Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: HID landing light review..and info concerning Aviation Cons |
 |
|
If you update your article and prep it, I'd be happy to post it
on my site. At least your efforts won't go unseen by the people,
and perhaps it might get some viewing by the general public.
Just an offer...
Tim
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | In a message dated 1/23/07 7:47:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Tim(at)MyRV10.com writes:
Found this on the "generic" RV matronics list today:
For a review of HID landing lights, see
http://www.preciseflight.com/ufiles/06March_Aviation_Consumer_HID_Article_Main.pdf
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
After receiving Aviation Consumer for nearly a decade, I've recently
dropped my subscription for a number of reasons. But during that time
I've read some interesting articles including this review of the HID
device. If you've not been exposed to AC's product you might want to
borrow copies from someone and review all that they have. The folks at
AC do a nice job in testing and reviewing all types of aviation products.
I've stopped my subscription for several reasons:
The way this product is sent to the subscriber often leads to damage
product. My monthly product has gone missing at least twice per year
and at the rate they charge, it's an expensive missing part. If you
discover it's missing they will send you a replacement product if you
request it pretty quickly (I wonder if my mail lady is a back sliding
pilot want-a-bee!) if you don't request quickly then you just go to the
electronic mag and review.
I began my subscriptions and renewals via mail, their renewals at SnF
and KOSH were greatly lower than the mail route. This sort of cheese's
me off and Paul B, the editor, wrote an article some time ago about how
dangerous home-built's were vs production aircraft that also cheesed my
off.
Understanding his point of view, after all he's a Mooney driver, I wrote
a counter article comparing the two top products in each area using NTSB
data. Thus I selected, Van's vs. Cirrus accidents/incidents showing
that Van's have an accident rate equal to Piper...slightly above Cessna
(the safest GA plane out there) vs. accidents of all types. And that
Cirrus has higher accident rate vs. Van's and Piper and many more times
the rate vs. Cessna. Cirrus's accident rates are just slight above
Bonanza.
The numbers gathered were basic raw accident rates from the NTSB. For
Cirrus's sake, the review was written when Cirrus was somewhat new and
they were experiencing high fatal accident rates and incidents for
aircraft departing the runways on take off, or brakes burning up
etc...lot's of pilot errors. I did not weight the accident rates as the
Cirrus numbers would have been so awful it would have been ridicules.
At the time Cirrus did not have that many aircraft flying as they do
today. Their fleet was doubling about each 6 months, and many of their
accidents were fatal's.
I'd spent considerable time slicing the NTSB data and writing the
article, AC did not publish my reply but I got a note from Paul B saying
my "comments" were interesting but they would not publish my
information. So I thought how one sided they were in their
arguments. One interesting item to note is that Cirrus's first fatal
accident occurred in an experimental SR 20 so even this accident counts
again experimental's since the SR 20 was not certified at the time...nor
was the BRS system in place.
At the time, the RV 10 was not a product. Many of the Van's accidents
occurred because people ran out of gas and had forced landings.
My believe was and still is that not many Van's aircraft are flown hard
IFR compared to hours flown by Cirrus pilots. Cirrus are used in
commercial flights or time share services with a "leased" Commercial/ATP
pilot at the controls.
That the average Van's pilot had more aviation hours flown in total than
the Cirrus crowd and that they had more experience in IFR and VFR that
the average Cirrus pilot; and having built their plane, they were more
familiar with the plane than the Cirrus pilots. And I believe that the
Van's pilots are a more conservative group of pilots towards their plane
and skills than are the Cirrus folks---key word here is that this is my
"belief" not based on any facts only conversations with folks that I
know that own, fly and or built.
All of the Van's folks in our chapter I know, really know how every
little thing works on their plane, mechanical, avionics etc. The Cirrus
folks I know have a good knowledge but not overly knowledgeable.
Well since that time, I still believe the above about both products.
I'm happy that Cirrus now has transitional training, and a CFI school in
conjunction with North Dakota. Cessna continues to have the lowest
accident rate vs. all other GA or Experimental aircraft. And the RV 10
is growing in safe numbers. I hope to join the ranks of the RV 10
builders when we complete our move back to IL later this spring. I was
all set to buy a kit after Thanksgiving when a business thing happened
and refocusing our family back to IL from PA...I decided not to buy as
it would mean one more thing to move!
Who know, maybe I'll miss my AC's and re-subscribe at SnF or KOSH but at
a lower rate than the snail mail subscription rate.
AC rant off...I still like the product and would recommend it to you
all, highly.
Patrick
PA 28-235/J 5A (rebuilding)
*
*
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
