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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Kinda sad
"Morgans" wrote in message
... "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 I'm surprised he's had it more than a couple of weeks. There are pictures of it on the Yahoo Emerauders group, but you have to sign up and get approved in order to see them. We've had to go to that because of spammers signing in to the group, sending out a bunch of crap, and then disappearing. I think I'll change the home page picture to one of Max's bird. That way a guest can see it without having to go through the rigmarole. It'll take me a couple of minutes to change. There! It's done. Contact Max if you want more details. Jim - How do you like his Em? You can find the home page (and Max's Emeraude picture) at: http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/ Rich S. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |