussion topic than "who advertises false
numbers" would be "who advertises accurate numbers." I think it safe to
assume that most people in this industry have inflated their numbers
unless proven otherwise.
Helen
On 12/26/2010 12:53 PM, Rick Pitcher wrote:
> I kinda figured you meant composite, and yes, rag-wings are lighter.
>
> But I would like to see the "baloney" that Gary says comes from the
> "all-metal" camps. I haven't seen it myself, but I'm sure if moderator-Gary
> posts it as fact he must have some data to back it up. THAT will be
> interesting!
>
> Hope your cold gets better Helen,
> Rick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Helen Woods"<Helen_Woods@verizon.net>
> To:<Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group High Useful Load LSA Aircraft
> Models
>
>
>
>> Oh, that should have been metal or composite... I think this head cold
>> has gotten the better of be this morning! Gary's right though that
>> Rotax rag-wings out there tend to have a good useful load.
>>
>> Helen
>>
>> On 12/26/2010 12:34 PM, Helen Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Metal or aluminum, either can be built heavy or light. Tecnam and Remos
>>> have proven that.
>>>
>>> As a general rule though, anything with a O200 or amphibious floats is
>>> going to be heavy. As Gary mentions, a lot also has to do with what
>>> weight the plane was originally designed for. I though Cirrus was
>>> really on to something with their LSA as they bought a microlight that
>>> was rated for 1250 and was going to get an extra 70lbs out of going
>>> LSA. The current SportStar gets its good useful load from such a
>>> conversion.
>>>
>>> Helen
>>>
>>> On 12/26/2010 12:16 PM, Rick Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Gary Orpe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is a great point Helen. A real W&B sheet is in every plane
>>>>> legally.
>>>>> And there is a lot of bologna out there as well. Especially in the all
>>>>> metal camps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now THAT is interesting. Nice change from the rants of late. Thanks
>>>> Gary.
>>>> So tell us, which all-metal airplanes have you found that are full of
>>>> baloney? Maybe some links to their specifications page would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> I know there are some big advantages in owning and maintaining aluminum
>>>> airplanes as opposed to rag-and-tube or composite aircraft, mostly
>>>> having to
>>>> do with the ability to keep the planes out in the elements year around.
>>>> And
>>>> if you DO happen to damage your aluminum plane, there are mechanics in
>>>> every
>>>> airport that have years of experience with aluminum airplanes. It really
>>>> is
>>>> an easy material to work with.
>>>> But I'd love to hear what your research has shown about the baloney in
>>>> the
>>>> "all metal camps".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3338 - Release Date: 12/25/10
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment