Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
back then. And really, if you look at the price of
complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
there really is no justification for planes to be priced
so high. There just isn't that much more technology
or material.

For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
rather keep that much money in a safe place right
now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
> is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
> compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
> back then. And really, if you look at the price of
> complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
> there really is no justification for planes to be priced
> so high. There just isn't that much more technology
> or material.
>
> For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
> rather keep that much money in a safe place right
> now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
> it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.
>
> ---
> Mark

When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
the price won't be much more than cars.

Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is down
and people are dealing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark writes:

> Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
> is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
> compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
> back then. And really, if you look at the price of
> complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
> there really is no justification for planes to be priced
> so high. There just isn't that much more technology
> or material.

A shrinking market, ever-increasing potential liability in a society obsessed
by frivolous litigation, and the high cost of certification probably all
contribute to the prices of airplanes. These factors are absent or nearly
absent for automobiles, which have a huge, expanding market, relatively
insignificant liability issues in relation to the market size, and virtually
no certification requirements.

On Sep 9, 8:51*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
> > back then. *And really, if you look at the price of
> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
> > or material.
>
> > For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
> > rather keep that much money in a safe place right
> > now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
> > it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
> the price won't be much more than cars.

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

> Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
> year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche. From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Back to the Chinese... this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

> In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
> and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

--
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Sep 10, 2:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
> > back then. *And really, if you look at the price of
> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
> > or material.
>
> A shrinking market,

Why do you think the market is shrinking? I think it's
growing.

>ever-increasing potential liability in a society obsessed
> by frivolous litigation

With insurance I just can't see this being a factor that
would drive up the price of planes, and really do you
suppose that many pilots find themselves as defendents?

> and the high cost of certification probably all
> contribute to the prices of airplanes.

How so? Yes certification is expensive but that money
goes to the flight school.

>These factors are absent or nearly
> absent for automobiles,

Wait a second. I would dare say that MANY lawsuits
stem from car related incidents and FEW lawsuits are
incurred (proportionally speaking) with private pilots in
single engine planes.

>which have a huge, expanding market, relatively
> insignificant liability issues in relation to the market size, and virtually
> no certification requirements.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:51Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
>> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
>> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
>> > back then. Â*And really, if you look at the price of
>> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
>> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
>> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
>> > or material.
>>
>> > For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
>> > rather keep that much money in a safe place right
>> > now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
>> > it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
>> the price won't be much more than cars.
>
> So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
> back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
> but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

>> Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
>> year by robots.
>
> Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
> wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
> fill this niche.

What niche?

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
> Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
> nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
> inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
> having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
> largest overhead and human resource management is
> always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a decade
or so now.

> Back to the Chinese... this short video gives a nice little
> tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
> contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
>
> > In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
> down
>> and people are dealing.
>
> No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
> especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
> their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
> travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
> are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
> year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
> garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>> Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
>> is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
>> compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
>> back then. And really, if you look at the price of
>> complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
>> there really is no justification for planes to be priced
>> so high. There just isn't that much more technology
>> or material.
>
> A shrinking market, ever-increasing potential liability in a society obsessed
> by frivolous litigation, and the high cost of certification probably all
> contribute to the prices of airplanes. These factors are absent or nearly
> absent for automobiles, which have a huge, expanding market, relatively
> insignificant liability issues in relation to the market size, and virtually
> no certification requirements.

Actually the automobile market has all those concerns, which is why you don't
see new, low volume cars like the Morgan in the USA. They can't afford to
meet all those requirements at their volume level. One Morgan executive
once commented that the US crash testing requirements alone whould require
most of a years production.

It is the huge volume of mass produced cars that spreads those costs over
so many units that the compliance cost per unit becomes trivial.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2:09Â*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Mark writes:
>> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
>> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
>> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
>> > back then. Â*And really, if you look at the price of
>> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
>> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
>> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
>> > or material.
>>
>> A shrinking market,
>
> Why do you think the market is shrinking? I think it's
> growing.

Then your thinking is clouded.

The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
in all sectors from GA to airliners.

>
>>ever-increasing potential liability in a society obsessed
>> by frivolous litigation
>
> With insurance I just can't see this being a factor that
> would drive up the price of planes, and really do you
> suppose that many pilots find themselves as defendents?

The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
money.

>> and the high cost of certification probably all
>> contribute to the prices of airplanes.
>
> How so? Yes certification is expensive but that money
> goes to the flight school.

The airplane itself and each piece and part has to be certified. That costs
the manufacturer big bucks.

The certification testing of a new airplane design can take years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:

> > So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
> > back in the 1970's? *I don't think it was supply and demand
> > but I could be wrong.
>
> They weren't.

> A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
> as a high end car.
>
> Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
> everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

> >> Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
> >> year by robots.
>
> > Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
> > wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
> > fill this niche.
>
> What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

> The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
> payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

> Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
> the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
> because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

> The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
> means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

> * From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
>
> > Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
> > nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
> > inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
> > having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
> > largest overhead and human resource management is
> > always volatile.
>
> Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

> All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
> or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

> > Back to the Chinese... *this short video gives a nice little
> > tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
> > contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.
>
> Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
>
> > > In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
> > down
> >> and people are dealing.
>
> > No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
> > especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
> > their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
> > travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
> > are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
> > year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
> > garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.
>
> What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

Thanks, Mark



> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Sep 10, 12:23*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 2:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Mark writes:
> >> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
> >> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
> >> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
> >> > back then. *And really, if you look at the price of
> >> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
> >> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
> >> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
> >> > or material.
>
> >> A shrinking market,
>
> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? *I think it's
> > growing.
>
> Then your thinking is clouded.

The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
Unfortunately the economy right now is killing growth.

> The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
> in all sectors from GA to airliners.

Yes sales are off. Interest is still high.
Conclusion: The friggin' planes cost too much.

> >>ever-increasing potential liability in a society obsessed
> >> by frivolous litigation
>
> > With insurance I just can't see this being a factor that
> > would drive up the price of planes, and really do you
> > suppose that many pilots find themselves as defendents?
>
> The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
> money.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
robber-barons. Look at the spread sheets. ( A.I.G.) So,
basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.

> >> and the high cost of certification probably all
> >> contribute to the prices of airplanes.
>
> > How so? *Yes certification is expensive but that money
> > goes to the flight school.
>
> The airplane itself and each piece and part has to be certified. That costs
> the manufacturer big bucks.
>
> The certification testing of a new airplane design can take years.

Reminiscent of the FDA.

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
>> > back in the 1970's? Â*I don't think it was supply and demand
>> > but I could be wrong.
>>
>> They weren't.
>
>> A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
>> as a high end car.
>>
>> Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
>> everything else.
>
> My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
> as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
> more today than in the 1970's.

It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?


>> >> Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
>> >> year by robots.
>>
>> > Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
>> > wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
>> > fill this niche.
>>
>> What niche?
>
> The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
> 50K.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

However many new cars are now pushing $50k.

>> The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
>> payed for by huge volumes.
>
> Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
> the 70's and 80's.

Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

>> Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
>> the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
>> because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.
>
> I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
> airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
and trucks cost now.

