Nice story (Airmanship, Jan. 13), but no mention of a Rotax-powered aircraft? Cirrus or Diamond as a gas saver? Please! Time to catch up with 21st century technology: Go for the Rotax. An IFR legal Tecnam Sierra goes 20 knots faster than my C172 on half the fuel, automatically adjusts the mixture and can burn mogas for a dollar or more less per gallon than avgas.
Or how about a Rotax twin? Just wait until you see this baby gracing the flight line at schools across the country. Burns a third of the fuel of a traditional twin.
The future of fuel savings is here. It's just didn't make it into your article about such.
I have to wonder where the Cessna PR people are. They decide to manufacture a new airplane in China immediately after all the problems with Chinese manufactured toys. And, not broadly reported, Cessna wants to require small manufacturers of model airplane kits to pay a licensing fee, thus alienating the model manufacturers, builders and flyers. Most manufacturers consider model builders making models of their airplanes to be free advertising.
Maybe Cessna has so many orders that they don't care about their public image and reputation. Seems many companies have had to learn the hard way the fallacy of that thinking.
In a bit of irony, a Western airplane and a symbol of the free market may be built in the birthplace of Lenin -- Ulyanovsk (AVwebBiz, Jan. 15). It is also the home (or at least was) for Aeroflot's training facility and the factory that built the AN-124.
Someone slipped when a picture of a staff sergeant, sitting in the cockpit, was allowed to be in that video (Exclusive Video, Jan. 6). It gives the wrong impression. S/Sgts are not jet pilots!
A. E. McGinnis
The still photo inserted in that video was provided by the USAF as part of their information about the Thunderbirds. It is not meant to imply that the individuals sitting in the cockpits are pilots or were involved in the accident.
"Midnight Overnight" sure looks like a painting (POTW, Jan. 17). Features that should be in focus are too soft. The ground support equipment is too "soft." The traffic cone is too pointed, etc.
Maybe "Painting of the Week."
Thanks for taking a moment to chime in, Stu.
I think there's an original photo under there. It looks to me that the edges have been sharpened and the contrast amped way up to bring out the night sky. The ground crew and equipment suffer a bit, though; they come out looking like retro-'80s wall art from a chain restaurant.
Personally, I think the Finnair photo is appropriate to the contest, but at the most extreme end of the manipulations we'd allow in a weekly winner. At the very least, it's gotten a few people to drop us a line and give us some new thoughts on when a photo crosses the line into "digital art."
Thanks for reading. And if you've got any good photos you'd like to share, we're always anxious to see 'em!