Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tupac on January 13, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
-
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-need-aviation-user-fees?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=aviationfees
I cannot put in to words how mad this makes me.
See rule #14
-
If I read that correctly then general aviation wont be affected much but private and corporate jets would.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
If I read that correctly then general aviation wont be affected much but private and corporate jets would.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It sounds like to me that whenever you use ATC services they would charge you $100
-
People in aviation are obviously rich. This is just paying your fair share. Spread the wealth...... Hope and change.... :rolleyes:
-
People in aviation are obviously rich. This is just paying your fair share. Spread the wealth...... Hope and change.... :rolleyes:
:rofl
-
People in aviation are obviously rich. This is just paying your fair share. Spread the wealth...... Hope and change.... :rolleyes:
:lol
-
It sounds like to me that whenever you use ATC services they would charge you $100
It says that all piston aircraft are exempt though.
-
So do they mean that only private jets & turboprops will need to pay?
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
-
So do they mean that only private jets & turboprops will need to pay?
I think so in other words only high-end craft will be taxed and even they wont be if you dont go in controlled airspace. Does class E count as controlled though?
-
I think so in other words only high-end craft will be taxed and even they wont be if you dont go in controlled airspace. Does class E count as controlled though?
Class E is controlled airspace. It does not matter if they do not tax piston airplanes or not, this is still a terrible terrible idea.
-
http://www.americaflies.us/
sign there
-
Class E is controlled airspace. It does not matter if they do not tax piston airplanes or not, this is still a terrible terrible idea.
I dont agree with it either I just dont think it will affect most of us directly at least.
-
I think so in other words only high-end craft will be taxed and even they wont be if you dont go in controlled airspace. Does class E count as controlled though?
Officially yes, but realistically no. As long as you don't go into towered airports and stay VFR you don't have to talk to anyone, you don't need to tell anyone that you're leaving, where you going, or that your landing, so no one will ever know that you flew.
I still don't think that it will happen though.
-
The airport in this town decided to charge anyone who flew inside their airpspace a fee of six Euro. It backfired badly on them. They had no radar so it depended on the pilot calling. Actually it was aimed at helicopter traffic once a year when there was a big horse racing festival at the nearby track. Eighty helicopter movements a day multiplied by six meant mucho money or so they thought.
The actual result was that pilots avoided the airport or when they flew through their airspace they didn't call. Sometimes they did call but they lied. This lead to a farscical situation because pilots of course didn't want to fly near airports without telling anyone. So one day, a pilot called up. 'Echo India XYZ passing close to your zone but remaining outside.' ATC: 'Ok but we have you in sight' Pilot: 'Good eyesight'.
It's no surprise that this airport is now in danger of closing.
User fees are stupid.
-
Canada charged some fees when I flew Alaska - Oshkosh - Alaska back in 2000. I think my total bill was $10-15. I flew VFR only, talked to their Wx briefings a lot -- Wx in Alberta S U C K E D.
-
It's very important to note that NOT all piston planes are exempt under this proposal. The proposal allows for an exemption for "recreational piston aircraft". Many of us, myself included, operate our aircraft for business purposes, thereby subjecting them to the $100 per flight rule. From the folks in the know I've discussed this with, there's also a strong feeling that flight school aircraft would also be subject to this fee - yes, a person may be taking flight training for recreational use, but the fight training itself is typically a commercial business operation. The same thing goes if you're operating your aircraft through an LLC with a leaseback arrangement to yourself or your company, then you're back under the business operating umbrella, so it would no longer be considered a recreational use and would be subject to the $100 fee. Please note, this may not be the final interpretation, but is the general consensus with many of those who are on the front lines fighting this issue.
The good news is the NBAA is fully engaged in working to defeat this proposal. They have put significant time and resources into the initiative and are getting face time with those in power to educate them about the disastrous effects to small business and the aviation industry if such a fee goes into effect. For years people have thought of the NBAA as a "jet plane" organization for the big guys only, but the truth is they're a "business airplane" organization - big or small. In fact, this year they even featured a Cirrus on their publication's cover which was a testament to their desire to be inclusive all of type of business aircraft. I would encourage those of you who feel strongly about this issue to join and support the organization to help them continue to the good fight.
For additional information, here's a link to one my my blog posts on the subject NBAA interview I participated in regarding the threat: http://www.bradim.com/2011/09/26/brads-nbaa-flight-plan-interview-industry-united-in-thwarting-latest-user-fee-threat/
Here's another piece directly on the NBAA site by Pete Combs: http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/issues/modernization/20110923-industry-united-in-thwarting-latest-user-fee-threat.php
-
All humor aside, the AOPA has been fighting user fees for decades. I recall them sending out information about attempts to institute fees back in the late 80's on. It was a bad idea then and now.
