That's not $6K, it's $6995 - $7K for all practical purposes.C150 for $6,000. I wonder how that compared to a new car of the same era?
But that isn't deceptive, or even misleading. They are comparing it to a 170. It IS a lot easier to land than a tailwheel. Or anything else contemporaneous aside from a Tri-Pacer.
I was told the FAA gave Cessna heat for their ads touting C-150's as 4 seaters, skinny mom and dad and two barely toddles in the cargo area baby seat.
Why would the FAA care? They could advertise it any way they want, what matters is how it was certified and that in operation it doesn't exceed limitations.
Why would the FAA care? They could advertise it any way they want, what matters is how it was certified and that in operation it doesn't exceed limitations.
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
Heck, the Bo had been in production for over a decade by this time...hadn't it?
For everyone who bemoans the cirrus advertising and blames them for attracting the "wrong sort of pilots", a little history lesson is in order:
it "makes flying more practical for those who don't have time to become "professional" amateur pilots"
For everyone who bemoans the cirrus advertising and blames them for attracting the "wrong sort of pilots", a little history lesson is in order:
it "makes flying more practical for those who don't have time to become "professional" amateur pilots"
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
No problem...that was back in the day when people would let their kids stand up in the front seats and get launched throught the windshield when they had to slam on brakes. It happened to my wife riding with her grandmother. In retrospect, I guess that explains a few things now!How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
What? Are those people like three feet tall? The disproportionately large cabin is more deceptive than the slogan!
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
Our local FBO has several old ads framed in various places around their facility, I love reading them. One I looked at today was for a Cessna 180, talked about how this busy business man could travel 1200 miles round trip in one day and still have 2 hours on site! What is that 9.5 hours flying time?
I wasn't aware there are federal air regulations regulating advertising for aircraft manufacturers.
Surgical removal of the sense of humor a job requirerement to become a fed?
No problem...that was back in the day when people would let their kids stand up in the front seats and get launched throught the windshield when they had to slam on brakes. It happened to my wife riding with her grandmother. In retrospect, I guess that explains a few things now!
That's not $6K, it's $6995 - $7K for all practical purposes.
If you assume the ad was from around 1970 (looks about right, maybe a little earlier) I'd say it's about 2 to 2-1/2 times the cost of an average car. Just working from the few numbers I know, a new 'Vette went for roughly $6K and a pretty well loaded Mustang was about half that.
Everyone knows the 172 is luxurious and almost opulent!
I was told the FAA gave Cessna heat for their ads touting C-150's as 4 seaters, skinny mom and dad and two barely toddles in the cargo area baby seat.
Hey, that plane was deregistered back in 1976. Wonder what happened?
The sad fate of N6233R:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=22430&key=0
No children were harmed.
Y'all know that Flying magazine has their enitire archive in Google Books for free?
Cessna, Car of the Air:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u6MJUCcMS8oC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=true