Hi Performance Cars VS. High Performance planes

James_Dean said:
I would also submit that it takes more talent and ability to drive well than it does to fly well.
...
I think the thing you are forgetting is that while it is easy to "drive" a Ferrari it is not easy to push it to 80% of its envelope which you must do to an airplane every time you fly.

Eggman
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Flying "well" - how do you determine that? So, if someone takes off, flies somewhere and lands in his 172, is that flying well? By that logic, someone who gets in a Corolla, drives to McDonalds and back home is a good driver. That's subjective.

How many pilots do you think actually test the limits of their aircraft? Unless you've done a lot of aero, I'd say you haven't. The more you learn about flying airplanes to their limit makes you realize how little you knew the last time you talked about it. There is no way that everytime an airplane leaves the ground, it is pushed to 80% of its envelope!

The discussion thus far has been about driving HP cars and flying HP planes - so what makes you think that it takes more ability and talent to drive well rather than fly well? Are you also a CFI?

I raced motorcycles for a number of years - now I only do an occational track day. I'm no professional racer but I know that it takes a lot of talent to be one. I have also seen that there are some people that will just never get it - no matter how hard they try.

I am an instructor in very high performance airplanes and I KNOW that there are a lot of highly trained people that just don't have what it takes to fly at the real edge - pushing the airplane everyday. IMHO, it's a draw at best. I see no proof that driving well is harder than flying well.

Tell you what, I'll put you in the simulator and you put me on the track in a Porche????? :yesnod::D
 
My AFM prohibits aero, the extent I can limit push is T/O and Landing performance.
 
We really weren't discussing flying aircraft or driving cars to the limit of their performance envelope. We were discussing flying airplanes and driving cars. I've never flown or driven anything to the edge of its performance envelope and have no intentions of doing so. I consider that a good way to get dead, and I have a sufficient quantity of dead and semi-mangled friends who pushed the envelope to dissuade me from doing so. I imagine many of us are in the same situation.
 
I have beaten many liter bikes & a viper in my datsun :lol:
9.60 @ 149 1.4..
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the need for 500hp in a car; in a tow rig maybe. But, in a HP car, you may use that 500hp in less than 5 seconds and then you must back it down to probably under 75 hp or else risk lives or a ticket. In a HP airplane, you can use most or all of the 200+ hp continuously, and go faster, longer, safer, and still be legal.
 
dmccormack said:
Conclusion?

Dumb is revealed sooner in higher performance machines.
Click to expand...

That's just about the most apropos and true statement I've ever read on this board.

I've misspent a fair amount of my life turning gas into fun. I've raced bikes both in the dirt and on the track, been to more auto racing schools than I can remember, and been flying acro now for several years. It's not inexperience that gets folks in the hurt locker - it's dumb that puts them there.
 
skidoo said:
I don't understand the need for 500hp in a car; in a tow rig maybe. But, in a HP car, you may use that 500hp in less than 5 seconds and then you must back it down to probably under 75 hp or else risk lives or a ticket. In a HP airplane, you can use most or all of the 200+ hp continuously, and go faster, longer, safer, and still be legal.
Click to expand...

...and that's why I fly a Pitts with an AEIO 540 :)
 
EdFred said:
The CBRs (mine at least) will do 0-60 in 2.9. You lose.

Reminds of of the guy that pulled up to me in his Saleen'd out Mustang. At a light, I'm not paying attention, and he pulls up next to me, and I'm sitting up waiting for the light, and he starts revving the engine. I don't bother to look, so he revs it louder and faster. I look over at him and shake my head no. He leans on the throttle again. I click it into gear, shake my head to myself because I know how this is going to turn out. Light goes green, I eat the clutch just enough to keep my front tire down, I hear his wheels chirp, and see nothing in my peripheral after 25 feet. I take it to 100, then back down to 55 (the speed limit), count to 5, and THEN he goes by at 100+
Click to expand...

2.9 lol, that would take a pro motorcycle rider. Oh yeah and you can't do it with a girl sitting beside you either. I have NEVER been outran by a motorcycle...

You Lose, LOL

Speed for your dollar, well that is a totally different argument
 
Last edited:
dennyleeb said:
Just saying that would take a pro motorcycle rider. Oh yeah and you can't do it with a girl sitting beside you either. I have NEVER been outran by a motorcycle...

You Lose, LOL
Click to expand...
It also takes a good car driver to get a good launch like that.

Perhaps you've never been outran by a motorcycle because most riders aren't stupid enough to do that crap on the street. If some fancy car comes up to me and wants to race they're just going to have fun racing themselves. Racing off stop-lights with liter bikes is a terrible idea.

Most "sports" cars that try to race me off a stop light lose without me even trying. I don't have to push teh bike anywhere near the edge to beat most cars. I sure wouldn't try to race a Porshe off a stop-light. The street isn't the place for that.
 
No, the streets aren't the place, the mountain twisties are. It would be fun to embarrass some Porsche driver who thinks he's hot stuff.

Then again, I could probably beat a fair number of Porsches in my Toyota. I had a great time coming back from Winwood, probably better than I've ever had in car (well, that I've had clothed in a car).
 
dennyleeb said:
2.9 lol, that would take a pro motorcycle rider. Oh yeah and you can't do it with a girl sitting beside you either. I have NEVER been outran by a motorcycle...

You Lose, LOL

Speed for your dollar, well that is a totally different argument
Click to expand...

I see your small peepee and raise you a shriveled testicle.
 
EdFred said:
I see your small peepee and raise you a shriveled testicle.
Click to expand...

boy your funny

I did not start it by saying that nobody has ever driven a car as fast as my 4.5 0-60 rice burner blah blah blah

Jesse it takes a much more skilled motorcycle rider to go fast on a bike than it does a sports car driver to go fast
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
It also takes a good car driver to get a good launch like that.

Perhaps you've never been outran by a motorcycle because most riders aren't stupid enough to do that crap on the street. If some fancy car comes up to me and wants to race they're just going to have fun racing themselves. Racing off stop-lights with liter bikes is a terrible idea.

Most "sports" cars that try to race me off a stop light lose without me even trying. I don't have to push teh bike anywhere near the edge to beat most cars. I sure wouldn't try to race a Porshe off a stop-light. The street isn't the place for that.
Click to expand...


It sure is fun to act like you're going to and watch them fire off the line in front of a cop though. :D
 
sounds like you guys are safer riders than 99% of bike riders b/c I do not come to a stoplight looking to race a bike but when they rev up I laugh then out run them, maybe just some bad bike riders around here
 
dennyleeb said:
boy your funny

I did not start it by saying that nobody has ever driven a car as fast as my 4.5 0-60 rice burner blah blah blah

Jesse it takes a much more skilled motorcycle rider to go fast on a bike than it does a sports car driver to go fast
Click to expand...

I did unintentionally start this ****ing contest by the correct observation that there are different issues involved in driving a high performance car and flying a high performance aircraft. However, if I could go back in time and unstart it, I would gladly do so. It amounts to very, very little.
 
Yeah it really just don't matter. I am wanting to get rid of the car to get me a faster plane though.
 
Keane said:
There's a reason why you almost never see a Dodge Viper on the road. 99% of them are either wrecked in the first 2 days of ownership or locked in a garage because the owner is afraid of it.
Click to expand...

dodge-viper-srt10-acr31.jpg



:yesnod::yesnod:
 
Dean said:
We hear all the time about high paid professionals that learn to fly and then right after they get their ticket, go buy a HP airplane and make a smoking whole in the ground.

I have been a driving instructor for almost 20 years and can tell you its not just airplanes. I did a class this weekend and a Doctor in his mid 50's shows up in his brand new Mercedes Benz e63 AMG. For those that don't know this car, it has 525 HP/465 lb-ft of torque and a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds.

After spend two days with him just doing the basic "get to know your car" exercises and some defensive driving techniques, it was obvious that this was WAAAAAY to much car for this man. Even if I spent a month plus with him, he was never going to be able to handle it..

So as an instructor I felt I had an obligation to tell him that he really should consider a down grade before he kills himself or someone else.

So have any of you CFI's done the same with an HP airplane and had to tell someone "You don't have what it takes and probably never will" I could keep working with this gent and keep taking his money, but the outcome is going to be the same.
Click to expand...

I made a fairly good living as an independent CFi specializing in high performance airplanes, specifically WW2 prop fighter planes. Haven't killed anyone yet.

The problem is always the same. The pilot you are teaching or checking out can either handle it or they can't. There's no magic bullet of prior experience aside from any legal requirement that either qualifies or disqualifies a pilot to fly a HP aircraft safely. This places a HUGE responsibility on the check pilot. It's the check pilot who is either the strong or weak link in the chain that defines the decision on whether or not the pilot being checked is going to be safe. You fly with a pilot and you view their performance. You teach what has to be taught, and you satisfy yourself that what you have taught them has been retained. If it hasn't, you don't let them go.
What's difficult is that you as the instructor have to decide whether something shown back to you by a pilot is just being returned by rote rather than with a full understanding of what's happening. This is where you separate the good check pilots from the bad ones. As a check pilot, you accept a rote return on something that if not fully understood can kill somebody and you can do just that.......kill somebody!
NOTE AS WELL; that even considering high quality instruction and checkout by the instructor, there's STILL no way to guarantee a safe pilot over time.
The problem is the same as with the primary instruction problem, only severely amplified due to the higher performance involved. BOTH scenarios require constant currency and quality of pilot performance by the pilot AFTER checkout. The check pilot/instructor can only do so much.
Case in point is the McKittrick accident in the P51 he had just been checked out in. The check pilot was thorough. McKittrick's instruction in his P51 was world class. I happen to know this to be true. ALL the bounce recovery scenarios, especially prevalent in the 51 were covered, yet the pilot died in a bounce recovery accident shortly after being turned loose.
It's a tough game....high performance instruction. There is no area in aviation where the development of proper habit patterns are more critically needed to be stressed by the instructors doing this type of instruction.
There will always be rich boys who want to fly their toys. Yet, I personally know a TON of these rich boys who fly their "toys" extremely well, some even world class display pilots. I also know a few that are accidents waiting to happen. Fortunately none of the latter came through exposure to me.
I had a sign over my desk for years that read, "Horsepower, the ability to handle it, and money don't necessarily equate" Once this is completely understood, the learning of what has to be learned to stay alive flying a high performance airplane can begin.
Dudley Henriques
 
Last edited:
I have one thing to say, any of you "racing" your bikes and P-cars on the street are not racing. You are breaking the law, and putting people in danger. So do us all a favor and stop bragging about it.

Racing is done on a track not on a Street or Highway. Stop bragging about beating someone who decided not to race you, you are not a racer. Racers do not run around at high speeds putting others lives in danger, punks do that.

If you want to race, go to the track. It is just like the poker run crowd with their offshore powerboats always bragging about how fast they are, but will not race... why is that? In the end they are cowards who want to live a live a bravado they cannot back up. When you are truly racing, you have to show courage that "street racers" know nothing about.
 
Thanks, Mom.

When I "raced" the guy off the light it was in a location where it was a limited access highway. There was no cross streets, no oncoming traffic, no nothing. The only danger would have been to myself if I happened to hit a deer.

Make sure your horse doesn't throw a shoe while you're on it. Nice first post, btw. Your display name is close to what it should be but not quite.
 
ryoung99 said:
I have one thing to say, any of you "racing" your bikes and P-cars on the street are not racing. You are breaking the law, and putting people in danger. So do us all a favor and stop bragging about it.

Racing is done on a track not on a Street or Highway. Stop bragging about beating someone who decided not to race you, you are not a racer. Racers do not run around at high speeds putting others lives in danger, punks do that.

If you want to race, go to the track. It is just like the poker run crowd with their offshore powerboats always bragging about how fast they are, but will not race... why is that? In the end they are cowards who want to live a live a bravado they cannot back up. When you are truly racing, you have to show courage that "street racers" know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Spoiled little boys with overly expensive toys are amusing. And you are likely to beat me through the twisties, since I don't race, I ride. My bike isn't a toy, it is transportation. And I've probably been riding since you were in liquid form. If you were my age you would likely have more sense than to make an overly preachy post to a web board whose members are all far smarter and wiser than you.
 
