USA Today .. Positive GA Pub

Kev writes:

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kev writes:

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

They identified the cost to purchase a 22 year old plane as $92,000,
although one can purchase a used plane for considerably less than half
that.

They identified the hourly rate to rent a plane as $200 per hour or more,
although one can rent planes for half that or less.

The article was a good, positive article, and I certainly appreciate the
positive press, especially since I identify with the subjects of the
article (I got my pilots license in 2001 and fly to save time and money in
my business).

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation. Your
perspective is skewed.

Judah wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:
They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/

Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html

Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm

Or a new CT for $92,900:
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_in...sults_page.asp

And so on....

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
Your perspective is skewed.

Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Judah wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:
They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/

Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html

Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm

Or a new CT for $92,900:
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_in...sults_page.asp

And so on....

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
Your perspective is skewed.

Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about it.

"Ken Finney" wrote

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
it.

If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might think
twice.

It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to be
much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is going on
with that story before you make any decisions.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
it.

If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might
think twice.

It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to
be much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is
going on with that story before you make any decisions.
--
Jim in NC

I don't know if "knock-off" is the correct term. There is a whole school
of design in Europe that has produced some real similar designs. I
understand that the 701 designer licensed a predecessor company to ICP (the
Savannah's builder) to make a 701 clone, but didn't limit the license so
that they couldn't compete directly with the Heinzes. But in my mind, the
Savannah is different enough from the 701 that this shouldn't be an issue
anyway. I had the opportunity the last two years at Arlington to compare
the Savannah and the 701 pretty much side-by-side. I'm not a pilot (yet),
and I'm not a airframe engineer, but it didn't appear that the Savannah was
built any less strong than the 701, in fact, the contrary seemed to be true.
I subscribe to both 701 and Savannah mailing lists, and both the builders
and pilots of Savannahs appear to be happier than the builders and pilots of
the 701s. The 701 people do seem to want to bash the Savannah people more
than the Savannah people want to bash the 701 people. There is some bad
blood out there. I understand the US distributor for the Savannah is
really, really POed that the account was "stolen" from him, and doesn't have
much to say good about ICP, Savannah, and/or Eric these days.

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

"Ken Finney" wrote

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site. There
were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well supported.
--
Jim in NC

"Ken Finney" wrote

The 701 people do seem to want to bash the Savannah people more than the
Savannah people want to bash the 701 people. There is some bad blood out
there.
I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

Just what I read on the 701 pages. Some, if at all true, have some pretty
good questions raised. I did take the time to read the whole thing.
--
Jim in NC

Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

Yet another example of you taking one statement out of many and basing your
entire argument on it. As Judah wrote in the post you replied to an very
serviceable aircraft can be perchased for much less than $200,000. And since
the article was about people that have real jobs and own real businesses the
fact that aircraft are available at a price that most with the need could
afford would be a nice addition to what was otherwise a pretty good article.