>> The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
>> means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.
>
> While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
> as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
> market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
> for the geneneral aviation market.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

>> Â* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
>>
>> > Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
>> > nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
>> > inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
>> > having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
>> > largest overhead and human resource management is
>> > always volatile.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>
> Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
> is labor. With any successful business, at some time the
> idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
> very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
> very likely your profits may decrease.

The point went right over your head.

See the next sentence and try again.

> > All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
> decade
>> or so now.
>
> Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
> to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
market.

>> > Back to the Chinese... Â*this short video gives a nice little
>> > tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
>> > contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.
>>
>> Electric airplanes are toys.
>
> Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
>>
>> > > In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
>> > down
>> >> and people are dealing.
>>
>> > No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
>> > especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
>> > their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
>> > travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
>> > are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
>> > year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
>> > garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.
>>
>> What are you, 15?
>
> No need for insults. I'm 55, became financially
> independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
> away money on impulse spending.

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:23Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:

>> >> A shrinking market,
>>
>> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? Â*I think it's
>> > growing.
>>
>> Then your thinking is clouded.
>
> The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
> but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.

Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.

>> The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
>> in all sectors from GA to airliners.
>
> Yes sales are off. Interest is still high.

And from what market study did you get that information?

>> The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
>> money.
>
> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
> robber-barons. Look at the spread sheets. ( A.I.G.) So,
> basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.

Nope, basically a litigious society winning suites for airplanes built
over two decades ago are driving up the cost of planes and driving parts
makers out of business.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 7:46*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
> >> > back in the 1970's? *I don't think it was supply and demand
> >> > but I could be wrong.
>
> >> They weren't.
>
> >> A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
> >> as a high end car.
>
> >> Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
> >> everything else.
>
> > My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
> > as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
> > more today than in the 1970's.
>
> It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
> for things.

That's not my objective.

> Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?

Actually people other than me have already done
this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
planes were more accessable to the public back in
the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
I've already read.



> >> >> Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
> >> >> year by robots.
>
> >> > Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
> >> > wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
> >> > fill this niche.
>
> >> What niche?
>
> > The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
> > 50K.
>
> There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
unless you want something made in 1945.

> However many new cars are now pushing $50k.
>
> >> The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
> >> payed for by huge volumes.
>
> > Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
> > the 70's and 80's.
>
> Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Neat. I was in Marietta.

> Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

> >> Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
> >> the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
> >> because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.
>
> > I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
> > airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.
>
> You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
> and trucks cost now.

Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
I can fit my 6'3" self into?

> >> The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
> >> means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.
>
> > While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
> > as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
> > market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
> > for the geneneral aviation market.
>
> You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
> former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.

> They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
> of magnitude you are whining about.

They aren't cheaper.


> >> * From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
>
> >> > Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
> >> > nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
> >> > inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
> >> > having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
> >> > largest overhead and human resource management is
> >> > always volatile.
>
> >> Utter nonsense.
>
> > Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
> > is labor. *With any successful business, at some time the
> > idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
> > very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
> > very likely your profits may decrease.
>
> The point went right over your head.

I understood your point.

> See the next sentence and try again.
>
> > > All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
> > decade
> >> or so now.
>
> > Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
> > to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)
>
> Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
> the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
> market.

My point went right over your head.

The ----> demand is there, but not at those prices.

> >> > Back to the Chinese... *this short video gives a nice little
> >> > tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
> >> > contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.
>
> >> Electric airplanes are toys.
>
> > Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".
>
> You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
of superiority if developed.


> BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
> onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

You must read up on bullet trains.


> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
>
> >> > > In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
> >> > down
> >> >> and people are dealing.
>
> >> > No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
> >> > especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
> >> > their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
> >> > travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
> >> > are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
> >> > year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
> >> > garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.
>
> >> What are you, 15?
>
> > No need for insults. I'm 55, *became financially
> > independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
> > away money on impulse spending.
>
> So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
> for $25k.

Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
of refusing to waste it.

Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Sep 10, 7:53*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 12:23*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> A shrinking market,
>
> >> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? *I think it's
> >> > growing.
>
> >> Then your thinking is clouded.
>
> > The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
> > but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
>
> Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.

Yes, and you want to know why? Because the planes
are overpriced.

> >> The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
> >> in all sectors from GA to airliners.
>
> > Yes sales are off. *Interest is still high.
>
> And from what market study did you get that information?

It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
interest in the LSA market. I've also been to 3 different
flight schools in the last year, and reading extensively
from AOPA and other sources. Yes it's my opinion, and
I find it trivial to dig up hard numbers. Market studies
are usually agenda driven.

> >> The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
> >> money.
>
> > Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
> > robber-barons. *Look at the spread sheets. *( A.I.G.) *So,
> > basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.
>
> Nope, basically a litigious society winning suites for airplanes built
> over two decades ago are driving up the cost of planes and driving parts
> makers out of business.

So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
Arion aircraft and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?

Heh. Thanks for your input Jim. I'll look into it.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:46Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:
>>

>> It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
>> for things.
>
> That's not my objective.

It is what you are bitching about.

>> Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?
>
> Actually people other than me have already done
> this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
> planes were more accessable to the public back in
> the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
> I've already read.

No, you are refusing to look at any real numbers and just pulling stuff
out of your butt.

>> There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.
>
> Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
> unless you want something made in 1945.

The light sport classification has only been around for a couple of years.

There are a few certificated airplanes built prior to that that are light
sport eligable, however there weren't any GA built in 1945 as there was
this other thing called WWII that interrupted civil production.

Used LSA's can be had for not much more than $50k.

> You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

Sure you could if the volume were high enough to pay for the machinery, but
it isn't, and isn't ever going to be.

> Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
> I can fit my 6'3" self into?

Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Since you are financially independent, if you got a job and saved for a
couple of years, you could easily buy one cash, especially since as the
years go by the early ones only get cheaper.

>> You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
>> former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?
>
> Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.
>
>> They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
>> of magnitude you are whining about.
>
> They aren't cheaper.

Of course they are and a simple search shows them to be so.

>> >> Electric airplanes are toys.
>>
>> > Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".
>>
>> You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?
>
> No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
> of superiority if developed.

Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries have all been around for about
a hundred years.

There is nothing "fledgling" about any of the technology.

>> BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
>> onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.
>
> You must read up on bullet trains.

Trains can get power from the rails; they don't have to carry their energy
source.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Better?

>> So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
>> for $25k.
>
> Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
> of refusing to waste it.

Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.

> Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
> take two.

Once again, the light sport catagory is new so the oldest airplanes are
only a few years old.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:53Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 10, 12:23Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> A shrinking market,
>>
>> >> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? Â*I think it's
>> >> > growing.
>>
>> >> Then your thinking is clouded.
>>
>> > The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
>> > but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
>>
>> Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.
>
> Yes, and you want to know why? Because the planes
> are overpriced.

No, it is because most people have no interest what so ever in owning an
airplane and in fact a very large number of people are scared of "little"
airplanes.

>> > Yes sales are off. Â*Interest is still high.
>>
>> And from what market study did you get that information?
>
> It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
> and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
> interest in the LSA market.

Mostly because the operating costs are low and you don't need to be able
to pass a medical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark writes:

> So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
> back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
> but I could be wrong.

Most things were cheaper in the 1970s, relatively speaking. As I recall,
American buying power peaked not long before the first oil crisis in 1973. It
has been drifting downwards ever since.

> Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
> wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
> fill this niche.

Private pilots are rare even in the countries with the strongest private
aviation sectors. I don't know if China has any private pilots at all. The
Chinese like huge markets, and I doubt that there is a huge market for any
kind of private aircraft today, inside or outside China.

Mark writes:

> I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
> airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

I disagree.

It's very simple to get a license to drive a car. It's very expensive and
complicated to get a license to fly an airplane. And the regulatory burden
doesn't stop with the initial certification--everything about aviation is
heavily regulated. Most people aren't anywhere near interested enough in
flying to deal with all that red tape. Even if aircraft were free, relatively
few people would be flying.

> Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
> to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

What is it due to, then?

Mark writes:

> You must read up on bullet trains.

Electric trains are different from electric airplanes, because the source of
power is not being carried with the vehicle in an electric train. You can have
a massive, fixed power plant producing electricity for the train, and all the
train needs is some transformers and motors. That option doesn't exist with
aircraft, which must carry the entire power plant aboard. Worse yet, aircraft
are much more sensitive to weight than trains.

Mark writes:

> Why do you think the market is shrinking? I think it's
> growing.

Lots of reasons, which might include:

- Reduced buying power
- Greater choice of leisure-time activities (travel, computers, etc.)
- Loss of the glamour associated with aviation due to mass-market air travel
- Diminished willingness to take risks in a society that is more and more
fearful about everything (thank the media for that)
- Ever-increasing risks of litigation of all kinds
- Paranoia over the "dangers" of aviation, instrinsic and extrinsic
- Ever-increasing regulatory restrictions and burden

Back around 1970 or so, it wasn't that far-fetched to consider an airplane for
the family. It was kind of like buying a nice boat to use at the local lake.
But today things have changed, and having one's own airplane is considered
more exotic, more inaccessible, and more bizarre than it used to be.

> With insurance I just can't see this being a factor that
> would drive up the price of planes, and really do you
> suppose that many pilots find themselves as defendents?

Insurance is expensive, and the greater the amount of litigation, the higher
the premiums go. Insurance is a concern for airplane manufacturers, airports,
airplane owners, and airplane pilots. They all have to pay and pay, lawsuits
are a constant menace, and even a single lawsuit can raise premiums beyond
reach.

> How so? Yes certification is expensive but that money
> goes to the flight school.

Certification of an airplane has nothing to do with flight school. When every
nut and bolt must be certified and traced, it gets very expensive to build an
airplane.

That's why there are no truly new engine designs, and very few overall changes
to private aircraft. (Airliners have changed more, but there's a lot more
money available to pay for the certification.)

> Wait a second. I would dare say that MANY lawsuits
> stem from car related incidents and FEW lawsuits are
> incurred (proportionally speaking) with private pilots in
> single engine planes.

The incidence of lawsuits per capita or per trip is much higher for aircraft,
especially in dollar terms.

Mark writes:

> The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
> but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.

I'm sure there are many people who are interested in flying their own
airplanes, but either their interest isn't great enough for them to overcome
all the many obstacles to flying for fun, or they just don't have the money
for it.

The situation is likely to only get worse.

> Yes sales are off. Interest is still high.
> Conclusion: The friggin' planes cost too much.

It's not just the cost of the airplanes. It's all the overhead associated with
flying in general. You cannot simply buy a plane, jump in, and fly around.

> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
> robber-barons. Look at the spread sheets. ( A.I.G.) So,
> basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.

Only in part. And in any case, greed isn't likely to disappear.

> Reminiscent of the FDA.

Exactly. That's why so many orphan drugs fall by the wayside. Those orphan
drugs are a lot like private airplanes.

Mark writes:

> So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
> Arion aircraft and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?

It would reduce prices somewhat, just as it induced manufacturers to start
building private airplanes again after liability crises some years ago.

On Sep 10, 9:30*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 7:53*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 10, 12:23*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> >> A shrinking market,
>
> >> >> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? *I think it's
> >> >> > growing.
>
> >> >> Then your thinking is clouded.
>
> >> > The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
> >> > but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
>
> >> Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.
>
> > Yes, and you want to know why? *Because the planes
> > are overpriced.
>
> No, it is because most people have no interest what so ever in owning an
> airplane and in fact a very large number of people are scared of "little"
> airplanes.
>
> >> > Yes sales are off. *Interest is still high.
>
> >> And from what market study did you get that information?
>
> > It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
> > and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
> > interest in the LSA market.
>
> Mostly because the operating costs are low and you don't need to be able
> to pass a medical.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I wrote something about this a while ago, paraphrasing here


I use general aviation a lot, and own a Mooney built 30 some years
ago. I think the
opportunities for general aviation have been going down, as measured
by the size of the fleet, the number of pilots, and hours flown -- all
generally available information -- since about the 70s. Fuel costs
will keep rising, the demand
for oil products is overtaking overtaking supply, increased regulation
will add artificial costs that have to paid for with real dollars, and
the need for physical travel will probably decline with increasing
digital communication. I see this happening now -- decision makers
that I used to visit are happier to take a virtual meeting than a
real one, and the coming generation is better at that kind of
communication than we are.

A for electric airplanes, it's going to be a long time before anything
weighing 6 pounds and occupying 231 cubic inches will hold the amount
of easily controlled energy a gallon of av-gas does.

OK, think like a manager. Do a strategic plan. We start with a SWOT
analysis -- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Do you
hear of any venture capitalists lining up to invest in general
aviation? It's a weak and declining market, the threats are commercial
aviation and digital communications, virtual travel. The strength for
non hobby SEL is, economic door to door travel time in the 200 to say
700 or 900 mile range is probably faster in an M20J than other
methods. The door to door time means deciding when to travel on your
own schedule, not an airline's. That also means if a business meeting
ends early or late, I can still be wheels up 15 minutes after getting
to the airport, and I can use an outlier airport if it's closer to
where I'm going. And the opportunity? When companies like Mooney and
Cessna and the like, managed by people whose careers depend on being
on top of things, are struggling, there simply isn't much
opportunity.

I'm not going to bother looking it up, but would probably bet the
average in use SEL general aviation airplane is at least 25 years old.
If true that does not say much for the state of the art, does it?

I can hear my grand children, in an oil poor world a couple of decades
from now, saying "Granddad A, you flew your own airplane? Why?"

On Sep 10, 9:30*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 7:53*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 10, 12:23*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> >> A shrinking market,
>
> >> >> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? *I think it's
> >> >> > growing.
>
> >> >> Then your thinking is clouded.
>
> >> > The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
> >> > but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
>
> >> Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.
>
> > Yes, and you want to know why? *Because the planes
> > are overpriced.
>
> No, it is because most people have no interest what so ever in owning an
> airplane and in fact a very large number of people are scared of "little"
> airplanes.

So you're saying the decline in aviation sales is due to:

1) fear
2) lack of interest

I won't implore you to provide a "market survey" to
cooberate your opinion but my opinion is that general
aviation is simply pricing itself out of business.


> >> > Yes sales are off. *Interest is still high.
>
> >> And from what market study did you get that information?
>
> > It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
> > and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
> > interest in the LSA market.
>
> Mostly because the operating costs are low and you don't need to be able
> to pass a medical.

