Super Stallion Kit plane. Worth it?
Kyler Laird
>>4) they didn't invest anything in showing
>> decent information on the Web.
>>
>>(It's so bad that it makes me question the
>>quality of their product.)
>Kyler, have you seen it lately?
Yes. I looked at it right before I posted.
>It's definitely improved (at least now
>multi-page), although clearly still not an award-winner. It's moved
>from the "froghouse" address to www.superstallion.com.
>BTW, in some ways, it looks like a web page designed by engineers,
No, there weren't enough extra apostrophe's [sic]
for that. (Heck, it doesn't take an engineer to
spell "upholostery".) It was more the non-hypertext
("Click on a switch to go where you want"!) and
marketing-speak like "On top of that!" (That's a
sentence?!) It isn't even clear that there is a
good way to contact them (besides phone/snail mail).
At least they have descriptive page titles. (like
"web7". Ah, yes! Good ol' web7!)
Also...
The KLN89B GPS shows a ground speed of 211 kts
with no head or tail wind.
Do they mean "no wind" or no head/tail-wind
component? (What about a side wind?) Why don't they
just say what they mean?
After climb we have 170 gallons of fuel left
in the wings. With this fuel and 20 gallons
reserve we travel 3,100 statute miles.
Does this mean that there's fuel that's somewhere
other than in the wings? Is that what they mean
by the 20 gallon reserve? Is there a 20 gallon
fuselage tank?
With this fuel and 20 gallons reserve we travel
3,100 statute miles. You say you can not fly
that long! We have relief. Click relief buttom!
What the hell is the "relief buttom"!? Is this an
extended range butt?! Where do I "click" to get
one?
Turn on the S-TEC 50 autopilot and sit back,
you are just going along for the ride.
So I don't have to look for traffic and weather, or
communicate with ATC, etc.? This is definitely a
new type of flying to me.
Dave did clean and dirty stalls with this
Stallion and it flew great. He also claims
that the engine really runs sweat.
Does that mean that it leaks coolant?
It looks like someone sat a monkey with a brochure in
front of a FrontPage (Ick.) equipped computer and said
"Put us on the Web!"
>but
>I hope it was a PR flack, not an engineer that came up with the
>measure of fuel economy: "MPG per seat passenger mile"<g> (I know,
>it's clear that they meant "passenger seat miles per gallon", but that
>kind of carelessness does bother me, for the reasons you cited.)
Yeah, I was turned off by that, too.
A Stallion with a Walter turbine is quite interesting
to me, but these guys look like they're not serious.
Perhaps they're putting all of their effort into
engineering and someone else just went stupid on the
Web. Let's hope.
--kyler
AlexY
>>Kyler, have you seen it lately?
>
>Yes. I looked at it right before I posted.
You should have seen the previous one! But, to keep things in
perspective, at least they are putting info up on the web. I'd rather
see info there, even if poorly presented, than no info.
>>BTW, in some ways, it looks like a web page designed by engineers,
>
>No, there weren't enough extra apostrophe's [sic]
<g> Theirs got to be something in what engineering school's teach that
lead's to there students writing like that?
(Flame-retardant suit on. No, I'm not an engineer, and if you think
that disqualifies me from making an engineer joke, get a life. And no,
I don't think the stereotype in my comment fits all engineers--in fact
my son is pursuing a BSE, and I don't think he is being forced to give
up his knowledge of middle school grammar.)
> With this fuel and 20 gallons reserve we travel
> 3,100 statute miles. You say you can not fly
> that long! We have relief. Click relief buttom!
>What the hell is the "relief buttom"!? Is this an
>extended range butt?! Where do I "click" to get
>one?
>
You missed the humor here. There's a button on the web page. Relief is
a urinal, in either a normal or 5-gallon size.
>Perhaps they're putting all of their effort into
>engineering and someone else just went stupid on the
>Web. Let's hope.
Yes, let's hope.
--
Alex
Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Charles K. Scott
la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> A Stallion with a Walter turbine is quite interesting
> to me, but these guys look like they're not serious.
> Perhaps they're putting all of their effort into
> engineering and someone else just went stupid on the
> Web. Let's hope.
My take: Martin Holman is an engineer who has proven he is serious and
knows how to design airplanes. The Stallion has been on the market for
quite a while and is one of the highest performance homebuilts you can
buy. Just because you've found a few errors in the web page doesn't
mean Mr. Holman can't design an airplane. The one does not mean the
other. That's like saying that Kobe Bryant is virtually unstoppable in
the open court, therefore he should be able to write a novel the
equivelant to "The Sun Also Rises." Kobe may be a great open court
basketball player but writing novels isn't what he does.
If one is great at a particular skill but not so great at another, the
lesser skill does not negate the greater skill.
Corky Scott
Kyler Laird
>My take: Martin Holman is an engineer who has proven he is serious and
>knows how to design airplanes. The Stallion has been on the market for
>quite a while and is one of the highest performance homebuilts you can
>buy. Just because you've found a few errors in the web page doesn't
>mean Mr. Holman can't design an airplane.
Being able to design an airplane is not the same
as being able to deliver and support a good kit
plane.
If I buy a kit, I'm going to want a whole lot
more than a great design.
--kyler
Patrick
I think it is a great plane and with the right person marketing it, it
would take off.
Kyler Laird wrote:
> la...@mindspring.com (AlexY) writes:
>
> >>4) they didn't invest anything in showing
> >> decent information on the Web.
> >>
> >>(It's so bad that it makes me question the
> >>quality of their product.)
>
> >Kyler, have you seen it lately?
>
> Yes. I looked at it right before I posted.
>
> >It's definitely improved (at least now
> >multi-page), although clearly still not an award-winner. It's moved
> >from the "froghouse" address to www.superstallion.com.
>
> >BTW, in some ways, it looks like a web page designed by engineers,
>
> No, there weren't enough extra apostrophe's [sic]
> for that. (Heck, it doesn't take an engineer to
> spell "upholostery".) It was more the non-hypertext
> ("Click on a switch to go where you want"!) and
> marketing-speak like "On top of that!" (That's a
> sentence?!) It isn't even clear that there is a
> good way to contact them (besides phone/snail mail).
> At least they have descriptive page titles. (like
> "web7". Ah, yes! Good ol' web7!)
>
> Also...
>
> The KLN89B GPS shows a ground speed of 211 kts
> with no head or tail wind.
> Do they mean "no wind" or no head/tail-wind
> component? (What about a side wind?) Why don't they
> just say what they mean?
>
> After climb we have 170 gallons of fuel left
> in the wings. With this fuel and 20 gallons
> reserve we travel 3,100 statute miles.
> Does this mean that there's fuel that's somewhere
> other than in the wings? Is that what they mean
> by the 20 gallon reserve? Is there a 20 gallon
> fuselage tank?
>
> With this fuel and 20 gallons reserve we travel
> 3,100 statute miles. You say you can not fly
> that long! We have relief. Click relief buttom!
> What the hell is the "relief buttom"!? Is this an
> extended range butt?! Where do I "click" to get
> one?
>
> Turn on the S-TEC 50 autopilot and sit back,
> you are just going along for the ride.
> So I don't have to look for traffic and weather, or
> communicate with ATC, etc.? This is definitely a
> new type of flying to me.
>
> Dave did clean and dirty stalls with this
> Stallion and it flew great. He also claims
> that the engine really runs sweat.
> Does that mean that it leaks coolant?
>
> It looks like someone sat a monkey with a brochure in
> front of a FrontPage (Ick.) equipped computer and said
> "Put us on the Web!"
>
> >but
> >I hope it was a PR flack, not an engineer that came up with the
> >measure of fuel economy: "MPG per seat passenger mile"<g> (I know,
> >it's clear that they meant "passenger seat miles per gallon", but that
> >kind of carelessness does bother me, for the reasons you cited.)
>
> Yeah, I was turned off by that, too.
>
> A Stallion with a Walter turbine is quite interesting
> to me, but these guys look like they're not serious.
> Perhaps they're putting all of their effort into
> engineering and someone else just went stupid on the
> Web. Let's hope.
>
> --kyler
Charles K. Scott
la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> Being able to design an airplane is not the same
> as being able to deliver and support a good kit
> plane.