Last edited:
I ride both motorcycles and now also drive a higher performance car and I strongly disagree with the statement of "a car is just a car."

A typical "everyman" car is set up with tons of understeer, and nowadays is more and more likely to be a front wheel drive. If someone takes a turn too fast for conditions and traction is lost, the untrained natural response is to let up on the gas, which for a FWD understeering car is pretty much the right thing to do. Weight transfers forward, front wheels grip more and begins to turn the car. "Too fast for conditions" in my definition is not only a throttle issue. It is any reduced traction condition like gravel, water, ice, a lane maker, or any structural thing like a surprise decreasing radius turn, as well as "too fast".

Now take a driver who is used to an unbalanced FWD understeering car, and put him in a high performance, well handling car. Those are usually now 50/50 weight distribution, increasingly mid-engined for lower rotational inertia, and nearly universally close to neutral steering as you can get. Lose traction in a turn, and the natural response of letting off the gas will put you into instant snap-oversteer (also called lift-oversteer) as soon as the tires hook up again. That's one of the reasons why more and more of these types of cars have some sort of stability (not traction) control. That's just one type of "gotcha" a high-pref car can get you with. There are many more.

I've taken motorcycle track courses, but haven't taken car track courses yet. (That's my plan for this summer) But I have driven RWD all my life on low traction surfaces. During this wet season in LA, I finally found a situation that beat the stability control on my S2000 and broke the rear loose. And I wasn't accelerating that hard. I just kept 1st gear long enough to hit VTEC, and the transition upset the chassis enough to break loose. I kept on the throttle and went through 60 degrees of a 90 degree wide radius turn sideways. At that point controlling steering is both your hands and your right foot. If I had lifted, I would have lost control and entered a spin as a result of snap oversteer.

I also disagree that sportbikes will beat most cars on a track. That depends on the track. Lots and lots of tight turns with short straights, yes, a motorcycle can take advantage of its high acceleration and the ability to increase the radius of a turn by virtue of it being so thin. Lots of fast turns and long straights, the car wins easily. There's no substitute for downforce and contact patch size. The 4 huge contact patches allows the car to pull way more lateral G's than the motorcycles 2 tiny contact patches.

--Carlos V.
 
steingar said:
I did unintentionally start this ****ing contest by the correct observation that there are different issues involved in driving a high performance car and flying a high performance aircraft. However, if I could go back in time and unstart it, I would gladly do so. It amounts to very, very little.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up! Vastly different issues. :mad2:

Gary
 
Unbeliever said:
I ride both motorcycles and now also drive a higher performance car and I strongly disagree with the statement of "a car is just a car."

A typical "everyman" car is set up with tons of understeer, and nowadays is more and more likely to be a front wheel drive. If someone takes a turn too fast for conditions and traction is lost, the untrained natural response is to let up on the gas, which for a FWD understeering car is pretty much the right thing to do. Weight transfers forward, front wheels grip more and begins to turn the car. "Too fast for conditions" in my definition is not only a throttle issue. It is any reduced traction condition like gravel, water, ice, a lane maker, or any structural thing like a surprise decreasing radius turn, as well as "too fast".

Now take a driver who is used to an unbalanced FWD understeering car, and put him in a high performance, well handling car. Those are usually now 50/50 weight distribution, increasingly mid-engined for lower rotational inertia, and nearly universally close to neutral steering as you can get. Lose traction in a turn, and the natural response of letting off the gas will put you into instant snap-oversteer (also called lift-oversteer) as soon as the tires hook up again. That's one of the reasons why more and more of these types of cars have some sort of stability (not traction) control. That's just one type of "gotcha" a high-pref car can get you with. There are many more.

I've taken motorcycle track courses, but haven't taken car track courses yet. (That's my plan for this summer) But I have driven RWD all my life on low traction surfaces. During this wet season in LA, I finally found a situation that beat the stability control on my S2000 and broke the rear loose. And I wasn't accelerating that hard. I just kept 1st gear long enough to hit VTEC, and the transition upset the chassis enough to break loose. I kept on the throttle and went through 60 degrees of a 90 degree wide radius turn sideways. At that point controlling steering is both your hands and your right foot. If I had lifted, I would have lost control and entered a spin as a result of snap oversteer.

