A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

[Jim Logajan]

I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.

Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:

http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_materials/media/ComplexSmallAircraftGAMA.pdf

The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> > general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> > the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> > is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> > 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> > cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> > Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> >http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate...
>
> > The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> > so is missing explanations and references.
>
> In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> THEREFORE...
>
> In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> Any Questions??
>
> ---
> Mark
>
> 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> 2. wikipedia
> 3. U.S. census bureau
> 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd

This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market. There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.

I think the general decline in g a as measured by fleet size and
number of active pilots is a consequence both of social change and
economics. I really enjoy flying as do my pilot friends, but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.

[Mark]

On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> > > general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> > > the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> > > is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> > > 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> > > cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> > > Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> > >http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate....
>
> > > The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> > > so is missing explanations and references.
>
> > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> > THEREFORE...
>
> > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > Any Questions??
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> > 2. wikipedia
> > 3. U.S. census bureau
> > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>
> This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
> distribution among households. A person on the business side of
> general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
> but would want to know how many people constitute his market.

You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
that would be 100% accurate. However, anyone who talks with an
old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)

> There
> are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
> 70s.

Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
None of them can buy an airplane today.

> In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
> general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
> called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
> worthwhile story.

Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". They are the world's largest
importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071122_was_ross_perot_right/
The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.

<cut>

>... but the
> consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
> best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
> return on money invested in this market segment.

I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
position. This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
but on observations in the global arena. The number of new pilots
in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
upswing and should the global financial environment change for
the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.

Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
depression. (imho).

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > > I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> > > > general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> > > > the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> > > > is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> > > > 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> > > > cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> > > > Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> > > >http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate...
>
> > > > The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> > > > so is missing explanations and references.
>
> > > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> > > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> > > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> > > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> > > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> > > THEREFORE...
>
> > > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> > > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> > > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > Any Questions??
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> > > 2. wikipedia
> > > 3. U.S. census bureau
> > > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>
> > This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
> > distribution among households. A person on the business side of
> > general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
> > but would want to know how many people constitute his market.
>
> You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
> a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
> today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
> that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
> old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
> cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)
>
> > There
> > are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
> > 70s.
>
> Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
> the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
> millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
> None of them can buy an airplane today.
>
> > In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
> > general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
> > called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
> > worthwhile story.
>
> Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
> importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
> going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071122_was_ross_perot_right/
> The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
> finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
> companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
> overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
> market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
> most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.
>
> <cut>
>
> >... but the
> > consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
> > best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
> > return on money invested in this market segment.
>
> I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
> position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
> but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
> in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
> upswing and should the global financial environment change for
> the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.
>
> Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
> depression. *(imho).
>
> ---
> Mark

My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
that is in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
wing. There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
the electrochemical properties of batteries, but my knowledge of the
underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. Waving one's hands
about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
than that to spring funding for development.

[Mark]

On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > > > I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> > > > > general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> > > > > the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> > > > > is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> > > > > 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> > > > > cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> > > > > Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> > > > >http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate...
>
> > > > > The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> > > > > so is missing explanations and references.
>
> > > > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> > > > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> > > > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> > > > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> > > > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> > > > THEREFORE...
>
> > > > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> > > > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> > > > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > > Any Questions??
>
> > > > ---
> > > > Mark
>
> > > > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> > > > 2. wikipedia
> > > > 3. U.S. census bureau
> > > > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>
> > > This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
> > > distribution among households. A person on the business side of
> > > general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
> > > but would want to know how many people constitute his market.
>
> > You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
> > a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
> > today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
> > that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
> > old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
> > cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)
>
> > > There
> > > are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
> > > 70s.
>
> > Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
> > the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
> > millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
> > None of them can buy an airplane today.
>
> > > In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
> > > general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
> > > called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
> > > worthwhile story.
>
> > Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
> > importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
> > going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig..com/report/item/20071122_was_ross_perot_right/
> > The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
> > finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
> > companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
> > overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
> > market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
> > most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.
>
> > <cut>
>
> > >... but the
> > > consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
> > > best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
> > > return on money invested in this market segment.
>
> > I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
> > position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
> > but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
> > in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
> > upswing and should the global financial environment change for
> > the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.
>
> > Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
> > depression. *(imho).
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
> that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
> be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
> will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
> energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
> to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
> have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
> decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
> hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
> 20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
> batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
> will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
> wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
> the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the
> underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
> incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
> is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
> that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
> genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
> accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
> into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
> likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands
> about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
> than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket
right now being backed by the current administration. That can
be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a
flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it
in months but three things stick in my mind.