>
> If I buy a kit, I'm going to want a whole lot
> more than a great design.
>
> --kyler
Sorry, I didn't know people were complaining about delivery and
support. Are they?
Corky Scott
Kyler Laird
>In article <7npsm7$7n$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
>la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>> Being able to design an airplane is not the same
>> as being able to deliver and support a good kit
>> plane.
>>
>> If I buy a kit, I'm going to want a whole lot
>> more than a great design.
>Sorry, I didn't know people were complaining about delivery and
>support. Are they?
See the thread in rec.aviation.owning. No, the
issue is that they seem to have problems with
presenting information.
I'm sure I'll be confused enough if I ever buy
a kitplane without bad documentation. I'd also
want up-to-date help online.
Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
about the Stallion, the company might be
missing the skills required to deliver such
service. At the least, they have neglected
attention to details (great and small). I have
concerns about trusting my life to a product
from a company who is so sloppy.
--kyler
Marc J. Zeitlin
> See the thread in rec.aviation.owning. No, the
> issue is that they seem to have problems with
> presenting information.
No, the issue is that you think their website is amateurish, which I
don't think anyone has disputed. How this ties into the quality of
the product they sell is unclear, however.
> I'm sure I'll be confused enough if I ever buy
> a kitplane without bad documentation.
Will you be confused enough if you buy a kitplane WITH bad
documentation? What exactly is it about the website that makes you
think the kit documentation is less than optimal? Do you think the
quality of the two things is correlated positively?
> .... I'd also want up-to-date help online.
Sure, who wouldn't. If you don't get it, though, are you going to
make the assumption that the product is bad? Is email support good
enough for you, or do they have to have some fancy java applet to
impress you with their engineering and/or customer relation skills?
> Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
> about the Stallion, the company might be
> missing the skills required to deliver such
> service.
What they're missing is web page development skills. Since designing,
kitting, and supporting aircraft builders is not related to web page
development, being deficient in one is not a reflection on the quality
of the other.
> ... At the least, they have neglected
> attention to details (great and small).
Only on the web pages.
> ..... I have
> concerns about trusting my life to a product
> from a company who is so sloppy.
I'll tell you what. Go check out the "Seawind SNA" website at:
It's pretty nice. Then go check out the Seawind Builder's website at:
http://www.seawindbuilders.com/
Let me know if you find a correlation between the quality of the
website and the quality of the product. I'd say the same thing about
the "Q2000" website, but it was taken down after they went bankrupt
due to a less than stellar product.
I happen to be building a COZY MKIV. The website:
is, how to say, pretty sad. However, the aircraft is wonderful, the
plans are excellent, and the builder support is decent.
I would suggest you stop fixating on the slickness of an advertising
vehicle and investigate the issues involved with building a safe,
reliable aircraft.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin email: marc_z...@alum.mit.edu
Charles K. Scott
la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
> about the Stallion, the company might be
> missing the skills required to deliver such
> service. At the least, they have neglected
> attention to details (great and small). I have
> concerns about trusting my life to a product
> from a company who is so sloppy.
>
> --kyler
Well that's what I mean about judging the company by the web page they
have. They may make a fantastic airplane (I'm not saying they do or do
not) but all their expertise is in airplane design, not web page
authoring. So I'm hesitant to judge one aspect of their competance by
criteria from an entirely unrelated (in my opinion) source.
Sure you'd expect the one to relate to the other but I don't think that
always follows.
Have you heard from anyone who has actually built one? I'm guessing
that would be the best information regarding how well the company helps
out during the building process, not the web page.
Corky Scott
Ed Sullivan
Then I would quit slandering them and look at something else. You do not appear to know enough to even ask a sensible
question.