I agree 100%

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>> So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
>> back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
>> but I could be wrong.
>
> Most things were cheaper in the 1970s, relatively speaking. As I recall,
> American buying power peaked not long before the first oil crisis in 1973. It
> has been drifting downwards ever since.
>
>> Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
>> wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
>> fill this niche.
>
> Private pilots are rare even in the countries with the strongest private
> aviation sectors. I don't know if China has any private pilots at all. The
> Chinese like huge markets, and I doubt that there is a huge market for any
> kind of private aircraft today, inside or outside China.

The Chinese have only recently legalized private flying.

Last I heard there was only a small handfull of GA aircraft in China.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 9:27*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 7:46*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:
>
> >> It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
> >> for things.
>
> > That's not my objective.
>
> It is what you are bitching about.

No, I am digging into the numbers to shed light on
the disproportion buying power in an attempt to examine
reasons why the prices are ridiculous. Keep in mind,
I'm examining this as a discussion topic.

> >> Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?
>
> > Actually people other than me have already done
> > this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
> > planes were more accessable to the public back in
> > the 1970's. *I'm merely recounting from memory what
> > I've already read.
>
> No, you are refusing to look at any real numbers and just pulling stuff
> out of your butt.

I've read this already, and the fact is planes are priced
disproportionately relative to current incomes as compared
to decades earlier. Jim this information is available and
derived from real numbers. If you believe I'm wrong then
give me those REAL NUMBERS you are referring to.


> >> There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.
>
> > Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
> > unless you want something made in 1945.
>
> The light sport classification has only been around for a couple of years..

Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
in the category.

> There are a few certificated airplanes built prior to that that are light
> sport eligable, however there weren't any GA built in 1945 as there was
> this other thing called WWII that interrupted civil production.

Well, I was just ballparking that date. Off the top of my
head the Ercoupe comes to mind, or a Piper J-3.

> Used LSA's can be had for not much more than $50k.

Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.

> > You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.
>
> Sure you could if the volume were high enough to pay for the machinery, but
> it isn't, and isn't ever going to be.

Even building C-141's and C-5a's you still had to have a
lot of hand work and inspections that wouldn't be done on
an automobile.

> > Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
> > I can fit my 6'3" self into?
>
> Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes

There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
that category and you know what?... the prices have now
gone up to fit the market demand.

>, but used ones
> a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Yes. Not worth it to the general public.

> Since you are financially independent, if you got a job and saved for a
> couple of years, you could easily buy one cash, especially since as the
> years go by the early ones only get cheaper.
>
> >> You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
> >> former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?
>
> > Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.
>
> >> They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
> >> of magnitude you are whining about.
>
> > They aren't cheaper.
>
> Of course they are and a simple search shows them to be so.

Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
I'm discussing here.

> >> >> Electric airplanes are toys.
>
> >> > Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".
>
> >> You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?
>
> > No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
> > of superiority if developed.
>
> Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries have all been around for about
> a hundred years.
>
> There is nothing "fledgling" about any of the technology.

Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
field. It's only a matter of time.

> >> BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you
have an
> >> onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.
>
> > You must read up on bullet trains.
>
> Trains can get power from the rails; they don't have to carry their energy
> source.
>
> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> electricity.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

> Better?

Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
the future.

> >> So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
> >> for $25k.
>
> > Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
> > of refusing to waste it.
>
> Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.

a. it's not worth the price man.
b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.

> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? *I'll
> > take two.
>
> Once again, the light sport catagory is new so the oldest airplanes are
> only a few years old.

Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:27Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 10, 7:46Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
>> >> for things.
>>
>> > That's not my objective.
>>
>> It is what you are bitching about.
>
> No, I am digging into the numbers to shed light on
> the disproportion buying power in an attempt to examine
> reasons why the prices are ridiculous. Keep in mind,
> I'm examining this as a discussion topic.

No, you aren't digging into anything, you are just arm waving.

>> >> Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?
>>
>> > Actually people other than me have already done
>> > this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
>> > planes were more accessable to the public back in
>> > the 1970's. Â*I'm merely recounting from memory what
>> > I've already read.
>>
>> No, you are refusing to look at any real numbers and just pulling stuff
>> out of your butt.
>
> I've read this already, and the fact is planes are priced
> disproportionately relative to current incomes as compared
> to decades earlier. Jim this information is available and
> derived from real numbers. If you believe I'm wrong then
> give me those REAL NUMBERS you are referring to.

What is the price of a new 1970 Cessna 172 in 2010 dollars and the 2010
price for a Cessna 172?

Current income is irrelevant.

>> >> There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.
>>
>> > Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
>> > unless you want something made in 1945.
>>
>> The light sport classification has only been around for a couple of years.
>
> Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
> in the category.

No, there is not.

Few old airplanes meet the weight limit.

>> There are a few certificated airplanes built prior to that that are light
>> sport eligable, however there weren't any GA built in 1945 as there was
>> this other thing called WWII that interrupted civil production.
>
> Well, I was just ballparking that date. Off the top of my
> head the Ercoupe comes to mind, or a Piper J-3.

Some Ercoupes and some J-3's, but not all.

>> Used LSA's can be had for not much more than $50k.
>
> Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.

To you.

>> > You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.
>>
>> Sure you could if the volume were high enough to pay for the machinery, but
>> it isn't, and isn't ever going to be.
>
> Even building C-141's and C-5a's you still had to have a
> lot of hand work and inspections that wouldn't be done on
> an automobile.

No airplane has ever been built with the level of automattion of car makeing.

>> > Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
>> > I can fit my 6'3" self into?
>>
>> Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes
>
> There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
> that category and you know what?... the prices have now
> gone up to fit the market demand.

Yeah, the price of the few old airplanes that meet LSA requirement has gone
up.

But most old airplanes don't meet the LSA standards.

>>, but used ones
>> a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.
>
> Yes. Not worth it to the general public.

The general public doesn't care about airplanes or have any desire to own
one.

>> Since you are financially independent, if you got a job and saved for a
>> couple of years, you could easily buy one cash, especially since as the
>> years go by the early ones only get cheaper.
>>
>> >> You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
>> >> former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?
>>
>> > Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.
>>
>> >> They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
>> >> of magnitude you are whining about.
>>
>> > They aren't cheaper.
>>
>> Of course they are and a simple search shows them to be so.
>
> Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
> the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
> I'm discussing here.

"rip-off"?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

In any case, that has nothing to do with the fact that the foreign airplanes
are not anywhere near the order of magnitude cheaper that you are whinning
about.

>> >> >> Electric airplanes are toys.
>>
>> >> > Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".
>>
>> >> You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?
>>
>> > No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
>> > of superiority if developed.
>>
>> Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries have all been around for about
>> a hundred years.
>>
>> There is nothing "fledgling" about any of the technology.
>
> Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
> supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
> field. It's only a matter of time.

No, it is a matter of basic physics.

Absent Star Trek technology it is just not possible to achieve the energy
density of gasoline with stored electricity.

> > >> BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you
> have an
>> >> onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.
>>
>> > You must read up on bullet trains.
>>
>> Trains can get power from the rails; they don't have to carry their energy
>> source.
>>
>> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
>> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> electricity.
>
> The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
> It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
> did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

> > Better?
>
> Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
> the future.

