Richard,
You're a big guy. Building an airplane around you is a huge waste of performance for the average person. I'm sure this must be a difficult situation for you and being an avid aviator, I can appreciate your frustration. I think that increasing the cabin size is a bigger deal structurally than you think. I could be wrong, but that's a weight penalty and a performance penalty and a complexity issue. Making the adjustable seating and controls to fit everyone from a 5' tall female to you would be an interesting exercise. To be honest, I'm not sure if you would fit in an airline cockpit seat. Probably, as they are pretty variable, but they are also expensive. You figured out the solution as a passenger. First Class. I can feel your pain in coach.
I would like to see the source of the data you claim that people took 30 minutes to exit an airplane. The plane I fly carries 374 passengers plus crew and we have 13 exits. Even if some exits are blocked, I'm trying to picture people screaming and milling about wildly, arms waving, for 30 minutes. haha That's hilarious to picture. Yes, if some exits are blocked and the thing is full of smoke, there will be confusion. And people will probably die. But if it's full of smoke the evac isn't going to take 30 minutes. In about 3-5 minutes the people who got out will be out and those left will probably not be getting out. But you said this was a test, so there won't be real smoke. (The poisonous type given off by plastic burning that kills you.) Watch a clock for 30 minutes and see if you believe that statistic you cited.
Jim
Jim,
As I see it,
Just because the plane has a 1320 pound max takeoff weight does not mean it has to be tiny.
Just make the important area, the cabin, large enough for people to slip easily into it.
Regarding airline seating.
I used to ride in the cattle cars of the airlines.
some 15 or so years ago, I got tired of the bone tight seating with my only choices being: 1) claustrophobia in a window seat or 2) repeatedly bashed by the traffic on the aisle. (the seat between those two extremes is as bad as the cattle car in the center of the plane. As it is, there is not enough room between one row of seats and the next for my legs.
My only relief, first class seating with max 4 persons across the whole width of the plane and seats big enough and far enough apart so I can lay back, stretch out my legs, and relax.
Now the center/cattle car section has up to 15 tiny seats, much like the sardines in a can.
That might be seen as good for the bottom line to pack so many people together.
I do not see that as progress, nor acceptable practice.
In tests, so many panic stricken people in such a tight space can take as much as 30 minutes to exit the plane. In a burning or sinking plane there is no 30 minutes available.
Of course, with such tight seating, in case of an accident, some of the 400+ passengers might survive, due to all the rest being crushed into jelly for padding.
R. Williams
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Jim Bair <JimBair@SportAviationUnlimited.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:18:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news
>
>
> Realistically, airplanes are built for the average person.
> Technically, one might refer to the statistically 95% person, or
> something like that. I'm sure it's annoying to be larger than
> average, but do you honestly expect someone to build a light aircraft
> around the specs of larger than average individuals? If that was the
> case, the Robinson R-44 would have two seats and be called the R-22
> and the existing R-22 would be scrapped. Personally, I like it that I
> have the option of buying an aircraft designed around a 170 pound
> person. If we designed seating in the airlines around large people,
> the entire cabin would be business class seats and tickets would
> double in price because we could fit half the number of people. That
> would be a popular move for the average person.
>
> Jim
>
> Quoting Richard Williams <rkwill@lewiscounty.com>:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I tried to get into the demo model.
> > It was not nearly big enough.
> > When I put one leg in first, then the other leg, the result was
> > I was hanging out the door and the top of the door was below my arm pit.
> > There was no way to get all of me into the cabin.
> > I might have put my rear into the door instead,
> > Then used the Sky crapper accordingly, but I felt there were too
> > many people around for my sense of privacy.
> >
> > R. Williams
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From: "jimmyg51147" <james-galvin@sbcglobal.net>
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:24:39 -0000
> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Rick:
> >> Actually it is a Skycrapper. Cessna had a blank sheet of paper.
> >> They could have designed anything. Instaed they came up with an
> >> underpowered, overweight, shrunked up 150. And although it may seem
> >> derogatory to call it a "Skycraper" it is a much more acurate
> >> description.
> >> Jimmy
> >>
> >> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Pitcher"
> >> <lightflyer@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Gary, that's the Cessna Sky*Catcher*.
> >> > You keep calling it something else, I don't know if you're trying
> >> to be funny, cute, or what.... but it's not a skyscraper.
> >> > Knowingly using the wrong name is being derogatory... let's not
> >> do that on purpose.
> >> > Otherwise people will start talking about your Rot-Axe engines
> >> and Euro-fux. ;)
> >> >
> >> > Rick
> >> > Avid Flyer builder (predecessor to the Euro-Fux)
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
__._,_.___
