Gary F
Final Approach
Why a G1000 when the G500 or G600 is available for many GA aircraft? I had my steam gauges ripped out and replaced with the G500 and iI couldn't be more pleased with the results.
Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?
- Thread starter Jaybird180
- Start date
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Y'know, that brings up another issue. If Garmin can certify the G500 and G600 for older airplanes, why couldn't they certify the G1000?
Gary F
Final Approach
Who knows? Possibly to avoid competition with the G500/600 which was designed to be a replacement for steam gauges in as many different aircraft as possible. The G500 will fit more easily in older panels than the G1000 so I think Garmin was smart to develop the G500. It uses many of the same components including the GRS77 AHRS and GDC74 ADC. The G500 does not include engine monitoring so that probably helped keep certification costs lower.Y'know, that brings up another issue. If Garmin can certify the G500 and G600 for older airplanes, why couldn't they certify the G1000?
So you have to go back to the 50s, a different continent and a then new technology to find a failure of certification.
ADs with all their warts and politics proove that the certification and supervision process by the various ICAO civil aviation authorities is working.
There are a couple of others that I won't climb into.
Everyone was ragging on Cessna when they splatted 2 of their Skycatchers. I am glad they took the plane through a comprehensive spin testing regimen, found the issues with control surface balance/size and fixed them. For many of the other designs from little shops in the czech republic I am supposed to take their word that it 'conforms to the ASTM standard':wink2:......
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Looks like somebody already got into an argument on this subject and put together some lists on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_structural_integrity_on_an_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In-flight_airliner_structural_failures
Didn't those outfits emerge from some that used to design and build aircraft for the Soviet Union? :wink2:
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
Not many, no. I know of only one post-Soviet design that was marketed in U.S. as LSA: Elitar Sigma by VVV-Avia. The outfit is staffed by the escapees from Aviastar, the series plant in Tupolev family (each such plant used to have a design bureau). Sigma was not successful, as far as I can tell for no design fault. It was just undercapitalized firm with zero name recognition. The mass fraction was in the middle of the pack. The airplane looked weid too.
Most of LSA, outside of Cubs, comes from Western Europe: Germany (CTLS), Italy (Sky Arrow), etc. Czechs are the 2nd. CZ is basically a Western country anyway. Czechs are trustworthy and Weilke does not know what he's talking about. His kin is going to sue the U.S. distributor anyway.
Being as it may, Czechs have a very long history of industry in general and airplanes in particular. The ill-fated Piper LSA is actually made by the factory that used to be the Aero Vodokhody itself (think of L-410 and L-39). Other Czech designs are from independent startups, to the best of my knowledge.
Going East, Zlin bears the original Polish trademark, known since 1913 or so. Of course they also made An-2 for many years, using old Antonov tooling. They are notably less successful with their LSAs.
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Garmin probably thought it would be more likely for someone to want the upgrade in a $1M used King Air than a $50,000 used Cessna. Isn't putting a new G1000 in a older single-engine Cessna like putting a $2,000 stereo in a $2,000 car? Some people would want to do it but probably not enough to make it worthwhile.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
A guy at my airport has a panel that is worth twice what my Tiger is worth. Maybe even more than twice. He's got just about every box that will fit into a Bo.
Again, I think flying has to be in your blood either through a relative or friend when you grew up or whaterver you watched and read when you were young. My uncle was a pilot and had a Cherokee so I'd fly with him and maybe caught the bug. I love everything about small planes (except the cost). The sounds, the smell, the sight of them landing and taking off. As long as the plane is mechanically sound, and safe, I'll fly it. I don't care how comfortable it is or how it looks.
Again, I think flying has to be in your blood either through a relative or friend when you grew up or whaterver you watched and read when you were young. My uncle was a pilot and had a Cherokee so I'd fly with him and maybe caught the bug. I love everything about small planes (except the cost). The sounds, the smell, the sight of them landing and taking off. As long as the plane is mechanically sound, and safe, I'll fly it. I don't care how comfortable it is or how it looks.