Nope, in sync with reality.

Wishing for miracle science is not going to make it happen.

The fact that you even mentioned capacitors shows you haven't a clue of
the physics involved.

>> >> So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
>> >> for $25k.
>>
>> > Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
>> > of refusing to waste it.
>>
>> Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.
>
> a. it's not worth the price man.

To you.

> b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
> freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.

I'm thinking about buying a newer airplane.

>> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
>> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? Â*I'll
>> > take two.
>>
>> Once again, the light sport catagory is new so the oldest airplanes are
>> only a few years old.
>
> Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
> http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm

1946 is not after 1990.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:30Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 10, 7:53Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 10, 12:23Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> >> A shrinking market,
>>
>> >> >> > Why do you think the market is shrinking? Â*I think it's
>> >> >> > growing.
>>
>> >> >> Then your thinking is clouded.
>>
>> >> > The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
>> >> > but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.
>>
>> >> Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.
>>
>> > Yes, and you want to know why? Â*Because the planes
>> > are overpriced.
>>
>> No, it is because most people have no interest what so ever in owning an
>> airplane and in fact a very large number of people are scared of "little"
>> airplanes.
>
> So you're saying the decline in aviation sales is due to:
>
> 1) fear
> 2) lack of interest

No I'm saying the general public, most people, the mass market, has no
interest in owning an airplane.

Sales are shrinking mostly because we are in an economic downturn, not because
airplanes are "overpriced", whatever that means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 11, 1:02*am, wrote:

> No, you aren't digging into anything, you are just arm waving.

Incorrect

> What is the price of a new 1970 Cessna 172 in 2010 dollars and the
2010
> price for a Cessna 172?

You said this was trivial data.

> > Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
> > in the category.
>
> No, there is not.
>
> Few old airplanes meet the weight limit.

Incorrect

> > Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.
>
> To you.

IMHO means "in my humble opinion",
FYI. (for your information)

> No airplane has ever been built with the level of automattion of car makeing.

Incorrect. See...WWII. That's exactly what they did.

> >> Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes
>
> > There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
> > that category and you know what?... the prices have now
> > gone up to fit the market demand.
>
> Yeah, the price of the few old airplanes that meet LSA requirement has gone
> up.

You just said "there are NO old LSA airplanes".

> But most old airplanes don't meet the LSA standards.

I never said they did.

> >>, but used ones
> >> a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.
>
> > Yes. Not worth it to the general public.
>
> The general public doesn't care about airplanes or have any desire to own
> one.

Find the matching word. (hint, starts with a "G")

1. general aviation
2. general public


> > Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
> > the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
> > I'm discussing here.
>
> "rip-off"?

Yes, a great big rip-off.

> Sounds like sour grapes to me.

No. I don't want one. I don't like high wing planes.
I like the piper sport, the arion lightning, the
MySky MS-1, etc.

> In any case, that has nothing to do with the fact that the foreign airplanes
> are not anywhere near the order of magnitude cheaper that you are whinning
> about.

HUH? I'm the one that said foreign planes aren't cheaper,
and you've been saying they are. Make up your mind.

> > Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
> > supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
> > field. *It's only a matter of time.
>
> No, it is a matter of basic physics.

It's a matter of atomics and combining the right
materials.

> Absent Star Trek technology it is just not possible to achieve the energy
> density of gasoline with stored electricity.

It's only a matter of time.

> >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> electricity.
>
> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
> > did. The Russians all died.
>
> And that changes my statement how?

By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.

> > > Better?
>
> > Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
> > the future.
>
> Nope, in sync with reality.

Yes, today's reality.

> >> Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.
>
> > a. it's not worth the price man.
>
> To you.

Wrong. The reality that LSA's are overpriced is an
echoing theme all across the aviation community.

> > b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
> > * *freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.
>
> I'm thinking about buying a newer airplane.

I'm thinking about ****ing Pamela Anderson.

> > Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
> >http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm
>
> 1946 is not after 1990.

Which...is why I haven't bought an Ercoupe. I'm really
not comfortable with possible hidden metal fatigue in
an antique plane, as I've already stated: Many of
us don't want to fly an antique.

--
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

Mark > wrote:
> So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
> Arion aircraft and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?

Um, the Arion Lightning is available for just under US$94k.[1]
It can be flown at 138 mph to any airfield in the U.S.

A 2010 Aston Martin Rapide has a list price of US$200k.
A 2010 Dodge Viper has a list price of US$91k.

The fastest either of those two sports cars can be driven on highways in
the U.S. is 80 mph.[3]

A Sonex aircraft (low wing, two person, metal construction) could be
built for under US$40k and be flown at 170 mph to any airfield in the
U.S.

A 2010 Porsche Boxster has a list price of US$48k and is limited to 80
mph (and typically less) on U.S. roads.

The limiting factor of airplanes is that they only take you from one
airfield to another. Ground transportation is needed at both ends. This
is, in my view, the aspect that limits the utility of airplanes.

[1] http://www.flylightning.net/images/pdf/2009%20Price%20Sheet%20Light%20Sport.pdf
[2] http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/pricing/27/sports/index.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States
[4] http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html
[5] http://www.sonexaircraft.com/kits/pricing.html

Mark > wrote:
> Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
> take two.

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/

On Sep 11, 3:06*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? *I'll
> > take two.
>
> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/

Heh, you name the one low wing LS that I
don't really like, but even so, a nice Sonex
will cost you more like 45K or more.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
> take two.

$20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:
http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>
> <bull**** snipped>
>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> You've proven beyond the shadow of
> a doubt here that you will argue for the sake of
> arguement, even switching sides on issues in
> the same thread. Your data is skewed.
>
> You give no respect, you deserve none.
>
> ---
> Mark

And it appears to me either your reading comprehension skills are nil or
you are a troll.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 11, 7:28*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? *I'll
> > take two.
>
> $20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm

These type of planes don't seem suitable for
going cross-country to me, and although it's
possible to do so in one you could probably
get there just as fast in your truck.

Still, they look like a load of fun, but I was looking'
to circumvent commercial flying.

---
Mark

On Sep 11, 7:29*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
>
> > <bull**** snipped>
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > You've proven beyond the shadow of
> > a doubt here that you will argue for the sake of
> > arguement, even switching sides on issues in
> > the same thread. Your data is skewed.
>
> > You give no respect, you deserve none.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> And it appears to me either your reading comprehension skills are nil or
> you are a troll.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No sir. We have explored a topic, and I believe
the peripheral factors have been brought to light.
Other than that there seems to be a difference of
opinion on...well...anything I say.

Also you have an insulting air, but maybe that's
just an italian thing.

Best wishes, Mark

On Sep 11, 3:06*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
> > Arion aircraft *and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?
>
> Um, the Arion Lightning is available for just under US$94k.[1]
> It can be flown at 138 mph to any airfield in the U.S.
>
> A 2010 Aston Martin Rapide has a list price of US$200k.
> A 2010 Dodge Viper has a list price of US$91k.
>
> The fastest either of those two sports cars can be driven on highways in
> the U.S. is 80 mph.[3]
>
> A Sonex aircraft (low wing, two person, metal construction) could be
> built for under US$40k and be flown at 170 mph to any airfield in the
> U.S.
>
> A 2010 Porsche Boxster has a list price of US$48k and is limited to 80
> mph (and typically less) on U.S. roads.
>
> The limiting factor of airplanes is that they only take you from one
> airfield to another. Ground transportation is needed at both ends. This
> is, in my view, the aspect that limits the utility of airplanes.
>
> [1]http://www.flylightning.net/images/pdf/2009%20Price%20Sheet%20Light%2....
> [2]http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/pricing/27/sports/index.html
> [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States
> [4]http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html
> [5]http://www.sonexaircraft.com/kits/pricing.html

I'm not sure why you've listed expensive autos
here. Look at the KIA sorento. For 20K you can
get this vehicle which looks very nice inside and
out. (yes, I know...autos, mass production, etc)
http://www.bing.com/autos/search?year=2011&make=kia&model=sorento&dtp=specs&q=2011+Kia+Sorento+specs&FORM=DTPAUA&qpvt=kia+sorento+prices

Or more for my tastes, the Ford F-250 Super Duty
often lists (decked out) near 60K, but you can pick
them up all day long (used) for 22K.

What "grinds my gears" is the fact that planes used
to be accessable to middle class America and now
even the most rudimentary planes (usually a pre-owned
home built) cost double what a very nice auto does.

If the reasons are research and development,
certification, liability, and interest to investors,
well this wasn't a big problem during the 70's
and '80's. Planes were 5 times cheaper.

In other news:

You can have a rental car waiting for you in my area
for a little over 20 bucks. That's negligible if you don't
do it every day.

However I just bought one of these, and I love it:
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/story/fx/

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 7:28Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
>> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? Â*I'll
>> > take two.
>>
>> $20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm
>
> These type of planes don't seem suitable for
> going cross-country to me, and although it's
> possible to do so in one you could probably
> get there just as fast in your truck.

Yeah, right.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100907combs.html

So far this guy has gone 20,000 nm in a LSA.

> Still, they look like a load of fun, but I was looking'
> to circumvent commercial flying.

Then you need something like a Citation, which is a bit more than your $20k
budget.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 3:06Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
>> > Arion aircraft Â*and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?
>>
>> Um, the Arion Lightning is available for just under US$94k.[1]
>> It can be flown at 138 mph to any airfield in the U.S.
>>
>> A 2010 Aston Martin Rapide has a list price of US$200k.
>> A 2010 Dodge Viper has a list price of US$91k.
>>
>> The fastest either of those two sports cars can be driven on highways in
>> the U.S. is 80 mph.[3]
>>
>> A Sonex aircraft (low wing, two person, metal construction) could be
>> built for under US$40k and be flown at 170 mph to any airfield in the
>> U.S.
>>
>> A 2010 Porsche Boxster has a list price of US$48k and is limited to 80
>> mph (and typically less) on U.S. roads.
>>
>> The limiting factor of airplanes is that they only take you from one
>> airfield to another. Ground transportation is needed at both ends. This
>> is, in my view, the aspect that limits the utility of airplanes.
>>
>> [1]http://www.flylightning.net/images/pdf/2009%20Price%20Sheet%20Light%2...
>> [2]http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/pricing/27/sports/index.html
>> [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States
>> [4]http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html
>> [5]http://www.sonexaircraft.com/kits/pricing.html
>
> I'm not sure why you've listed expensive autos
> here. Look at the KIA sorento. For 20K you can
> get this vehicle which looks very nice inside and
> out. (yes, I know...autos, mass production, etc)
> http://www.bing.com/autos/search?year=2011&make=kia&model=sorento&dtp=specs&q=2011+Kia+Sorento+specs&FORM=DTPAUA&qpvt=kia+sorento+prices
>

Because a "nice" used airplane has historically cost about the same as a
high end car, as I have already said.

> Or more for my tastes, the Ford F-250 Super Duty
> often lists (decked out) near 60K, but you can pick
> them up all day long (used) for 22K.
>
> What "grinds my gears" is the fact that planes used
> to be accessable to middle class America and now
> even the most rudimentary planes (usually a pre-owned
> home built) cost double what a very nice auto does.

Nope, costs the same as a very nice auto.

You can get C172N's and Warriors for about $35k.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 12, 12:43*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 7:28*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
> >> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? *I'll
> >> > take two.
>
> >> $20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm
>
> > These type of planes don't seem suitable for
> > going cross-country to me, and although it's
> > possible to do so in one you could probably
> > get there just as fast in your truck.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100907combs.html
>
> So far this guy has gone 20,000 nm in a LSA.

Yeah and the article doesn't tell how long it took him
to do it either, does it? No thanks.

> > Still, they look like a load of fun, but I was looking'
> > to circumvent commercial flying.
>
> Then you need something like a Citation, which is a bit more than your $20k
> budget.

I've not revealed my budget nor my plans, but if you
want to know, I will probably buy a used Piper Sport
or Arion Lightning within 24 months, have to pay at
least 80K, and gripe about it.

Up to this point I've merely been discussing the general
state of affairs from an everyman point of view for
purposes of discussion and enlightenment.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:43Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 11, 7:28Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
>> >> > country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? Â*I'll
>> >> > take two.
>>
>> >> $20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm
>>
>> > These type of planes don't seem suitable for
>> > going cross-country to me, and although it's
>> > possible to do so in one you could probably
>> > get there just as fast in your truck.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100907combs.html
>>
>> So far this guy has gone 20,000 nm in a LSA.
>
> Yeah and the article doesn't tell how long it took him
> to do it either, does it? No thanks.

Most all of the LSA's have roughly the same cruise speed.

> > > Still, they look like a load of fun, but I was looking'
>> > to circumvent commercial flying.
>>
>> Then you need something like a Citation, which is a bit more than your $20k
>> budget.
>
> I've not revealed my budget nor my plans, but if you
> want to know, I will probably buy a used Piper Sport
> or Arion Lightning within 24 months, have to pay at
> least 80K, and gripe about it.

As the PiperSport is new this year, good luck on finding used ones two
years from now.

>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:44Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> Most all of the LSA's have roughly the same cruise speed.
>
> No sir. Very few of them can actually hit 138mph.
> VERY FEW. And I plan on going 140.

The rule is 138 mph in level flight with maximum continuous power.

If you plan on going 140 mph, you are not going to do it in a LSA.

And yes, most all of the LSA's have roughly the same cruise speed
between 130 mph and 138 mph.


>> As the PiperSport is new this year, good luck on finding used ones two
>> years from now.
>
> No sir. I've been in one years ago.

No, you have not, as the PiperSport didn't exist before 2010.

> You see, it's actually the Czech Sport which had
> management problems and teetered on bankruptcy.
> Many of us were afraid of them after that, thinking
> parts and support would dwindle...and then along
> came good ol' Piper and bought the company.
>
> There were several last fall available. One was
> listed $79,000. I know a guy that has one.

Actually what you saw was a Czech Sport Aircraft Sport Cuiser, which has
been around since 2006.

The PiperSport has had Piper modifications and the airplanes are not
identical.

Also, Piper did not buy the company, the PiperSport is being built under
a licencing agreement.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 8:52Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 12, 7:44Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> Most all of the LSA's have roughly the same cruise speed.
>>
>> > No sir. Â*Very few of them can actually hit 138mph.
>> > VERY FEW. Â*And I plan on going 140.
>>
>> The rule is 138 mph in level flight with maximum continuous power.
>>
>> If you plan on going 140 mph, you are not going to do it in a LSA.
>
> Yes I am. Might even go 145.
>
> Yes, it's an illegal modification.

So, you are publicly admitting you are planning to violate FAA regulations?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 13, 5:36*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2:12*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 12, 8:52*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 12, 7:44*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Most all of the LSA's have roughly the same cruise speed.
>
> >> >> > No sir. *Very few of them can actually hit 138mph.
> >> >> > VERY FEW. *And I plan on going 140.
>
> >> >> The rule is 138 mph in level flight with maximum continuous power.
>
> >> >> If you plan on going 140 mph, you are not going to do it in a LSA.
>
> >> > Yes I am. Might even go 145.
>
> >> > Yes, it's an illegal modification.
>
> >> So, you are publicly admitting you are planning to violate FAA regulations?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > My answer: What Jim Logajan said.
>
> So how do you intend to get a valid airworthiness certificate?

It will come that way. I will have interchangeable "accessories".

I mean, maybe that's what Mark might do.

> > So anyway, yeah, the Czech sportcruiser and the Piper Sport
> > are the same airplane.
>
> Nope, they are very similar airplanes.

Lol. Ok Jim.

> --
> Jim Pennino

On Sep 13, 5:36*pm, wrote:

> > So anyway, yeah, the Czech sportcruiser and the Piper Sport
> > are the same airplane.
>
> Nope, they are very similar airplanes.

Wrong. READ FOR CONTENT.

"Piper officials said they plan no major modifications to the
aircraft
that claims a top speed of 120 knots and a range of 600 nautical
miles. Piper’s Vero Beach manufacturing plant will play no role in
Sport Cruiser construction, and the company will support the new
aircraft with logistics and parts distribution."


http://www.aeromarkt.net/index.php?lng=1&cll=archive&ID=1557

---

Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:33Â*pm, wrote:

>> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>
> I go by what the POH says.

Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would
qualify as a LSA?

>> I doubt his is really a pilot.
>
> Then I guess I shouldn't have bought a new ASA headset
> last month.

Likely because you are like the "slow" guy that hangs around the local
airport doing odd jobs with an aviation headset plugged into a Walkman.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 13, 5:33*pm, wrote:

> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>
> I doubt
> --
> Jim P

And furthermore, you probably are unaware that there are
LSA's that weigh more than 1320lbs too.

You've been wrong about everything else you've tried to
argue. 1) piper/czech planes 2) ratio of plane prices over
time 3) fleet profile of LSA's, 4) typical LSA knot capacity,
etc., etc., etc. I provide proof and you change the subject.
I bring original topic back up and you lie about what you
said. I provide direct quote...you don't respond.

You a silly goose.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:33Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>>
>> I doubt
>> --
>> Jim P
>
> And furthermore, you probably are unaware that there are
> LSA's that weigh more than 1320lbs too.

Yeah, there are exceptions for floats and a few other things, but that
has nothing to do with the original statement that you don't know the
difference between actual weight and max gross weight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 13, 8:14*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 5:33*pm, wrote:
> >> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>
> > I go by what the POH says.
>
> Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would
> qualify as a LSA?

I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
that weighted 1100 lbs. This led me to speculate that maybe
there was a variant that did qualify. I like to believe the best
in people and wanted to think I was wrong.

> >> I doubt his is really a pilot.
>
> > Then I guess I shouldn't have bought a new ASA headset
> > last month.
>
> Likely because you are like the "slow" guy that hangs around the local
> airport doing odd jobs with an aviation headset plugged into a Walkman.

My vocabulary and syntax alone are enough to dispell that.

So far you've shown everyone in this forum that you've got
a "little problem" with an inability to stop being obnoxious or
submitting erroneous information. Although I've spanked your
butt on every single point of contention...it wasn't fun or my
desire, however it's quite useful for purposes of revealing
information within the aviation forum, which is why I'm here.

Here's a little concept for you to ponder-

The Law of Reciprocity.
---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:14Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 13, 5:33Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>>
>> > I go by what the POH says.
>>
>> Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would
>> qualify as a LSA?
>
> I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
> LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
> that weighted 1100 lbs.

You still don't get it, do you?

The weight of an airplane isn't a determining factor in qualifying as a
LSA, it is the max gross weight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:34Â*pm, j...@some silly goose wrote:
>
>> > And furthermore, you probably are unaware that there are
>> > LSA's that weigh more than 1320lbs too.
>>
>> Yeah, there are exceptions for floats and a few other things, but that
>> has nothing to do with the original statement that you don't know the
>> difference between actual weight and max gross weight.
>
> I don't know why you'd say that.

Because you said you thought an airplane that weighed 1100 lb might qualify
as a LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 14, 10:18*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 8:14*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 13, 5:33*pm, wrote:
> >> >> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>
> >> > I go by what the POH says.
>
> >> Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would
> >> qualify as a LSA?
>
> > I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
> > LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
> > that weighted 1100 lbs.
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
>
> The weight of an airplane isn't a determining factor in qualifying as a
> LSA, it is the max gross weight.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Read for comprehension. I've already explained that it seemed
a possibility that there was a Piper variant which...if it weighed
1100lbs empty...would still have a very narrow, and crappy
margin to still accomodate another 230lbs. I weigh less than
that.

Yes I get it. I got it all years ago.

---
Mark

Mark wrote
> I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
> LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
> that weighted 1100 lbs. This led me to speculate that maybe
> there was a variant that did qualify. I like to believe the best
> in people and wanted to think I was wrong.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Skipper's weight.

Empty weight: 1,100 lb (500 kg)
Useful load: 580 lb (260 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 1,675 lb (760 kg)

The maximum takeoff weight for a LSA is 1320 pounds...that is without
floats of course. :)
No Skipper qualifies as a LSA.

Bob Moore

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:18Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 13, 8:14Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 13, 5:33Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight.
>>
>> >> > I go by what the POH says.
>>
>> >> Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would
>> >> qualify as a LSA?
>>
>> > I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
>> > LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
>> > that weighted 1100 lbs.
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you?
>>
>> The weight of an airplane isn't a determining factor in qualifying as a
>> LSA, it is the max gross weight.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Read for comprehension. I've already explained that it seemed
> a possibility that there was a Piper variant which...if it weighed
> 1100lbs empty...would still have a very narrow, and crappy
> margin to still accomodate another 230lbs. I weigh less than
> that.

All of them weigh 1,100 lb empty from the factory.

They also hold 29 gal of fuel for an additional 174 lb.

Do you weigh less than 46 lb?

> Yes I get it. I got it all years ago.

Evidently not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 14, 5:03*pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Mark *wrote
>
> > I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't
> > LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them
> > that weighted 1100 lbs. *This led me to speculate that maybe
> > there was a variant that did qualify. *I like to believe the best
> > in people and wanted to think I was wrong.
>
> This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Skipper's weight.
>
> Empty weight: 1,100 lb (500 kg)
> Useful load: 580 lb (260 kg)
> Max takeoff weight: 1,675 lb (760 kg)
>
> The maximum takeoff weight for a LSA is 1320 pounds...that is without
> floats of course. :)
> No Skipper qualifies as a LSA.
>
> Bob Moore

Thanks Bob. In actuality, a prolonged conversation has
evolved around, and been drawn out here over a very incidental event
whereby I briefly was mistaken, due to a plane salesman who
told me his Beech was an LSA. It's really no big deal except I
mentioned it here without realizing there would be an inquisition.

