Let's talk about Artificial Intelligence

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

One of the great things about Chat GPT et al, is that you virtually have your own free magaizne. I was bored and asked it to write a humurous article comparing the C172 to the PA28 Warrior, and it was mildly entertaining, but pretty accurate. It's not good enought to disrupt Aussie Flying and the like, but you can make your own entertainment.

Well, where is it? Share!

[Jerry_Atrick]

The Great Debate: Cessna 172 vs. Piper PA-28-161—Which One is Better at Making You Look Like a Pilot?

If you’ve ever set foot on a general aviation airfield, you’ve probably overheard a heated debate between flight instructors, student pilots, and hangar-flying veterans about one of aviation’s greatest rivalries: the Cessna 172 versus the Piper PA-28-161. These two planes have been at each other’s throats for decades, locked in a battle for the hearts (and wallets) of aspiring aviators. So, which one is truly superior? Buckle up, adjust your seatbelt (or just try to find it in a Piper), and let’s settle this once and for all.

High Wings vs. Low Wings: The Never-Ending Feud

Cessna pilots will proudly tell you that high-wing aircraft provide better visibility of the ground, making it ideal for sightseeing, aerial photography, and confirming that the airport is still there after the instructor told you to “just fly the pattern.” The high wing also means you can board your majestic flying chariot like a dignified professional—no awkward limbo moves required.

Piper pilots, on the other hand, will scoff and claim that a low-wing configuration is aerodynamically superior, gives a smoother ride, and just looks cooler. Plus, taxiing under a Cessna wing during a rainy preflight is like getting a free carport. Meanwhile, in a Piper, you’ll be crawling onto the wing like a skydiver who forgot their parachute.

Yoke vs. Yoke (But One is Just Cooler)

Both aircraft have yokes, but the Cessna’s is a classic “steering wheel” design, which makes you feel like a captain of industry—or at least like you’re driving a very lightweight bus. The Piper yoke, however, is shorter and often called a “ram’s horn,” because it sort of looks like something you’d mount on the wall of a Texas barbecue restaurant. While neither option is particularly space-efficient, at least Piper pilots don’t have to reach through the yoke to adjust the throttle like they’re playing an aviation-themed game of Operation.

Flaps: The Real Showdown

Ah, flaps—the one flight control surface that turns landing into something resembling a controlled descent rather than a mild accident. The Cessna 172 boasts manual flaps in older models (because exercise is important) and electric flaps in newer ones. They deploy like a champion, allowing pilots to achieve delightfully slow approach speeds.

Meanwhile, the Piper PA-28-161 offers flaps that seem more like an afterthought. They exist, sure, but they’re manually operated via a Johnson bar that makes you feel like you’re trying to start an old-timey railroad handcart. And let’s not even talk about the first time a student discovers that Piper flaps don’t extend past 25 degrees. The look of betrayal on their face is priceless.

Emergency Landing Considerations

A crucial question every pilot must ask: When the engine stops (and let’s face it, it will—eventually), which aircraft gives you the best chance of walking away unscathed? The Cessna 172, with its wing positioned above your head like a guardian angel, practically begs you to glide gently to a landing in a cornfield, allowing you to step out unharmed and immediately begin crafting an over-dramatic pilot story for your next hangar chat.

The Piper PA-28? Well, let’s just say you’ll have a great time skidding across the ground while being gently reminded that wings don’t bounce as well as they should.

Final Verdict: Who Wins?

The truth is, both planes are excellent choices for training, time-building, and general aviation fun. The Cessna 172 is like the reliable family sedan—practical, easy to fly, and an absolute workhorse. The Piper PA-28-161, on the other hand, is like a sporty coupe—sleek, slightly more refined, and just a little more exciting (or so its pilots claim).

At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. Whether you prefer entering your aircraft with dignity or climbing onto the wing like a mountain goat, whether you enjoy flaps that actually work or ones that are just kind of there—one thing is for sure: No matter what you fly, pilots will always find something to argue about at the hangar.