Ed Sullivan
Raed Elazzawi
Stallions, the blue prints are hand drawn ( no cad is what I mean ) and too
much information are cramped in them making them hard to figure out. The
instruction booklets are just summaries; not enough details. There are a
lot of errors for example the ailerons in the book move up 20 deg. and down
14 deg. in the blue prints they move up 14 deg. and down 20 deg. I have
enough common sense to figure this out.Martin Hollman puts a fuel hole
right into the aileron bellcrank bay ( which is supposed to be dry ). Also
Hollman instructs to bond the top wing skins to the spar while it is on the
airframe. I talked to another builder who tried it like that and had to
tare it off and do it instead on the jig table for better accuracy. That
same builder pointed out that Hollman didn't account for spar thickness at
the wing tips due to wash out. The whole kit is designed that way leaving a
lot of room for builder discretion. The Stallion is a very practical
airplane that is not easy to build, I hope Hollman would implement design
changes ( many of them ) to make it a better airplane.
Raed
Common sense A&P mechanic, Stallion builder and Lanceair IV builder
>
Bruce A. Frank
Corky,
I am beginning to think this is a troll.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAFRANK(at)worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding
While trying to find the time to finish mine.
Stephen Austin
turbine I'd be happy to help. I have a Walter powered Ag-Cat that I had built
up this past winter. Quite an engine. I'll be glad to help if I can.
Stephen Austin
Austin Ag Aviation
Charleston, Missouri
Kyler Laird
>Then I would quit slandering them and look at something else. You do not appear to know enough to even ask a sensible
>question.
Who was slandering and who was asking questions?
--kyler
Ed Sullivan
I refer you to the title of your thread
AlexY
>Charles K. Scott wrote:
>>
>> In article <7nq5t4$3ua$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
>> la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>>
>> > Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
>> > about the Stallion, the company might be
>> > missing the skills required to deliver such
>snip
>>
>> Well that's what I mean about judging the company by the web page they
>> have. They may make a fantastic airplane (I'm not saying they do or do
>> not) but all their expertise is in airplane design, not web page
>snip
>
>Corky,
>
>I am beginning to think this is a troll.
Bruce, what makes you think that? I think both Kyler and Corky have
made excellent points in this discussion, and neither has demonstrated
the "you must be screwed up if you don't agree with me" attitude
typical of a troll. I agree with Kyler's concern that sloppiness in a
web page may be symptomatic of other sloppiness or inattention to
detail, although I'm less concerned than he about the web design
aspect. Corky has presented some good counterexamples showing that
the correlation between web design and aircraft design is weak.
As another counterexample, I bet dollars to donuts that if Kyler went
to http://www.geversaircraft.com/index.html , he would probably say
that they did a very professional job on the web page, but he'd rather
invest in a Super Stallion!
That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
Kyler Laird
>As another counterexample, I bet dollars to donuts that if Kyler went
>to http://www.geversaircraft.com/index.html , he would probably say
>that they did a very professional job on the web page, but he'd rather
>invest in a Super Stallion!
Funny that you'd mention that. The Triphibian looks
like my ideal plane. Of course, that's what it's
*supposed* to look like to everyone, right? I've
been watching it for awhile. (It was also mentioned
on AvWeb recently.) It *looks* like little more
than a hook for investors (and an interesting, and
terribly complex concept).
Of course, in my "list of things to occasionally
check" it's right there with the SkyCar...
>That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
>Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
>that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
>recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
Your recollection is great and your reading skills
are well above average for the group.
--kyler
--LAA14101.933352632/millennium.ecn.purdue.edu--
Kyler Laird
My thread? Sheesh! You're not even reading
it, are you?
I suppose it's hopeless to expect you to know
what slander is, but feel free to try to point
out who was slandering whom.
--kyler
George R. Patterson III
>
> >Who was slandering and who was asking questions?
> >
> >--kyler
>
> I refer you to the title of your thread
Seems like a simple question to me. I certainly ask for opinions and
advice before spending this kind of money.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Charles K. Scott
la...@mindspring.com (AlexY) writes:
> That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
> Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
> that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
> recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
My concern about surmising that a product must be bad because the web
page has problems stems from my own abilities, or lack of them.
I've been a carpenter and a mechanic professionally and now sit behind
a desk handling administrative duties. I duly learned how to use a
computer but the college started with Macintoshes so I know next to
nothing about PC's. I've been building my Christavia for longer than I
like to admit and can speak to rib fabrication, trammeling the spars,
welding the fuselage and building wingtips out of fiberglass. I've
also learned a thing or two about auto engine use in airplanes over the
years.
