bart@ucbvax.ARPA (Bart Miller) (12/16/84)
I'll grant that the PA proposal may produce aircraft that are cheaper to buy; but cheaper to operate? Where do you plan on cutting the costs? Insurance? Already dirt-cheap for a single-owner 152/172 class aircraft (and certainly not a significant part of a 150-200 hours/year operation cost. Maintenance? Well, if you build your own machine, you can do your own maintenance, but only a small percentage of people do/will do this. Do you mean that you're not going to bother with 100-hours (sure, that not even required if you own your own 210)? I'm not going to get in your machine if you don't. And please don't fly over my house. Better construction techniques, materials, and technology will bring lower maintenance aircraft. Maybe the PA proposal will encourage some of this. Maybe. Gas? Well, certainly some of the newer composites have better fuel efficiency. That's starting to appear in production aircraft (the big machines first, as with most developments). But many of the current aircraft (even "ancient" 150's (gads, the "new is better syndrome" is a real ego-driven trap)) have been modified for higher efficiency. Avionics? If you want dual NAV/COMs, you pay for it -- when it goes in your Bonanza, Very-easy, or Quicksilver MX. Most people think that a Oldsmobile is significantly cheaper to operate than a 172. But that's more wishful thinking than anything else. What difference does it make if you can buy one of these cheaper aircraft, if you can't afford to flyi it? --bart miller