1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very
low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists.
The molecular seperation creates current, isolates
hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates
current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to
do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water-Electrolysis-Made-Easy-by-Revolutionary-Electrode-91275.shtml

2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries.
http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/CF3363569E7FD0B5652571F6001CBF4B/$File/TI%20Alert-Power.htm

3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are
being made. The batteries we will use won't be the
heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones
perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up
entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do,
batteries will be tiny and super powerful. Electric motors
have also seen significant new discoveries recently too
which make them smaller and more powerful.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 12, 11:29*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> > > > > > general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> > > > > > the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> > > > > > is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> > > > > > 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> > > > > > cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> > > > > > Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> > > > > >http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate...
>
> > > > > > The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> > > > > > so is missing explanations and references.
>
> > > > > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> > > > > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> > > > > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> > > > > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> > > > > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> > > > > THEREFORE...
>
> > > > > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> > > > > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > > > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> > > > > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > > > > Any Questions??
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mark
>
> > > > > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> > > > > 2. wikipedia
> > > > > 3. U.S. census bureau
> > > > > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>
> > > > This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
> > > > distribution among households. A person on the business side of
> > > > general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
> > > > but would want to know how many people constitute his market.
>
> > > You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
> > > a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
> > > today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
> > > that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
> > > old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
> > > cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)
>
> > > > There
> > > > are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
> > > > 70s.
>
> > > Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
> > > the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
> > > millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
> > > None of them can buy an airplane today.
>
> > > > In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
> > > > general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
> > > > called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
> > > > worthwhile story.
>
> > > Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
> > > importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
> > > going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071122_was_ross_perot_right/
> > > The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
> > > finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
> > > companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
> > > overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
> > > market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
> > > most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.
>
> > > <cut>
>
> > > >... but the
> > > > consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
> > > > best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
> > > > return on money invested in this market segment.
>
> > > I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
> > > position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
> > > but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
> > > in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
> > > upswing and should the global financial environment change for
> > > the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.
>
> > > Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
> > > depression. *(imho).
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
> > that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
> > be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
> > will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
> > energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
> > to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
> > have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
> > decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
> > hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
> > 20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
> > batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
> > will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
> > wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
> > the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the
> > underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
> > incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
> > is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
> > that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
> > genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
> > accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
> > into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
> > likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands
> > about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
> > than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket
> right now being backed by the current administration. That can
> be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a
> flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it
> in months but three things stick in my mind.
>
> 1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very
> * * low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists.
> * * The molecular seperation creates current, isolates
> * * hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates
> * * current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to
> * * do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels.http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water-Electrolysis-Made-Easy-by-Revolu...
>
> 2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries.
> * *http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/CF3363569E7FD0...
>
> 3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene
>
> By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are
> being made. The batteries we will use won't be the
> heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones
> perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up
> entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do,
> batteries will be tiny and super powerful. *Electric motors
> have also seen significant new discoveries recently too
> which make them smaller and more powerful.
>
> ---
> Mark

Electrolysis of water can be quite efficient, but of course one puts
more energy into the process than is available in the resultant
hydrogen. It has the advantage of allowing stationary power plants to
provide a mobile fuel. Storage and transportation is a formidable
task, and I think energy density is very low compared to hydrocarbons.
That the primary energy comes from solar power directly, or coal is
fairly meaningless. Energy density it a key requirement. I submit the
notion that government advocacy and funding as opposed to private
sector financing tells you all you need to know about the likelihood
of success. If the ROI was there BP and others would be pouring money
into it. The oil companies know about oil depletion and don't want to
be overtaken by alternatives.

There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but
again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets
just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take
the risks.

