Where, Exactly, Are Apps Going From Here?
Good editorial Paul. One other irritation that was not mentioned is that, as the developers slather on the new features, the need for a more powerful tablet becomes necessary. It is the same old contest between hardware and software vendors – more features require more processing power which allows more features. Case in point: WingX recently announced that its new and improved version of the program required upgrading to iOS Version 13 million, or something like that. But my ancient iPad 2 could not be upgraded beyond iOS V 11 million. So, now I have to buy a new (read expensive) iPad Pro or find another flight app that works on stone age equipment. The programmers also know that once you have taken the time and trouble to learn how to use their program, you are more likely to stick with them rather than switch and learn something different.
With regard to the question of whether the apps increase safety, that is a double-edged sword. During a flight review some time ago, my CFI criticized me for spending too much time fiddling with the iPad instead of looking at the real instruments and looking out the window. Point taken.
John M.
With respect to aviation apps, Paul hits the bullseye.
Delivering this message to app developers could reduce frustration … if they would listen.
New features are added which they believe would be enhancements, as opposed to what customers want or need. Developers get paid to build new stuff; users are typically not the priority. It appears irrelevant to the developers when new features create confusion, add unnecessary complexity or that updated, new user interface can require extensive effort re-learning how to use the technology. ‘Intuitive’ vanishes.
When new technology is the driver and customer needs/wants are secondary, indeed the tail is wagging the dog.
And in a rush to release each round of new bells and whistles, better known as bloat, it’s frustrating when existing functionality is broken (or removed) in the process. How about testing/Quality Assurance prior to release.
Mike S.
I’m 78, been flying since HS. I’m just glad I got to hang around long enough to see and use all or this unbelievable stuff. As I putt along in my no electric Aeronca Chief, feeding all that fantastic info into my iPhone or iPad, from a battery powered $239 Stratux, onto a fantastic WingX app, furnished free by those super nice folks because I’m a CFI, I just shake my head in amazement. Do I need any of this? Well, no! But am I loving it? Well, yes!
Roger A.
RLT: Initials That Kept The Antiques Flying
What a wonderful legacy Mr. Taylor left all of us “old airplane” people. I flew my Pietenoil Air Camper to the Ottumwa fly-in in 1968, and have planned to attend ever since…but didn’t. Recently, Bob asked me for photos of that flight in the Air Camper and I sent what I had. He was fortunate in having lived a life on his terms and keeping his passionate love of old airplanes alive.
Martha L.
The first time we went to the Antique Airfield Bob was the only one around. He didn’t know us from anybody, but was very welcoming, very friendly. He told story after story and it felt like he would have been happy to talk to us all day. Great guy who had a great impact on many people, us included.
Dave S.
Poll: What Do You Think of CubCrafters Nosewheel XCub?
- It will create an increase in business for A&Ps replacing props and nose gear as the unsuspecting will attempt utilize in PA-18 typical landings, sandbars, tundra, rocky areas, marshes, etc. All just accidents waiting to happen.
- A) It’s ugly. B) Wow, that’s expensive. C) Who in their right mind buys a new certified airplane anyway?
- Blasphemy!
- I wanted to hate it, but I think I would love it!
- They will probably sell some but, as for me, I will stick with the taildragger version.
- For those that require a training wheel I think it’s great!
- 3rd wheel on the wrong end!?!
- Expensive.
- The only value in a tail wheel is the nostalgia.
- Nosewheel on a Cub? T’aint raaht!
- Yeah, that’s what we need A trike bush plane.
- Are they running out of competent tail wheel qualified pilots? What’s next, an autopilot perhaps?
- I can’t afford any plane younger than me, so it doesn’t matter much.
- They have merged ugly and blasphemy.
- A modern TriPacer, just what the world needs.
- $300,000 is a bit much.
- The Zenith 750 Super Duty is better.
- Thing’s awesome.
- Nosewheel looks the opposite of rugged.
- Who cares? As far as I’m concerned, nothing they make is worth their sticker price.
- Pretty interesting!
- It looks a little strange, but seems to have decent performance. But don’t call it a Cub, cause it really isn’t.
- No joy.
- Your own coverage when XCub was certified says it was clean sheet – looks like they designed this in from the start.
- It’s a sacrilege. It will detract the original and classic design.
- Next best thing to a taildragger.
- Ugly and unnecessary. Doesn’t deserve to have “Cub” in its name.
- If people buy it, it’s great. (I’m trying not to be a tailwheel snob.)
- Another politically correct solution!
- I learned on Tailwheel – Nose wheel are easier and safer to fly period.
- Tri-Pacer reinvented.
- Nooo! Keep the third wheel on the CORRECT end.
- I’m in the medical product and equipment design business. I’ve always instilled on the team that every design needs to be reliably functional but also needs at least some degree of elegance of design. While I believe the CubCrafters design is sturdy and reliably functional, I believe it fails on the second part. I would have made it look more like a Cirrus. Thanks.
- Fugly.
- As ugly as a Tri-Champ but surely will lower insurance bill.
- If it sells, then build it.
- Typically overpriced.
- Lightning will strike you for your sacrilege.
- Catering to a lower skill level that doesn’t belong off airport anyway. Hate it.
- It’s terrific. Wish it was affordable to more pilots.
- I would take it if it were given to me.
- It does not matter what I think … look how happy the airplane is!
- WTF