But I only just learned how to kludge together a web page and my first
effort reflects this lack of experience. Should someone look at my web
page and decide that I can barely tie my shoelaces because of it's
primative nature? Who knows, maybe, but I would hope folks could look
past the crudeness of the page and just look at the effort.
I think the same should go for the Stallion web page. You cannot
automatically infer that they are building a poor product because their
web page isn't up to someone's technical standards; designers of
airplanes don't necessarily make great web page designers, they might
not even spell well. The only real source of verification as to the
viability of the product would be builder input.
I'm betting that if you contacted Martin Holman and asked him for the
names and addresses of builders, he'd give them to you and you could
ask them yourself.
You probably should do this with any airplane you are intending to
build because it's a lot of money to spend on something if you are not
fully informed.
Corky Scott
AlexY
>In article <37a1ca09....@news.mindspring.com>
>la...@mindspring.com (AlexY) writes:
>
>> That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
>> Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
>> that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
>> recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
>
>My concern about surmising that a product must be bad because the web
Corky, I stand by my comment. I don't think he is "surmising that a
product must be bad..." I think he suggested that the original poster
be wary; quite a difference in my book.
>page has problems stems from my own abilities, or lack of them.
<g> Me too! That's why I am also less concerned about the web design
aspects than is Kyler. And I'm an atrocious speller--and it's
appalling watt gets passed thee spill checker!
>But I only just learned how to kludge together a web page and my first
>effort reflects this lack of experience. Should someone look at my web
>page and decide that I can barely tie my shoelaces because of it's
>primative nature?
No way. Been a while since I checked it. No, it wasn't slick, but it
was very interesting. I don't think anyone will be saying you don't
know what you are doing!
>I think the same should go for the Stallion web page. You cannot
>automatically infer that they are building a poor product because their
>web page isn't up to someone's technical standards; designers of
>airplanes don't necessarily make great web page designers, they might
>not even spell well.
Agree. But good business people do what they do well and hire others
to complement their skills to deliver quality to their customers.
_IF_ the post from a purported builder here is legit (do you think it
is?), it sounds like MH may be a great designer (This seems to be
commonly accepted, although I have no way of knowing.) who should hire
others to help with technical writing, documentation, and construction
details.
>The only real source of verification as to the
>viability of the product would be builder input.
Other than the post mentioned above, the only other thing I've seen is
a magazine article that said that this plane was no project for a
novice. Implied that most will be built by professionals, since too
much was left to builder discretion.
>I'm betting that if you contacted Martin Holman and asked him for the
>names and addresses of builders, he'd give them to you and you could
>ask them yourself.
>
>You probably should do this with any airplane you are intending to
>build because it's a lot of money to spend on something if you are not
>fully informed.
yep
Kyler Laird
>> See the thread in rec.aviation.owning. No, the
>> issue is that they seem to have problems with
>> presenting information.
>No, the issue is that you think their website is amateurish, which I
>don't think anyone has disputed. How this ties into the quality of
>the product they sell is unclear, however.
I don't mind "amateurish" Web presentation. Heck,
I appreciate *simple* presentation.
What they have is just full of sloppy errors and
silly stuff ("switches," for example). If that's
how they communicate with their customers, I see
no reason to expect their documentation to be any
different.
>> I'm sure I'll be confused enough if I ever buy
>> a kitplane without bad documentation.
>Will you be confused enough if you buy a kitplane WITH bad
>documentation?
I meant that as a first time builder, there will
be plenty confuse me without the added hindrance
of poor documentation.
>What exactly is it about the website that makes you
>think the kit documentation is less than optimal? Do you think the
>quality of the two things is correlated positively?
If they're willing to be sloppy in presenting
information to their (potential) customers in
one mode, I suspect that they are in other
modes.
>> .... I'd also want up-to-date help online.
>Sure, who wouldn't. If you don't get it, though, are you going to
>make the assumption that the product is bad?
I see support as a very large part of the
product of a kit plane. Yes, I would be
disappointed if they didn't take advantage of
the 'net to distribute information
efficiently.
