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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Primary aircraft proposal (longish).
Message-ID: <17956@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 15:12:52 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.17956
Posted: Thu Dec 13 15:12:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 06:07:04 EST
References: <4@decvax.UUCP> <213@terak.UUCP> <17427@lanl.ARPA> <214@terak.UUCP> <711@amdahl.UUCP> <224@terak.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 111

> 
> 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.

Most of the inexpensive planes that current flood the market are 
antiques.  For the most part, they should be scrapped and two or
three of each model saved for the Confederate Airforce or the
Smithsonian.  To be sure, there are a lot of two seat, low speed,
low altitude, gas guzzlers out in the market which have a real
legitimate use as trainers.  All of these planes are too expensive 
to maintain - even if the purchase price is low (ever had to buy
a new or rebuilt magneto?).  Some of these types of planes would
be acceptable as personal fun machines and short distance (<500 mi)
transportation under the PA proposal, which allows cheaper maintenance.

> 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.

I never thought that the trainers would be good transportation planes!
Still, it would make a casual trip into the city a little easier (100
miles each way by car, 60 miles each way by plane).  Weather is no
problem - I don't take a casual drive in bad weather, so why should
I expect the plane to go in bad weather either.  More than two seats?
I'm single - I plan to remain single for a while yet - I nearly always
travel alone - if I did want companionship on a trip, why would I take
more than one extra person? - in other words: I don't need more than two
seats!

> [...]
> 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.

A 152 is a reasonable trainer.  But at 5.5 gallons per hour cruising at
96 kts it's hideously expensive to operate (not to mention the maintenance
costs - which I already have).  Aside from the 152, the others in the 150 
series are museum pieces (or should be).  To fly one of these relics, you
would have to adopt the same mentality as the guys who spend hours and
dollars renovating antique cars.  Not only 'don't buy without a mechanic
checking it out,' rather 'don't buy without a mechanic.'

> 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.

I've seen kit planes for less than $10k, fully equipped kit planes
rarely run more than $20k - $25k.  I don't know the price for brand
new Cessnas, Pipers, etc., but a few years back these ran $15k+ for
a bare-bones airplane.  So these kit planes are competitive in price
and are more than competitive in performance.  The PA proposal should
bring the prices of both types of planes down a bit (kit planes will
probably go up in price initially due to increased demand).

> 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.

I agree entirely!  But the 'Toy' planes encouraged by the EAA are NOT
the 2-seat trainers on the used plane market.  These are the new wave
of sleek, fast, fuel efficient, high performance planes that really
would be good recreational vehicles.  The main benefit of the PA proposal
would be the certification of many of these new planes so that you don't
have to build your own.  I know, some of these planes won't get certified
(the Long-EZ (I think) falls out of the sky if its wings get wet - the
airfoil tolerance is real close), but enough of them will be available 
in the PA category to really give buyers a choice.  I think that planes
like the Dragonfly (there are three kits on the market with similar
specs) would probably run about $15k fully VFR equipped.  THAT'S THE
KIND OF PLANE I WANT!!!  Lets see: two seats, a little luggage space,
150 kts, 3.3 gallons per hour, (I don't know the ceiling - experimental
planes aren't required to test that),... hmmm - sounds a lot like that
personal transportation vehicle I described in my first posting to this
discussion! 

The reason that antique planes are a glut on the market is that they
are too expensive to operate: your $7000 Cessna will probably cost 
between $3k and $5k to maintain, insure, and operate in the first year,
and that's assuming that you only put 100 hours on it and combine your
yearly inspection with the 100 hour inspection!  The PA proposal will
help bring that cost down a bit (operational costs will still remain
high - $1000 per 100 hours for fuel alone).  Meanwhile, I expect that
the PA proposal will allow new designed planes in the $15k - $20k 
price range which offer a two for one performance advantage over these
older aircraft.  I can't wait!