Agreed. It didn't help that we had NO connectivity, either. We would have to go to the carrier almost every day to get the airplan and when TIGER would tell us to go to a "new" LZ, we'd have to say we hadn't received the updated info and wait for a lat and long to get passed. And as you know, there was PLENTY of dead air on that freq to make that easy...
A little different situation but on the same note... My grandfather bought a surplus P-51D when they went on sale. Paid a few thousand dollars for it. When you adjust it for inflation not NEAR the several million you have to pay these days. Now granted scarcity and no new manufactures of P-51s are definitely driving up the cost, but I sincerely doubt that if P-51s were being manufactured today that you could get them for just over half a million dollars. According to Wikipedia the unit cost was about $51,000 in 1945 (a little over $600,000 adjusted for inflation). If a 172 costs $400,000 new I doubt you would see a P-51D with a Packard Merlin in it for any less than $900,000 to a Mil. Seems aviation and healthcare are two places where advancements in technology didn't help the cost any.
Actually, not true: http://www.windward-performance.com/ And the Perlan Project (and Steve Fossett) think Greg's a pretty good aerodynamicist too.
Yeah, I've heard of the sparrowhawk, and Perlan is back on track after the death of Fosset. (Some guy tried to break his and Einer Enevoldson's record out in Hawaii, but crashed and was killed in the attempt). It's nice to see a new company, but we'll see if he can compete. The lawyers drove the Schweizer brothers out of building new airplanes (by that I mean new sailplanes, Sikorsky owns them now) and they were the largest company in the USA, (and a heavy hitter in the world market). They will rebuild a 2-33 for you, but it will cost you 25 grand. Or you can buy a Grob 103a for a little more money and have a much better airplane.
Nah he crashed it out of Sarasota Fl on CCX when he was running for Senate. Sold it for $1000, guy out here in Texas bought it, fixed it, and won the National Air Races in it. It still flies. Unfortunate for me, as it would have likely been passed down to the only other aviator in the family.
To the original question, the certification process is expensive and the demand is probably not sufficient to lure potential competitors into the market to bring the price down, so I don't think we will see prices drop anytime soon.
There are some really nice and relatively affordable options if you look at what's available in the Experimental (non-certified) market. You can get a pretty remarkable EFIS from a variety of manufacturers for a fraction of what the Garmin (certified) panels cost. If you looks at who builds Vans RV kits and how they are equipping them you'll see a lot of folks from our background with the same appetite for high-performance platforms and systems.
Also, another plus for experimental and home built aviation aside from the cost is that you don't have to deal with the FAA every time you want to change the battery in your airplane. I guess it's what Vick is getting at: You don't have to buy from the certificated list, and as long as you research and are a bit knowledgeable about what you are doing you can do some great flying.
I would just caution to anyone thinking about doing it: Be CAREFUL buying non-certified avionics equipment. There are some companies putting out some great stuff that isn't certified (the MVP-50 from Electronics Intl as an engine monitor was awesome before certification), and there are some companies putting out complete trash. Going with a known name and their known equipment will pay dividends in the end. With that said, I'd never fly hard IFR or an approach to mins behind a Dynon anything. I would, however, trust my life to anything stamped Garmin...certified (G900X isn't certified) or not. Same with the Trutrak line of autopilots...better than ANYTHING certified available.
I just bought my auto conversion engines last week and waiting for the plans to come in the mail. Should start building by first week in January. I am still looking at different options for avionics. After doing a few calculations, I decided not to go the certified aircraft route. Aviation is getting too expensive. Now that a Chinese company bought out Continental, you would think that Continental engines will get cheaper but no.
I subscribe to Kitplanes, and am still just dreaming but when I do build I'm leaning towards an auto conversion. The only question I have is what fuel does it run off of? 100LL or Avgas? As for the avionics piece, I hope to pick up a nice pair of GNS 430's used. Big step up from ALL of the flying I've ever done.
Yep. It's official - I'm a dumbass. I knew that, but typed it in any way. I meant do you use 100LL/AVGAS or regular gasoline? Have they been converted to take 100LL? That diesel looks nice!
