|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
A 337 has more utility than .... a horse
My wife "rode to hounds' for a number of years.
Fortunately we never owned a horse, merely exploited the impoverishment of friends and owners who had too many. Really the ideal way to 'have' a horse (or two), I can therefore legitimately compare a 337 to a horse. A horse sits in an expensive stall that must be mucked out regularly. A 337 can site in a hangar, there is no need to muck out its stall Point goes to the 337 A horse can be left outside to graze, but you have to catch it each time. A 337 can be on tie down, but you never have to chase it around the field. Point goes to the 337 A horse needs to be fed every day, or it starves. A 337 only needs to be fed when it flies. Point goes to the 337 The ONLY use for a horse is to take it out of the barn, dash around for a bit, then return to the barn. Like a horse, one can take a 337 and dash about, but you can ALSO go places. Point goes to the 337 I am told that bringing a horse to a vet, there is 85% probability the vet will say something like, "Your horse needs emergency surgery and it will cost $30,000, or do you want to put her down right now?" Usually said to the wife, within earshot of the husband. While the husband begins to visualize several 5 gallon cans of glue... Similarly, a 337 goes in for an annual wallet-ectomy every year. The airplane can be sold for parts, the horse as commercial adhesive. A tie between 337 and horse. Horses get old and sick and die. You can always overhaul a 337's engines, paint and avionics to renew. Point goes to the 337. ---- It seems obvious to me, the 337 delivers the better value than a horse... Thoughts?
__________________
David Wartofsky Potomac Airfield 10300 Glen Way Fort Washington, MD 20744 
|
|
#2
04-25-25, 06:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Agree
Many years ago, my wife wanted to buy a horse. I was inclined to get an airplane. Fortunately she is the logical type and, using most of David's criteria, we decided on an airplane. It was a PA-28. We have an O-2A now, but in that much time, we would have probably needed another horse, too. Even now, with an O-2A, I think that the cost benefit analysis of plane vs horse still favors the plane.
The cost of tack, riding apparel, and other accoutrements might also be included in the cost analyis. It might however, be a wash considering all of our pilot accoutrements.
|
Linear Mode
