Aviation user fees

[fbEagle]

If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.

-Penguin

  No way in hell will i ever trust batteries alone to keep me flyin

[Penguin]

An electric propulsion system has 3 parts, only one of which moves (the motor).  An internal combustion engine has thousands of tiny moving parts, each of which has its own chance of failure.  I don't see why batteries themselves are less reliable than dozens of kilos of liquid explosive either.  A botched landing with a battery plane will set you back a few thousand, while the fuel-powered plane might take you with it.  However, I understand that range is a problem right now, and that's why I said that battery powered planes would be an option in the future.

-Penguin

[Tupac]

I have some numbers which might or might not matter to owners.

The first is my cost of ownership - all included.

(Image removed from quote.)

The second, is the neighbor next door to me. Don't show these to the wives.

(Image removed from quote.)

Three reactions:

1) There's a reason most of us don't do this

2) OUCH!

3) I'm glad I bought mine slightly used - takes some of the depreciation edge off.

As for the $100 per hour, for used aircraft - it'll make a dent. For new - well, maybe - maybe not. Either way, good luck on the gov trying to collect that.

I haven't worked out my total cost of ownership, and I probably don't want to know. I added up all the numbers and got something like $80/hr but all the stuff we have done to it and all the stuff we have fixed id imagine it is well past $150/hr

We had 13k repair bill in Nebraska for various things and then we put the new panel in and got an IFR gps and an ADS-B compliant transponder - that wasnt cheap either. Airplanes are an ongoing project

[Maverick]

If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.

-Penguin

There is a reason aircraft no longer have electrically operated constant speed props. If you are such a fan of electric vehicles, how is that chevy volt doing for you? Gone on a coast to coast drive with an electric car yet?

[Penguin]

I don't own a car, I'm not old enough.

-Penguin

[pembquist]

I don't own a car, I'm not old enough.

-Penguin

That means you are the future and you should take the doubting old salts with a grain of the same stuff.  If man were meant to fly he'd have wings sonny boy.  Electric drive and fuel cells are obviously superior from an efficiency standpoint, its really just a question of technological development.  The gas turbine is pretty simple in basic concept but requires a great deal of technology to make workable, fuels cells and batteries strike me as similar.  I know if I had the bucks I'd be buying a self launching electric motorglider today even with the primitive state of batteries.

[MachFly]

If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.

-Penguin

Ummm...no

You can't make a jet engine run on electricity.

[MachFly]

If man were meant to fly he'd have wings sonny boy.

Really?

[flight17]

I haven't worked out MY PARENTS total cost of ownership, and I probably don't want to know. I added up all the numbers and got something like $80/hr but all the stuff we have done to it and all the stuff we have fixed id imagine it is well past $150/hr

fixed lol... just curious, but are you the only one flying it?


Wolf, what plane were those numbers for?


Penguin, you know how much its going to cost all these people who have hybrids and electric cars to replace their batteries in the next 10 years when they go bad? More than it will to put a  gas burning engine in it. Electric will never power aircraft, i would bet quite a bit of money on that. Think about this, to start up a turbo prop engine (jet engine by all means), it takes almost the entire battery just to get it turning over fast enough for it to sustain itself. You drained an entire battery in about 45 seconds max and your not even moving yet.

This is just once again, the government trying to enforce something they have no freaking clue about. Just like the business jets being a luxury. I love how all the damn politicians get to ride around in their private jets THAT ARE PAID FOR BY TAX PAYERS, yet if someone has a successful business and owns/operates/flies on a business jet, they need to be taxed to hell because of it. Hopefully it doesn't go through, but knowing how corrupt our entire government it, it very well could. Thats all im saying for the gov, if you want to reply, just pm me about it.


Off topic, Mach, never realized you put Jeta in the Diesel 42. Has your school had any problems with your aircraft yet? I have been hearing there has been a lot of problems with those engines, at least there was.

[MachFly]

Off topic, Mach, never realized you put Jeta in the Diesel 42. Has your school had any problems with your aircraft yet? I have been hearing there has been a lot of problems with those engines, at least there was.

It's the NG model, so it has Austro AE300s, their turbo-diesel and were designed for Jet A. The unreliability issues that you were hearing about were probably for the Thielert engines, that was the first thing Diamond used to power the 42s (and the most common).

[Stoney]

Well, again... its got to be paid for somehow. I get taxed for my local roads so they can be kept in working order (and their street traffic lights) as well as pay toll booths in highways so that they can be kept in a safe working condition. What difference is there between that and the ATC?

A $100 bill I agree may be steep but when you look at it in perspective, how much money is flying a non-commercial plane costing the ATC in terms of man-hours and equipment? A non-commercial plane taken to the sky for recreational or private travel purposes is not essential to the ATC's primary task: keeping the airspace safe for commercial traffic (which is the bulk of it) but it does divert resources from it... so why are non-commercial aircraft getting this service for free?