Last edited:
Jaybird180
Final Approach
So which LSA do I need to stay away from?
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well... I would say that there are those who would put a G1000 in, as opposed to a G500 (or 600) + 430W + 330 + 340 + engine monitor + etc. that is equivalent. And people do that. Hell, look at Av Shiloh's panel, he has TWO G600's! Granted, he is the exception rather than the rule, but the only real advantage of the G500-style stuff is that you can add it a piece at a time whereas the G1000 would be an all-at-once thing. If you want a nice glass bird, you could buy any of the multitude of cheap, crap-panel planes out there and do a full retrofit and probably come out OK for what you have - Almost certainly it'd cost less than buying a new bird.
Attachments
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,761
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Well, count me in the obituaries. Just sold my 150. Couldn't stomach it anymore. 800 dollars for a gas charge display on a NARCO, don't touch this without an AP, don't touch that, mag wiring harness 450 bucks (really?), for the priviledge of never leaving the pattern and hoofing it at 90kts everywhere. And this is from somebody with a passion for flying. I'm not paying a house mortgage for a toy with such low utilization rate, in principle I won't do it. I dislike the insinuation that makes me less passionate or committed to aviation. In that regard the pilot community is very unfriendly and snarky.
Turned around and got me the project Jeep TJ I've always wanted. Instantly friends are coming over to ride in it, even the parents are flying to visit me, partly using my new Jeep adventures to justify the trip. Half the cost of the Cessna and get to use it every day and it isn't my daily driver. GA is pricing itself out of existence.
It's a real shame, every other month I see a news article about a GA aircraft planting in on someone's backyard. Nobody gets hurt, not even the pilot. DAILY people die on the road due to vehicular accidents. So the safety argument on GA level aircraft is simply overstated. We're also being litigated to death as a community. Tort would go a long way, GARA didn't accomplish a full spectrum of effect. Perhaps it is a pipe dream to think that day will come. Perhaps GA is doomed to be represented and owned by the less approachable and more and more scarce of rich men among us. Great ambassadors for aviation alright... For the rest of us, we're like the cops who can't afford the communitiesthey patrol, we are the peanut gallery that continues to sit outside.
I told myself my next aircraft purchase would be an experimental. I still hold on to that notion as I see it as the last bastion of keeping costs under control. But even that said I'm not keen on the acquisition costs, which of course have more to do with economies of scale than certification (in the case of experimentals). I dunno. Maybe I'll just continue to give rich men their flight reviews and IFCs and stay in the fringes that way, but ownership hasn't given me the level of ROI as a jeep or a even a boat (I cringe to think about the latter) provides me in terms of human interaction.
Im grateful to have military aviation available to me as a conduit to satisfying my flying apetite. Without it I'd be up the creek. Good luck to us all
Turned around and got me the project Jeep TJ I've always wanted. Instantly friends are coming over to ride in it, even the parents are flying to visit me, partly using my new Jeep adventures to justify the trip. Half the cost of the Cessna and get to use it every day and it isn't my daily driver. GA is pricing itself out of existence.
It's a real shame, every other month I see a news article about a GA aircraft planting in on someone's backyard. Nobody gets hurt, not even the pilot. DAILY people die on the road due to vehicular accidents. So the safety argument on GA level aircraft is simply overstated. We're also being litigated to death as a community. Tort would go a long way, GARA didn't accomplish a full spectrum of effect. Perhaps it is a pipe dream to think that day will come. Perhaps GA is doomed to be represented and owned by the less approachable and more and more scarce of rich men among us. Great ambassadors for aviation alright... For the rest of us, we're like the cops who can't afford the communitiesthey patrol, we are the peanut gallery that continues to sit outside.
