doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/14/84)
Well, I said that I wouldn't say more, but I can't resist a good flame. It's cold in Phoenix today. > 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. > Your major complaint is "obsolete design". Well, I keep hearing about the 150 mpg carburetors that Detroit and the oil companies are supposedly keeping us from knowing about, too. There is no magic elixir that will make flying cheap. The sad part is that the public, both flying and non-flying, is continuously assaulted by claims that some genius somewhere has found a way to save you a bunch of money. Last year it was autogas, this year it's the Primary Aircraft proposal. Don't get me wrong -- these are both good moves, and I support them (I repeat that I support the Primary Aircraft proposal). But I cannot condone the hype that accompanies them, claiming that we are on the threshold of "flight for everyman". After all, the Primary Aircraft proposal won't affect whether you need a magneto or not, nor how much that magneto will cost. > 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. > If you seriously believe that an airplane whose design has not even been thoroughly inspected, and using potentially sub-standard parts and workmanship, will be cheaper to maintain than current designs, boy are you in for a surprise. As to the "museum pieces", I suggest you reconsider that. The 152 has a higher maintenance cost than the 150, which is an older design. As a general rule, the older the plane the lower the maintenance, because the bugs have been worked out of the plane over the years, parts are more available, and knowledgable mechanics are more available (the latter two apply only to popular planes like the 150, not odd-balls and orphans like say, the Grummans). > 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). > ----------- FLAME ON ----------- KIT planes. Migosh, do you know how many hours you have to put into assembly? Typically 200-500 hours. You are aware that we have a Minimum Wage Law, $3.35/hour. You do know that employers have to pay for employee benefits, FICA, state and/or Federal unemployment taxes, etc. You do realize that most kits are offered WITHOUT an engine, and that the 150-HP Lycoming O-320 typically used in such planes runs over $14,000 without trade-in, in unit quantities? And that kits do not include radios, and a cheap NAV/COMM and antenna will cost about $1500 retail? That many kits do not have electrical systems for lights and radio, nor vacuum systems for gyro gauges? That this stuff ain't cheap? How is a legit manufacturer going to sell fully-assembled planes at kit prices? There are absolutely NO requirements on ultra-lights. And in fact there are DANGEROUS design flaws in many that are on the market. These aluminum-tubing and fabric KITS, with a 2-cylinder engine and no gauges, radio, or anything, cost $4500 and up. Are you trying to tell me that a reliable airplane can be fully manufactured for only 3 times the cost of the aluminum tubing, fabric, wire, and snow-mobile engine in an unassembled ultralight kit? There are a lot of airplane kits on the market. How many COMPLETED kit-planes do you see at the airport? Only a couple if any. Now check the airport bulletin boards. How many partially completed kits are being advertised? Almost always more than the number of completed kits. A lot of people are suckered into kit building, and then when they figure it out they try to sell off the parts to cut their losses. ---------- FLAME OUT -------- The Primary Aircraft proposal shouldn't affect current kit planes. It would affect future kits, by allowing additional factory assembly (at factory labor rates). > 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). > Insurance cost on a design which has not been completely approved and tested will naturally be higher than on an a fully approved and tested design. It is very difficult to get ANY insurance on kit planes except via the EAA. The few life insurance companies that will cover private pilots make very stringent requirements on the certification of the airplane (I know, you're not married yet, but I did say that pilots QUIT aviation disgusted and broke after they have moved up to a too-expensive plane, didn't I?) Time to be picky -- you don't need a 100-hour inspection for privately operated aircraft. The Primary Aircraft proposal disallows the use of Primary Aircraft for commercial purposes, so the 100-hour doesn't count. Look, I know that you desperately want to believe that there is a magic solution that will make personal air transportation affordable. I have no objections to anyone trying. I support the Primary Aircraft proposal, I support the Recreational Pilots License proposal, and I support the use of autogas in compatible planes. But please don't try to tell me that This Time, Really, We Have The Answer, No Lie, This Time It's Gonna Work For Sure. It's a long road ahead, and if the voices of General Aviation such as AOPA, GAMA, and Flying magazine don't quit lying, claiming results that they KNOW are not possible, there won't BE any General Aviation left if and when we do get the costs down. Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug