It is costly fuel. Right?

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

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

I don't think its the inspections that make planes so expensive, I
think its the way they are designed. Older cars continue to run because
they are made out of heavy, solid materials. An airplane is made out of
thin sheets of aluminum that will crack at some point. Its the effort
to make planes light that makes them break more often. Stuff on planes
is safety wired because its lighter than using heavier bolts and nuts.
Cars don't break down because bolts come undone because they have
heavier hardware. Important bolts on cars are usually also pressed on
as well as cotter pinned. Pressing aluminum probably won't have the
same effect.

-Robert

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
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.

I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it in
such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

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.

Just to make it easier, I haven't changed my name or email address in since
I started posting back in 199?, so blocking me once is all you ever need to
do.


Besides, even trolls need to eat.

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


Sorry, I forgot the .

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it in
such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

Disagree all you like. I've seen enough of his posts quoted in other posts
to know that he posts untrue statements on a regular basis.

On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:09 -0400, "Skylune"
wrote:
snip-anti-aviation-dribble

Ignore Skylune... He's just ****ed that he was stupid enough to buy a
house right under the flight path of aircraft near some airport... Of
course, he doesn't have balls enough to tell us where he lives so that
we could perhaps avoid his house if at all possible... Or maybe
motivate us to get that relief tube STC.. evil-grin

by "Peter Duniho" May 23, 2006 at 05:40 PM


"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it
in
such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

Disagree all you like. I've seen enough of his posts quoted in other
posts
to know that he posts untrue statements on a regular basis.




Yeah, the Federal Bureau of Transporation statistics on the contributions
of AVgas taxes to the Aviation Trust Fund are just bull****.

For reality, you must listen to the ex-TV executive's wisdom.

by Grumman-581 May 24, 2006 at
01:05 AM


On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:09 -0400, "Skylune"
wrote:
snip-anti-aviation-dribble

Ignore Skylune... He's just ****ed that he was stupid enough to buy a
house right under the flight path of aircraft near some airport... Of
course, he doesn't have balls enough to tell us where he lives so that
we could perhaps avoid his house if at all possible... Or maybe
motivate us to get that relief tube STC.. evil-grin



it is scary that people such as yourself have license to fly over homes,
schools and businesses. But, your attitude is not uncommon, and will
ultimately result in greater restrictions on GA. bemused smirk

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