Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcmt!ron
From: ron@hpfcmt.UUCP (ron)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <10400012@hpfcmt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 12:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hpfcmt.10400012
Posted: Wed Jan  9 12:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 05:49:09 EST
References: <-1795600@lanl.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:lanl:-1795600:hpfcmt:10400012:37777777600:2522
Nf-From: hpfcmt!ron    Jan 17 09:28:00 1985

Re: Primary A/C Proposal


I haven't seen the actual proposal but the basenote from jlg (I think) 
has been very interesting. I concur that aircraft have been pushed as
Transportation rather than Fun a bit too heavily. Headwinds, weather,
limited gross weights,what-do-you-do-about-transportation-on-the-other-
end, and pilot proficiency (for safety, not legality) all tend to 
work against the Transportation mode. Still, I suspect that many people
are drawn to flying initially for reasons other than transportation and
it would be helpful to set their expectations early on with the type of
aircraft they will initially be allowed to fly and the type of licensing
they can achieve.

Low cost.... hmmm. It seems to me that beyond the price of the engine and
avionics that the airframe itself is not going to be inexpensive. Aluminum
monocoque construction (such as C-150 et al) is relatively labor intensive
and requires more than a few parts. Other techniques, such as carbon fiber
spars plus fiberglass surfaces are a bit more efficient but have problems of
their own ( ask any high-performance glider pilot who owns one). AND, worst of
all, these fiberglass high-performance designs really aren't dramatically
cheaper than the old C-150 style. I'm presently instructing in a Grob 109B
motorglider (the one on the front page of AOPA Pilot a few months back). It
has this "high performance" construction materials used in it (carbon spar
with fiberglass surfaces) and still comes out to be in the $ 40 K + category.
(No, I DON'T own it.) 

Maintenance.... The newer materials are less repairable (I think). A bout 
of 'hangar rash' on a metal skinned plane is far more repairable than a 
molded one piece wing. So, there are tradeoffs.  My present position is that
all those older airplanes like C-140s etc may become viable for me if the 
owner is allowed to do more than change the oil in the doggone thing. Overhauls
and such are so expensive as to almost preclude an older airplane now. If I can
do it myself (and incidentally achieve some enjoyment from a different aspect
of flying at a savings) then the proposition becomes significantly more viable.

I too have thought long and hard about these issues but still haven't fully
come to the conclusion that aircraft ownership is worth the trouble and $$.

"The opinions expressed herein are suspect. Anyone who would go flying without
and engine deliberately has a precessing gyro."


Ron Miller
CFI(G)
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Ft. Collins, Co.
(hplabs!hpfcla!ron-m)