It is costly fuel. Right?

No, you're wrong. Mass production of airplanes has never
happened. During WWII, we came close, actually built 10-
15- maybe 30,000 of the same basic model, in four years.
Total production by England, Canada, Germany, Italy, and of
course the USA, was still not equal to the production of one
assembly line for one model of Chevy in one year.


Aviation fuel costs more because it is only about 7/10 of
one percent of the refined fuels and it requires special
handling, certification and storage.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"neo" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible.
Mass training
| of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver
is possible.
| But still i do not see planes in sky.
|
| Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?
|

"neo" wrote in message
ups.com...
Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible. Mass training
of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
But still i do not see planes in sky.

Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?


nope. but the other replies I've seen haven't explained my point of view on
the issue.

first, when a car gets a flat, you can stop anywhere to fix it. kind of hard
to do while at 5000 ft.

because of that reason, airplanes need to be 99% perfect at all times. this
ramps up the time for inspection, construction, design, and all the other
"little things" that get multiplied when you get to the finished product of
a vehicle.

look at design issues for safety wire. no such thing exists for cars. and
safety wire is on just about everything on airplanes, and needs to be
removed and installed whenever a part is changed, moved, or altered.

if cars had to go through the same thing, cars would last for 100 years but
garage costs would be about $500/hr instead of $150/hr.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
would rather spend them elsewhere.

The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
passengers and taxpayers in general.

I don't think 'the upcoming price increases' will hurt 'the majority of
small planes you see on sunny weekends'.

Very simply, I will not land at towered airports, nor will I file flight
plans or use flight following. This will not greatly change my flying
habits. I don't frequent towered fields. I'll go there if I have a need. I
don't usually get flight following unless I'm flying near or thorugh
controlled airspace.

I fly from a privately owned field. If the present fuel tax is replaced by
user fees, my costs will actually decrease. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure
any user fees will be in addition to fuel texes.


The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
(see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
wisely quit.)

In my opinion AOPA is a lobbying group. They wouldn't be doing a very good
job if they didn't try everything under the sun to promote their agenda.
They're very good at what they do.



So
Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
facts)

It certainly is, but even without recreational GA, most of the
infrastructure would still be needed. I truely believe that the incremental
cost of recreational GA to 'the system' is small.


, or that pollution,

But the airlines claim that GA uses so little fuel that it needs to change
the billing model. So how much pollution can it produce when it uses so
little fuel? (In reality, It would be a good idea if pollution could be
reduced, but I gotta argue first)


increasing populations around formerly rural
airstrips, etc.

Caveat Emptor !


They will blame politicians,
insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
the industry's problems.


Everything is the fault of lawyers and insurance companies!!!

They want the world to revert to 1955,
consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

Just don't take away my GPS

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:yGJcg.1039$JL5.923@trndny03...
"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
[snipped]

Please, do not feed the troll.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:CUJcg.4429$nA2.1171@trndny01...
But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

I can't make you do anything, of course. However, I'll point out that what
he's good at is *trolling*. Not at actually writing anything that makes
sense, or even which is truthful.

If you value trolling as an art, by all means encourage him. It's your
right to do so. I'll suggest you keep in mind that people who habitually
encourage trolling may find themselves just as filtered as the trolls are.

Besides, even trolls need to eat.

Only if they are to survive. I see no reason for us to provide for that
"need".

Cancer cells need to eat to survive too, but we invest a great deal of
medical research in ways to kill them, including by starvation. Their "need
to eat" does not mean we "need to feed". Likewise trolls.

Pete

by "Steve Foley" May 23, 2006 at 08:03 PM


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

Please, do not feed the troll.


But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

Besides, even trolls need to eat.



;-). Well, this "troll" actually likes to fly in the right seat of small
planes. Its just that I think it should occur in a more environmentally
and fiscally responsible way. And, of course, I detest Boyer...

by "Peter Duniho" May 23, 2006 at 01:10 PM


"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:CUJcg.4429$nA2.1171@trndny01...
But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

I can't make you do anything, of course. However, I'll point out that
what
he's good at is *trolling*. Not at actually writing anything that makes
sense, or even which is truthful.,.



LOL. You reject the factual data I post from US Bureau of Transporatation
statistics, testimony from president of ATA, etc. etc. as not truthful.

Fine, Duniho, live in your AOPA fantasy land.;-)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
No, the reason is crashing and dieing. Most people don't want to fly
around in little planes.

Maybe. I didn't fly around in little planes for five years between the time
I got my private and the time I started working on my Instrument because I
couldn't afford it. I remember renting a '152 for $29 /hr in 1990.
Almost double that now.

I'd also attribute the cost of the airplanes due to regulation,
certification requirement, etc. Who wants to spend $60,000-$80,000 for a
four-place airplane built in 1973?

People cash and die on motorcycles and little not-rods just fine. Just
earning the license to fly can cost more than a new economy car.

-c

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

We haven't gotten to the point where computer languages are trivial for
anyone to use.

Where the language is, the logic hasn't necessarily. In the end, it's still
a lot of math.
Quite a bit like flying in that regard.

-c

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

first, when a car gets a flat, you can stop anywhere to fix it. kind of
hard to do while at 5000 ft.

(Point of note...it's a lot harder to get a flat at 5,000 feet. ; )

-c