|
In a message dated 10/4/2005 9:29:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
wfhannahan@yahoo.com writes:
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.
Bill,
Having nothing better to do right now, I thought I might spend some time
responding. There are high performance cars starting at around
$35000. There are only a few (very few) cars (commercially available for
highway use) costing in excess of $100,000. For those in the range of
$0 - $100,000 any half blind, sightly deaf idiot can easily obtain a license
(slightly more difficult for those over 70, English need not be spoken) and
insurance. There are some people that do indeed build and restore cars -
go visit your local Hooters on any sunny Saturday. Let's see, I
think a Columbia 400 is about $400,000? License and insurance are still not
eliminating the idiot but English is required, you have to be able to see
something and hear the recurrent trainer. What's the point? I have
no idea.
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.
Do you mean pricing competitive with autos? If so, there would still be
people that like to build and restore cars - I mean airplanes. We call
these people amateur builders. We sometimes call their airplanes
experimental. These people like the tremendous freedom they have until the
current rules and would prefer nobody cheat on such rules, causing the rule
makers to "tighten" them up. In other words, not all the people build
airplanes because they can't afford those that are "commercially"
available. After all, my Webster's defines amateur thusly: ... A person
who engages in a(n) ..... activity for pleasure rather than a financial benefit
or professional reasons.
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.
I like your big dreams. If we could only get the FAA to accept planes
labeled "Made in China."
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;
I am an EAA member (Eclectic Aircraft Assn.) oh, and the other EAA,
too. I would vote affirmatively, in an instant, for such a new
category. Of course, I am one of the minority EAA members (the latter
one) that actually built an airplane or two. Gee, the EAA (the latter)
could start another division - Like Warbirds but maybe something like UFO
(Unknowingly From Others). Fliers would be known as ETs (Extreme
Testers).
Help keep airports open and build new ones.
Fund new sources for engines, instrument, structural materials etc.
that homebuilders could tap into.
That's OK, I'm happy to scrounge around for NASA junk.
Take the amateur built experimentals out of the spotlight, reducing the
risk of further restrictions on them.
Hmmmm, I wonder how they got into the spot light.......
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.
No thanks. That stuff can be used to help with the land fill being built in
the South - you know, in the old bowl called New Orleans.
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.
We already got clout, EAA (latter), AOPA, ALPA, ALPO, etc. BTW,
that's flying a little low in a land becoming filled with windmill
generators, cell towers and Trump towers.
Grayhawk
|