bob@decvax.UUCP (Robert Bismuth) (12/02/84)
<---- This line may be mangled ! ---->
A month or so ago the AOPA and EAA published their joint proposal for a new
aircraft category: primary aircraft. For those unfamiliar with this, they
are proposing a classification of aircraft which are fixed gear, maximum 4
seats, single engine, less than 200 hp and which may not be used for hire
or compensation. In other words, a personal, RV aircraft.
In addition, their proposal calls for simplified certification procedures,
a wider class of owner/pilot maintenance and the ability for aircraft already
possessing an existing type certificate to transfer, if desired, to the new
certification type.
If accepted by the FAA, it is hoped that this will stimulate general aviation
manufacturers to produce some new more modern aircraft. There is also a
provision to allow the production of more complete "kit" aircraft to
augment the current Experimental Type.
The FAA have now posted the proposal and requested comments from the aviation
industry in general. In a recent letter from the EAA, it has been revealed
that the FAA has received NO comments. There is only a 60 to 90 day window
for comments.
This proposal is important. The cost of aircraft is rising at the moment.
Primary aircraft would go far to turn this trend. We are at a point where
GAMA members are approaching a Catch-22 situation: each aircraft sold today
must pay for a manufacturer's liability insurance. That insurance covers
EVERY PLANE THEY HAVE EVER MADE THAT IS STILL FLYING !!
Just think of how many 150s and 172s are being insured each time a new 172
is sold. No wonder the new craft is so expensive. The catch is that the
expense is narrowing the market, which reduces the number sold, which
increases the liability cost per new plane, which increases the price, ...
Providing newer, more modern aircraft which use cheaper to build composite
methods is one way of breaking this doomsday-situation.
Also, those who already own craft meeting the primary specification would have
the option of reclassification. This means a reduction in maintenance costs
since the amount of owner/pilot maintenance allowed would be greatly
increased. In fact, if I have read it correctly, owner/pilots would be able
to almost carry out the annual.
It is important that the FAA hear from us all, both positive and negative
comments. I'd like to encourage people to read the proposal (available from
the FAA, or back issues of Sport Avaition or AOPA Pilot) and send their
comments to the feds. The docket number for the petition is 23345 and it
will shortly appear in the Federal Register. Local GADOs should be able to
help with the address for responses.
Bobdoug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/04/84)
[]
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. The number of pilots
interested in Toy aircraft is continuously dropping, and the
supply of used Toy planes will meet their needs for a long, long
time to come. The continuous turn-over in Transportation aircraft
pilots results in new high-end (not Primary) planes being sold
and then later resold numerous times, working their way down the
price ladder, satisfying the demand of Transportation pilots at
all levels. (This would not be the case if Transportation pilots
kept their planes.)
Conclusion: the only new planes we need are a slow trickle of
high-end Transportation planes (230+ HP retractables). And
surprise, this is what the manufacturers have determined is
selling!
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!dougjlg@lanl.ARPA (12/05/84)
> 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.