Some conversions use auto gas, others 100LL, it just depends on the conversion. One thing to keep in mind with a conversion is reliability. Lycomings and Continentals were designed to run all day at 75% power, auto engines were not. There have been problems with auto conversions having problems after a short period of time. Some folks swear by them, others are dead set against them.
^This. Also, when it comes down to it, to get the same performance out of an auto engine, they end up costing nearly the same if not more than a Lycon or Continental. Engine, gear box, ECU's, specialty engine mount, etc... Put me in the "dead set against" group.
I bought a Revmaster Engine which is suppose to be a VW Engine but truth be told, there hardly anything left on that engine that is VW. I hate to go into the LyComing / Continental debate on here because it ends up being a Chevy/Ford arguement in my opinion. Aircraft engines fails as much as auto-engines but auto-engines get alot of bad press. Most of the guys that attempt auto-conversions are not knowledgeable about simple things such as shock cooling. So definitely, they are bound to fail because they don't have the knowledge. Most of the local EAA guys hanging out at the field have decent knowledge about stuff like this. Rather than spending my time finding out/tinkering with a conversion, I decided to go with a proven auto-conversion. If you thinking of an auto-conversion, I would suggest a Corvair. I was actually going for a Corvair until I got a deal on a Revmaster I could not pass up. There is also a great following for Corvair engines. Check out www.flycorvair.com. Most conversions have provision for Avgas or Gasoline. It is just unbelievable the amount of user friendly NAVAID applications are out there. The 430's are great but I am sure you will want something newer by the time you are done with your project. Though the non-certified are not suitable for IFR flight, they seem to offer a lot more for cheap.
Just curious, what's the problem with Dynon? I thought they had a pretty good reputation and their new SkyView is getting great feedback. I was thinking a SkyView with a GNS 430W providing nav/com would be a sweet set up. Break Break Swanee nailed it...after owning two certificated aircraft I'm seriously considering jumping into the experimental realm. You still have to deal with the FAA, after all they'll still have to verify that whatever you build is airworthy, but not having to deal with STCs alone would make it more enjoyable.
Could just be their early stuff, could just have been their piss-poor customer service then too...could just be multiple customers having total failures of their equipment in-flight. It's just a personal preference, but I'd never trust my life to Dynon (last time I dealt with them was 2007). I'd spend whatever it costs me to put Garmin stuff in my panel. The second option would be Chelton, but they're a little less user friendly. I also know of some pretty serious Chelton failures (all 3 screens went blank in hard-IMC at night...guy was a retired A6 NFO and a good pilot though, and got her on deck), but the company replaced everything with no questions asked. Once you own an experimental, you'll never go back. Performance/dollar can not be touched on the certified side, whether we're talking TAS or glass in the cockpit.
Yep...no commercial flying with an Experimental. Can't even do Angel Flights or the equivalent. There may be some exceptions (the one I know of is for potential customers paying to take a demo ride, but almost always the cost of the flight goes towards the kit) but none that I know of.
Somewhat related question... How do you pay for rides in legacy aircraft? For example, how do you (legally) pay for a ride in a P-51? Or are you just "paying for the gas..." <wink, wink>?
That's a really good question. At the FBO I fly charter at we used to do photo rides in one of the Cessna 172's. The Milwaukee FSDO said we'd have to maintain them and put them on part 135 opspecs if we wanted to continue to do them. So we stopped because it was legally considered charter by the FAA. I have also read that the FAA was cracking down on VIP rides for air show sponsors if the performer accepted any payment for the rides. I can't say that I've seen that cause any reduction in VIP rides I've flown at, though. If it's called flight instruction that's one way to work around it, but you'd have to have a CFI certificate to make that work.
I think that not all Mustangs are in the experimental exhibition category... some are limited - and in some rare cases, those made by Cavalier (conversion) had a Standard airworthiness certificate. @yak52driver - I heard recently there was a new special LOA from the FAA for part 91 operators doing sight-seeing / photographing? I don't see what the FAA's problem is if the flight's destination is the same as the departute.. @Huggy - None that I know of... but it looks like it has serious potential, hopefully it doesn't go the way of Thielert.
