X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:28:14 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.163.178.153] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c3) with SMTP id 746355 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:38:37 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.163.178.153; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 52397 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Oct 2005 20:37:52 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=5Z8DC7+ORpDaJEG5hKP6fbvPc/7UvhhdMw3J+L4/EFn1trMzKk9IdKjcU12i0+FgcKkaInjmAi6OT4K7kno7idHyfMvQ05wXJ6I3ysgZFQp+ebV+sDs2+qbslOnAmGjFZnUIeR83v1juHSFvgAdUSROixvSX28lrfm9GoGaRDjA= ; X-Original-Message-ID: <20051003203752.52395.qmail@web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [71.208.33.6] by web34404.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:37:52 PDT X-Original-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: BILL HANNAHAN Subject: Non Certified X-Original-To: MAIL LANCAIR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2078264156-1128371872=:52170" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --0-2078264156-1128371872=:52170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lowell wrote …Frankly, I doubt a factory built non certificated complex high performance aircraft is in the cards. It satisfies too few needs in aviation. Certainly it is desired by some, but there is always the issue of wants vs. needs. Unlike Light Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft, there just isn't the need. The EAA might want to help carry the issue, but I suspect if the idea was presented to the EAA membership for a vote, it wouldn't have a prayer as the EAA, despite its name is highly populated by a group of amateur builders who are not particularly eager to see their hobby diluted by a number of high rollers who watch their airplane being built through e-mail attachments. Imagine that we selected 10,000 high performance cars off the highway at random. Count the number that were built by the driver, my guess is less than 10. For those who do build their own, the cost may exceed the cost of a mass produced car of similar performance. If modern factory built high performance planes were available at competitive pricing, I believe the ratio of commercial to homebuilts would be similar. If I am off by a factor of 10 or even 100 that still leaves a huge untapped market. We were selling 10,000-15,000 expensive low tech certified GA planes per year in the 70’s. If there was a non-certified category in which manufacturers offered modern high performance personal aircraft at a modest price, the market would be much greater than 15,000 planes per year. As those new sport pilots move up only a small fraction are going to want to build their next airplane. Given todays environment they will have to; Bite the bullet and start building, or Hire a helper wink wink, to build for them, or Buy a used amature built plane of uncertain quality (did he really remove all of the peal ply from that spar web?). I would like to see a vote by EAA members on the idea of a new non-certified category. As Lowell points out, it’s a bit like asking the Amish to vote on a new interstate highway, but I think most would recognize that homebuilders have much to gain. A big increase in GA activity would; Help keep airports open and build new ones. Fund new sources for engines, instrument, structural materials etc. that homebuilders could tap into. Take the amateur built experimentals out of the spotlight, reducing the risk of further restrictions on them. Allow the aging corroding cracking fleet of GA aircraft to move on the recyclers, increasing the supply of used engines and parts for amateur builders. Most importantly it would provide more political clout to resist overregulation. The greater the number of people who can avoid big airport hassles and watch the earth slide by under their personal plane from 1,000 feet, the better protected our freedom is. BILL HANNAHAN WFHANNAHAN@YAHOO.COM --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. --0-2078264156-1128371872=:52170 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 

 

Lowell wrote
 
…Frankly, I doubt a factory built non certificated complex high 
performance aircraft is in the cards.  It satisfies too few needs in aviation. 
Certainly it is desired by some, but there is always the issue of wants 
vs. needs.  Unlike Light Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft, there just isn't the need.   The EAA might want to help carry the issue, but I suspect if the idea was presented to the EAA membership for a vote, it wouldn't have a prayer as the EAA, despite its name is highly populated by a group of amateur builders who are not particularly eager to see their hobby diluted by a number of high rollers who watch their airplane
 being built through e-mail attachments.
 
 
 

 

 

Imagine that we selected 10,000 high performance cars off the highway at random. Count the number that were built by the driver, my guess is less than 10. For those who do build their own, the cost may exceed the cost of a mass produced car of similar performance.

 

If modern factory built high performance planes were available at competitive pricing, I believe the ratio of commercial to homebuilts would be similar. If I am off by a factor of 10 or even 100 that still leaves a huge untapped market.

 

We were selling 10,000-15,000 expensive low tech certified GA planes per year in the 70’s. If there was a non-certified category in which manufacturers offered modern high performance personal aircraft at a modest price, the market would be much greater than 15,000 planes per year.

 

As those new sport pilots move up only a small fraction are going to want to build their next airplane. Given todays environment they will have to;

 

Bite the bullet and start building, or

 

Hire a helper wink wink, to build for them, or

 

Buy a used amature built plane of uncertain quality (did he really remove all of the peal ply from that spar web?).

 

I would like to see a vote by EAA members on the idea of a new non-certified category. As Lowell points out, it’s a bit like asking the Amish to vote on a new interstate highway, but I think most would recognize that homebuilders have much to gain. A big increase in GA activity would;

 

Help keep airports open and build new ones.

 

Fund new sources for engines, instrument, structural materials etc. that homebuilders could tap into.

 

Take the amateur built experimentals out of the spotlight, reducing the risk of further restrictions on them.

 

Allow the aging corroding cracking fleet of GA aircraft to move on the recyclers, increasing the supply of used engines and parts for amateur builders.

 

Most importantly it would provide more political clout to resist overregulation. The greater the number of people who can avoid big airport hassles and watch the earth slide by under their personal plane from 1,000 feet, the better protected our freedom is.

 



BILL HANNAHAN
WFHANNAHAN@YAHOO.COM

Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. --0-2078264156-1128371872=:52170--