Aviation user fees

[flight17]

You've neglected depreciation and repairs.  Let's look at a car from 2000 (a made up car):

Mileage at purchase: 30 mpg
Value at purchse: $10,000

Upon leaving the lot, it instantly suffers a depreciation of 40% (standard)

It's new value is $6,000, significatnly less than before

Let's say that nothing major goes wrong until the warranty expires (typical)

Let's say that it takes $1,000 of repairs (usual)

It's new value is $5,000, and as a result of daily commuting, its engine has worn down to 25mpg

So now its 2004, and we have what is now known as a 'beater'.   A beater will progressively suffer worse and worse failures until the whole thing just stop and dies.

2 years pass, and another $1,000 of repairs, and the engine falls to 22mpg

Now it's 2006, and the car is worth a measely $4,000.  Couple in the dings, the dents, and dogbats associated with daily use and its down to $3,000

So, after an oil change, the owner drives out, forgets to shift into a higher gear, and just keeps pushing the pedal.  KA-KLUNK.  That's the sound of steel cracking.  Uh-oh.  Considering that the towing cost is negligible and the negotiations instant, we can neglect any costs associated with those.  Find me a respectable dealership that will replace a 6-year-old engine in a car of as many years for a price low enough to make driving that beater, and paying for its aggravating and expensive repairs, for a few more years worth it and I'll eat my hat.

-Penguin

First off, 10k for a car is almost impossible today. I would say 80% or more of the cars being bought today are at least 20k or more by the time you pay for everthing (taxes and surcharges). And engine is what? 2-5k depending on what you get (new vs rebuilt, etc).

AS for the batteries, Golfer would deffinately be able to correct me on this, but by the time the engine is spool up enough that an ignition can be given to get the engine running, the batter is on the verge of being completely dead. That batter is dead in a matter of 30 seconds or less and it only supplies enough power to get the engine up to speed for ignition. Not fast enough to provide any amont of thrust to move the aircraft. There is no possible way that electric could ever provide the needed amount of energery to run a turbine aircraft, let alone a ga aircraft.

[Ardy123]

First off, 10k for a car is almost impossible today. I would say 80% or more of the cars being bought today are at least 20k or more by the time you pay for everthing (taxes and surcharges).

You too are both looking from the wrong angle...
1) penguin, being young, is prob refering to a used car as that is all he can afford
2) flight17 is referring to a new car.

I can say, that I have had old cars where the transition went out, and I just got rid of the car. Why? because as penguin said, it was more expensive to fix than the value of the car was worth. Granted it was 16 year old car with 100,000+ miles on it, but his point is valid. That being said, if the transmission went out on a 2 year old 50k car, I would fix it (then probably sell it).

[MachFly]

That's cheap.

Last I checked a NIB battery for my airplane is $12,000.

Windshields are $50,000 per side.

I did look up what the cinch-strap gust locks were though. $184 for 4 feet of nylon webbing and a pair of cinches.

Not surprised.

[Stoney]

You've neglected depreciation and repairs.  Let's look at a car from 2000 (a made up car):

I put a factory rebuilt motor in my 1997 F-150 back in 2001 after I suffered an oil pump failure and subsequent engine loss.  Cost of the new motor installation = $4500 or so.  Cost of that same vehicle with the same mileage and wear in 2001 => $4500

But really, this thread has derailed totally.

[Golfer]

Holy crap! What model Lear do you fly?

45

[Penguin]

First off, 10k for a car is almost impossible today. I would say 80% or more of the cars being bought today are at least 20k or more by the time you pay for everthing (taxes and surcharges). And engine is what? 2-5k depending on what you get (new vs rebuilt, etc).

AS for the batteries, Golfer would deffinately be able to correct me on this, but by the time the engine is spool up enough that an ignition can be given to get the engine running, the batter is on the verge of being completely dead. That batter is dead in a matter of 30 seconds or less and it only supplies enough power to get the engine up to speed for ignition. Not fast enough to provide any amont of thrust to move the aircraft. There is no possible way that electric could ever provide the needed amount of energery to run a turbine aircraft, let alone a ga aircraft.

You've neglected the inflation since 2000, and the fact that the car may be a cheap one.  My mom got her Honda Accord for 14k.

EDIT: There are very large solar powered air planes that can fly 24/7.  I'd wager that a few more solar panels and motors could support a decent cockpit.

-Penguin

-Penguin

[Reschke]

I dont agree with it either I just dont think it will affect most of us directly at least.

Late to the party here but this sounds an awful lot like gun control but for aircraft.

[Stoney]

You've neglected the inflation since 2000, and the fact that the car may be a cheap one.  My mom got her Honda Accord for 14k.

Not new in 2000 she didn't

EDIT: There are very large solar powered air planes that can fly 24/7.  I'd wager that a few more solar panels and motors could support a decent cockpit.

Most of those planes are experimental, slow, made of extremely light construction, and only carry light loads.  Currently, there's no solar/electric technology that can replicate the thrust provided by combustion engines, and maintain the weight and balance of an aircraft.  Its not like there's some sort of conspiracy to burn avgas among aircraft manufacturers.  If Cessna could build one with the same range, speed, and useful load of a current 172, they'd be all over it like stink on poop.  Supposedly they're developing a demonstrator, but we'll see what comes of that.  Maybe in 20 years there will be technology to do it, but not now.  The Sky Spark is the closest thing I've seen to a credible design, but even its performance is better with a Rotax engine in it, and it can actually carry a passenger instead of being a one-seater with the fuel cell...

[Penguin]

Not new in 2000 she didn't

Most of those planes are experimental, slow, made of extremely light construction, and only carry light loads.  Currently, there's no solar/electric technology that can replicate the thrust provided by combustion engines, and maintain the weight and balance of an aircraft.  Its not like there's some sort of conspiracy to burn avgas among aircraft manufacturers.  If Cessna could build one with the same range, speed, and useful load of a current 172, they'd be all over it like stink on poop.  Supposedly they're developing a demonstrator, but we'll see what comes of that.  Maybe in 20 years there will be technology to do it, but not now.  The Sky Spark is the closest thing I've seen to a credible design, but even its performance is better with a Rotax engine in it, and it can actually carry a passenger instead of being a one-seater with the fuel cell...

I didn' mean to say that she got it then.  I think it was a few years after the millennium.  Perhaps I was wrong about it being here and now, but my original point regarded the future of aviation.

-Penguin