djmolny@wnuxb.UUCP (DJ Molny) (12/07/84)
> ...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. The number of pilots > interested in Toy aircraft is continuously dropping, and the > supply of used Toy planes will meet their needs for a long, long > time to come. > > ... > > Conclusion: the only new planes we need are a slow trickle of > high-end Transportation planes (230+ HP retractables). And > surprise, this is what the manufacturers have determined is > selling! > > Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug Huh? Mr. Pardee seems to be saying: - Private pilots can't afford "transportation" aircraft, therefore - They quit flying, therefore - The remaining private pilots can live with used high-end planes. Or, put more simply: - Inflated prices have driven down demand, therefore - There is no problem. Does this mean high prices are good for industry and the buying public? Please, Mr. Pardee, tell me if I'm misinterpreting what you said! -- DJ Molny ihnp4!wnuxb!djmolny
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/07/84)
> 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. > 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. This is where we differ. The Primary Aircraft proposal is an attempt to bring back planes like the Piper Cub and the Aeronca. The limitations imposed in this category virtually preclude the certification of high-performance aircraft as Primary Aircraft. Further, I submit that if a manufacturer DID find a way to meet the limitations while providing the kind of performance cited, the FAA would add further restrictions in order to prevent any further certifications. Remember, the FAA is in the business of protecting both the flying and non-flying public. It will almost certainly perceive a high-performance aircraft whose design has not been rigorously tested to be a hazard to the public. ESPECIALLY in an IFR environment. > 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. Easy, there. I happen to LIKE Toy airplanes. My plane is a Cessna 120, which I've owned for 5-1/2 years. I've flown it out of the state only 8 times in those 5 years. And each time, driving would have been more practical. I flew because I like to fly. It's fun. What I don't care for is the AOPA, FAA, GAMA, NATA, and every other alphabet soup organization except the EAA all claiming that flying just for the fun of it is nonexistent-thank-God. It doesn't hurt me personally (it's just as much fun whether they think so or not), but it keeps a lot of folks who would like to fly from getting into aviation, and I think that's a shame. By the way, my definition of a Toy airplane is a C-150 or smaller -- 2 people without luggage, 100 kts. A C-182 is definitely a Transportation plane in my book, and a C-172 can go either way. Here in the mountain West, a 172 is basically a Toy plane. In the flatlands, it is a Transportation plane. Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
adm@cbneb.UUCP (12/09/84)
> income to support a Transportation aircraft. The number of pilots > interested in Toy aircraft is continuously dropping, and the > supply of used Toy planes will meet their needs for a long, long > time to come. The continuous turn-over in Transportation aircraft > > Conclusion: the only new planes we need are a slow trickle of > high-end Transportation planes (230+ HP retractables). And > surprise, this is what the manufacturers have determined is > selling! Where have you been hiding. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Assoc.) has been growing in membership at an astounding rate with more aircraft beeing built every year. This hardly qualifies as a declining interest. And to classify these aircraft as "toys" only shows your ignorance of what is really happening. The need in general aviation IS addressed by the new proposal. Its unfortunate that the people with the power have the bucks and don't appreciate the bind the "average" pilot is in. I wonder what the reaction would be if the same restrictions and expense were applied to ground transportation? Your attitude would translate into restricting car sales to new Cadillacs and Mercedes, etc. letting the "common people" ride the bus. Well f%^k that!
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/10/84)
> Huh? Mr. Pardee seems to be saying: > > - Private pilots can't afford "transportation" aircraft, therefore > - They quit flying, therefore > - The remaining private pilots can live with used high-end planes. > > Or, put more simply: > > - 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). > 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). 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. 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. The Primary Aircraft proposal is an attempt to lift the burden of all-weather/all-conditions certification from fun-flying type planes. After all, you wouldn't seriously take a J-3 Cub or an Airknocker type of plane into IFR conditions or even make extended flights in severe turbulence. And it's awfully hard to kill yourself in a forced landing at the speeds that a J-3 lands at. Even without "crash-worthiness" improvements. 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. 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. Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (12/10/84)
> > 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. > > By the way, my definition of a Toy airplane is a C-150 or smaller -- > 2 people without luggage, 100 kts. A C-182 is definitely a > Transportation plane in my book, and a C-172 can go either way. > Here in the mountain West, a 172 is basically a Toy plane. In > the flatlands, it is a Transportation plane. > 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 put over 30,000 miles on my car *each year* with only me in it. Most of that is in trips of over 200 miles to see family and friends. There is an airport 10 miles from my destination on each end. 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. The bottom line is that in terms of pure utility, you car and the commercial airlines work well for 99% or better of the trips one makes. Most of the 'transportation' flights are really a more fun way to do the same thing. It justifies the sport by adding utility. A cheaper way to fly enables more folks to justify leaving the car at home and bypassing the commercial airlines more often. For some of us the 'more often' is the difference between zero and some. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.