[Mark]

On Sep 12, 1:16*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
> >> general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
> >> the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
> >> is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
> >> 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
> >> cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>
> >> Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>
> >>http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate....
>
> >> The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
> >> so is missing explanations and references.
>
> > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
> > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
> > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>
> > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
> > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>
> > THEREFORE...
>
> > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
> > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
> > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>
> > Any Questions??
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
> > 2. wikipedia
> > 3. U.S. census bureau
> > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>
> It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes.
>
> It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such
> as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc.
>
> In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop..
>
> A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now
> defunct, aerospace plant.
>
> There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that
> owned the construction companies were owners.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes
a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're
smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the
shift in American buying power.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 12, 11:51*am, a > wrote:

<cut>

> There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but
> again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets
> just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take
> the risks.

Oh, I didn't mean the lucrative opportunites in alternative
energy right now are from investment in fledgling companies.
I believe it's from government grants and subsidies to
explore this field, or from receiving investment money.

In this case it's better to receive than give. LOL!

You sound as tight as I am. I don't even give to
P.B.S. ;^)

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:16Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 12, 12:54Â*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
>> >> general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
>> >> the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
>> >> is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
>> >> 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
>> >> cost of inflation, houses, or autos.
>>
>> >> Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:
>>
>> >>http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2010_us_eu/conference_mate...
>>
>> >> The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
>> >> so is missing explanations and references.
>>
>> > In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
>> > The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
>> > in the Skyhawk version.[2}
>>
>> > In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
>> > A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]
>>
>> > THEREFORE...
>>
>> > In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
>> > to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>>
>> > In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
>> > salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.
>>
>> > Any Questions??
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> > 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
>> > 2. wikipedia
>> > 3. U.S. census bureau
>> > 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090314203648AAeYJkd
>>
>> It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes.
>>
>> It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such
>> as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc.
>>
>> In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop.
>>
>> A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now
>> defunct, aerospace plant.
>>
>> There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that
>> owned the construction companies were owners.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes
> a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're
> smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the
> shift in American buying power.

Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
by the CPI, not wages.

In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
times what the 1971 model cost.

Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:54Â*pm, wrote:

>> Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
>> by the CPI, not wages.
>
> No matter. I've proven my point and there are other
> sources to corroberate it.
>
>> In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
>> times what the 1971 model cost.
>
> Um, why are you flip-flopping now? I'm the one asserting that the
> ratio has changed to a rip-off price. You're the one asserting that
> dollar per dollar the value is constant. Remember?

Ummm, no, I never said constant.

The closes thing to "constant" I said was that a decent used airplanes
still costs about the same as a good car.

>> Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
>> injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
>> was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.
>
> Well then, that must explain ( along with inflation ) why they've gone
> from $15,000 to $300,000. Better radios.

Actually, from just under $85k to just under $300k in terms of CPI adjusted
dollar value.

And yes, about $100k of that increase is easily the better standard
equipment, which isn't just radios. Hell, even the paint is better.

So now you are down to about 1.5 times as expensive when you do an apples
to apples comparison.

Hardly the "ripoff" you keep ranting about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:01:17 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 7:54*pm, wrote:
>
>>> Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
>>> by the CPI, not wages.
>>
>> No matter. I've proven my point and there are other
>> sources to corroberate it.
>>
>>> In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
>>> times what the 1971 model cost.
>>
>> Um, why are you flip-flopping now? I'm the one asserting that the
>> ratio has changed to a rip-off price. You're the one asserting that
>> dollar per dollar the value is constant. Remember?
>
> Ummm, no, I never said constant.
>
> The closes thing to "constant" I said was that a decent used airplanes
> still costs about the same as a good car.
>
>>> Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
>>> injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
>>> was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.
>>
>> Well then, that must explain ( along with inflation ) why they've gone
>> from $15,000 to $300,000. Better radios.
>
> Actually, from just under $85k to just under $300k in terms of CPI adjusted
> dollar value.
>
> And yes, about $100k of that increase is easily the better standard
> equipment, which isn't just radios. Hell, even the paint is better.
>
> So now you are down to about 1.5 times as expensive when you do an apples
> to apples comparison.
>
> Hardly the "ripoff" you keep ranting about.

*larf*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ted Sherman]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Oh, I didn't mean the lucrative opportunites in alternative
> energy right now are from investment in fledgling companies.
> I believe it's from government grants and subsidies to
> explore this field, or from receiving investment money.

> IOW, my welfare checks.

oooooooK