That to me makes no sense. I know it bites into the pockets of others but from my outsider point of view it comes down to a user-fee being applied to a service people have become accustomed to receiving for free. Hence the unhappiness.

Why not pay for it the way we've been paying for it?  General fund appropriations, fuel taxes, fees?  First, the airlines generate about 99.5% of the overall ATC workload.  If anyone should be (and I'm not saying they should) paying for it, it would be them and their customers.  Second, $100/flight is a huge per flight expense to add to most average general aviation users.  

[Tupac]

Yes, I am the only one who flies it. It's my plane - my parents just write the checks. It's a good gig.

[Penguin]

fixed lol... just curious, but are you the only one flying it?


Wolf, what plane were those numbers for?


Penguin, you know how much its going to cost all these people who have hybrids and electric cars to replace their batteries in the next 10 years when they go bad? More than it will to put a  gas burning engine in it. Electric will never power aircraft, i would bet quite a bit of money on that. Think about this, to start up a turbo prop engine (jet engine by all means), it takes almost the entire battery just to get it turning over fast enough for it to sustain itself. You drained an entire battery in about 45 seconds max and your not even moving yet.

This is just once again, the government trying to enforce something they have no freaking clue about. Just like the business jets being a luxury. I love how all the damn politicians get to ride around in their private jets THAT ARE PAID FOR BY TAX PAYERS, yet if someone has a successful business and owns/operates/flies on a business jet, they need to be taxed to hell because of it. Hopefully it doesn't go through, but knowing how corrupt our entire government it, it very well could. Thats all im saying for the gov, if you want to reply, just pm me about it.


Off topic, Mach, never realized you put Jeta in the Diesel 42. Has your school had any problems with your aircraft yet? I have been hearing there has been a lot of problems with those engines, at least there was.

You have overestimated the lifetime of the average car; people don't replace broken engine blocks.  The same goes for electric cars; the death of one's batteries would lead one to buy a new car.  Also, we can't assume that the price of batteries will remain stable in the future.  Look at what happened with computers; they have gotten a great deal cheaper since the 40s.

Finally, the battery in a turboprop is no larger or more powerful than it needs to be, and turning a turboprop engine over is most likely the most demanding task that it faces.  Thus, it can only just barely do that in order to save on production costs.

-Penguin

[Tupac]

Well we do replace broken engines on planes.

[Maverick]

You have overestimated the lifetime of the average car; people don't replace broken engine blocks.  The same goes for electric cars; the death of one's batteries would lead one to buy a new car.  Also, we can't assume that the price of batteries will remain stable in the future.  Look at what happened with computers; they have gotten a great deal cheaper since the 40s.

Finally, the battery in a turboprop is no larger or more powerful than it needs to be, and turning a turboprop engine over is most likely the most demanding task that it faces.  Thus, it can only just barely do that in order to save on production costs.

-Penguin

I seriously doubt he overestimated the life expectancy of cars. Back when I was your age (60's) cars were expected to last about 60k to 75k miles. If you kept it longer than that it was about zero trade in value and very hard to sell except to some kid who was going to overhaul the engine anyhow. Cars were considered "semi disposable" and engines didn't last 100k miles. Later in the late 80's things changed a bit and reliability came up because of Japanese imports and their higher build quality. Hondas, Datsuns / Nissans and Toyotas were killing the smaller vehicle market for the US makers. The detroit iron had to get better or lose the market almost entirely. Gas was going up. Gas cost 18 cents a gallon back in 69, 70. It was widely claimed that $1.00 gas would kill the US economy and the gas shortage was real in the early 70's. I remember gas lines over a block long and many stations ran out repeatedly. Detroit had to change almost everything for economy and reliability because the Japanese were already there.

Electric cars are a nice toy at this point in time. The main impediment is power storage. It takes torque and HP to move a car. Increase the speed and the need for power goes up due to wind resistance. There is a point where you cannot stuff enough batteries, be they wet cell, nicad, lithium into the vehicle to make it go any real distance. Once the batteries are in there, they still have to be charged. That takes time, amps and a charger.

A 172 can't lift the batteries a volt has to take it 40 miles. Electric cannot equal the power to weight ratio of petroleum powered aircraft. Solar can't make the amps for it either given the sq ft of wing and it sucks at night flight.

The size of the battery in the turbo prop just like in any recip is set by weight penalty, not production cost. A bigger battery means less weight carrying capacity, less cargo or fuel. Once the engineers figure the power plant to stuff in the airframe they determine the minimum power needed to reliably start it and go with the minimum. The weight and balance also has to be figured so that it stays in limits.