Kinda sad

On Apr 27, 12:05 am, "Mike Isaksen" wrote:
wrote:
http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/...ffordable.html
wrote ...
Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long
time now.

Not sure I get what you guys are implying ?!?

Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

The EAA seems to have forgotten what the E stands for.

It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
affordable airplanes

Oh Well its the best option we've got right now, The AOPA caters to
the money crowd and theres not really anybody else to go to bat for
the little guy right now

The EAA does try but somewhere along the way they changed from grass
roots organization to big business. Oshkosh brings in a lot of money
and it too tempting to leave on the table and get back to your roots

Later

Larry

wrote:

Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

The EAA seems to have forgotten what the E stands for.

I don't think they forgot - just changed a bit.

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

cavelamb himself wrote:
Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?

Jim Logajan wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.


Richard

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.

That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
taken to task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.

wrote:
Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

Seriously, what percentage of finished experimentals fall into that
category?

It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
affordable airplanes

At about what price point would you define "afforable aircraft?"

Ok so I took a bit of poetic license But you have to admit the
majority of the displays at Oshkosh are for airplanes costing over
$100,000 Hell I'm building a 601XL from a kit, and the Factory built
LSA version from AMD is around $80,000


It's impossible to bring the recreational discretionary income dollars
to the sport with entry costs that high, and thus we have no next
generation coming up in aviation

For reference the typical toys Americans spend their Recreational
Discretionary dollars are Boats ( saw really nice one at Bass Pro a
couple of weeks ago for less then $30,000. Campers / Trailers Same or
lower price range Motorcycles, classic cars, snow mobiles the list
goes on.....

Its just very difficult to get new people into aviation and to get the
sales up enough to lower costs with an entry price of $80,000

Yes I know UL types cost less but these are perceived by the general
public as the domain of the daredevil and don't really help up get new
blood into the sport. Not everybody is gonna build their own either

You wanna see an explosion in sales Gimme a $40,000 RTF enclosed
cabin metal 100 MPH airplane and I'll show you the revolution

Its just my opinion i would be happy to be wrong if it would mean more
people would get exposed to flying

Later

Larry

On Apr 27, 5:58 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

Seriously, what percentage of finished experimentals fall into that
category?

It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
affordable airplanes

At about what price point would you define "afforable aircraft?"

wrote:
Ok so I took a bit of poetic license But you have to admit the
majority of the displays at Oshkosh are for airplanes costing over
$100,000 Hell I'm building a 601XL from a kit, and the Factory built
LSA version from AMD is around $80,000

Well, there are a couple RTF planes that don't look like ultralights that
cost under $80k, though not by much:

http://www.tampabayaerosport.com/ApolloFox.html

$69k RTF - even includes BRS at that price.

And this:

http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/skyboy.htm

~$60k RTF.

For reference the typical toys Americans spend their Recreational
Discretionary dollars are Boats ( saw really nice one at Bass Pro a
couple of weeks ago for less then $30,000. Campers / Trailers Same or
lower price range Motorcycles, classic cars, snow mobiles the list
goes on.....

When a new engine of sufficient HP and acceptability costs $18k and up,
it is tough to fit a whole new RTF plane under $30k!

You wanna see an explosion in sales Gimme a $40,000 RTF enclosed
cabin metal 100 MPH airplane and I'll show you the revolution

Maybe. Such a price point might do it.

Its just my opinion i would be happy to be wrong if it would mean more
people would get exposed to flying

I've done some admittedly crude estimates and I suspect it would be
possible to build and ship a RTF S-LSA hot-air airship (with a few novel
concepts) for under $35k, but I don't know if anyone here considers that
proper "flying". Great for sight seeing and touring, and probably could
be flown from large enough yards (save on hangar and even tie-down fees -
and the need for land transport to/from the airport), but at a top speed
of maybe 40 to 50 mph, not really viable for long distance transportation
(unless of course one has the time and is willing to take a few weeks to
go low-and-slow over the U.S.).

The thing about airships is that an engine loss doesn't translate into
the need to land "right now". So I suspect one can save some money there
by accepting a bit more risk.