>Is email support good
>enough for you, or do they have to have some fancy java applet to
>impress you with their engineering and/or customer relation skills?
I have Java turned off (along with images,
JavaScript, cookies, ...), so that certainly
would impress me in a positive way.
>> Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
>> about the Stallion, the company might be
>> missing the skills required to deliver such
>> service.
>What they're missing is web page development skills.
And writing skills.
>Since designing,
>kitting, and supporting aircraft builders is not related to web page
>development, being deficient in one is not a reflection on the quality
>of the other.
Writing technical instructions is certainly
related.
>> ... At the least, they have neglected
>> attention to details (great and small).
>Only on the web pages.
From looking only at the Web pages, we don't
know where else they lack attention. I did
not assert that I do.
We certainly don't know (just from the Web
pages) that they *only* lack attention on
Web pages. (According to another post in
this thread, it certainly isn't true.)
>I would suggest you stop fixating on the slickness of an advertising
Who was fixating? I offered a comment. It
was true. Get over it.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>Ed Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> >Who was slandering and who was asking questions?
>> >
>> >--kyler
>>
>> I refer you to the title of your thread
>Seems like a simple question to me. I certainly ask for opinions and
>advice before spending this kind of money.
I do too, but someone else asked this one.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>In article <37a1ca09....@news.mindspring.com>
>la...@mindspring.com (AlexY) writes:
>> That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
>> Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
>> that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
>> recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
>My concern about surmising that a product must be bad because the web
>page has problems stems from my own abilities, or lack of them.
What caused you to have this concern? Certainly
no one has made this assertion in this thread.
>But I only just learned how to kludge together a web page and my first
>effort reflects this lack of experience. Should someone look at my web
>page and decide that I can barely tie my shoelaces because of it's
>primative nature?
Primitive is cool with me. (I'd wonder about
your spelling, though...)
>Who knows, maybe, but I would hope folks could look
>past the crudeness of the page and just look at the effort.
I'm in it for the info. I don't much care how
much effort you put into it.
>I think the same should go for the Stallion web page. You cannot
>automatically infer that they are building a poor product because their
>web page isn't up to someone's technical standards;
No one automatically inferred anything about it.
>designers of
>airplanes don't necessarily make great web page designers, they might
>not even spell well.
...and they might make horrid technical writers.
This is a problem if they don't realize it and
find someone who can do the job for them.
>The only real source of verification as to the
>viability of the product would be builder input.
Has anyone denied that?
--kyler
Yoram Leshinski
>
> In article <37a1ca09....@news.mindspring.com>
> la...@mindspring.com (AlexY) writes:
>
> > That doesn't negate the validity of his concerns about Aircraft
> > Design. I don't believe that Kyler has said they do a poor job, or
> > that he'd never buy from them, just that he'd be very wary. (my
> > recollection only; I haven't reread the thread to verify.)
>
> My concern about surmising that a product must be bad because the web
> page has problems stems from my own abilities, or lack of them.
>
> a desk handling administrative duties. I duly learned how to use a
> computer but the college started with Macintoshes so I know next to
> nothing about PC's. I've been building my Christavia for longer than I
> like to admit and can speak to rib fabrication, trammeling the spars,
> welding the fuselage and building wingtips out of fiberglass. I've
> also learned a thing or two about auto engine use in airplanes over the
> years.
>
> effort reflects this lack of experience. Should someone look at my web
> page and decide that I can barely tie my shoelaces because of it's
> past the crudeness of the page and just look at the effort.
>
> automatically infer that they are building a poor product because their
> airplanes don't necessarily make great web page designers, they might
> viability of the product would be builder input.
>
> names and addresses of builders, he'd give them to you and you could
> ask them yourself.
>
> You probably should do this with any airplane you are intending to
> build because it's a lot of money to spend on something if you are not
> fully informed.
>
Corky
I don't think that anybody thinks that your web page has to be perfect.
Your page is just a fun page for your and our entertainment only. The
Stallion web page is for business. It is there to advertise and sale the
kit. The basic kit cost US$ 62,000.00. That’s not exactly chicken feed.