marcum@rhino.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (12/11/84)
In article <terak.214> doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: > And each time, driving would >have been more practical. I flew because I like to fly. It's fun. > >What I don't care for is the AOPA, FAA, GAMA, NATA, and every other >alphabet soup organization except the EAA all claiming that flying >just for the fun of it is nonexistent-thank-God. I agree with Doug in lots of ways. I fly because its FUN -- all the other "reasons" are rationalizations. It took me years to justify to myself this desire to fly. Then, I came up with a "reason" -- actually, an excuse, something that sounded good. In fact, I reckon "I just live better with air between me and the ground." Flying-just-for-fun dead? I sure hope not....... -- Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California ...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!marcum
jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/11/84)
> > - 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.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/12/84)
> > > 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
jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/13/84)
> > 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!
mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) (12/17/84)
Distribution:na > > 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. The > Primary Aircraft proposal is an attempt to lift the burden of > all-weather/all-conditions certification from fun-flying type planes. > After all, you wouldn't seriously take a J-3 Cub or an Airknocker > type of plane into IFR conditions or even make extended flights > in severe turbulence. And it's awfully hard to kill yourself in > a forced landing at the speeds that a J-3 lands at. Even without > "crash-worthiness" improvements. In many areas, most single-engine aircraft are not useful as reliable transportation. Reliable ransportation means to me that arrival at some place or event, on a predetermined schedule, is more important than the process of getting there. The reliability of schedules in small aircraft is terrible. Their advantage over the automobile on short trips is highly questionable. To start with, once you get to the airport you must extract your airplane, preflight, check weather, flight plan and file, taxi, wait for departure (maybe clearance) etc. All these things typically take half an hour to 45 minutes. At the other end, you have to negotiate with the FBO, see the airplane secured, and get a car. Another 20-30 minutes. Add in headwinds, vectoring, holding on the ground or in the air and your speed can easily evaporate. In bad weather areas, few SE airplanes are capable of dealing with winter hazards. They won't start, and more seriously can't deal with icing. Don't misunderstand me... I love flying, but no longer have any illusions about the usefulness of the typical light aircraft. To have advantages, you need long trips, fast aircraft, full instrument and deice, etc. The depressed sales of these aircraft are largely due to their limited usefulness, in my opinion. They are too expensive and fast for just 'boring holes in the sky'. I fully support the need to provide aircraft that meet the needs of training and recreation, without the costs of certification for purposes for which they are not useful.
mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) (12/17/84)
Distribution:na
Sorry, signature missing:
--
Mike Taylor ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat
[ This may not reflect my opinion, let alone anyone else's. ]cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (12/18/84)
I am all for the primary aircraft proposal. I am also all for cheap, two-seat, VFR aircraft. I like antiques, old 150's, and the like. What is a bummer about this particular conversation is the statement that old aircraft should be scrapped because of high maintenance or to allow the manufacturers to sell new airplanes. Sure, old airplanes cost money to maintain. It cost me over $40 in parts and manuals to rebuild the Eisman magnetos on my Funk. The last annual on my brother's J-3 Cub ran almost $200. Heck, a total restore on the Taylorcraft in the family will run almost $3500 by the time everything is done on it. And old tail-wheel airplanes will cause everyone a bunch of trouble because they are so hard to land. I guess we all need to go out and buy brand new Cessna P-210's just to fly to Lake Lawn for lunch (IFR, of course). Really, gang, the slow two-place airplane is really a good thing to have around. Sure they are slow. The Funk is about 100 mph. In the last two years I have taken it (known as Phoebe) from the Chicago area to