-
I know nothing of aviation fees and all that but I would like to know if non-commercial aircraft currently pay some sort of tax or something that would in fact end up helping fund the ATC? If not then It'd be like yer complaining that toll booths are being placed on highways and its your right to use the state-funded roads for free. :confused:
-
Tac, it isn't like that at all, really. ATC's focus is that of safety, not revenue.
-
It'd be like yer complaining that toll booths are being placed on highways and its your right to use the state-funded roads for free. :confused:
Well it is.
Jokes aside ATC is primary for safety.
-
Hell, they have user taxes on everything else.. Even breathing, lol!
Aren't we all just lovin on this brave new world? :cheers:
-
Im not saying it isnt. Im just saying that its got to be funded somehow and if its in use for your safety its logical that you be charged something for its use.
-
Someone told me that the tax on AVGAS and JetFuel goes to the FAA which is then used for ATC not sure if its true though.
-
I don't necessarily disagree with ya, just wanted to point out that it isn't quite comparing apples to apples.
-
Wonder how you'd feel if they slapped a $100 tax on you every time you left your driveway? Alot of business traffic would
simply disappear as businesses felt the pinch. Why not fly with someone else and let them pay extra.
-
Wonder how you'd feel if they slapped a $100 tax on you every time you left your driveway? Alot of business traffic would
simply disappear as businesses felt the pinch. Why not fly with someone else and let them pay extra.
\
they do have you seen the price of gas and tax on it?
semp
-
Wonder how you'd feel if they slapped a $100 tax on you every time you left your driveway? Alot of business traffic would
simply disappear as businesses felt the pinch. Why not fly with someone else and let them pay extra.
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.
-
\
they do have you seen the price of gas and tax on it?
semp
Local prices for fuel:
100LL: $5.75
Jet A: $5.50
Are fuel is a bit more expensive and it's also taxed. No need to make us pay another $100/flight.
-
I know nothing of aviation fees and all that but I would like to know if non-commercial aircraft currently pay some sort of tax or something that would in fact end up helping fund the ATC? If not then It'd be like yer complaining that toll booths are being placed on highways and its your right to use the state-funded roads for free. :confused:
Ever bought any avgas?
-
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?
Almost nothing. Unless you are filed IFR ATC has no responsibility for you, will work you only if workload allows. The only cost is the tiny bit of electricity needed to light your blip on the radar screen. A user fee for aircraft would be comparable to making ALL roads toll roads -- toll booth at the end of your driveway. If a user fee is needed to "cover costs" for aviation then it's also needed for boats, snow-machines, bicycles, joggers/walkers/hikers. Money is spent maintaining areas/systems/infrastructure for those activities also. Tit for tat.
-
I was a safety pilot for a friend in his bonanza today - $326 to fill it up after we were finished flying. We pay mo plenty taxes
-
I was a safety pilot for a friend in his bonanza today - $326 to fill it up after we were finished flying. We pay mo plenty taxes
$418 to fill the twin star up, and that's jet A so it's cheaper. (But I never really fill it up completely)
-
$418 to fill the twin star up, and that's jet A so it's cheaper. (But I never really fill it up completely)
it cost about $100 to fill the skyhawk up - the trick is to never let it get very low! LOL to fill it up completely at $5 a gallon would be $200
-
it cost about $100 to fill the skyhawk up - the trick is to never let it get very low! LOL to fill it up completely at $5 a gallon would be $200
Yeah that works, I don't like when the tanks are low either. Also I almost never fill up the aux tanks.
-
Yeah that works, I don't like when the tanks are low either. Also I almost never fill up the aux tanks.
I put 24 gallons in today. That wasnt a pleasant experience. I burn 8-10 depending on how high and fast I want to go, so it isnt as bad as some. My friends bonanza burns 15 :eek:
-
I put 24 gallons in today. That wasnt a pleasant experience. I burn 8-10 depending on how high and fast I want to go, so it isnt as bad as some. My friends bonanza burns 15 :eek:
Yeah but the bonanza is faster, so the extra fuel is justified.
-
I'd pay $100 to get a view like this.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/395580_2490199094813_1247804014_32007422_1078595418_n.jpg)
but I'm glad I dont have to :D
-
Im not saying it isnt. Im just saying that its got to be funded somehow and if its in use for your safety its logical that you be charged something for its use.
ATC is funded and has a funding stream that has been in place for many years already. What they want is additional funding based on something that constitutes a very small fraction, figure in single digit proportion to their primary job. They are funded through fuel tax, and ticket sales as well as fees on the heavies / commercials. Those folks are the vast majority of their operation because all of their flights are in controlled airspace with flight following. This also includes military flights, also in controlled airspace.
Charging small aircraft is placing a burden far out of proportion to what they do for those flights. The euros did that and small aircraft flight is a rich persons hobby now. The same would happen in the US. Saying they are not going to hit the private aircraft is fallacious as already noted many private aircraft are used for profit and therefor subject to the fee. The rest of the private aircraft would be added soon after they are implemented. Share the wealth and all that bovine excrement.
-
post deleted
-
I have some numbers which might or might not matter to owners.
The first is my cost of ownership - all included.
(http://www.cirruspilots.org/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.61.40.55/iCopaImage.jpg)
The second, is the neighbor next door to me. Don't show these to the wives.
(http://www.cirruspilots.org/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x450/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/4/4705.Flight-cost.jpg)
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.
-
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 don't think we should even be concerned out it. If one guy has a dumb idea it does not mean that everyone will agree. Such thing will kill general aviation and damage the airline industry, therefore screwing up the economy even more.
-
Local prices for fuel:
100LL: $5.75
Jet A: $5.50
Are fuel is a bit more expensive and it's also taxed. No need to make us pay another $100/flight.
Paying $5.79 for 100LL myself. Tax included of course.
-
I put 24 gallons in today. That wasnt a pleasant experience. I burn 8-10 depending on how high and fast I want to go, so it isnt as bad as some. My friends bonanza burns 15 :eek:
Makes ya want to run out and buy a high performance aircraft, doesn't it? :) I can hook you up with a Bonanza seller if you're interested :aok
-
If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.
-Penguin
-
If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.
-Penguin
Don't count on it.
-
If we can do to rechargeable batteries what we did to semiconductors, then electric airplanes might be the future.
-Penguin
:rofl No way in hell will i ever trust batteries alone to keep me flyin
-
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
-
I have some numbers which might or might not matter to owners.
The first is my cost of ownership - all included.
(http://www.cirruspilots.org/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.61.40.55/iCopaImage.jpg)
The second, is the neighbor next door to me. Don't show these to the wives.
(http://www.cirruspilots.org/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x450/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/4/4705.Flight-cost.jpg)
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 :D
-
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?
-
I don't own a car, I'm not old enough.
-Penguin
-
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.
-
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.
-
If man were meant to fly he'd have wings sonny boy.
Really?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Yes, I am the only one who flies it. It's my plane - my parents just write the checks. It's a good gig.
-
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
-
Well we do replace broken engines on planes.
-
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.
-
and if I crunch my plane I dont like the idea of battery acid going everywhere.
-
and if I crunch my plane I dont like the idea of battery acid going everywhere.
Technically you still have a battery on your plane.
I actually have 6.
-
Technically you still have a battery on your plane.
I actually have 6.
You're right, and It's mounted to the firewall so hopefully if I prang it I wont get any acid on me.
-
However having 20 or 30 batteries required to fly a electric airplane you couldnt fit them all in the engine compartment. I suppose some could be in the wings and others in the baggage compartment, but good luck flying a 500nm xc with a battery powered plane.
-
people don't replace broken engine blocks.
Yep, he lives under a rock.
-
With all due respect, after many years of commuting the average vehicle will be worth less than the price of replacing its engine.
-Penguin
-
Worth is relative.
-
Now you're just giving me a hard time :D
Yes, I suppose if it were Great Grampaw Pettibone's Ye Olde Sarsparilla Float it would be worth it to replace. However, the vast majority of people see their vehicles in a more utilitarian way.
-Penguin
-
With all due respect, after many years of commuting the average vehicle will be worth less than the price of replacing its engine.
-Penguin
As Tupac said we replace aircraft engines all the time as it's too expensive to just buy a new aircraft. Regarding the car engines unless you have a very cheap car replacing an engine will be cheaper than buying a new car.
-
Im bout to drop an engine in my dad old dodge pickup because its cheaper then buying a used car and i know what im getting with it.
-
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
-
A new engine for my plane costs 25k.
-
Here is how much a turbine battery cost. Now imagine that x30 for a electric airplane
http://www.skygeek.com/concorde-rg-445e-aircraft-battery.html
-
Here is how much a turbine battery cost. Now imagine that x30 for a electric airplane
http://www.skygeek.com/concorde-rg-445e-aircraft-battery.html
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.
-
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.
Holy crap! What model Lear do you fly?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Holy crap! What model Lear do you fly?
45
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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