Well said Paul,
One benefit of a forum like this is to push forward the leading edge of our thinking. In a kind of mutation-and-selection way, the different ideas that survive help us find new successful directions. Things like CAPS are born. And a toilet rug for your nose gear, that doesn’t totally suck.
A lot of insight comes from probing edges of our knowledge. So it was disappointing to see a volley of emotions when some poor guy asked about the effect of icing on the airframe. Data is always good, even data about dangerous things. Even data about things we don’t like to hear … production issues etc.
But alas this is the Internet, the global CB radio of the digital era. There will always be those who type faster than they can think, who have a personal axe to grind, or can’t tolerate diverse views. But I second your motion: There is no room for personal attacks from any of us who care about the forum.
Now for my disturbing, reaction-provoking comment of the day:
A recent post reported an SR20 at 10,000 feet using 11 GPH giving 150 KTAS. If I assume the temperature was about 15 degrees C below standard (equals minus 20 degrees C), then from the Columbia 300 POH, seeking 150 KTAS at 10,000 feet, -20 degrees C you get:
10.0 GPH. (2500RPM, 16.7inches, 53% power, lean of peak mixture). I hope to test this sometime soon with the Columbia demonstrator in the Netherlands.
I wonder if some brave soul with Gamijectors can find a way to safely reclaim the wasted gallon in the SR20.
Competition is good - both planes and companies are doing us a duty by advancing the state of general aviation.