New Jersey (for business), then to Kitty Hawk, and finally home. It tool almost 25 flight hours for the whole trip. There were two days in New Jersey where I would not have wanted to fly Phoebe, and one day where I would not have wanted to fly a King Air. I also used Phoebe to fly to Montgomery, Alabama for a Civil Air Patrol school. The trip took one day, VFR. I am firmly convinced that a Cessna 150 or Funk or Taylorcraft or any other of the cheap two-seat airplanes can be used for (dare I say it) TRANSPORTATION when the limits for the aircraft are known. Typically, I feel that there is a 90% or better chance that a VFR flight in one of the two-seat airplanes can be completed as planned. Certainly you need to plan for stops fairly frequently for fuel, but the Cessna 150 is still faster than driving, and almost as fast as a Cessna 172. Years ago, I used to ferry Cessnas from the factory in Wichita to Canada, Miami, Chicago, and other points. Fewer than 1 in 10 trips got cancelled or even got into trouble because of weather. Wichita to Winnipeg would take stops at Lincoln, Nebraska, Watertown, South Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota (if it exists), and Winnipeg. We would plan on eight hours from Wichita to Winnipeg. We never had a flight go over eight hours, and frequently we would be in Winnipeg in less than six hours. In a Cessna 152. VFR. These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft, depends on the attitude of the pilot. If you are not comfortable in something with less than 4 seats, or with only one radio (or no radio for that matter), or without a full IFR panel, then this class of airplane is not for you. If, however, you are willing to get your hands dirty, fly low and slow, and put some effort into learning about your airplane and the environment in which you fly, this class of airplane is a good alternative for you. Of course, these are my opinions. But, they are based on a bit of experience. My credentials include: Airline Transport Pilot - Multi engine Commercial Pilot - single engine Certified Flight Instructor - single engine, multi engine and instrument Ground Instructor - advanced and instrument. Over 3000 hours of flight in over 75 different types of airplanes. (This doesn't mean that I count a 1971 Cessna 172 and a 1981 Cessna 172 as different types, either, in spite of the fact that they have different wings, flaps, and engines.) As a piece of advice, do look at the low and slow airplane. They are fun. Support the joint AOPA and EAA primary aircraft proposal. Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short. The industry needs this type of airplane. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/21/84)
> [...] If, however, you are willing to get your hands dirty, > fly low and slow, and put some effort into learning about your airplane > and the environment in which you fly, this class of airplane is a good > alternative for you. Unfortunately, I can't fly low and slow. Slow is maybe alright, but I'd have to get a shovel out to fly low. The rocks around here seldom get below 6000 ft., and that's in the bottom of the really deep canyons. Around here, you almost need a service ceiling of about 16,000 ft. to fly safely at all times of the year. It gets real hot and dry here in the summer, I wouldn't try to fly over a fourteener in these conditions unless the plane was rated at least 18k to 20k ceiling. Performance is required for other reasons than fun. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pasteur James Giles
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (12/22/84)
> I am all for the primary aircraft proposal. I am also all for > cheap, two-seat, VFR aircraft. I like antiques, old 150's, and > the like. > ... > What is a bummer about this particular conversation is the statement > that old aircraft should be scrapped because of high maintenance > or to allow the manufacturers to sell new airplanes. > ... > Really, gang, the slow two-place airplane is really a good thing > to have around. Sure they are slow. The Funk is about 100 mph. > In the last two years I have taken it (known as Phoebe) from the > Chicago area to New Jersey (for business), then to Kitty Hawk, > and finally home. > ... > ... Certainly you need to plan for stops fairly frequently > for fuel, but the Cessna 150 is still faster than driving, and almost > as fast as a Cessna 172. > I am glad to see that even experienced pilots can see that 100 mph in the air is faster that 55 on the ground. Seriously folks, anything that increases the supply of bottom end aircraft and reduces the maintenance costs will reduce the cost of flying. (If you want credentials to back up my economic claims, I could mention a degree in economics... but then