I told myself my next aircraft purchase would be an experimental. I still hold on to that notion as I see it as the last bastion of keeping costs under control. But even that said I'm not keen on the acquisition costs, which of course have more to do with economies of scale than certification (in the case of experimentals). I dunno. Maybe I'll just continue to give rich men their flight reviews and IFCs and stay in the fringes that way, but ownership hasn't given me the level of ROI as a jeep or a even a boat (I cringe to think about the latter) provides me in terms of human interaction.
Im grateful to have military aviation available to me as a conduit to satisfying my flying apetite. Without it I'd be up the creek. Good luck to us all
Last edited:
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
What Hindsight said, the money is an issue, but the social aspect is a bigger issue. Airplanes just don't work that way.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Wow, he has 4 (at least) moving maps he can look at.Well... I would say that there are those who would put a G1000 in, as opposed to a G500 (or 600) + 430W + 330 + 340 + engine monitor + etc. that is equivalent. And people do that. Hell, look at Av Shiloh's panel, he has TWO G600's! Granted, he is the exception rather than the rule, but the only real advantage of the G500-style stuff is that you can add it a piece at a time whereas the G1000 would be an all-at-once thing. If you want a nice glass bird, you could buy any of the multitude of cheap, crap-panel planes out there and do a full retrofit and probably come out OK for what you have - Almost certainly it'd cost less than buying a new bird.
I don't know who Av Shiloh is but I looked up the N-number. More power to him for putting that panel in a Comanche! But like you said, it's the exception not the rule.
If I mention names, there are a whole bunch of people who will get their panties all wadded up.
Zlin is a czech company, allways has been :wink2:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Sorry boss, totally your loss. Gas panel doesn't work? Who cares? Its a 150! Buy a handheld and quit worrying. $450 for a wiring harness? Try replacing one in a motorcycle if you want expensive. Find an A&P who will work with you and you can repair whatever you want.
I'm glad you like your four wheel phallus, but your post strikes me as sour grapes and little more.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wow, he has 4 (at least) moving maps he can look at.
As many as an Avidyne-panel Cirrus!
He's a moderator on the Red board (not that I spend any time there) and comes to the Wings FlyBQ. Nice guy.
I want his airplane. Not only because of the panel, but because a Turbo Comanche just makes me drool. He got a nice tailwind coming home from SnF a few years ago, got over 300 knots groundspeed and made it from Lakeland to Philadelphia in under 3 hours! He's also made it coast to coast in a day - Pretty awesome for a piston single.
Attachments
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,761
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Well, your post strikes me as supportive of the status quo. I don't find the status quo beneficial to the improvement and access of general aviation to the socio-economic class I belong to and selfishly root for, the middle class. If wanting to drive the cost down and increase the base makes me "sour grapes and little more" then ok chief.
The majority of my peers in military aviation have largely given up their desire for GA, mostly on economic grounds. Yet, we are the ambassadors of aviation when we showcase our aircraft at airshows et al. Showing that little kid the cockpit of a T-6 or B-52H is bittersweet when I gotta tell mom and dad, 'yeah civilian aviation is prohibitive'; I'm not gonna lie to the kid. But according to the shoulder shrugging crowd in GA it's all about a race to the top. It's not about lowering the threshold of attainability, which by virtue of that it incentivizes market investment in GA (and the preservation of a wide-experience domestic pilot pool base). No, it's about getting a rich job so you can afford the elite hobby and perpetuate the legal and tort prohibitions commandeered by the very "more money than talent" crowd that snarks at diluting access cost, and their affinity for gear up landings in expensive spam cans.
A large number of us who serve this Country in a flying capacity didn't become exposed to aviation by rich daddy, boss. We were low middle class kids with potential and hunger, who were barely able to save up some money for a private license. Sour grapes? You've got my stake in aviation completely wrong boss.
I'll continue my participation in GA as a flight instructor and a liaison between the military and civilian community partners that share this Country's airspace (you largely CANT find mil flyers actively involved in GA anymore, as a percent of the squadron). But I'll call a spade a spade; I'm not one to cheerlead the economic pricing out of the socioeconomic class that makes and sustains the professional pilot pool of this country. I think it borders on treason, if I may add some gratuitous melo-drama to this discourse.
I'm not suggesting everybody should be able to afford turbine equipment on a taco bell wage, but a functional 4 place single engine machine shouldn't be 40 years behind my jeep wrangler "phallus", powerplant-wise and cost more than a new yacht. That's all Im saying. If I may be more blunt, you need more people like me staying in GA and less people of the "well, I can afford it, so tough" kind. Class warfare and all. We need better ambassadors than the non-current plastic surgeon and the people who buy the new 400K speed-o-light-depreciation Cessna for the obvious tax shelter that it is. We need a better model.
Gary F
Final Approach
I agree with you. I place much of the blame for high costs on liability. How may carburetors would a company need to sell to pay an $100 Million settlement? Here is an excerpt from a law firm bragging about crippling a supplier of aircraft parts.Well, your post strikes me as supportive of the status quo. I don't find the status quo beneficial to the improvement and access of general aviation to the socio-economic class I belong to and selfishly root for, the middle class. If wanting to drive the cost down and increase the base makes me "sour grapes and little more" then ok chief.
The majority of my peers in military aviation have largely given up their desire for GA, mostly on economic grounds. Yet, we are the ambassadors of aviation when we showcase our aircraft at airshows et al. Showing that little kid the cockpit of a T-6 or B-52H is bittersweet when I gotta tell mom and dad, 'yeah civilian aviation is prohibitive'; I'm not gonna lie to the kid. But according to the shoulder shrugging crowd in GA it's all about a race to the top. It's not about lowering the threshold of attainability, which by virtue of that it incentivizes market investment in GA (and the preservation of a wide-experience domestic pilot pool base). No, it's about getting a rich job so you can afford the elite hobby and perpetuate the legal and tort prohibitions commandeered by the very "more money than talent" crowd that snarks at diluting access cost, and their affinity for gear up landings in expensive spam cans.
A large number of us who serve this Country in a flying capacity didn't become exposed to aviation by rich daddy, boss. We were low middle class kids with potential and hunger, who were barely able to save up some money for a private license. Sour grapes? You've got my stake in aviation completely wrong boss.
I'll continue my participation in GA as a flight instructor and a liaison between the military and civilian community partners that share this Country's airspace (you largely CANT find mil flyers actively involved in GA anymore, as a percent of the squadron). But I'll call a spade a spade; I'm not one to cheerlead the economic pricing out of the socioeconomic class that makes and sustains the professional pilot pool of this country. I think it borders on treason, if I may add some gratuitous melo-drama to this discourse.
I'm not suggesting everybody should be able to afford turbine equipment on a taco bell wage, but a functional 4 place single engine machine shouldn't be 40 years behind my jeep wrangler "phallus", powerplant-wise and cost more than a new yacht. That's all Im saying. If I may be more blunt, you need more people like me staying in GA and less people of the "well, I can afford it, so tough" kind. Class warfare and all. We need better ambassadors than the non-current plastic surgeon and the people who buy the new 400K speed-o-light-depreciation Cessna for the obvious tax shelter that it is. We need a better model.
The Wolk Law Firm Obtains $100 Million Dollar Verdict for Aircraft Engine Failure
The Wolk Law Firm has achieved yet another milestone in air crash litigation - this time an $89 million verdict against Avco Corporation for a defective carburetor that killed three people and severely injured a fourth. Delay damages from the defendant’s incessant unsuccessful appeals will raise the total to well over $100 million. This verdict is doubly significant because it was decided under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, a federal statute that imposes a statute of repose on lawsuits against aircraft and their component manufacturers eighteen years after the product is first sold.
Another trial lawyer victory.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/...-down-robinson-raven-i-helicopter-production/
Somebody has to pay for all of these verdicts.