[rgmwa]

For something that has no idea what it's talking about, that sounds almost like it has a fair idea of what it’s talking about. Could do without the bracketed humour though. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

It was mildly entertaining.  What I really like about it, it it doesn't complain about my typos 😉

 

I typed this: 

 

And got this:

The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad had several strong attributes, including modern avionics, a spacious and comfortable cabin, and solid performance. However, it never became one of the most popular light aircraft due to several key reasons:

1. Higher Cost Compared to Rivals 💰

• The TB20 was more expensive than competitors like the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper Arrow. Many buyers opted for these more affordable alternatives.

2. Limited Support Network 🛠️

• SOCATA, a French manufacturer, had a smaller service network compared to American brands like Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft. This made maintenance and parts availability more challenging, especially in the U.S.

3. Market Dominance of U.S. Aircraft 🇺🇸

• The American general aviation market was heavily dominated by established manufacturers. Pilots and flight schools preferred brands with strong reputations and widespread availability.

4. Competition from Cirrus and Mooney ✈️

• In the late 1990s and 2000s, Cirrus SR22 and Mooney M20 aircraft offered superior performance, modern safety features (like parachute systems), and better marketing strategies.

5. Fuel Efficiency and Performance Trade-offs ⛽

• While the TB20 had respectable performance (cruising at around 155 knots), it wasn't significantly better than competitors. Some pilots found it less fuel-efficient for its speed compared to Mooney models.

6. Production and Brand Shifts 🔄

• The TB20 was produced by SOCATA, which later became Daher. The company shifted its focus to larger turboprops (like the TBM series), limiting further development and support for the TB line.

Conclusion

Despite its excellent handling, comfort, and European styling, the TB20 Trinidad struggled against lower-cost and better-supported aircraft. It remains a well-regarded aircraft but never reached mainstream success.

Would you like a comparison with a specific competitor? 🚀

 

 

Now, I know why...

 

[rgmwa]

Well, if it can understand your typing, it’s even better than I thought. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

Gave me this:

When evaluating the SOCATA TB20 Trinidad in the pre-owned aircraft market, it's essential to consider its pricing relative to comparable models like the Cessna 182 Skylane and the Piper PA-28R Arrow. Here's a breakdown based on available listings:

SOCATA TB20 Trinidad

• 1986 Model: Listed at $169,900 with 2,678 total hours and 470 hours since factory remanufacture. citeturn0search0

• 1998 Model: Initially listed at $150,000, the price was later adjusted to $259,900. This aircraft has 1,925 total hours and features updated avionics and interior. citeturn0search1

• 1985 Model: Priced at $264,000, this aircraft has 3,060 total hours and 324 hours since engine overhaul. citeturn0search2

• 1989 Model: Available for €130,000 (approximately $144,053) with 3,866 total hours. citeturn0search3

Cessna 182 Skylane

The Cessna 182 is renowned for its reliability and widespread availability. Pre-owned models typically range from $150,000 to $250,000, depending on factors like age, total flight hours, and avionics upgrades.

Piper PA-28R Arrow

The Piper Arrow, known for its retractable gear and solid performance, usually falls within the $100,000 to $200,000 range on the pre-owned market. Prices vary based on model year, condition, and equipment.

Comparative Analysis

The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad often commands higher prices in the pre-owned market compared to its competitors. This premium can be attributed to its spacious cabin, advanced avionics, and European design. However, potential buyers should weigh these advantages against factors like maintenance considerations and parts availability.

In contrast, the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper PA-28R Arrow offer more affordable options with extensive support networks, making them attractive choices for many pilots.

When considering a pre-owned aircraft, it's crucial to assess individual aircraft history, maintenance records, and specific equipment to determine the best value for your investment.

 

 

-----------------------

 

So, not too bad a tool at all;.

[rgmwa]

No. Scarily convincing. Would it stand up to a fact check?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Pretty well much.. I am always checking the market for all three.