I simply swung by the airport in my spare time, looked at his
plane and decided to pass. Never flew it. Never saw his logs.
Hell, never met the guy in person. We talked on the phone a
couple of times. Had it been a viable prospect, THEN I would've
gotten down to brass tacks and ALL the particulars would've
been examined as should be and I would've become a student
of all things Beech Skipper. It was the only Skipper I'd ever
briefly considered and I never bothered to read up on them.
It only went 90mph and had undisclosed repairs.

Anything I've mentioned in this forum about Skippers has just
been off-the-cuff, casual, and not expected to hold up in a
Grand Jury investigation. In other words, I speculated as to
why someone advertised one as LSA, and the answer to that
will remain unknown, insignificant, and no reflection on me.

The Beech Skipper is a very nice looking plane inside and
out, and would make a beautiful lawn ornament.

---
Mark

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
> back in the 1970's?

*LOL* So were cars you moron.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:23:36 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 2:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Mark writes:
>>> > Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
>>> > is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
>>> > compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
>>> > back then. *And really, if you look at the price of
>>> > complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
>>> > there really is no justification for planes to be priced
>>> > so high. There just isn't that much more technology
>>> > or material.
>>>
>>> A shrinking market,
>>
>> Why do you think the market is shrinking? I think it's
>> growing.
>
> Then your thinking is clouded.

Matches his clouded dementia.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:

> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
> > own energy
> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> >> electricity.
>
> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>
> >> And that changes my statement how?
>
> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>
> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.

> --
> Jim Pennino

Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...

"It can't be done". If it kills the humans, it can't be done.

For your information, actually it can be done now...
but you don't know why.

People in 1961 said it could be done too. Here's what
they were thinking:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/24/details-on-the-nx2-%e2%80%94-our-atomic-plane/

But subsequently as explained in this documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S86zRMehs-A&feature=related

It was abandoned for basically 3 reasons-

1) It could crash anywhere and the reactor would in effect
become a dirty bomb. This was unacceptable.

2) Inability to shield the pilot from irradiation.

3) Radioactive fallout spewing out the tail due to the direct
cycle system. The indirect cycle (liquid metal) technology
was never achieved. It could be today.

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>
>> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
>> > own energy
>> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> >> >> electricity.
>>
>> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
>> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
>> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>>
>> >> And that changes my statement how?
>>
>> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>>
>> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.
>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...
>
> "It can't be done". If it kills the humans, it can't be done.

No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.

<snip remaining babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 12:41*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
> >> > own energy
> >> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> >> >> electricity.
>
> >> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
> >> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
> >> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>
> >> >> And that changes my statement how?
>
> >> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>
> >> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...
>
> > "It can't be done". *If it kills the humans, it can't be done.
>
> No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown..

The dead Soviets are well documented.

<snip babble>

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
>> >> > own energy
>> >> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> >> >> >> electricity.
>>
>> >> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
>> >> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
>> >> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>>
>> >> >> And that changes my statement how?
>>
>> >> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>>
>> >> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...
>>
>> > "It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done.
>>
>> No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.
>
> The dead Soviets are well documented.

Who cares about dead Soviets?

The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 6:35*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 12:41*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
> >> >> > own energy
> >> >> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> >> >> >> electricity.

Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity.
They are used to produce heat.

> >> >> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
> >> >> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
> >> >> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>
> >> >> >> And that changes my statement how?
>
> >> >> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>
> >> >> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...
>
> >> > "It can't be done". *If it kills the humans, it can't be done.
>
> >> No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.
>
> > The dead Soviets are well documented.
>
> Who cares about dead Soviets?

Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral
on this project.

> The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone.

Shadow shielding was never perfected, remained a problem
and if testing had continued, someone would've died. This is
one of the three reasons atomic planes cannot be flown
under current (undeveloped) technology.

The other 2 reasons are:

1) It could crash anywhere and the reactor would in effect
become a dirty bomb. This is unacceptable.

3) Radioactive fallout spewing out the tail due to the direct
cycle system. The indirect cycle (liquid metal) technology
was never achieved. It could be today.

*note- the reactor weight of 80 tons would be much less today.

---
Mark



> Jim Pennino

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:35Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
>> >> >> > own energy
>> >> >> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> >> >> >> >> electricity.
>
> Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity.
> They are used to produce heat.
>
>> >> >> >> > The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
>> >> >> >> > It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
>> >> >> >> > did. The Russians all died.
>>
>> >> >> >> And that changes my statement how?
>>
>> >> >> > By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.
>>
>> >> >> Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...
>>
>> >> > "It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done.
>>
>> >> No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.
>>
>> > The dead Soviets are well documented.
>>
>> Who cares about dead Soviets?
>
> Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral
> on this project.

Babbling nonsense.

Both the USA and the Soviet Union realized that the only value of a nuclear
aircraft, i.e. staying aloft for long periods, was actually of little value
as the same could be done for far less cost with conventional aircraft
operating in shifts, which is exactly what both sides did.

Also the ICBM was put in service, further reducing the need for fleets of
strategic bombers.

And since keeping an aircraft aloft for long periods has no use other than
for a bomber fleet, no one has bothered with the idea since then.

<delete rest unread>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote:

<snip entire babbling post>

You wrote:

> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
> > own energy
> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> >> electricity.

The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
opposed to batteries.

It cannot be done, for ALL THE REASONS I've stated.
Period.

End of Story.

Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:09Â*pm, wrote:
>
> <snip entire babbling post>
>
> You wrote:
>
>> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
>> > own energy
>> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> >> >> electricity.
>
> The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
> nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
> opposed to batteries.

Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Electric airplanes with batteries are toys.

Electric trains with batteries are toys.

Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't
carrying their energy source.

Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as
they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge
the batteries.

Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be
built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built
as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will
not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many
levels in the civilian world.

And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous".



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote:
>
> > <snip entire babbling post>
>
> > You wrote:
>
> >> > > >> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
> >> > own energy
> >> >> >> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> >> >> >> electricity.
>
> > The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
> > nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
> > opposed to batteries.
>
> Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written.
>
> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> electricity.
>
> Electric airplanes with batteries are toys.
>
> Electric trains with batteries are toys.
>
> Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't
> carrying their energy source.
>
> Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as
> they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge
> the batteries.
>
> Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be
> built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.
>
> Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built
> as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.
>
> Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will
> not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many
> levels in the civilian world.
>
> And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous".
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

<smile>

---
Mark

On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:

> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
> electricity.

Only 2 simple questions here:

The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered?

And...

How exactly does electricity get extracted and utilized on
a nuclear powered airplane?

---
Mark

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:46Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
>> source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
>> electricity.
>
> Only 2 simple questions here:
>
> The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered?

Idiot.

The on board energy source for a Toyota Prius is a gasoline engine.


<snip babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.