I also disagree that sportbikes will beat most cars on a track. That depends on the track. Lots and lots of tight turns with short straights, yes, a motorcycle can take advantage of its high acceleration and the ability to increase the radius of a turn by virtue of it being so thin. Lots of fast turns and long straights, the car wins easily. There's no substitute for downforce and contact patch size. The 4 huge contact patches allows the car to pull way more lateral G's than the motorcycles 2 tiny contact patches.

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with any of this, but I would say that I would be more likely to make a smoking hole in Ted's Aztec or Ed's Comanche than in your S2000. Actually, I drive an MR2 myself, which is in many respects a fairly similar vehicle. I doubt I could get the most out of a track without specialized training. But I doubt even more strongly that I could get either of the aircraft mentioned from point A to point B without violent contact with terra firma.
 
steingar said:
I wouldn't disagree with any of this, but I would say that I would be more likely to make a smoking hole in Ted's Aztec or Ed's Comanche than in your S2000. Actually, I drive an MR2 myself, which is in many respects a fairly similar vehicle. I doubt I could get the most out of a track without specialized training. But I doubt even more strongly that I could get either of the aircraft mentioned from point A to point B without violent contact with terra firma.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit. Most of the pilots on here could jump into an Aztec or a Comanche and get it from point A to point B without getting killed. Would it be pretty? Maybe not.

The issue would arise if something went wrong (engine failure on aztec at wrong time) or you pushed the Comanche to it's limit...etc.

Short of really large airplanes, or jets, most any GA airplane can be flown by most any current GA pilot in a pinch (there is a reason certified airplanes must handle a certain way). The key with operating an unfamiliar airplane is to fly conservatively. Same thing goes for car or motorcycle.
 
Actually, even after having 500 hours in the Piper PA-28 line, the landing of the Comanche was remarkably different than the Cherokee/Arrow. The insurance required I get 5 hours of instruction since I had 0 Comanche time. While I didn't need it in the air - flying is flying at that point, had I not gotten at least 1 landing under supervision, I would have totally been making an insurance claim on my first landing. Glad they forced me to get it.
 
Last edited:
Now that I got that first post out of the way, I would like to give an opinion on the original topic.

As I read it, the original question was (paraphrasing) "is it incumbent on an instructor to dissuade a student (regardless of the vehicle type) away from a vehicle that is above their ability, be it an aircraft or car (or a motorcycle for street racing) :)

Personally, I have always looked to my local CFI to give me their opinion of my ability. I would expect the same if I was taking "street racing" lessons (come on now that was a joke).

I love the fact that where I rent, the head CFI is the owner. Thus when he signs me off on one of the planes he has a vested interest in if the plane is going to come back in one piece.

So I do think it is the responsibility of the instructor to step in and give advice to their students and I believe that most students would listen.
 
Keane said:
There's a reason why you almost never see a Dodge Viper on the road. 99% of them are either wrecked in the first 2 days of ownership or locked in a garage because the owner is afraid of it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... real estate agent took me around to look at homes in a Viper one day.... and took me around in his Boxter the next.

A top producing agent, I'd say....
 
wsuffa said:
Hmmm... real estate agent took me around to look at homes in a Viper one day.... and took me around in his Boxter the next.

A top producing agent, I'd say....
Click to expand...

Probably because he wrecked the Viper on his way home from dropping you off.
 
ryoung99 said:
I have one thing to say, any of you "racing" your bikes and P-cars on the street are not racing. You are breaking the law, and putting people in danger. So do us all a favor and stop bragging about it.

Racing is done on a track not on a Street or Highway. Stop bragging about beating someone who decided not to race you, you are not a racer. Racers do not run around at high speeds putting others lives in danger, punks do that.

If you want to race, go to the track. It is just like the poker run crowd with their offshore powerboats always bragging about how fast they are, but will not race... why is that? In the end they are cowards who want to live a live a bravado they cannot back up. When you are truly racing, you have to show courage that "street racers" know nothing about.
Click to expand...

