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!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Primary aircraft proposal. Message-ID: <17790@lanl.ARPA> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 13:25:42 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.17790 Posted: Tue Dec 11 13:25:42 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 04:39:13 EST References: <4@decvax.UUCP> <213@terak.UUCP> <332@wnuxb.UUCP> <217@terak.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 78 > > - Inflated prices have driven down demand, therefore > > - There is no problem. > > > > Yup, that's what I'm saying. Except that it is NOT inflated prices > which have reduced demand (see below). That doesn't jibe with my experience. I know half a dozen people who would be buying a plane tomorrow if the prices came down about 20% - I'm one of them. I don't know where you get your statistics, but no one came around here taking a poll. > > Does this mean high prices are good for industry and the buying public? > > Nope. Just because that is the way that it is doesn't mean that it's > the way things SHOULD be. The problem is the reduced demand, and I > lay the blame for that primarily with the "leaders" of the general > aviation. Folks like AOPA, GAMA, NATA, etc (but not EAA). The EAA is a co-sponsor of the primary aircraft proposal. Just thought everyone should know since Mr. Pardee seems to be implying that it's all these other terrible organizations that are foisting this on the public. > These > groups have consistently claimed that people don't (and shouldn't) > fly for the fun of it. That flying is Transportation, pure and > simple, with all of the glamor of riding in a Greyhound bus. I don't remember any AOPA articles (or any particular editorial) that contain this slant. It has always seemed to me that they represented flying as transportation that's fun (or maybe fun that also doubles as transportation). The only thing that they seem biased about is safety, that is, they favor it. > You have to spend a LOT of money to get a plane that will provide > reliable transportation in all weather conditions, and there is > no obvious way to reduce the costs of THAT TYPE of airplane. I can think of several ways to bring down the costs. Nearly all of the general aviation aircraft on the market (not experimental) were designed in the late forties or before. Although some of these planes have been through some minor redesign since then, none have been changed in any major way. The reason is that the cost of certification is so high that the manufacturer can't expect to recover the original investment in any reasonable time. Reduced certification costs would clearly bring down the cost of newly designed planes. Now the sciences of aerodynamics, materials research, and engine design (to name a few) haven't stood still since the late forties. Of course, some of the improvements in these fields have trickled down into the general aviation aircraft available today. But the real improvements haven't shown up because they would have required recertification. New airfoils and composite materials would probably not bring the purchase cost of planes down much, but they would improve performance (speed, fuel efficiency, altitude, etc.). Thus making the plane more affordable. Lower certification costs would finally allow some of these improvements to reach a general market. > The > Primary Aircraft proposal is an attempt to lift the burden of > all-weather/all-conditions certification from fun-flying type planes. It would also reduce the cost of certifying a newly designed plane. If enough new types of planes are certified some of them may even be good all-weather/all-condition planes, in addition to being more fun to fly. > [...] > But we already have a LOT of low-cost fun-flying planes. Matter of > fact, it's getting darned difficult to sell one 'cuz it's a buyer's > market. Quote a good price on a good plane and I'll come around and have a look! > What we NEED is a public-relations program which stresses > the FUN of flying, even flying an airplane that is NOT reliable > all-weather transportation. When the used plane market started to > dry up, THEN we would need the Primary Aircraft proposal.