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.