Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!hudson!ihnp1!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Primary aircraft proposal.
Message-ID: <17427@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 15:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.17427
Posted: Wed Dec  5 15:17:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 05:38:14 EST
References: <4@decvax.UUCP> <213@terak.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 54


> Seems to me that the Primary Aircraft Proposal is missing the point.
> We don't need less expensive new aircraft.  We don't need any new
> aircraft (well, not many).  The leaders of the aviation community
> have sold the public on the idea that General Aviation is not a
> toy, but rather a form of Transportation.  Transportation aircraft
> are much more expensive than Toy aircraft, both to buy and to
> operate.  As a result, most folks who get into flying get back
> out again when they find that they realistically need a 6-figure
> income to support a Transportation aircraft.  

If a plane seats at least two people, has luggage space for two suitcases
for each person seated, flies 150-200 Kts, has a range of 1000+ miles,
has a service ceiling of 14000+ feet, and gets good fuel economy, then
such a plane IS a Transportation aircraft!!!  Except for the speed and the
service ceiling this description fits LOTS of vehicles used for transportation
including my car.  I didn't buy my car as a recreation vehicle - I HATE
driving.  I bought it to travel in.  If I could buy a plane with the above
specs for the same price as my 'sports car' cost (SAAB 900 Turbo - $15000+)*
I would buy it in a minute.  Now I like flying a lot better than driving,
so I might be willing to part with a little comfort or baggage space to 
get extra performance in a plane.  But my MAIN use of the thing would be
TRANSPORTATION.  

The problem is, I can't get a good plane for $15000 (the purchase price
should cover the first year of maintenance like it did for the car, other-
wise the effective purchase price is larger).  Used planes in this price
range are things like pipers, cessnas, ....  These planes don't have anywhere
near the kind of economy and performance above**, and they cost a bundle to 
insure and maintain.  The proposed primary aircraft category would be a 
big step toward making flying a practical way to travel.  The cost of
buying, insuring, and maintaining an airplane would go down and newer,
more efficient designs would lose that ominous sounding 'experimantal'
tag sooner.  If the new category goes into effect, I expect that planes
with the specs above would be available for a reasonable price within a few
years.  Just because YOU don't think that 'TOY' airplanes are useful for
YOUR application, don't assume that there aren't lots of us out here who
would love to have these aircraft for TRANSPORTATION.

* If I hate to drive, why did I buy such a car?  I live over 100 miles from
my girlfriend and from my nearest relatives.  I make this trip nearly every
weekend.  So the first order of business is a quiet, comfortable car with
a good sound system.  I live in a mountainous area.  So the second order of
business is good acceleration to get around trucks on steep uphill grades in
traffic.  And, of course, fuel economy and vehicle lifetime and other such
things also entered into the formula.  The best compromise (at the time I 
bought the car) was what I have.  The extra money is well worth it, since
it helps to raise driving a little from what is otherwise a dismal proceedure.

** Older designed aircraft are particularly bad a fuel economy, service
ceiling (the runway here is 7200 feet MSL, terrain nearby exceeds 10,000
feet MSL, terrain along the routes to some of my favorite places exceeds
14000 feet MSL in places), and speed.  The later is of somewhat less import
than the first two.  But still, a long trip is better when it is over.