Mass Production of Aircraft

We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.

You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.

Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
most people don't want to fly.

Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.

Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.

When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
personal aviation.

We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for $30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.

"turbo" wrote in message
...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see
family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.

The guy made a decent case. You could have disagreed politely, and I bet you
would have in a face to face...

KB

Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.


As a "poor' pilot, I will add this. So much of the problem is also
"destination costs". So many new pilots get their ticket and scrape up
enough cash to fly in the local area for fun every now and then in a
rental. But to fly XC means car rentalk at the destination. And that is
why I rarely take the family anywhere in a plane. I could squeeze out
the rental money for the plane and balance it with gas savings from not
using the car and time saved, etc,. But when I have to add in the car
rental expense ... it just doesn't work. This is a big reason so many
new pilots get tired of just doing local site seeing flights after a
while and stop flying all together.

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.


As a "poor' pilot, I will add this. So much of the problem is also
"destination costs". So many new pilots get their ticket and scrape up
enough cash to fly in the local area for fun every now and then in a
rental. But to fly XC means car rentalk at the destination. And that is
why I rarely take the family anywhere in a plane. I could squeeze out
the rental money for the plane and balance it with gas savings from not
using the car and time saved, etc,. But when I have to add in the car
rental expense ... it just doesn't work. This is a big reason so many
new pilots get tired of just doing local site seeing flights after a
while and stop flying all together.

I have to agree with you here...

I'm not a dirt poor pilot, but in my case my time resources are not
limitless.

One of the things that puts limits on my flying is that I can not afford to
get stuck somewhere. I work Thursday to Monday and fly commercially every
weekend. And just like everybody else, I still have to find the time to pay
the bills, etc except that I don't come home from the office every night
'cause I'm on the road each weekend in a hotel.

When I get home on Monday I'm usually cooked from flying all day (how's that
for irony...?) so that leaves Tuesdays and Wednesdays for flying. If I can
fly on Tuesday, I can afford to take a longer flight because I could (I
hope) get home on Wednesday.

But, if I book a plane on a Wednesday, then I HAVE to be back on the ground
on Wednesday because I will have a commercial flight to catch on Thursday or
I miss work and I don't get paid (or, seeing as I'm self employed, the
possibility of getting canned is very real if I miss a gig due to getting
held up somewhere.)

I find myself more or less alternating between a "practice flight" one week
and a more challenging (1.5 to 2.5 hours each way...it's relative) XC the
next.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"turbo" wrote in message
...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away.

That and the inability to handle an aircraft. Many people can't drive worth
a ****, how well do you think they'd on on flight training?

Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.

Yeah, and if your mother was a male, she'd be your dad.

There is such a vehicle -- they're called ultralights. I don't see people
beating a path there.

Reality check time!!

turbo wrote:

Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for $30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.

If pigs could fly they'd be pigeons.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

don't feed the troll


wrote in message
ups.com...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.

You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.

Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
most people don't want to fly.

Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.

Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.

When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
personal aviation.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license.

Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)

This is usually their excuse, in point of fact.

I don't doubt the first year or two they'd sell several thousand a
year-but after the first thirty thousand the demand would peter out
worldwide. The number of active pilots wouldn't drastically expand.
They would be on the other side of the production curve in a few years.

The former WarPac nations make some nifty small airplanes they can
never seem to market here-apparently in Europe they are standard
category aircraft-and the demand is short of the supply even there.

There is a demand but it's small.