A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kinda sad



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 28th 08, 05:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Kinda sad

wrote:
Ok so I took a bit of poetic license But you have to admit the
majority of the displays at Oshkosh are for airplanes costing over
$100,000 Hell I'm building a 601XL from a kit, and the Factory built
LSA version from AMD is around $80,000


Well, there are a couple RTF planes that don't look like ultralights that
cost under $80k, though not by much:

http://www.tampabayaerosport.com/ApolloFox.html

$69k RTF - even includes BRS at that price.

And this:

http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/skyboy.htm

~$60k RTF.

For reference the typical toys Americans spend their Recreational
Discretionary dollars are Boats ( saw really nice one at Bass Pro a
couple of weeks ago for less then $30,000. Campers / Trailers Same or
lower price range Motorcycles, classic cars, snow mobiles the list
goes on.....


When a new engine of sufficient HP and acceptability costs $18k and up,
it is tough to fit a whole new RTF plane under $30k!

You wanna see an explosion in sales Gimme a $40,000 RTF enclosed
cabin metal 100 MPH airplane and I'll show you the revolution


Maybe. Such a price point might do it.

Its just my opinion i would be happy to be wrong if it would mean more
people would get exposed to flying


I've done some admittedly crude estimates and I suspect it would be
possible to build and ship a RTF S-LSA hot-air airship (with a few novel
concepts) for under $35k, but I don't know if anyone here considers that
proper "flying". Great for sight seeing and touring, and probably could
be flown from large enough yards (save on hangar and even tie-down fees -
and the need for land transport to/from the airport), but at a top speed
of maybe 40 to 50 mph, not really viable for long distance transportation
(unless of course one has the time and is willing to take a few weeks to
go low-and-slow over the U.S.).

The thing about airships is that an engine loss doesn't translate into
the need to land "right now". So I suspect one can save some money there
by accepting a bit more risk.
  #12  
Old April 28th 08, 05:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavelamb himself[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default Kinda sad

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?



Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.



That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?



I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne
  #13  
Old April 28th 08, 06:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Kinda sad

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
made.



That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
taken to task for a situation not of its making?



I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?


I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.
  #14  
Old April 28th 08, 05:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Rich S.[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default Kinda sad

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
.. . . As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.


You keep repeating "kit" as if it is something magical. The EAA started out
with guys building airplanes - not assembling kits.

The revolution in homebuilding came in the guise of a Vari-EZ. New
construction techniques allowed homebuilders to build their dreams in a more
reasonable time frame, albeit at a slightly higher cost for materials.
Instead of 4000 hours, the time was halved.

Now there is a new "sport" in the spotlight. Assembling an $80K quick build
is a long, long way from the roots. Yet, it is still easy to build a 140 mph
closed cockpit two-place monoplane with IFR capability and autopilot for
under $35K. Apparently the EAA thinks that such an animal is a rarity. How
quickly they forget.

That's what's "Kinda sad".

By the way, a buddy of mine is selling his almost-new Super Emeraude. In his
words:

***********************************************
If anyone is interested the aircraft has a gyro panel, 760D Terra radio and
transponder (AD complied) strobes, with nav lights, Nav Aid auto pilot, in
panel GPS, all leather interior, lyc 0-290G with less than 300 hours and 56
hours on the airframe. Covered with Ceconite, polyurethane paint, all new in
2003. Prop is a 3 blade Warp Drive. Aircraft cruises at 115MPH at 2400. It
also has a sliding canopy. I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to
. The aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center
(GPH) near Liberty Mo.
************************************************

I've seen his work and it's nice.

Rich S.


  #15  
Old April 28th 08, 06:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Kinda sad

In article ,
"Rich S." wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
. . . As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.


You keep repeating "kit" as if it is something magical. The EAA started out
with guys building airplanes - not assembling kits.

The revolution in homebuilding came in the guise of a Vari-EZ. New
construction techniques allowed homebuilders to build their dreams in a more
reasonable time frame, albeit at a slightly higher cost for materials.
Instead of 4000 hours, the time was halved.

Now there is a new "sport" in the spotlight. Assembling an $80K quick build
is a long, long way from the roots. Yet, it is still easy to build a 140 mph
closed cockpit two-place monoplane with IFR capability and autopilot for
under $35K. Apparently the EAA thinks that such an animal is a rarity. How
quickly they forget.

That's what's "Kinda sad".


The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.

Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
and maintain those skills.

This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.
  #16  
Old April 28th 08, 10:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Rich S.[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default Kinda sad (Thread drifting as usual)

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.

Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
and maintain those skills.

This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.


The whole concept of the amateur-built, experimental category revolves
around the development of those skills. Other certification categories exist
for those who want to purchase a ready-to-fly airplane.

The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.

That's another thing that makes EAA's search for "budget" ideas and aircraft
"kinda sad". Maybe they should look in the Sport Aviation archives?

Rich S.


  #17  
Old April 29th 08, 12:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default Kinda sad


"Rich S." wrote

about a guy selling his plane:
I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to
. The aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center
(GPH) near Liberty Mo.
************************************************

I've seen his work and it's nice.


It shouldn't last long, at that price, I would think.
--
Jim in NC
  #18  
Old April 29th 08, 01:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Kinda sad (Thread drifting as usual)

In article ,
"Rich S." wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.

Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
and maintain those skills.

This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.


The whole concept of the amateur-built, experimental category revolves
around the development of those skills.


And I know people who, for example, hand weld rifle barrels from iron
stock, up to and including hand making the lock, stock, furniture and
all. (Some spectacularly beautiful work, too.)

A lot more that build their from parts supplied from vendors like Track
of the Wolf. Sort of like building a kit from Rans or similar vendors.

Most, of course, buy them complete, new or used.

Other certification categories exist
for those who want to purchase a ready-to-fly airplane.


Quite a jump from "plans-built" (assumes building from raw stock) to
"ready-to-fly". I suppose I wasn't clear enough differentiating between
the plans builder and the kit builder.

Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.

The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.


Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.
  #20  
Old April 29th 08, 01:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Rich S.[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default Kinda sad (Thread drifting as usual)

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rich S." wrote:


Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.

The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.


Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.


Which is, of course, a bit off of the OP's point about the EAA's seeming
ignorance of aircraft costing less than a King's ransom. My fault, as I
drifted along.

I'll go back and read the original post to refresh my ancient mind as to the
subject of the discussion.

Rich S.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kinda OT... but has some aviation content ;) Bertie the Bunyip[_22_] Piloting 1 January 20th 08 03:28 PM
Kinda sad... Jay Honeck Piloting 25 February 27th 06 10:27 PM
Kinda funny... Ditch Military Aviation 4 July 12th 03 07:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.