Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
I heard billionaire liver is good with fava beans and a nice Chianti
I dunno; many billionaire livers have cirrhosis.
I heard billionaire liver is good with fava beans and a nice Chianti
It needs to be a VERY good wine.I heard billionaire liver is good with fava beans and a nice Chianti
Really??Purchase price of $20,000 new.
THAT is why we can't afford new planes anymore. The Big Bosses at the top are taking home so much of the pie, we can barely feed ourselves on the crumbs left to us. Forget lawsuits, forget regulations, forget all the lies you've been told to distract you from the truth. GA is a luxury hobby, and until we all take the blinders off and stop cheerleading this messed up form of Death By Capitalism, there won't be a middle class left to afford luxury hobbies.
Really??
How many cars can you buy for $20,000 new?
Name them. Humor me.More than zero.
Don't waste your breath arguing. That post includes the "fixed wealth" fallacy; anyone who believes that sort of nonsense is not going to understand what you're saying.And what do you propose to replace it with?????
Name them. Humor me.
Once you've done that, ask if those cars are built at a quality level that you would be comfortable with in gusting winds at 5,000 ft.
Yes, that's one.That was easy...
Yes, that's one.
Now, do you honestly think you could build an airplane that would be safe and pass certification for anywhere near the cost of the lowest price version of a mass-produced car?
Now, realistically, what would the total market size be for a new GA plane, even if you could get it under $50K? How many people per year would drop that much cash for a 2-seater joyride plane, given the availability of existing aircraft?
I'm not seeing it. Without massive volumes, there is no way to get the fixed costs and capitalization out of the pricing model, and you won't get to the sort of commodity-level procing you are talking about while fixed costs aren't covered.
You can insult me and dismiss the economic work of much smarter people, it's a free country. But nothing you said can explain the simple facts: the top rung of society increased their wealth by 351X since 1978 while the rest of us stayed even with inflation. Grow the pie however big you want, but if you always reserve 99% of it for the rich all you will ever has is crumbs my friend.Don't waste your breath arguing. That post includes the "fixed wealth" fallacy; anyone who believes that sort of nonsense is not going to understand what you're saying.
[N]othing you said can explain the simple facts: the top rung of society increased their wealth by 351X since 1978 while the rest of us stayed even with inflation.
Owned a Versa for about ten years. Really not a bad little car. Good quality; didn't have any major issues. However, it does illustrate the economies of scale. It was sold around the world (was actually a luxury car in Japan) and at its peak, they sold 100,000 a year in the US alone. There's never been *any* airplane with that high of a production rate; it equals the total number of airplanes built in the US in the middle of World War 2...and that's with dozens of manufacturers.2024 Nissan Versa: Fuel-Efficient Subcompact Sedan
Experience the 2024 Nissan Versa: Subcompact car fuel efficiency with advanced safety technology and a spacious interior. Discover Versa's features and pricing today!www.nissanusa.com
That was easy...
Yes, the pie is growing while the size of our slice shrinks while our boss' slice keeps growing faster than the pie. How is this so hard to understand? I thought pilots were supposed to be good with numbers?So... the rich got all that money WITHOUT decreasing the wealth of the rest? That sounds like a growing pie to me...
Owned a Versa for about ten years. Really not a bad little car. Good quality; didn't have any major issues. However, it does illustrate the economies of scale. It was sold around the world (was actually a luxury car in Japan) and at its peak, they sold 100,000 a year in the US alone. There's never been *any* airplane with that high of a production rate; it equals the total number of airplanes built in the US in the middle of World War 2...and that's with dozens of manufacturers.
The basic fact is that there IS no market for light aircraft, compared to just about any other consumer transportation vehicle. You're not going to get prices down to $20,000, or even $100,000, unless there's more-general acceptance of their use as transportation. And that's not going to happen, considering the training and safety issues.
Ron Wanttaja
Yes, the pie is growing while the size of our slice shrinks...
Ok, now try to understand how the price of everything you buy has also increased more than inflation (see my post about the 9X increase in C172 prices). Not a big deal for the guy who's salary went up 351x over the same period, but a very big deal for the guys like us who only went up 4.5X.Uh, not according to you. You said that our slice remained stagnant accounting for inflation. Someone having more than me does not mean I have less.
That's why airplanes, and many other luxury goods, used to be in arm's reach for many of us but now aren't.
Mass production makes that possible, but GA will never appeal to such a massive, global consumer audience as computers do. But I've already shown the data for this industry we're talking about, so do with that what you choose.I'll have to take your word for that (while typing on a laptop that couldn't have existed ten years ago with more processing power than anything but a super-computer in the 1980s).
"Much smarter" than whom? You don't know who the people are who participate here, so you might want to take care in making your assumptions.You can insult me and dismiss the economic work of much smarter people,
Nit pick. Your statement is an absolute that it will never happen. I disagree, at some point society will accept the technical cost to make it happen. We are likely decades away from this point, but it is only a matter of time. The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.The basic fact is that there IS no market for light aircraft, compared to just about any other consumer transportation vehicle. You're not going to get prices down to $20,000, or even $100,000, unless there's more-general acceptance of their use as transportation. And that's not going to happen, considering the training and safety issues.
