Is this the death of GA

writes:

When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
(wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).

He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)

Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.

So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be about the
same for him.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
(wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).

He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)

Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.

So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be
about the same for him.



What's it to you? You don't fly.


Bertie

Tough to find which post in this long thread to correctly reply to, my
apologies.

But I do have some thoughts...

Disposable income aside, I believe that this is the death of old-school GA,
and it is the birth of 21st century GA.

Airplanes that burn 8 GPH, 14 GPH and especially old twins burning 28GPH
(or more) are going to probably be dead except for the well-off hobbyists
who love then and can still afford to fly them. I was just at an AOPA town
hall the other night and one of the older pilots (aren't we mostly all old?)
in the room remarked that his biggest problem in GA was paying $400 to
refill the tanks of his B55 Baron after a flight!

I think that operating cost is the big issue for our older airplanes, newer
airplanes such as Cirrus, Diamonds, etc are going to look more and more
appealing, these are the future. Now - envision these with REALLY
efficient new technology engines, not Lycomings or Continentals... and
environmentally sound low-carbon engines, and this is the future of GA.

Usually I fly alone or with one other person. I rent these days. The
model year 2000 Diamond DA-20 I rent goes 150mph at 5.5 GPH. This would
be an OK airplane to own in the 21st century. You can buy them used
$100k.

Get used to it. Our old airplanes might still be worth a little more year
after year, but they aren't worth a fraction of the price of new, capable,
more efficient modern GA airplanes.

Thanks, and this just an opinion,

I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)

Lee McGee


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
(wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).

He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)

Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.

So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be about
the
same for him.

On Feb 23, 9:01 pm, "Lee McGee" wrote:

I think that operating cost is the big issue for our older airplanes, newer
airplanes such as Cirrus, Diamonds, etc are going to look more and more
appealing, these are the future. Now - envision these with REALLY
efficient new technology engines, not Lycomings or Continentals... and
environmentally sound low-carbon engines, and this is the future of GA.


I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)

I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."

Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.

Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.


Dan

On 2008-02-24, wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:01 pm, "Lee McGee" wrote:
I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)
I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."
Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

What he said.

Wanna drive a Prius? Good for you. I personally couldn't have one, since it
doesn't meet my mission requirements due to a terminal and severe lack of
storage space - the one I had as a rental had barely enough room for my two
carryon-sized suitcases and a briefcase.

With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea, not
because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less expensive to
operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one reason I'm even
looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard writes:

With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea, not
because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less expensive to
operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one reason I'm even
looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.

So why are the vast majority of small aircraft powered by engines that were
designed during the Second World War at the latest?

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Jay Maynard writes:

With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea,
not because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of
that out of our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less
expensive to operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one
reason I'm even looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my
lingering misgivings about having an engine my local mechanic can't
fix.

So why are the vast majority of small aircraft powered by engines that
were designed during the Second World War at the latest?


They aren['t


Bertie

On Feb 24, 4:45 pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:

because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
our driveway this winter!),

Neither advocating nor deprecating the idea of Global Warming, but
please, local and short term weather phenomena are not indicators of
long term global weather phenomena. It's like saying "they say there
are more cars on the roads, hogwash I didn't see much traffic today at
all!"

looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.

There ain't nothing very special about a Rotax, it works in just the
same way as any other engine.

On 2008-02-26, James Sleeman wrote:
looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.
There ain't nothing very special about a Rotax, it works in just the
same way as any other engine.

Except that it turns a lot faster, has a lot tighter tolerances, and
requires special tools and training...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

wrote:

I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."

Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.

Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.


Well stated Sir. This 'carbon footprint' BS is simply the excuse for
some massive new tax scams and personal freedom restrictions that this
country has ever seen since FDR.