USA Today .. Positive GA Pub

Judah wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:
They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/

Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html

Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm

Or a new CT for $92,900:
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_in...sults_page.asp

And so on....

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
Your perspective is skewed.

Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

Ken Finney writes:

I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. It was a
decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
they can do.

And unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Judah wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:
They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/

Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html

Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm

Or a new CT for $92,900:
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_in...sults_page.asp

And so on....

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
Your perspective is skewed.

Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about it.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

Yet another example of you taking one statement out of many and basing your
entire argument on it. As Judah wrote in the post you replied to an very
serviceable aircraft can be perchased for much less than $200,000. And since
the article was about people that have real jobs and own real businesses the
fact that aircraft are available at a price that most with the need could
afford would be a nice addition to what was otherwise a pretty good article.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Hey man,

I rent airplanes for $79/hr and one can find a nice IFR equipped 152
for $25k or less. Even better, one can get into a partnership and get
something nice for a good price. I started with nothing and now have a
job paying in the mid-$50s that allows me to fly around 90/hrs per
year. Obtaining a job that pays $50k/hr or more is doable by anybody
of average intelligence that is willing to work. I'm under 30 yrs old
and have a college degree, my private, instrument, and am working on my
commercial - all paid for in cash (no debt).

Quit feeling sorry for yourself and get a job that pays. You sound
lazy and whiny.

In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it. The
article was talking about the utility of GA for business, which is what
paid for most of my flying, and the lower cost airplanes just don't
have the range or utility that a complex single has. I flew a couple of
trips with a friend who had a 172 -- it just didn't have the legs, and
if there was a broad area of IMC, one couldn't file IFR because the
requirement of reaching an acceptable alternate. I remember flying a
300 mile trip and had to make a fueling stop about half way to have
legal reserves.

On the other hand, an M20 has the legs and speed to allow the owner to
keep to a schedule. My own history, flying out of the Northeast, is
that something like 8% of the flights to meetings I might have
scheduled a week or more in advance (which mean they were not scheduled
looking at the weather forcast) had to be cancelled or postponed
because of weather. I pretty much took off if the forcast for where I
was going would allow me to fly an approach, but icing (reported by
pilots, not forcast), embedded thunderstorms, severe turbulance, those
were reasons for me to pick up the phone instead of my brain bag.

There's no question that GA is out of reach financially for a large
number of people, but we still have a few hundred thousand who can
afford to, and want to, fly.

Mx isn't one of them.


On Jan 18, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken Finney writes:
I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. It was a
decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
they can do.And unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although
one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.


In the anti-sport pilot communitiy, they are always complaining about the
cost of light sport aircraft (LSA). When you respond that a new LSA is half
the cost of a new 172, they still complain about it. When you point out
that an Ercoupe is about $15K and is an LSA, they complain about something
else.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

Certainly for people who earn $100/wk tutoring that's true.

In 2004 the median US Income was reported as $43,389. Certainly someone
earning $43,389 might have trouble paying for a $200,000 loan for a Cessna
172SP, unless he planned to make it into a 30 year mortgage.

However, he would probably be able to afford the loan on a used model 172
that he bought through www.aso.com for $34,500 - the lowest priced 172
currently listed there. With $4,500 down, the monthly payment for a 7 year
loan on the balance would be about $450/month.

I know several people who earn about that and pay more for their car...

I flew 172s on business trips many times before I joined a flight club and
worked my way into Arrows and then Bonanzas... I would say that my
Instrument Rating had a much bigger impact on my ability to fly GA for
business than the extra speed of the Bonanzas that I currently prefer.
Certainly the faster planes have improved my utility even further, but I
don't think it's fair to say that a 172 would be useless for business
flying. My general rule of thumb is that GA flying works best for flights
between 1 and 3 hours of flight time. Any shorter and you can probably
drive there in the same amount of door-to-door time (if you factor in
flying to the airport, doing the preflight, and waiting for a
rental/ride/whatever at the destination airport). Anything longer than that
and you start to get into "stop" situations - either because of IFR reserve
requirements as you describe, or just for the need to stop after 3 hours of
sitting in a plane without a toilet or center aisle. Plus for me, based out
of NY, if I'm flying more than 3 hours, I'm probably headed somewhere that
I can get to on a major carrier in less time and for less money.

But I think the time rule applies regardless of the speed of the aircraft.
The speed of the aircraft just changes the range that this time factor
works with. In the Bo, I can get to South Carolina in 3 hours (and have).
In the 172, 3 hours got me to Erie, PA. In an M20, I figure 3 hours gets
you to Detroit...


Anyway, the point is, flying faster certainly improves the utility of GA.
That's why the richest businesses fly Gulfstreams and Lears. But even 172s
can provide utility in business...

"Tony" wrote in
ups.com:


In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it. The
article was talking about the utility of GA for business, which is what
paid for most of my flying, and the lower cost airplanes just don't
have the range or utility that a complex single has. I flew a couple of
trips with a friend who had a 172 -- it just didn't have the legs, and
if there was a broad area of IMC, one couldn't file IFR because the
requirement of reaching an acceptable alternate. I remember flying a
300 mile trip and had to make a fueling stop about half way to have
legal reserves.

On the other hand, an M20 has the legs and speed to allow the owner to
keep to a schedule. My own history, flying out of the Northeast, is
that something like 8% of the flights to meetings I might have
scheduled a week or more in advance (which mean they were not scheduled
looking at the weather forcast) had to be cancelled or postponed
because of weather. I pretty much took off if the forcast for where I
was going would allow me to fly an approach, but icing (reported by
pilots, not forcast), embedded thunderstorms, severe turbulance, those
were reasons for me to pick up the phone instead of my brain bag.

There's no question that GA is out of reach financially for a large
number of people, but we still have a few hundred thousand who can
afford to, and want to, fly.

Mx isn't one of them.


On Jan 18, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken Finney writes:
I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane
company and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I
had ANY contact with GA, and I expect the average person has even
less knowledge. It was a decent article, but the tone I got from it
was "this is what other people, other people who are rich, do". Once
you say an airplane costs $400K, most readers will forever consider
GA as something "others" do, not something they can do.And
unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.