I once landed at McCarran in Las Vegas in my Tripacer and parked at the FBO , can't remember which one, but the ramp was loaded with high dollar planes... THe line boy came out in a cart to take my bags,, a shocker to me, and started asking questions.... He'd never seen so small a plane at McCarran and was absolutely astonished when he found out it was fabric covered... He asked me if I wasn't scared to be flying in a plane with fabric on it..and so on...I told him to try and poke a hole in it with his finger as hard as he could... more amazement and head shaking...I don't even tell people I fly any more.. THey either think I'm rich or stupid.. and I'd rather not have them find out I'm the latter...anyone who leaves the ground is an idiot anyway...

If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have given him wings...well no, not exactly. The Wright brothers figured that one out and as far as I know they believed in God.
Go Figure!
When I show the ignorant my plane and try to descibe how it's made, and they don't understand, I just tell them it's made out of spit and baleingwire..it usually shuts them up!

Those that dare do, and those that won't don't

Interesting topic!

85% of the time I find it to be a waste of time trying to engage the "public" on anything related to flying.
Misinformation sits incredibly deep and to most normal Joe Schmoes there is truly no difference between a 1956 Skyhawk and a 2011 Corvallis.
You're either categorized in the dangerous, expensive, done by first class citizens group; or someone thinks you're crazy for risking your life with such flimsy machines.
The press has done an incredible number in spreading wrong information to the public, as every shitty accident is portrayed as if it was a mass murdering event caused by idiots.

I'd find it a better investment to educate and fascinate the kids for anything flying, rather than trying to convince an older generation that what we fly is not what it looks like.
Talking with fellow pilot people and those involved in aviation is a lot easier because there is common ground and at least some sort of common knowledge. To most outsiders, our pilot lingo sounds like Chinese and lest you have the subjects full attention (with an open mind) you'll likely not reach the core of the matter.

What amazes me is how many 30-40 years olds (and their kids) are deadly afraid of flying. What's almost more shocking is how we can struggle for words after having convinced someone to take a closer look into flying, just in time for one of our own to stick an airplane into a house or killing the whole family in a fiery weight and balance accident...

He then turned to another guy and said would you fly in a buddies 50 year old airplane? He said, "no way, doctors die every week in those things. "

I just left the conversation saying oh well. What do you guys say or do in those situations

Say, "How in the world do you think it got to be this old?"

I currently fly a 1964 182g. I owned and flew a 1959 172 straight tail before the Pueblo storm killed it. I fully trust these planes.

I fly with my dad in his 1950 V-tail very often. I do admit feeling a little spooked in heavy turbulance.

I'm building a 2011 Zenith 750. I hope I trust the 750 as much as the Cessnas.

tcj wrote:

He then turned to another guy and said would you fly in a buddies 50 year old airplane? He said, "no way, doctors die every week in those things. "

I just left the conversation saying oh well. What do you guys say or do in those situations

Say, "How in the world do you think it got to be this old?"

Exactly! I guess nobody ever dies in new airplanes?

Yea people are funny that way.

For comparison,

I've flown newer airplanes that were used/abused as training aircraft and poorly maintained, they had FAR more issues with those 2000 and later model planes then I have had with my 40s era plane, that doesn't even have a scratch and cranks up after one rotation.

I've heard people at airports talk about the "Small" commuter planes that "still use propellers" and it just amazes me at the naive attitude they have...and I think,,, Dumb shit, you don't know what small is when you call a twin turbine commuter a "small" plane...

Wiggy wrote:I currently fly a 1964 182g. I owned and flew a 1959 172 straight tail before the Pueblo storm killed it. I fully trust these planes.

I fly with my dad in his 1950 V-tail very often. I do admit feeling a little spooked in heavy turbulance.

Even though the V Tail is certified to a higher G load limit than the 172/182?

Bonanza Man wrote:

Wiggy wrote:I currently fly a 1964 182g. I owned and flew a 1959 172 straight tail before the Pueblo storm killed it. I fully trust these planes.

I fly with my dad in his 1950 V-tail very often. I do admit feeling a little spooked in heavy turbulance.

Even though the V Tail is certified to a higher G load limit than the 172/182?

172s and 182s don’t have the nasty habit of bending there tail feathers, folding in half and breaking the main spar during negative G loading in turbulences like V tail Beach’s do.

172heavy wrote:172s and 182s don’t have the nasty habit of bending there tail feathers, folding in half and breaking the main spar during negative G loading in turbulences like V tail Beach’s do.

Like virtually all aircraft the tail fails first when over stressed. Negative g failures? Never heard of them, on any typical GA airplane. Main spar failure? Nope, not there either. The tail fails first when the plane is over stressed. It is easier, however, to overstress the Bo simply because it's a slicker airframe, but it's in the utility category all the way to gross weight.

Bonanza Man wrote:Like virtually all aircraft the tail fails first when over stressed. Negative g failures? Never heard of them, on any typical GA airplane. Main spar failure? Nope, not there either. The tail fails first when the plane is over stressed. It is easier, however, to overstress the Bo simply because it's a slicker airframe, but it's in the utility category all the way to gross weight.

Yup. Unfairly demonized aircraft. But, If you set it up trimmed straight and level at cruise speed, then let go, will it slowly fall off into a spiral dive?

Bonanza Man wrote:

Wiggy wrote:I currently fly a 1964 182g. I owned and flew a 1959 172 straight tail before the Pueblo storm killed it. I fully trust these planes.

I fly with my dad in his 1950 V-tail very often. I do admit feeling a little spooked in heavy turbulance.

Even though the V Tail is certified to a higher G load limit than the 172/182?

I'm admitting to having less than rational fear. Quite like the general public this thread is refering to. When I am in turbulence and looking out and seeing little flexing in the wing surface (easily viewed because the wing is under my chin not over my head), I sometimes feel a miserable emptiness in the pit of my stomach. I still get in the plane after the next fuel stop and keep flying. I just admit age and continued stress give me pause in some situations.

Different topic for different thread...............................
I also worry a little about flying in full IFR conditions, in the mountains, with no gap between bottom of clouds and the ground with our very high time IO-470 in the same '50 Bonanza. I firmly believe between my dad and I that we can walk away from a dead stick landing 98 trys out of 100, but it drastically changes the odds when you never see the ground.

I agree with the general thought of this thread - the public is ignorant of general aviation. Not stupid, just completely lacking information. They don't know small planes or the intense efforts that everyone makes to keep these great old girls safe and reliable.

Keep it safe and fun, boys and girls. I for one will continue to be jealous when I see a classic beauty on the tarmac and have to wave and smile instead of hoping in and enjoying it first hand.

Didn't we just have a thread where a member made an excellent landing after engine failure..... But wasn't it also brought on by the plane being old specifically on old air box that fell apart in flight.

Not saying I won't fly in old planes cause I do and flew my 65 182 a lot.... But all things wear out and I would feel less safe in a cheap 52 cub that had never been rebuilt than in a new top cub.... That's just how it is

great response on this post, thanks guys.

Blu: yes i agree, I would feel safer in a brand new cub from cubcrafters than I would in a 52 cub. But if the 52 was well maintained, i would not fly in fear with my stomach in knots or choose to not fly it at all because I heard on the tv a doctor died last week.

Old birds can still be safe was my original point. as safe as the pilot in command.

with age things wear out a bit, but guys go down in the new stuff all the time as well. generally it is pilot error, not the age of the bird that causes serious accidents.

thanks for the thread

Bonanza Man wrote:

172heavy wrote:172s and 182s don’t have the nasty habit of bending there tail feathers, folding in half and breaking the main spar during negative G loading in turbulences like V tail Beach’s do.

Like virtually all aircraft the tail fails first when over stressed. Negative g failures? Never heard of them, on any typical GA airplane. Main spar failure? Nope, not there either. The tail fails first when the plane is over stressed. It is easier, however, to overstress the Bo simply because it's a slicker airframe, but it's in the utility category all the way to gross weight.

I agree with you on the strength and dependability of the Bonanza. The rest.....

When a horizontal tail (or the Ruddervators and stabilizers on the Bonanza) fail, the resulting absence of tail down forces causes a severe nose DOWN pitching moment, which typically causes the WING to fail in the negative direction. And, remember, even the utility category doesn't provide much "margin" in the negative direction.

You are generally correct on the accident history of the Bonanza being largely a factor of the performance and aerodynamics of the airframe. Beech DID adopt a gusset to strengthen the leading edge of that V-tail, which I believe has reduced the number of these types of accidents. The early Bonanzas, however, didn't need that reinforcement. I completely agree that the Bonanza is a VERY strong, VERY dependable airplane, and they've been that way since 1947.

As to people being ignorant of aircraft and aviation, this is largely true of almost any endeavor we can undertake.

There's a lot of ignorance out there, and many old wives tales about a lot of stuff. The internet has helped with the proliferation of many of these, though it's also provided a great tool to research these things. Most folks won't take the time to research, and besides, a good juicy rumor is almost always better fodder for spreading than the facts....

MTV

c172tw wrote:great response on this post, thanks guys.

Blu: yes i agree, I would feel safer in a brand new cub from cubcrafters than I would in a 52 cub. But if the 52 was well maintained, i would not fly in fear with my stomach in knots or choose to not fly it at all because I heard on the tv a doctor died last week.

Old birds can still be safe was my original point. as safe as the pilot in command.

with age things wear out a bit, but guys go down in the new stuff all the time as well. generally it is pilot error, not the age of the bird that causes serious accidents.

thanks for the thread

I fully agree. I would fly with a good pilot in an older plane way before I would fly with a poor pilot in the newest plane any day. The pilot is defiantly the most likely thing to "fail" in a plane. Still all things being equal a newer plane generally is a little safer than an old one.

Bonanza Man wrote:

172heavy wrote:172s and 182s don’t have the nasty habit of bending there tail feathers, folding in half and breaking the main spar during negative G loading in turbulences like V tail Beach’s do.

Like virtually all aircraft the tail fails first when over stressed. Negative g failures? Never heard of them, on any typical GA airplane. Main spar failure? Nope, not there either. The tail fails first when the plane is over stressed. It is easier, however, to overstress the Bo simply because it's a slicker airframe, but it's in the utility category all the way to gross weight.

Bonanza Man, you have a PM.

This is a LOT of airplane for the price of a beater T-cart. Probably 10 times the annual cost, 3 times the fuel cost, and half the utility but it all depends on what floats one's boat. I would not hesitate to fly out to OK for a look if this met my needs. Old people like old airplanes I guess. This one is about the same age as my wife......I ain't askeert of her either.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... nanza.html

wow, that does seem awfully cheap for a bonzanza. probably too good to be true, but if someone wants me to take a look at it for them I live about 10 minutes from where it is located.

just send me a pm.