They are serious about selling. The web page should reflect that in the
eyes of the potential purchaser, which Kyler is one of them. In light of
the comment by Raed Elazzawi, Kyler’s concern seems justified.
Yoram Leshinski
Stephen Austin
best bargain in turboprop engines (proven) anywhere in the world. Especially
for experimentals.
And not a single taker.
William Watson
I admit that I form impressions of companies (and individuals) based on
the documents they release to the public, be they press releases, web
sites, resumes or whatever. (This is especially true of spelling
errors, which simply have no excuse in today's world of spell checkers,
even if one cannot spell correctly. I am also put off by obvious
grammatical errors, though most of today's grammar checkers really
aren't that good.) To me, these obvious errors show a lack of attention
to detail, which may or may not be present in other aspects of the
company or individual.
This thread has gone on so long that I finally got curious enough to
surf the Super Stallion site. Based on some of the comments here, I
expected to be horrified, and was rather surprised to find that the site
doesn't appear to be that bad. Ok, so "buttom" is an obvious typo that
any spell checker would have caught, and some of the text doesn't parse
that well. The 'click on a switch' isn't a good example of web based
publishing, but this is more indicative of an inexperienced web
developer than anything else. 'Click here for [xxx]' links can still be
found all over the web, for better or for worse. The switches
themselves look more like double hung windows than the rocker switches
they are apparently trying to portray, but that's a slightly different
issue.
That these errors continue to exist means that either the company does
not care enough to check on how their image is being presented to the
world or that they simply don't know any better. Does this mean their
plans also suffer from this problem? Without paying for them, it's
impossible to say - but unless I *really* wanted this particular
airplane, I would be very leery of spending money to find out the answer
is yes.
Of course, no one has mentioned sending feedback to the company about
their site! If they're aware of the errors and continue to leave them
unchanged, that also sends a message. If they're not responsive to
'fixes' that would only take minutes to implement, odds are (IMHO) they
won't be responsive to feedback about their plans, either.
In closing, I wanted to point out the Mr. Sullivan that the newsgroups
likely constitute 'publishing', and hence any defamatory statements
which appear here are libel, *not* slander. Disclaimer here: I am not
a lawyer, nor do I play one on the newsgroups. I am also not aware of
any court cases brought as a result of statements made on the
newsgroups. As the legal world has little to do with common sense, my
evaluation of this distinction may be incorrect.
- bill
bi...@thekid.com
Kyler Laird
>In closing, I wanted to point out the Mr. Sullivan that the newsgroups
>likely constitute 'publishing', and hence any defamatory statements
>which appear here are libel, *not* slander.
My understanding is that slander also
requires some false statements.
The closest I've seen to that in this
thread is people putting words in my
mouth.
--kyler
Ed Sullivan
Perhaps slander was a bit heavy, however I was not publishing a legal tome. I was a bit irked by the petulant tone of
some of the earlier posts and felt moved to respond. I don't recall seeing either your names as contributing much to
this group other than the supposedly scholarly post below. My point is that if one is not satisfied with the information
posted on a particular aircraft he should look elsewhere rather than whining to the newsgroup.
I know Mr. Hollman and his work and he is a talented designer. If the original poster had been around the homebuilt
movement for very long he would surely have heard of him and his reputation.
Ed Sullivan, the old curmudgeon
>In closing, I wanted to point out the Mr. Sullivan that the newsgroups
>likely constitute 'publishing', and hence any defamatory statements
AlexY
>>Of course, no one has mentioned sending feedback to the company about
>>their site! If they're aware of the errors and continue to leave them
>>unchanged, that also sends a message. If they're not responsive to
>>'fixes' that would only take minutes to implement, odds are (IMHO) they
>>won't be responsive to feedback about their plans, either.
FWIW, I sent them an email pointing out the assumed error and asking
for confirmation of my assumption that what was intended in speaking
of "mpg per seat passenger mile" was really "passenger seat miles per
gallon".
William Watson
>
> >>Of course, no one has mentioned sending feedback to the company about
> >>their site! If they're aware of the errors and continue to leave them
> >>unchanged, that also sends a message. If they're not responsive to
> >>'fixes' that would only take minutes to implement, odds are (IMHO) they
> >>won't be responsive to feedback about their plans, either.