It is only dangerous to others if you put yourself in those situations. I do not. I do break the law. I speed almost every day on way to work in my sedan. (5-10 mph over) Are you telling me you dont ever speed. Most of the time a self proclaimed model citizen is anything but.
 
jesse said:
Short of really large airplanes, or jets, most any GA airplane can be flown by most any current GA pilot in a pinch (there is a reason certified airplanes must handle a certain way). The key with operating an unfamiliar airplane is to fly conservatively. Same thing goes for car or motorcycle.
Click to expand...



Maybe.

Friday, August 1, 2008 --- 9:05 a.m.

OSHKOSH, Wis. (AP) -- Authorities have released the identities of the two Pennsylvania residents killed when their small plane crashed at the EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh.

The homebuilt Lancair Legacy crashed yesterday morning while attempting to land at Wittman Regional Airport, where the Experimental Aircraft Association is holding its annual fly-in and convention.

EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski says the plane crashed just short of the airport's east-west runway.

He identified the victims as the plane's owner, 62-year-old Roger Bock of Carnegie, Pennsylvania, and 56-year-old John Linden of Washington, Pennsylvania.

The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration are investigating
Click to expand...

Accident occurred Thursday, July 31, 2008 in OSHKOSH, WI
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/10/2009
Aircraft: MOSER GEORG LANCAIR LEGACY FG, registration: N515RB
Injuries: 2 Fatal.The flight was on a straight-in visual approach after a cross-country, instrument-flight-rules flight. About three and a half miles out from the runway, the flight was number four to land behind other aircraft in the traffic pattern. About one and a half miles out, the flight was cleared to land with traffic turning to final in front of them. Witnesses described a stall, power coming up, and the airplane striking the ground in an inverted attitude about 100 yards before the end of the runway. The airplane was substantially damaged and both occupants were fatally injured. The propeller blades exhibited signatures of nicks, gouges, and scratches consistent with engine power at the time of impact. Inspection of the flight control system did not disclose any evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent loss of control.
Click to expand...

The Lancair was following a Piper Malibu with a full-flap landing approach speed of 77 knots.

Lancair final approach speed is about 90 knots.

The accident pilot had 10 hours in the Lancair.
 
dmccormack said:
Maybe.

The Lancair was following a Piper Malibu with a full-flap landing approach speed of 77 knots.

Lancair final approach speed is about 90 knots.

The accident pilot had 10 hours in the Lancair.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Lancairs are a completely different kettle'o'fish from most production certified aircraft. They like to be going fast, including on final. Plopping them in like we're used to doing in our certified aircraft is completely different. Their stall characteristics are much sharper than what we're used to, they will drop a wing, and when they do it's very easy to get into a spin, which is probably unrecoverable in general, doubly so on approach.

Also keep in mind that flying into Osh is NOT standard flight. There's a lot going on at once, and you need to be careful on your speeds, because chances are the person in front of you is going to be going too slow if you fly anything faster than a Piper Cub. I got stuck behind a Cirrus who was flying slower than my Vmc when I went in last summer. Not good.

If that accident is the one I'm thinking of, it was just a bad situation. The guy bought the plane, got some of the required training (might have been all), and the trainers told him he wasn't ready to fly into Osh. He went anyway. Too bad the trainers never got to say "Told ya so", but I think he figured it out as he stall/spin'd into the ground.

I don't think Jesse was talking about taking a Lancair and flying it into Osh as a first flight. More like if we were flying along in my Aztec and I had a heart attack that he would probably be able to get to the airport and land, despite having virtually zero time in the plane and in multis in general. I believe he could do that. We saw evidence that people can do that last year when the 172 pilot landed the King Air after the pilot died.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind that Lancairs are a completely different kettle'o'fish from most production certified aircraft. They like to be going fast, including on final. Plopping them in like we're used to doing in our certified aircraft is completely different. Their stall characteristics are much sharper than what we're used to, they will drop a wing, and when they do it's very easy to get into a spin, which is probably unrecoverable in general, doubly so on approach.
Click to expand...