again, given the reputation of economists, that might not be wise... :-)) > Years ago, I used to ferry Cessnas from the factory in Wichita > to Canada, Miami, Chicago, and other points. Fewer than 1 in 10 trips > got cancelled or even got into trouble because of weather. > ... In a Cessna 152. VFR. > In California it should be even better odds. For casual transportation to family events or get togethers with friends, odds of less than 100% are acceptable. (Even in a car one has less than 100% probability of arival on time...) > These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft, > depends on the attitude of the pilot. If you are not comfortable > in something with less than 4 seats, or with only one radio (or no radio > for that matter), or without a full IFR panel, then this class of airplane > is not for you. If, however, you are willing to get your hands dirty, > fly low and slow, and put some effort into learning about your airplane > and the environment in which you fly, this class of airplane is a good > alternative for you. > Ah, a voice of reason! Recognition that we are not all alike, that each individual has different needs and wants, that transportation for one is not the same as for another. That minimal needs vary. (My God, this posting is running the risk of becomming fan mail...) It is important to open options, even if they are for people whose needs are not the same as yours. > Of course, these are my opinions. But, they are based on a bit of > experience. My credentials include: > ... *long list of impressive credentials* ... > > As a piece of advice, do look at the low and slow airplane. They > are fun. Support the joint AOPA and EAA primary aircraft proposal. > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short. The industry needs > this type of airplane. > > Jeff Williams > AT&T Bell Laboratories > ihnp4!cfiaime Couldn't (and didn't) have said it as well my self. Thanks! -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.
ltn@lems.UUCP (12/28/84)
[] In article <terak.224> doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: >... >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. >... >Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug I've seen this argument before: A *used* C-150 (or even C-172) can easily be bought now for <$10K, and any *new* Primary Aircraft will have to cost well over $10K, so nothing can be gained. Isn't it obvious? A new C-152 now costs ~$30K, and a C-172 is ~$60K. So which will cost less five years from now, a Primary Aircraft that sold new for $15K, or a C-152 that sold new for $30K? I'd bet on the Primary Aircraft, which should get down to $5K or so in good condition. (And therefore open aviation up to that many more people.) As for the new Primary Aircraft, i'm not sure i wouldn't rather spend $15K on one rather than $10K on a "standard" airplane several years old, given the high price of maintenance and the fact that things do start to wear out on older airplanes. -les niles
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/03/85)
OH, goody, goody, another chance to spout off... > I am glad to see that even experienced pilots can see that 100 mph > in the air is faster that 55 on the ground. Wrongo! The "overhead" time associated with flying virtually wipes out the speed difference. This overhead consists (in part) of: driving to the airport (Murphy says it's in the opposite direction from where you're going), unloading the baggage from the car into the plane, preflighting the plane, calling FSS for a briefing, refueling stops (10 minutes in a car, an hour for a plane), tying down the plane at the destination, arranging with the FBO for overnight tiedown and fuel, obtaining a rental car, transferring the baggage from the plane to the rental car, and driving to your destination (Murphy says you overflew it 40 miles back!). Additional concerns: on the average, you'll have about 10 mph of headwind, cutting the 100 mph airspeed to 90 mph groundspeed. Climb-out in a 100 mph plane is typically around 70 mph for the first 50 miles of each leg. Minus 10 mph headwind. Weather delays, deviations around bad weather, delays caused by equipment failure (you can drive without a speedometer nor tachometer, but you are required to have both to fly) all figure in. If we allow an hour of overhead for each leg (preflight/FSS/etc for the first leg, refueling for the rest), make each leg 3 hours of flight time, and amortize say 30 minutes tail-end overhead across 3 legs, we have a 4-hour-10-minute leg giving: 0 miles overhead, 70 minutes at 0mph on the ground 50 miles climb-out, 50 minutes at 70mph w/10mph headwind 195 miles cruise, 130 minutes at 100mph w/10mph headwind --------- 245 miles total in 250 minutes