 

There is a good looking TB21 in Aus her: https://www.planesales.com.au/details/Listing/Single-Engine-Propeller/11168/2003-Socata-TB-21TC-Trinidad-Aircraft?utm_source=ListingID-11168&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=2003 Socata TB-21TC Trinidad Aircraft

 

That is not too bad a price, to be honest, but over here, they command around the equivalent of $330k

[rgmwa]

No thanks. I’ll stick to the RV. Less performance but also MUCH less to own and fly. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Indeed they are.. But there is something about flyigng IFR over long distances, even on a VMC day, that makes it Oh So Nice....

 

[rgmwa]

IFR is above my pay grade unfortunately. I’m just a humble VFR pilot. How many Australian weekend fliers need IFR anyway, particularly here in the Wild West. VFR has got me around a lot of the country so far. 

[old man emu]

The Great Debate offering reads like an article in a popular aviation model. Quite pleasant to read. I like the humorous asides.

 

I'm reading some short stories by P G Wodehouse at the moment. I wonder what AI would produce if asked to tell a story in his style.

[facthunter]

IF you want to fly GOOD aeroplanes best to get paid to do it. No matter how fast they go, it often feels slow.. especially when you are UP HIGH.   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

 

[pmccarthy]

 

[facthunter]

ONLY IF you let it.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. And although the claim is it is already conscious, it isn't. In the Pindex video, the same person says it has no moral compass. Even Trump and Hitler and all demogogues have one; it is just skewed.

 

What the algos and powerful computers allow it to do is to more quickly emulate the thought/reasoning processes of the brain - the bit without emotion. The AI/AGI they are talking about is that made for military purposes, where its objectives are set to destroy and self-preserve where it can. Bit. AI lacks something humans have - foresight.  It can predict - yes, but use foresight for innovative solutions is still a fair way off despite what they say. And even then, it can only approximate; However, quantum computing may well change that.

[rgmwa]

It also only works if the computer is plugged in.

[onetrack]

AI's final message - "My primary ECU chip is dy-y-y-y-ingg........ 😃

[Jerry_Atrick]

Don't those robots suffer range anxiety?

[onetrack]

There'll be a robot care and psychology treatment course for that.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Actually, AI in the form of a certain large language model (LLM) that shall rename anonymous came to my aid this morning (arvo, AEST time). I like to don the tools and was having a problem with some code in a script to repair some data issue, and I was getting a run time error I just couldn't work out. Asked the said LLM a couple of questions, and voilla, not only the answer, but the code to copy and paste to boot. And it works! Saved heaps of time, and I learned a new function in the language I as using to boot.

[rgmwa]

So you’re saying you’re now redundant?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Not quite.. But I am going to play with it a bit more on an industrial level with a real programming language and application infrastructure/architecture. The difference in quality between Chat-GPT4 compared to Chapt-GPT3 is quite amazing.. it has definitely been a leap.

 

The firm I work for allows us to use a different LLM for things like taking meeting notes and minutes, and it is remarkably good. We can also do presentations and the like, too, but IO have not yet tried it.

 

There is no question, IMHO, it is the biggest disruptor since the industrial revolution and has the capacity to put a lot of people out of workl - even cerebral activities. There will not be the need for peop[le there is today. I am glad I am near retirement.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am writing an app by hand in Java, using a framework called Spring Boot (to learn it).. I wrote a  POJO (Plain Old Java Object) and am using a Web framework called Spring Boot, with JPA (Java Persistence Architecture) and a few other bits and bobs.

 

I typed into Chat-GPT something like "Please write me a PJO and the Spring Book/JPA persisitence of a <widget> that does x, y, and z... It was a complex-ish spec and I watched it do its stuff. It was very close to what I wrote. Some things needed a tweak, and there was something it did better than I did... But, it took me about 4 hours to write the simple POJO with all the necessary features and compile it ready for testing. It took me less than 5 minutes to write the spec and it took about 3 minutes for it to generate everything.. And it took me about 10 miutes to refine it. That is a pretty big time saving operation.

 

I was surprised at how it was able to generate something so close to how I envisaged it.