Ron Wanttaja
Mass production makes that possible, but GA will never appeal to such a massive, global consumer audience as computers do.
IF energy storage technology evolves to a point where such urban air transport is possible, they wouldn't be building cheap airplanes using mass production; general aviation as we know it won't exist any more, for multiple reasons. First, the technology that would make such air transport possible would also completely eliminate gasoline fueled ground vehicles, and without the automotive market supporting the gasoline infrastructure, aviation gasoline would also cease to exist. The market would just be too small to operate a refinery and distribution system. Second, if such large numbers of flying cars (might as well call them that) come into existence, they would have to be fully automated and air traffic control and airspace would have to be reorganized to let them move safely... which would eliminate the ability to fly a manually controlled conventional airplane anywhere other than the remotest areas, if even there.Nit pick. Your statement is an absolute that it will never happen. I disagree, at some point society will accept the technical cost to make it happen. We are likely decades away from this point, but it is only a matter of time. The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.
I think this point is likely decades away, but I believe it will happen. Hence I tend to avoid absolutes about such solutions.
Tim
IF energy storage technology evolves to a point where such urban air transport is possible, they wouldn't be building cheap airplanes using mass production; general aviation as we know it won't exist any more, for multiple reasons. First, the technology that would make such air transport possible would also completely eliminate gasoline fueled ground vehicles, and without the automotive market supporting the gasoline infrastructure, aviation gasoline would also cease to exist. The market would just be too small to operate a refinery and distribution system. Second, if such large numbers of flying cars (might as well call them that) come into existence, they would have to be fully automated and air traffic control and airspace would have to be reorganized to let them move safely... which would eliminate the ability to fly a manually controlled conventional airplane anywhere other than the remotest areas, if even there.
But the technology to make it practical doesn't exist, and is not likely to exist, absent a major breakthrough in nuclear physics. The limits of chemical energy storage are well understood, and there is nothing known that comes even within an order of magnitude of gasoline or other existing hydrocarbon fuels.
That is plenty for a local run to the grocery store or to work.
I think the regulatory aspect is severely being underestimated in terms of complexity. We have many very large airports which have become surrounded by the original metro areas they were built to serve. These types of environments will prove to be very difficult to manage.
From the driverless cars thread ...The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.
Yes, the pie is growing while the size of our slice shrinks while our boss' slice keeps growing faster than the pie. How is this so hard to understand? I thought pilots were supposed to be good with numbers?
The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting.
Sounds like a plan! "Rise above ..."The obvious solution is for people to stay home.
Except for me, of course. The rest of you just stay off the roads so I won't have to deal with traffic.
In population centers, mileage is much lower. Two critical stats from here: https://www.bts.gov/statistical-pro...sehold-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-factsActually it's not, for many of us. And when traffic deconfliction is added to the mix with many many vehicles in the air, travel times will likely be much longer.
The problem in my local grocery stores are entering/leaving is a zoo (ok, inside the store also but flying cars will not help there) and that is only for an hour or two most days. By adding a third dimension, there will be a significant reduction in the congestion entering/leaving the parking lot. This will be a regulatory and process nightmare to figure out. But it is possible.The next time you go to the grocery store, look at all the cars in the parking lot. Then try to imagine how the air traffic situation will look if half of those, or even a fourth, are air vehicles.
By adding a third dimension, there will be a significant reduction in the congestion entering/leaving the parking lot.
Definitely possible, as they’ve been working on the regulatory side for years via the existing UAM policies. As for the process, the key to remember is all current UAM and RAM processes are public transport based and not private based. While there are plans for a private component to UAM I don’t think that will happen until the public UAM side has “matured.”This will be a regulatory and process nightmare to figure out. But it is possible.
The noise from the quad-copter-style drones and EV-aviation proposals will kill the idea long before congestion becomes an issue. Can you imagine the uproar from neighbors from the noise of a dozen or more giant quadcopters being overhead at under 500ft? It's one thing to have a sports car with a loud exhaust, or a diesel truck with a jake brake as those are quickly transient. The high-pitched whir of the blades would have people in an uproar.'Adding' a third dimension is unlikely to ease congestion, but is very likely to increase complexity and risk to a very mundane, utilitarian task. And that's ignoring weather limitations. Just because some congestion has moved into the air does not mean that the congestion has reduced.
Furthermore, does anyone want to navigate a complex, congested, dangerous airspace in a bug-smasher every time they need some ground beef? Can these proposed e-wastes handle the extra 50 lbs of an average grocery run for the return trip? If not, do we want to be making more trips just to do what used to take fewer?
It "is" happening.....they have certified one system and more are coming....Definitely possible, as they’ve been working on the regulatory side for years via the existing UAM policies. As for the process, the key to remember is all current UAM and RAM processes are public transport based and not private based. While there are plans for a private component to UAM I don’t think that will happen until the public UAM side has “matured.”
Except for you and everyone you want to do a service for you while you’re out…..The obvious solution is for people to stay home.
Except for me, of course. The rest of you just stay off the roads so I won't have to deal with traffic.
Cool. Let's get massive volume, then.