elapsed, or 59 mph average. Shorter legs or fewer legs make things worse. A less obvious point is that in many instances "wall-clock" time is more important. Speaking for myself, 7 hours in my 100 mph plane is all I can endure in one day, but I have driven 15 hours in one day many times without becoming exhausted. Also, in my car I usually have a passenger who can swap off driving while I rest. Other problems are caused because, right now, businesses don't EXPECT anyone to be flying late at night. After sundown, it becomes more and more difficult to get fuel, food, and other necessities. If I arrive at 2 A.M. by plane, I probably won't be able to get a rental car until morning. No problem if I arrive by car, eh? > Seriously folks, anything > that increases the supply of bottom end aircraft and reduces the > maintenance costs will reduce the cost of flying. Agreed, but what evidence do we have that the Primary Aircraft proposal will do either of those things in the current situation? Manufacturers aren't producing planes that are already certified, that have the design costs long-ago amortized, because they can't make a profit. Why should anybody expect to make a profit on a plane which has design costs to amortize, and some certification costs as well? And there's little indication that the Primary Aircraft proposal will impact maintenance costs. > > Years ago, I used to ferry Cessnas from the factory in Wichita > > to Canada, Miami, Chicago, and other points. Fewer than 1 in 10 trips > > got cancelled or even got into trouble because of weather. > > ... In a Cessna 152. VFR. > > Sounds about right to me. But you didn't have a schedule. You could take as long as reasonably necessary to arrive at your destination. If you got there a couple of days late, OK, no sweat. And driving or taking an airliner was no option; I mean, nobody cared if YOU got there, just if the AIRPLANE arrived. Further, 1 in 10 flights cancelled means to the average bloke, making round trips (which ferry flights ain't), that 1 in 10 trips are cancelled, but worse, 1 in 9 of the trips that he DOES make will end with him having to abandon his plane at his destination, pay for airline tickets for both himself and everyone with him to get back home, then buy another airline ticket for himself to go retrieve his plane the next weekend. The alternative is to succumb to Get-home-itis, as far too many pilots do. The disease is often fatal. > In California it should be even better odds. For casual transportation to > family events or get togethers with friends, odds of less than 100% are > acceptable. (Even in a car one has less than 100% probability of arival > on time...) > What about the odds of getting home, to your job? Sure, if you can't get to Aunt Martha's it's no big deal. But if you get there and can't get home, you've got a problem. Since you're probably NOT travelling alone, you also have the responsibility for getting your passengers home to work/school/whatever. Perfect setup for Get-home-itis. > > These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft, > > depends on the attitude of the pilot. Yep. The pilot's attitude determines whether or not a small plane can be used as dependable transportation. All he needs to do is sacrifice either affordability or safety. Either spend more money than it's worth, or "cut some corners" on little details like maintenance and weather avoidance. > > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short. The industry needs > > this type of airplane. > > The idea is great. After all, none of the "universal" problems with planes certified under the old CAR 3 (such as cracks at the vertical fin attachment points, cracking exhaust systems, and flutter) have been prevented nor even addressed by the current certification requirements. Those requirements seem to be unnecessarily tough. On the other hand, the "industry" doesn't "need this type of airplane." What the industry needs is PILOTS willing to buy and fly "this type of airplane." And that's not likely to happen until the "industry" gets its collective head out of its collective backside and sees that they've been promoting AGAINST flying for fun. That they've been promoting "an IFR turbo-retractable on every tiedown". But the "industry" is sure that the way to riches is paved with ever-more expensive airplanes (what a metaphor -- did I really write that?). Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/08/85)
Doug Pardee must own stock in Cessna or something. That's the only reason
I can think of that he is so much against freeing up the airspace for those
of us who think the Primary Aircraft proposal will make available cheaper
planes. The PA probably WON'T make available cheaper Cessnas, just more
competition.
Airports are NOT always 40 miles away from start and destination points,
usually they are quite conveniently placed (even the offices of Terak Corp.
are near a general aviation airport if I remember correctly). OK,
Boulder Co. is a forty minute drive from the nearest airport. But, from
ABQ (or further) it's still faster to fly.
I've NEVER spent an hour to refuel (I've never spent 10 minutes refueling
my car either, unless you count the time wasted going out of my way to
get to the station). Of course, going out of your way in a plane is nearly
always less time consuming than leaving the highway in your car. Furthermore,
planes usually have larger range than cars, so don't need to stop nearly as
often. I my case, most trips are point to point with NO intermediate stops.
Most places I fly to, I can arrange tie-down and refueling over the radio
before I get there. I then get led directly to the prearranged tie-down
when I land, and refueling is done after I leave. Total time at the airport
is about 10 minutes (not counting unloading - about ten seconds if I use
luggage like most people do).
Bizarre claims about the inconvenience of flight are not bourne out by
experience (not mine anyway). If Mr. Pardee finds it inconvenient, I'm
sorry for him, but his experience is not relevant to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pasteur
James Gilesgmm@bunker.UUCP (Gregory M. Mandas) (01/11/85)
> OH, goody, goody, another chance to spout off... > > > I am glad to see that even experienced pilots can see that 100 mph > > in the air is faster that 55 on the ground. > > Wrongo! The "overhead" time associated with flying virtually wipes > out the speed difference. This overhead consists (in part) of: [ removed was a long discussion of anything under the sun Doug Pardee could think of that may take some time.] From personal experience in a Piper 140D: Trip Flying T. Groud T. Driving T. ---- --------- -------- ---------- Dayton Oh. - Ft Bragg. NC 5 Hrs 1 15hrs Dayton Oh. - New Haven Ct. 6 Hrs 1 14Hrs 15 hours in my posh german-mobile is not more comfortable than 5 in a Pa-28-140D. I've been there. > > > Seriously folks, anything > > that increases the supply of bottom end aircraft and reduces the > > maintenance costs will reduce the cost of flying. > > Agreed, but what evidence do we have that the Primary Aircraft > proposal will do either of those things in the current situation? > Manufacturers aren't producing planes that are already certified, Oh, yes they are. I think you should go back and read the AOPA's article on the subject. The Cherokee was certified back when the first one rolled off the line bound for a customer, and it has NEVER been recertified since. Piper may be selling Warriers and Arrows but they are simple modifications to the cherokee and need only the equivilant of an STC. 150s, 172s, Barons, Bonanzas and Cherokees are all flying on the original certification. AND I doubt very much that the cost to certify a plan 30+ years ago is still considered in the purchase price. In light of the problems and cost to certify the Malibu, Perigrin and FAN, what manufacturer in his right mind would give up the luxery of building airplanes under a 30+ year old certification [without the primary aircraft proposal]? > > > These airplanes as transportation, or even as valuable local aircraft, > > > depends on the attitude of the pilot. > > Yep. The pilot's attitude determines whether or not a small plane > can be used as dependable transportation. All he needs to do is > sacrifice either affordability or safety. Either spend more money > than it's worth, or "cut some corners" on little details like > maintenance and weather avoidance. This remark was uncalled for. I think my training qualifies me to make better decisions that pilots are assumed to make here. > > > > Don't sell the idea of a primary aircraft short. The industry needs > > > this type of airplane. > > > > But the "industry" is sure that the way to riches is paved with > ever-more expensive airplanes (what a metaphor -- did I really > write that?). Because they can not affort to certify inexpensive ones. Since the cost of certification is not proportional [1:1] to the cost of the airplane, [ WAIT!! I'll admit that a 747 is more costly to certify than a Beach Baron; BUT a Baron is not that much more than a Piper 140D.] Profit margins dictate that the more costly the plane the less the certification costs per unit are. ERGO lower the certification costs and the Industry can build less expensive planes. > > Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug Greg Mandas Bunker!gmm