aircraft manufacturer deceptive advertising to non-pilots

JHW

JHW

En-Route
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
3,320
Location
Peoria, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Jeff Wright
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"
 

Attachments

  • Land-o-matic.jpg
    Land-o-matic.jpg
    250 KB · Views: 272
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? :dunno:
 
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.
1966-Cessna-150-2page-Ad.jpg
 
C150 for $6,000. I wonder how that compared to a new car of the same era?
 
I'm tempted to write to the address in the ad and ask about it...
 
Captain said:
C150 for $6,000. I wonder how that compared to a new car of the same era?
Click to expand...
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.
 
That is a 1966 150E. Cheapest 1966 Mustang was $2412, so the 150 was about 2.9 X the cost of the pony. Cheapest 2013 Mustang is $20,495. 2.9x that is $59,495. About twice that gets you into a new LSA with approx the same or better performance than the 150.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heck, the Bo had been in production for over a decade by this time...hadn't it?
 
ClimbnSink said:
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.
1966-Cessna-150-2page-Ad.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
RotorAndWing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heard that from a flight instructor 20 plus years ago. Dunno if it is true. We assume that someone who buys a C-150 and learns to fly in it will know it isn'ta 4 seater long before they can haul the family around. But that ignores human stupidity and common cognitive errors 'I bought this 4 seater I'm going to fly it with the seats full.'
 
RotorAndWing said:
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.
Click to expand...


How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?



2jdl2eg.jpg
 
timwinters said:
Heck, the Bo had been in production for over a decade by this time...hadn't it?
Click to expand...

going to be shameless here..I have 900 hours in a SR22 and 3100 in various bonanzas....the Beech eats the Cirrus lunch all day long ..especially the Turbo FIKI A36 that I flew...it was as close to a turboprop while being in a single piston as it gets.
 
JHW said:
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"
Click to expand...

How'd the parachute work in that one??! :dunno:
 
JHW said:
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"
Click to expand...

That ad says you "drive" the airplane. I wonder if that's why we have so many airplane drivers now instead of pilots.

Dan
 
Cessna... with Land-o-matic gear... The feature that's revolutionizing flying...
 
slacktide said:
How does the FAA feel about the little girl with no seatbelt standing up in the back?
Click to expand...
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! ;) :D
 
Now they just need to come up with a plane that has both the Land-o-Matic and the Autocontrol.
 
Everyone knows the 172 is luxurious and almost opulent! (A web search of N7825U reveals it is still registered, and has a manufacture date of 1964.)

Image19276.jpg
 
N747JB said:
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? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I have no trouble flying 9 - 10 hours and going to a party at the end of the day. :dunno:
 
MickYoumans said:
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! ;) :D
Click to expand...

I seem to recall putting a dent in the dashboard of a 1954 Chevy station wagon when I was a kid when mom hit the brakes. Maybe that explains a few things. :D:D
 
DaleB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Brand new airplane... 2-2.5x the cost of an average car.

WHAT HAPPENED? :dunno:
 
Hey, that plane was deregistered back in 1976. Wonder what happened?:dunno:
 
ClimbnSink said:
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.
1966-Cessna-150-2page-Ad.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL check out what appears to be the little, unsecured girl climbing on his back in flight! Ads... who knows...
 
Jim Logajan said:
The sad fate of N6233R:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=22430&key=0

No children were harmed.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I guess somewhere between the aforementioned ad's 'Smilin Bob' and 'Pull early, pull often!' exists some reasonable expectation of GA safety then. I'm not a 'basher' of either but marketing does have it's necessary evils sometimes. What about the Mooney 'Auto Wing Leveler' thingy... or the Culver auto trim thing-a-ma-bob? Might as well dig some others up if someone has some old info. That would make this thread all the more interesting.

:wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top