I don't know why steingar felt it was necessary to make nasty and unwarranted comments about your Jeep. I can understand why you had to find another recreational activity. I also own a TJ which has been modified for off road use. It's a lot of fun.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Michael has been particularly nasty, brutish, and short lately. I attribute the uncharacteristic vindictiveness to winter in Ohio.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
If Cessna cut the price of their 182 to 150k loaded - they'd be building many times more per year then they are now.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
And why don't they?
Easy -- it's far easier to deal with 100 units than 400. Less customers, less dealers, less liability, less everything -- for the same money.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Bad answer...
The parts alone cost $150k. Same as a similarly equipped RV-10.
Then you have to add in the labor to build the thing, the overhead costs (certification costs, management structure, folks to push paper and keep records for the FAA, engineers to revise things so you have an upgrade path, a big 'ol factory to build the things in, test pilots to fly each of 'em, a sales staff, someone to manage AD's and other issues, insurance, ad infinitum), then a bit of profit to make it worthwhile.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
Dan is right. First, the elasticity curve of the market may or may not include the increase that you are foreseeing at the given flyaway cost decrease. Second, even given the steep enough curve on the units sold graph, there may not be the corresponding increase in profit. You are making a bold prediction based on an analogy with other markets, which may not necesserily hold in the market of airplanes. It is all in the actual numbers.
Michael has been particularly nasty, brutish, and short lately. I attribute the uncharacteristic vindictiveness to winter in Ohio.
I read some of those posts and wonder whether someone hijacked his login, or maybe this is the work of zombies.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Gee, it sounds like costs go up with increased production, eating into margin per unit...
So -- restated: You can make the same profit on 100 that you can on 400 sold at "wholesale."
Yeah, right answer.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
I really hate when people on friendly discussion boards put words in each other's mouth. Bad form.
What I'm saying is that the fixed cost of the parts is $150k. Add in another $25-50k for labor, and you're at $175-200K before you pay any overhead (you do need some management, a roof, utilities, and tools, right?), invest in R&D, or generate a profit. Also, don't forget warranty issues.
Being that I'm a manufacturing guy and have done a huge amount of work in cost analysis, I'd bet their breakeven cost would be higher than $250k even if they sold a thousand airplanes a year.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
You mean snide replies like this?
And if you read my response, you'd know that my point was that there is no benefit to Cessna to sell airplanes at cost. Why sell them at 150 or 250 or whatever cost is just to pump out more airplanes?
To simplify: build 10 @ $1 million each for 100k profit
Ten customers, ten units, ten transactions.
Build 100 @ 100,000 each for 100k profit
Lots of customers, lots of problems -- for the same profit? Why?
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not making any predictions - nor do I expect Cessna could actually just cut the price. I was simply pointing out that the reason I quoted was flawed.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
You're right. Not sure why I was so snarky. Apologies.
My "bad answer" post was really directed at part of another post you responded to - I was trying to respond to both at once. For whatever reason, when I quote posts (like this one, for example), the embedded material from previous posts disappears.
Gary F
Final Approach
Has he been drinking a lot of Red Bull? Maybe we should rename it Red Bull****.Michael has been particularly nasty, brutish, and short lately. I attribute the uncharacteristic vindictiveness to winter in Ohio.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Just went to Van's online cost estimator to check - part cost for a simply equipped VFR equipped RV-10 is in the $110k range. About half that is engine, FWF, and prop. That the rest of the airplane kit costs around $55k is quite interesting, considering that you can buy a much more massive and complex device (in completed and painted form) in the form of a 4WD SUV. Guess that says either a lot about the efficiency of automobile industry and its access to raw materials, or the inefficiency of the aviation industry. Or something else?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just went to Van's online cost estimator to check - part cost for a simply equipped VFR equipped RV-10 is in the $110k range. About half that is engine, FWF, and prop. That the rest of the airplane kit costs around $55k is quite interesting, considering that you can buy a much more massive and complex device (in completed and painted form) in the form of a 4WD SUV. Guess that says either a lot about the efficiency of automobile industry and its access to raw materials, or the inefficiency of the aviation industry. Or something else?
GM makes more money from financing than it does from actually selling cars.
Their profit margins are very small, and they have to sell a crapload of cars to make up their R&D costs. That wouldn't work in aviation.
Now, if there were no liability to worry about, I'm sure the parts cost would go WAY down. IMHO, if the liability costs went away and certification was less of a nightmare, you could probably build and sell a C182 for $80,000 and still make a decent profit. That would make a HUGE difference in our industry and our country.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Just went to Van's online cost estimator to check - part cost for a simply equipped VFR equipped RV-10 is in the $110k range. About half that is engine, FWF, and prop. That the rest of the airplane kit costs around $55k is quite interesting, considering that you can buy a much more massive and complex device (in completed and painted form) in the form of a 4WD SUV. Guess that says either a lot about the efficiency of automobile industry and its access to raw materials, or the inefficiency of the aviation industry. Or something else?
They dont' sell "simply equipped" VFR C-182's. Take that VFR RV-10 and add the avionics from the C-182. Hello price escalation!
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Zero chance of an $80k C-182. The RV-10 kit alone costs $40k. Sure, there's a little profit in there, but very little liability cost. Then the firewall forward pieces for the RV total ~$50k. So you're at $90k and you don't have any labor, interior, paint, avionics, etc. Sure, volume might help with the cost of the FWF items, but not *that* much.
A thousand hours of labor (which is probably low) is gonna cost $30k if it costs a dime. Unless your outsource it to China at $2.50/hr, as Cessna did with the Skycatcher.
Abram
Pre-takeoff checklist
Garmin apparently thought that it was worth certifying the G1000 for King Airs and Citations because they can sell enough of the systems to cover the cost of certification.
Abram
Pre-takeoff checklist
The G500 is not yet available for the plane, although it may be later this year. However, with the G500 installation, I still have the problem of using the older system for air data and engine instruments, so it doesn't solve all of my problems yet. It is still a really good option when it becomes available, but it is not yet available to me.
However, my broader point was that all of these things that seem as if they should be available to we airplane owners are not. They are not available because of the time and expense involved in jumping through the certification hoops that the FAA has created.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Aviation has never been able to use the sorts of economies of scale that work so well for automobiles. I imagine a lot of it has to do with smaller volumes, but I suspect it is more difficult to make complex shapes out of lightweight materials instead of steel.
If I come off being grumpy, it is because I try hard to take care of older aircraft. I do believe in what Nathan Fillion said in Serentiy:
You have to love flying, love aviation, and love your aircraft. Yes, they are expensive, ruinously so. But if you don't love your aircraft, there's no point to being in the game. Anyone who has to have a rational reason to be in GA, where numbers line up and the i's are dotted, just shouldn't be doing it. And even if the love is there, if the discipline and competency aren't, the aircraft will spit you out in pieces.
Why is it expensive? New machines run the price of luxury mansions. Old machines are, well, old. They take a lot of care to keep running. I've always viewed it my responsibility to care for my machine, to leave it to the next generation. I do it for the Free Bird, and I did it for the ratty old 150 that preceded it.
If I come off being grumpy, it is because I try hard to take care of older aircraft. I do believe in what Nathan Fillion said in Serentiy:
You have to love flying, love aviation, and love your aircraft. Yes, they are expensive, ruinously so. But if you don't love your aircraft, there's no point to being in the game. Anyone who has to have a rational reason to be in GA, where numbers line up and the i's are dotted, just shouldn't be doing it. And even if the love is there, if the discipline and competency aren't, the aircraft will spit you out in pieces.
Why is it expensive? New machines run the price of luxury mansions. Old machines are, well, old. They take a lot of care to keep running. I've always viewed it my responsibility to care for my machine, to leave it to the next generation. I do it for the Free Bird, and I did it for the ratty old 150 that preceded it.