Slashdot Mirror

REALLY?

Then what do you call THIS?

Here is one for sale with some interior photos. The plane is pretty much a museum piece. 65HP. VFR only. 13 gallons fuel capacity. No transponder, so stay out of class C airspace. No electrical system from the factory (check out the gel cell sitting on the floor) so you can't even add one. Also, you will have to prop start it. I guess if you just want to occasionally take a friend up to see the local sights it might be okay, but if that's all you're doing why bother owning?

All of those things. Also, there was a huge boom in GA aircraft manufacturing during the mid 2000s when glass cockpits were the hot new thing and everyone thought they were a millionaire because they owned a house. Between the housing crash, fuels costs, and a glut of very nice used planes the only thing surprising about a drop in demand for new aircraft is that anyone would be surprised by it.

Here's a ten year old G1000 equipped Cessna 172 with 210 hours on the engine for $190k. Why on earth would anyone spend $350k on a new one?

I want my flying car!

Ok, here ya go. Not too old, very good shape and only $408,000!

Johnny Depp ------------ 15
Ben Stiller ---------------- 10.5
Tom Hanks -------------- 9
Adam Sandler ---------- 8
Leonardo Di Caprio --- 5.5
Daniel Radcliffe -------- 5
Robert Downey Jr ----- 4.5

Much more interesting (to me) is that the aircraft used (a DeHavilland DHC-3T) is a flying boat built in 1953. Looks great for fishing trips, but they were taking it through dangerous mountains - known for doing unmentionable things to aircraft - during a severe storm. Hands up all those who would want to be in the aircraft shown in the posting under those kinds of conditions.

I would prefer not to be flying any aircraft in those conditions, but if one must be chosen, a DHC-3 isn't bad. A DHC-6 would be better, thanks to the spare engine, but they have nearly identical performance and the DHC-6 is known as one of the best aircraft in the world in severe conditions. When things are too dangerous for the type of plane that you're implying would be safer (I assume you mean big fancy jets), they turn to Twin Otters. They operate in Antarctica, for instance.

Much more interesting (to me) is that the aircraft used (a DeHavilland DHC-3T) is a flying boat built in 1953. Looks great for fishing trips, but they were taking it through dangerous mountains - known for doing unmentionable things to aircraft - during a severe storm. Hands up all those who would want to be in the aircraft shown in the posting under those kinds of conditions. I feel certain that former Sen. Stevens has been in enough light aircraft (Alaska is big and the roads aren't) to know what you can and cannot do. What I cannot fathom is why he, with his knowledge and experience, would take that kind of a pointless, stupid risk.

As for O'Keefe, for all his time at NASA, I doubt he's enough time in aircraft of this vintage and size to know the risks. Being head honcho of an aerospace organization doesn't endow you with the kind of skill and knowledge needed. Nonetheless, he too should have been wary of flying in those conditions in an antique.

Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?

Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.

While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....

Ridiculously after adding all that, it would actually be cheaper!

(For those who don't believe me Cesnas are rather popular already: http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?HDRSO=Price&ETID=1&catid=6&Mdltxt=170&setype=1&Manu=CESSNA&mdlx=exact&bcatid=13&Pref=0&HDROR=asc)

Click here Note, I am not even considering ultralight aircrafts/powered parachute devices that go for around $10,000. A Powered Parachute looks a lot like a car with a giant fan on the back and a air-foil parachute to deploy that generates lift.

Since you know absolutely nothing about aircraft, let me enlighten you.

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-400/2009-CESSNA-400/1150661.htm

$600,000 for a new 4 seater with all options. That's still a MAJOR distance from 1.5M.

And actually right now, if you have the money to buy one you can probably get that plane for $500,000...

Besides, who here for their first car, bought a brand new Mustang GT or other car (Yes my comanche was the Mustang GT of 4 seater single prop)? nobody but the rich kids that daddy bought it for them.

P.S. my old plane had higher tech and far more reliable electronics in it than your new car.

I actually have had an interaction with this man. He was (maybe has by now) going to buy a plane and wanted to buy a new (used replacement in our case) interior for it before he had actually purchased his aircraft. He was in a terrible hurry to get it done, but would not believe me when I told him the interior we have is from a different, and incompatible (a Citation 500) model. I quoted him anyway, since it didn't appear (I feel bad for his assistant) that he knows planes as well as *cough* computers.

I would have never imagined enough idiots would buy his drivel to buy that man a jet. Used or not, they ain't cheap - to buy or fly. I need to start something like that, maybe: "How to post on /. - what not to do"

ICANN is the organisation we should turn to: perhaps make a rule that the owner of a domain has to actually do something with it within a set period of time (say 6 months to a year). If all they've done in that time is plaster it in advertising (or have done nothing) it should return to the pool, perhaps with a bar disallowing the ghastly spammer from buying it again for a year.

There are too many problems with suggestions like these to name.

1) What if the POINT of the business is advertising? Hey, I might want to buy an airplane, or rent a room - being able to find one is a legitimate service!

2) Who is going to police it? Really? With the bazillions of domain names expiring every year, policing this is just an absurd task.

3) Just because I haven't done anything yet with a domain, EG: doesn't mean I don't have plans for it. Granted, the plans may be a year or more before completion, but that's not to say that nothing is happening!

4) And even if problems 1 to 3 could be addressed, whose standard are you going to apply? Remember, the Internet is INTERNATIONAL and ICAAN is more of a technical body than a regulatory or legislative one.

Personally, I think that the way to handle this is to take out some of the profit potential for being a sleazebag like TFA is about. Domain squatting is a civil offense, and the loser is the person who can't own an otherwise useful domain because the squatter has, in a classic case of "tragedy of the commons", already taken the domain name.

So I suggest that

A) ICANN publish a set of rules for what determines a legitimate use of the domain. These rules would allow for defense of trademarks, and parking for intended future development.

B) Provides a procedure for arbitration, where there are fees which are paid by the LOSER of the arbitration.

Thus, if I need the domain Watermelon.com and find it squatted, I could initiate proceedings with a reasonable expectation of getting the domain free of charge if the domain is legitimately squatted according to ICANN rules.

This would drastically deflate the profit potential of the domain-name land-grab that's been going on and provide a reasonable expectation that domain names have something to do with who registers them. This would effectively shift the cost of dealing with the scumbags onto the 'bags themselves.

Well, whose fault is that? There are plenty of places where you could have bought a helicopter http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.as p?catid=7&guid=1A5EB1F3AA584022948695D66E2D8E1F and places where you could have learned to fly one http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/helicopters Why should someone else have to evacuate you just because YOU did not plan ahead?