Airplane prices are ridiculous

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 -

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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 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 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