>
> FWIW, I sent them an email pointing out the assumed error and asking
> for confirmation of my assumption that what was intended in speaking
> of "mpg per seat passenger mile" was really "passenger seat miles per
> gallon".
And did you get any response? Since you don't mention any, I presume
the answer is no...
- bill
bi...@thekid.com
William Watson
>
> William Watson <bi...@thekid.com> writes:
>
> >In closing, I wanted to point out the Mr. Sullivan that the newsgroups
> >likely constitute 'publishing', and hence any defamatory statements
> >which appear here are libel, *not* slander.
>
> requires some false statements.
>
> The closest I've seen to that in this
> thread is people putting words in my
> mouth.
Interestingly enough, at least according to Webster, slander requires
false statements, but libel does not. Digging further, it also appears
that libel can be written or oral, while slander is always oral. From
their WWW site:
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from
Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets
forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill
especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or
representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous,
treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act,
tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Main Entry: slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French
esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at
SCANDAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame
and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare
LIBEL
My apologies to the group for taking this thread further off topic....
- bill
bi...@thekid.com
AlexY
>> FWIW, I sent them an email pointing out the assumed error and asking
>
>And did you get any response? Since you don't mention any, I presume
>the answer is no...
>
Correct. And no change in page.
RobertR237
Laird) writes:
>
>See the thread in rec.aviation.owning. No, the
>issue is that they seem to have problems with
>presenting information.
>
>I'm sure I'll be confused enough if I ever buy
>a kitplane without bad documentation. I'd also
>want up-to-date help online.
>
>Judging strictly by the URL that someone posted
>about the Stallion, the company might be
>missing the skills required to deliver such
>service. At the least, they have neglected
>attention to details (great and small). I have
>concerns about trusting my life to a product
>from a company who is so sloppy.
>
>--kyler
A small bit of advice on that note. There are several companies which have
absolutely great web sites and whose product doesn't even come close to
matching the hype. There are many other companies who create outstanding
products and have no web presence or a very poor web presence. For my part, I
look at the product and the quality of the product not how well they market or
present it. I have yet to see a good con man who couldn't convince people by
flash and hype to buy. I have seen a number of good and even great products
die because they spent more time and effort on the product than the hype.
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
Kyler Laird
>I have yet to see a good con man who couldn't convince people by
>flash and hype to buy. I have seen a number of good and even great products
>die because they spent more time and effort on the product than the hype.
I have yet to see someone who is sloppy in
presenting information to potential customers
yet miraculously becomes an excellent
technical writer when servicing people who
have already paid for a product.
--kyler
Bradley Walker
Martin Hollman is an engineer by training and trade. As a result, he often
doesn't present things as "professionally" as possible. But, not withstanding
he is very knowledgable and reputable. Also, I've found him to be very helpful
(ie. he has a Stallion builders mail list) and always willing to talk about
airplanes and specifically his airplane. I've personally bought several of
his books and they are very informative while also being, shall we say, less
polished.
Instead of slashing the company personally, why don't you pick up the phone
and make a call. After all, not everyone in aviation is oozing money to spend
on making everything appear professional. Sometimes, we have to actually
take time and build airplanes.
-brad w.
Patrick
radiogenese
"I would have had an airplane a long time ago if it weren't
for that damned Jew I work for."
Listen to what he has to say and nod a lot. You might
decide to take your business somewhere else.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Charles K. Scott
radiogenese <anon...@web.remarq.com> writes:
> Before you buy a kitplane casually say something like:
>
> "I would have had an airplane a long time ago if it weren't
> for that damned Jew I work for."
>
> Listen to what he has to say and nod a lot. You might
> decide to take your business somewhere else.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Corky Scott
frank connaly
call and get advise over the phone for free? I had a question about carbon
fiberglass, adapting a specific retractable landing gear design on my
airplane and also the wing incidence on the root and tip chords on his
Stallion and offered to pay him for the info and he refused to take my
money.
Patrick <b...@tangent-co.com> wrote in message
news:37A975B5...@tangent-co.com...