Some >200 hp birds fly like Cherokees, but a Lancair surely is on the upper echelon.

One of the key differentiators between training-market singles and Lancairs and the like is very different slow-flight characteristics.

Given how few minutes most GA pilots dedicate to slow flight, I'd say the average PP needs instruction and time in type before being let loose.

The same was true for me when I was a PP. Since then I learned why better, more experienced pilots than me flew new airplanes slow for a while before wringing it out.
 
dmccormack said:
Some >200 hp birds fly like Cherokees, but a Lancair surely is on the upper echelon.

One of the key differentiators between training-market singles and Lancairs and the like is very different slow-flight characteristics.

Given how few minutes most GA pilots dedicate to slow flight, I'd say the average PP needs instruction and time in type before being let loose.

The same was true for me when I was a PP. Since then I learned why better, more experienced pilots than me flew new airplanes slow for a while before wringing it out.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Jesse's point was that if you weren't an idiot and took appropriate precautions, most of us could probably get in an airplane we've never flown before and fly it, or get it on the ground if the pilot died. That's been proven to be correct enough times. If you come in a bit hot and have a long enough runway to bleed it off, this shouldn't be a problem.
 
I have written on this issue a number of times... It is the deferred gratification syndrome...
They are high achievers in complex professions that required many years of education and training while living poor like a church mouse - law, medicine, computer research, etc... Now they are in their early 40's, they can suddenly afford the payments on a nice house, and a fancy car, AND a $600K airplane... Or, they come from a blue collar family and they start an excavating company, or a factory, and by working like dogs for 20 years they finally hit it big... Or they are old money who believe their family name will solve anything... In any event, combine that with a type A personality - everyone jumping at their command and things happening on a rigid schedule set by them - and you have all the makings of a disaster...

A generation ago it was the Bonanza - the fork tailed doctor killer - that they all lusted for... Today it is the Cirrus. or if they have a bit more money a pressurized turbine... Anyway, the outcome is the same... Low time pilots in a hot machine, add Mother Nature in one of her moods, and the outcome is predictable... They HAVE to be somewhere on a schedule and by god they are going to make it because they say so... As was noted above, the only thing they make that night is a smoking hole...

denny-o
 
Some of those people really are highspeed individuals. And some of the folks bagging on them are just player haters. That said there is some truth to the notion of 'good pilots don't have real jobs.' There is some research that suggests the earlier in life you learn piloting skills and similar the better you will be, more complicated than total accumulated hours. The idea is if you get a PPL at 18 don't fly for 30 years then take it up again you will be far better off then someone who waited til 48 to learn even if at age 49 the total time is equivalent.
Dr. O said:
I have written on this issue a number of times... It is the deferred gratification syndrome...
They are high achievers in complex professions that required many years of education and training while living poor like a church mouse - law, medicine, computer research, etc... Now they are in their early 40's, they can suddenly afford the payments on a nice house, and a fancy car, AND a $600K airplane... Or, they come from a blue collar family and they start an excavating company, or a factory, and by working like dogs for 20 years they finally hit it big... Or they are old money who believe their family name will solve anything... In any event, combine that with a type A personality - everyone jumping at their command and things happening on a rigid schedule set by them - and you have all the makings of a disaster...

A generation ago it was the Bonanza - the fork tailed doctor killer - that they all lusted for... Today it is the Cirrus. or if they have a bit more money a pressurized turbine... Anyway, the outcome is the same... Low time pilots in a hot machine, add Mother Nature in one of her moods, and the outcome is predictable... They HAVE to be somewhere on a schedule and by god they are going to make it because they say so... As was noted above, the only thing they make that night is a smoking hole...

denny-o
Click to expand...
 
Keane said:
There's a reason why you almost never see a Dodge Viper on the road. 99% of them are either wrecked in the first 2 days of ownership or locked in a garage because the owner is afraid of it.
Click to expand...

The car dealer I purchased my last car from also sold Lotus. The salesman told me of one client who bought an Exige S and wrecked it the same day he drove it off the lot, then bought another one they had in stock on the next day. It lasted 3 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top