It is costly fuel. Right?

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?

You are right Neo. You ARE the "one!"

No, the reason is crashing and dieing. Most people don't want to fly
around in little planes. In addition, small planes are not reliable
transportation in the sense the public is looking for. The type of
weather you can drive your car in is far beyond the ability of even the
best jets.

-Roebrt

"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

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.

Asking a pilot to ride in a small plane is different than the general
public. You can't honestly think that the average person in the U.S. is
as comfortable in a small plane as in a hot-rod.

-Robert

Airplanes are costly, much much more than any auto. Insurance is costly.
Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
drivers ed classes. Aviation is expensive overall simply because of
lower numbers of planes and people involved.

"John T" wrote in message
...
Airplanes are costly, much much more than any auto. Insurance is costly.
Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
drivers ed classes. Aviation is expensive overall simply because of lower
numbers of planes and people involved.

Your post is circular. You describe all of the costs, as if that's an
answer to why participation is low. Then you state that the costs exist
because of low participation.

You've got a whole "chicken and egg" thing going there...

Your post is circular. You describe all of the costs, as if that's an
answer to why participation is low. Then you state that the costs exist
because of low participation.

Actually, he's describing a positive feedback system that negatively affects
aviation.

Kobra

Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are sheer numbers.
There are 10 of millions if not 100s of millions of autos on the road.
Sheer numbers produced keeps the price "low". Probably something like
over a 100,000 new cars are produced each year (guessing), while only a
few thousand (at best, another guess) GA planes and experiementals are
built each year. Another example is engines. Auto engines can be built
and sold for a few thousand bucks because of the economies of scale.
Aviation engines, OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new, simply because so
few are made compared to auto engines.

All comes down to economy of scale.

John T" wrote in message
...
Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are sheer numbers. [...]

What "Not really"? If you want to disagree, quote what you disagree with.
Otherwise, I have to assume you disagree with my statement that your post is
circular, which is completely true. You use one particular state of reality
to explain a different state of reality, and then turn around and use that
different state of reality to explain the first. That's called "circular
logic" (or "tautology" if you like), and it doesn't hold water.

The fact that economies of scale affects the cost of autos and airplanes
both has very little to do with the reason for participation numbers in
each. The participation numbers do affect cost. You cannot claim that the
cost significantly affects participation numbers.

There are a host of other factors involved that are much more significant,
and this can be seen by looking at a variety of aspects, including...

* Even people living on the edge financially find a way to afford a car.
People generally will engage in the use of autos even when doing so is an
economic hardship. Cost of autos could go up significantly without
affecting participation (and it has).

* There ARE relatively inexpensive ways to be involved in flying.
Someone with a few grand to spend each year on it could do it. In spite of
this, participation numbers are low.

As far as your over-simplified explanation of aviation costs goes...

[...] Another example is engines. Auto engines can be built and sold for a
few thousand bucks because of the economies of scale. Aviation engines,
OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new, simply because so few are made
compared to auto engines.

It is NOT "simply because so few are made compared to auto engines". Yes,
making more would help costs. But aviation engines and auto engines are not
comparable. Not in design, not in government regulation, and not in
application. There are a lot of auto engines out there that would be
foolish to put into an airplane.

The bottom line: there are a host of other reasons, unrelated to cost, that
hinder participation numbers in aviation. Get rid of those reasons, and
participation would increase dramatically and costs would correspondingly
decrease. If aviation were as essential a component of daily life in our
culture as autos, the price would be comparable.

Now, as it happens, many of the reasons participation is low in aviation are
pretty much immutable. They have to do with things that are inherent in the
activity. So the above statement is theoretical. But it's a lot more
related to reality than your implication that if only we could reduce the
cost, enough people would participate to support a cost as low as the point
to which we reduced it.

Pete