Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Primary aircraft proposal (longish).
Message-ID: <224@terak.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 11:22:31 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.224
Posted: Wed Dec 12 11:22:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 06:09:23 EST
References: <4@decvax.UUCP> <213@terak.UUCP> <17427@lanl.ARPA> <214@terak.UUCP> <711@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 88

> > > 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!!!
> > 
> > I think that most folks would insist on at least 4 seats, plus IFR
> > capability.
> > 
> Most folks?  Or 'most of the vastly experienced well off pilots who
> already have lots of flying time under their belt, like you'?
> 
> Please forgive the flame like tone,  but I hope that I speak
> for the great unwashed masses in this.  I am not a pilot.  I would
> very much like to be.  I can not afford an airplane, or the rental on
> a wiz bang super chicken with turbo everything and $15,000 or
> electronics.
>
> I would much prefer to fly in a 100kt
> bare bones plane than crawl at 55mph (oh, ok, 68 mph...)  It doesn't
> matter to me if it only holds *ONE* person.  Two? Three? With
> luggage?  My god!  And I could do my own maintenance!  Sounds like
> heaven to me.  What is transportation depends on the individual.
> 
> IFR capability?  It would be at least two years before I would
> be willing to fly in bad weather.  (In California we have a great
> deal of good weather.  We can be picky on when we fly).  I cannot
> spend more money than I have.

Ye gods!  I've stirred up a hornet's nest.  Let's see if I can get
things settled down a tad.

First, to restate my opinion as succinctly as possible: 1) there is
indeed a dreadful and undesirable drop-off in general aviation, and
it is due to the widespread belief that flying is too expensive.
2) There is no shortage of inexpensive airplanes.  3) There is a
shortage of pilots willing to fly inexpensive airplanes, because
the planes are not useful for serious transportation, and flying
just for the fun of it is rejected by most of the "leadership"
organizations in our industry.  4) There is nothing wrong with
the Primary Aircraft proposal, but it won't help because it
will not increase the number of pilots willing to fly inexpensive
planes.

To answer the above comments... the telling statement here is
"I am not a pilot."  Please, I'm not flaming here.  But what I've
been trying to point out from the beginning is that new pilots
start flying, really believing that a 100kt plane with 2 seats
and no IFR capability can seriously be used for transportation.
Then they find out that with refueling stops, headwinds, and
getting weathered in for days at a time, that it doesn't work
out.  Besides, the wife and kids want to come along, and anyway,
if you had 4 seats you could take someone along to share expenses.
Pretty soon you're flying the turbo-whizbang and going broke.
Disgusted and deeply in debt, you quit flying altogether.

Friends, I've been there.  So has everyone I know who flies.
It's a cycle which can only be broken by accepting the fact
that transportation by private plane can only be afforded with
a 6-figure income, and lower your expectations to just having
a ball flying in smaller planes in good weather.

For those who responded that they would like to see an inexpensive
airplane, RUN, don't walk, to your nearest airport.  Look over
the bulletin board, walk around the ramp.  Any used 2-seater over
$7500 bucks is probably a rip-off, unless it's an almost new
Cessna 152 or the like.  Cessna 150s run from $4000 ranked-out
with a run-out engine to about $7000 with nearly new engine.
Including a radio!  But don't buy without a mechanic checking it out.

If you think that the Primary Aircraft proposal will produce planes
that cost less than 10 grand, then we are in grave disagreement
as to the realities of pricing a plane which the manufacturer has
paid over $5000 just for the engine and $1000 for the radio.

Someone commented about the EAA, and that it supports the Primary
Aircraft proposal.  I think that the EAA is the only major aviation
group which has its act together.  They have been trying for a long
time to convince people that flying for fun is legitimate.  Given
that they ARE attempting to increase the demand for Toy airplanes, it
is reasonable that they also attempt to increase the supply.  More
power to 'em.

This has gotten quite long, and I'm starting to repeat what I've
already said in previous notes.  Unless a new point is raised, I
think I shall let the flames die out.  Thanks to all for their
interest on the subject.

Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug