60 Minutes 4/17
Jimbob
it was going to be a piece on how sportpilot planes were going to fall
out of the sky...
Watch Mollers stock take off again. Might break $0.25 this time.
Jim
Robert
> it was going to be a piece on how sportpilot planes were going to fall
> out of the sky...
>
It was a good piece but is mostly the same thing we've been seeing and
hearing for several years. The difference now is that we've got a bunch of
GA airplane manufacturers actually delivering glass cockpits, synthetic
vision and HITS type displays can happen. Unfortunately, NASA Langley's
budget for aerospace research which funds programs like HITS and SATS has
recently been cut way back.
Look for some news about the big exposition in Danville, VA in early June
showing off the SATS research results.
Tony
under 400 feet? Someone else was talking about 400 kts. Oh yeah, 400
feet high speed see and be seen.
I remember how much work went into making the Mooney 201 go fast, so
I'm not sure of the speed claims. Tell you what, though, I want a big
hunk of airspace reserved controlled traffic.
Dan Luke
"Jimbob" wrote:
> Wow. Did I actually see some positive mainstream GA press?
It would have been better if they hadn't included Moller and his
phoney-baloney Skycar. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that CBS would
fall for that bs.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
Dave Stadt
"Jimbob" <jfr...@loNOgisSPAMys.biz> wrote in message
news:m7u561t1t7ej413p9...@4ax.com...
Too bad nobody watches CBS.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <m7u561t1t7ej413p9...@4ax.com>::
>Wow. Did I actually see some positive mainstream GA press?
There was a piece on the Science Channel's 'Discoveries This Week'
series about the Carter Copter that was also favorable. Carter is
hoping to increase the speed of his gyrocopter beyond that of helos
through the use of wings for the high speed region of the envelope.
He indicated that current technology exists to make his aircraft
totally computer operated and guided. With nearly the STOL
capabilities of a helo, the potential speed of a Glassair, and
automated operation, it's being touted as the everyman aerial car.
...
aluckyguess
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ask6611g980gu4mmd...@4ax.com...
possible.
I thought at one time everyone should fly then I realized it is already
crowded up there and it would suck.
It would be nice if Piper sold its Cherokee 180 for around 50k then most
everyday pilots could have a new plane. This would be economical carry an
average 2 person family and still get you their in a decent time.
Dan Luke
"aluckyguess" wrote:
> It would be nice if Piper sold its Cherokee 180 for around 50k
Nice for whom? Certainly not for the insane New Piper executive who approved
such an idea. That would be a lot less than NP's direct cost to build the
airplanes (if they did still build the 180, that is), never mind any overhead
and profit.
I guess it would be nice if prime ribeye steaks were a dollar a pound, too,
until all the beef businesses collapsed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM
Newps
Dan Luke wrote:
>
> I guess it would be nice if prime ribeye steaks were a dollar a pound, too,
> until all the beef businesses collapsed.
Then we could buy those mad cows from Alberta.
Scott Moore
Agreed, 60 minutes should have been investigating Moller, not promoting him.
Other problems with the story:
- Again another promotion of the idea that aircraft have to land vertical,
or drive on streets, in order to be "common".
- They were promoting Nasa's HITS program and calling it "future" aviation,
instead of simply going down to Cirrus and showing that most of that technology
is shipping right now.
Jimbob
>
>"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:ask6611g980gu4mmd...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:05:19 GMT, Jimbob <jfr...@loNOgisSPAMys.biz>
>> wrote in <m7u561t1t7ej413p9...@4ax.com>::
>>
>>
>>
>It will never have the speed of a Glassair. I just don't think that is
>possible.
>I thought at one time everyone should fly then I realized it is already
>crowded up there and it would suck.
>It would be nice if Piper sold its Cherokee 180 for around 50k then most
>everyday pilots could have a new plane. This would be economical carry an
>average 2 person family and still get you their in a decent time.
>
Who needs Piper. The new Light Sport's have reasonable performance
and are selling for about 70K. Less range and slightly less speed but
the price is right.
Jim
aluckyguess
would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat aircraft.
They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a new car
than a small plane.
I think if they could sell 1000 a month you could build it for under 50k or
close to it. The only thing I don't know is what the insurance would cost.
I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the price
would drop quite a bit.
You can buy a brand new LS6 corvette engine for 5000.00 that tells me they
are building it for around 1500.
Just my 2 cents.
"Dan Luke" <c17...@xyz.net> wrote in message
news:1167jqb...@news.supernews.com...
Kyle Boatright
"Jimbob" <jfr...@loNOgisSPAMys.biz> wrote in message
>>>snip>>>
>>
>
>
> Who needs Piper. The new Light Sport's have reasonable performance
> and are selling for about 70K. Less range and slightly less speed but
> the price is right.
>
> Jim
>
> http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org
To some extent, Piper sells transportation. Light Sport aircraft will never
be in the same transportation as aircraft that have 2x the mass (good in
turbulence and helps with stability), higher speed, IFR ability, etc.
Performance and capability wise, LSA's are the equivalent of the C-152
without the ability to be upgraded to IFR...
If you're looking for a 100, maybe 120 mph airplane that carries 2 people,
you can get a nice Ercoupe or C-150 for under $20k...
KB
Larry Dighera
<F_P8e.2782$f6....@fe04.lga>::
>It will never have the speed of a Glassair.
For the CarterCopter to achieve the speed of a Glassair, would require
considerable power I believe. There's also the stability issue of the
rotor disk in the relative wind at high speed to address. It would
take a cleaver fellow in deed to successfully meet Carter's goals.
But I wouldn't characterize them as impossible.
Jimbob
<kboat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>To some extent, Piper sells transportation. Light Sport aircraft will never
>be in the same transportation as aircraft that have 2x the mass (good in
>turbulence and helps with stability), higher speed, IFR ability, etc.
>Performance and capability wise, LSA's are the equivalent of the C-152
>without the ability to be upgraded to IFR...
>
>If you're looking for a 100, maybe 120 mph airplane that carries 2 people,
>you can get a nice Ercoupe or C-150 for under $20k...
>
>KB
>
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing prevent an LSA from
becoming IFR certified. The pilot must have a private rating to take
advantage of this. However, if that pilot was operating under the
sportpilot rule, they can't fly IFR.
The weight issue is a valid argument. On the plus side, you are
looking at a new aircraft vs. 30yo.
I don't expect LSA to replace mooneys or lancairs, but I can see a
segment of the population that could consider it for the
transportation roles that c-152 performance class aircraft are used
for.
Jim
Jimbob
<samiams...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>- Again another promotion of the idea that aircraft have to land vertical,
>or drive on streets, in order to be "common".
It would have to be VTOL to truely replace the car whcih is really the
angle the piece was going for. However, to be competative with the
airlines, it does not. I think they touched on both scenerios.
>
>- They were promoting Nasa's HITS program and calling it "future" aviation,
>instead of simply going down to Cirrus and showing that most of that technology
>is shipping right now.
That's why I'm not concerned about the lack of funding through NASA.
We've got everything needed to implement HITS now. Glass, GPS and
Synthetic vision. We just need FAA guidance for the routes, protocol
and a business case for a company to write the software.
FAA certificaiton of the software is the real problem. It wouldn't
surprise me for it to be in in experimentals 5 years before standard
category aircraft got it.
Just say yes to FAA deregulation
Jim
Morgans
"Jimbob" <jfr...@loNOgisSPAMys.biz> wrote
> I don't expect LSA to replace mooneys or lancairs, but I can see a
> segment of the population that could consider it for the
> transportation roles that c-152 performance class aircraft are used
> for.
A LSA could be much more capable than a 152. A nice slippery one could bop
along at the LSA top speed of 120 knots, compared to the 152's top speed of
108 knots. That means it would take the 152 an extra 33 minutes to get to
where the LSA got to, when taking a 5 hour trip. Not huge, but notable, I
think. That assumes the 152 could maintain the book top speed for 5.55
hours, which is unlikely, unless it is factory fresh. Never mind the little
detail of the book duration given for the 152 is only at a little over 3.5
hours. The difference in distance traveled could be close to double the
152's range, for only an extra 1.5 hours in the air, for the LSA.
Given, this dream LSA I am talking about would have to be an _exceptional_
plane; light, low fuel consumption, and fast.
Beauty is, that it could be possible. Hey, a guy made a plane with a Briggs
and Stratton engine that could go _too fast_ to be a LSA, and with loads of
weight left over for fuel. Anything is possible with an experimental.
Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so low
that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little airplane,
along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and use
of the new rule so much more meaningful.
--
Jim in NC
Jimbob
<jsmo...@chJUarNKer.net> wrote:
>
>Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so low
>that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little airplane,
>along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and use
>of the new rule so much more meaningful.
IMHO, I think the LSA regs are a test case to see how FAA deregulation
will work out. In a couple of years, if the safety record is solid, I
would expect some gradual expansion of the capabilities of the
aircraft.
It would not surprise me to see all non-commercial uses of aircraft
covered by the rule in my lifetime. It's the only way that personal
air transportation will flourish.
Jim
Highflyer
"aluckyguess" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:NcX8e.2657$Gq6....@fe02.lga...
> <snip>
> The only thing I don't know is what the insurance would cost.
> I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the price
> would drop quite a bit.
> You can buy a brand new LS6 corvette engine for 5000.00 that tells me they
> are building it for around 1500.
>
Actually if Lycoming had an order for 12000 IO360 engines from one customer
the price would probably go up and the quality would go down. Lycoming sold
all of their machinery and has all of their parts made outside by
subcontractors. Each subcontractor has a significant "learning curve"
coming up to speed. ( See the court case that Lycoming lost recently about
crankshaft specifications and manufacturing procedures ) They would be
unable to get enough parts at any price to assemble them in a reasonable
time. ( NOTE: this is an opinion based on my knowledge of the aircraft
engine business. )
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
Highflyer
"Morgans" <jsmo...@chJUarNKer.net> wrote in message
news:O2%8e.7016$Jg7....@fe03.lga...
>
> Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so
> low
> that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little
> airplane,
> along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and
> use
> of the new rule so much more meaningful.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
That happened because the FAA asked the current manufacturers of little
airplanes what the rules should be. They got together and ruled out as many
as they could of the competitive certified airplanes with the restrictive
weight limits.
The gross weight, within rather wide limits, doesn't make an airplane easier
or harder to fly. Many of these LSA legal small airplanes are much trickier
to fly than the venerable Cessna 150 or 152. ALL of them are more
expensive to buy.
They did NOT want to have to compete with all of those airplanes that are
already out there in the fleet. They did NOT want LSA instructors able to
go out and instruct in the same Cessna 150 they have been teaching people to
fly in for years. They did not was LSA instructors able to go out and
instruct in the same "two place Ultralights" that they have been giving
Ultralight instruction in for years. They DID want anyone who wants to
instruct in LSA categories to have to go out and buy a new LSA certified
aircraft from one of the helpful manufacturers who helped to set the rules.
If you do not already know how to fly, where would you go today to get a
Light Sport Pilots License?
Dan Luke
"aluckyguess" wrote:
> If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than 50k. It
> would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat aircraft.
> They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a new
car
> than a small plane.
You have confused the auto business with the airplane business. Auto
manufacturing allows economies of scale unatainable by aircraft mfg. And
remember, auto makers break even or lose money on many of their models.
> I think if they could sell 1000 a month you could build it for under 50k or
> close to it.
And if frogs had wings...
Therein lies the main weakness in your argument. You imagine there is a vast
pool of pent-up demand. Do you believe there are buyers for 1,000 Cherokee
180s/month? How about after the first, second years? Remember, over the 40
year production history of all models of the Cessna 172/175, only 43,000 have
been built. That's a long way from 1,000/mo.
[snip]
> I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the price
> would drop quite a bit.
Maybe not, because they would still build them the same way at first.
Mobilization costs to handle the increased volume would have to be added to
the margin made on each engine. The same thing goes for New Piper: if they
suddenly had a backlog of 12,000 airplanes, they'd have to build new
factories and so would all their suppliers. It would take years to reach the
capacity to meet that demand efficiently. And here's the rub: by the time
they had all this capacity was built, practically everyone who wanted a new
180 would have one, and there wouldn't be enough new customers to pay off the
enormous debt NP (and its suppliers) would have after they built all those
factories.
> You can buy a brand new LS6 corvette engine for 5000.00 that tells me they
> are building it for around 1500.
Why does it tell you that? And what do you reckon the liability cost
component of an LS6 is compared to a Lyc. O-360?
aluckyguess
"Highflyer" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote in message
news:d428gr$2i8$0...@pita.alt.net...
aluckyguess
>
> "aluckyguess" wrote:
>> If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than 50k.
>> It
>> would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat aircraft.
>> They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a new
> car
>> than a small plane.
>
> You have confused the auto business with the airplane business. Auto
> manufacturing allows economies of scale unatainable by aircraft mfg. And
> remember, auto makers break even or lose money on many of their models.
>
John Galban
aluckyguess wrote:
> If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than
50k. It
> would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat
aircraft.
> They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a
new car
> than a small plane.
If the moon were made of green cheese, astronauts wouldn't need
Cheez Whiz. Simply put, there is not a market for the amount of new
planes you envision. New cars models are sold in the hundreds of
thousands per year. At that volume, manufacturers can afford to buy
robots to automate most of the work. Common parts can be interchanged
and bought very cheaply in large quantities. At GA volumes, planes
still have to be built by hand, much the way they've always been built.
That's where the cost of a plane skyrockets. I've visited the new
Cessna plant. It looks more like a huge hanger with hundreds of
homebuilders than an actual factory.
As far as there being more work involved building a new car than a
plane, all I can say is that you've obviously never built a plane
before.
> I think if they could sell 1000 a month you could build it for under
50k or
> close to it. The only thing I don't know is what the insurance would
cost.
> I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the
price
> would drop quite a bit.
Even at 1000 a month, you still can't come close to the economies of
scale that are common to the auto industry. Therefore, you shouldn't
realistically expect the price to come close either.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
aluckyguess
"John Galban" <jga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113949925....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> aluckyguess wrote:
>> If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than
> 50k. It
>> would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat
> aircraft.
>> They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a
> new car
>> than a small plane.
>
> If the moon were made of green cheese, astronauts wouldn't need
> Cheez Whiz. Simply put, there is not a market for the amount of new
> planes you envision. New cars models are sold in the hundreds of
> thousands per year. At that volume, manufacturers can afford to buy
> robots to automate most of the work. Common parts can be interchanged
> and bought very cheaply in large quantities. At GA volumes, planes
> still have to be built by hand, much the way they've always been built.
> That's where the cost of a plane skyrockets. I've visited the new
> Cessna plant. It looks more like a huge hanger with hundreds of
> homebuilders than an actual factory.
>
> As far as there being more work involved building a new car than a
> plane, all I can say is that you've obviously never built a plane
> before.
>
Before I tell you how I think it can be done I am going to pitch my plan to
Piper if they dont listen I will try Cessna. It can be done and I think I
know a way to create the market.
If I was to go on this group and offer for sale a brand new 2005 Warrior for
under 60k with financeing how many would buy it? I know I would order one.
Dan Luke
"aluckyguess" wrote:
> Before I tell you how I think it can be done I am going to pitch my
> plan to Piper if they dont listen I will try Cessna.
I'm sure they'll enjoy the laugh--if you can get in the door.
> If I was to go on this group and offer for sale a brand new 2005
> Warrior for under 60k with financeing how many would buy it?
Does that include paint?
Newps
aluckyguess wrote:
> If I was to go on this group and offer for sale a brand new 2005 Warrior for
> under 60k with financeing how many would buy it? I know I would order one.
A Warrior? Never, wing's on the wrong side.
Jimbob
<jsmo...@chJUarNKer.net> wrote:
>
>"Jimbob" <jfr...@loNOgisSPAMys.biz> wrote
>
>A LSA could be much more capable than a 152. A nice slippery one could bop
>along at the LSA top speed of 120 knots, compared to the 152's top speed of
>108 knots. That means it would take the 152 an extra 33 minutes to get to
>where the LSA got to, when taking a 5 hour trip. Not huge, but notable, I
>think.
I agree completely. The specs are in line. The planes look great.
The fuel consumption is awesome and most use mogas. Consensus repair
parts should be significantly less expensive. And current total costs
are with certified powerplants that still have amortized FAA
certification costs associated with them.
When engines come out that were designed to consensus standards
without the FAA overhead, price should move down. Imaginge a rebuild
for only $4K. That should make cost of ownership drop quite a bit.
I am really interested in what shakes out from the inital sales in the
next few months(And at sun&fun). I would really be stunned if LSA
does not take off like a rocket.
Jim
Dave Stadt
>
> "Dan Luke" <c17...@xyz.net> wrote in message
> news:116a0g3...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "aluckyguess" wrote:
> >> If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than
50k.
> >> It
> >> would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat
aircraft.
> >> They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a
new
> > car
> >> than a small plane.
> >
> > You have confused the auto business with the airplane business. Auto
> > manufacturing allows economies of scale unatainable by aircraft mfg.
And
> > remember, auto makers break even or lose money on many of their models.
> >
> Like I said they just need the volume and it could be done.
Where is the demand going to come from? There are not enough people
interested in flying their own planes to even come close to providing
manufacturers any economy of scale.
Dave Stadt
"Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:116bbmv...@news.supernews.com...
It's a complete airplane except for airframe, engine and avionics.
aluckyguess
>> Before I tell you how I think it can be done I am going to pitch my plan
>> to Piper if they dont listen I will try Cessna.
>
> I'm sure they'll enjoy the laugh--if you can get in the door.
>
Hey it wouldnt be the first time I was laughed at.
Matt Barrow
"Dave Stadt" <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ock9e.116$iB1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Matt Barrow
Yes, it includes paint.
The engine is another matter!
Matt Barrow
>
> "Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:116bbmv...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "aluckyguess" wrote:
> >> Before I tell you how I think it can be done I am going to pitch my
plan
> >> to Piper if they dont listen I will try Cessna.
> >
> > I'm sure they'll enjoy the laugh--if you can get in the door.
> >
> You are probably right, but its because of things like that I retired @
43.
> Hey it wouldnt be the first time I was laughed at.
Interesting!
Given that you show a profound lack of understanding of engineering,
economics, and business, I have to ask what you did to retire at 43.
Matt Barrow
"Newps" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:po2dna_hwLN...@bresnan.com...
You got a wing? You lucky bastige!!
aluckyguess
aircraft.
I was shocked when they were shipping seven 767 a month. I think it actually
got to 10 or 11 at one point. There is a lot of pilots in the world.
I flew my wife to a quilting shop in San Deigo this last week end. I asked
the lady there how many of the $20,000 quilting machines they sold last
month I thought she would say one or two, they sold 11.
aluckyguess
"Matt Barrow" <mba...@sitefillhomes.com> wrote in message
news:yqk9e.713$8e5....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "aluckyguess" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:xdk9e.10445$c42....@fe07.lga...
>>
>> "Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:116bbmv...@news.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "aluckyguess" wrote:
>> >> Before I tell you how I think it can be done I am going to pitch my
> plan
>> >> to Piper if they dont listen I will try Cessna.
>> >
>> > I'm sure they'll enjoy the laugh--if you can get in the door.
>> >
>> You are probably right, but its because of things like that I retired @
> 43.
>> Hey it wouldnt be the first time I was laughed at.
>
> Interesting!
>
> Given that you show a profound lack of understanding of engineering,
> economics, and business, I have to ask what you did to retire at 43.
>
It must be you who has no understanding of engineeing econmics and business.
What do you do?
The plane can be built for the price its the untangibles that might cause
the problem like liability insurance. If thats 50k a plane than it cant be
done.
Dave Stadt
An Arrow replace a 180? I don't think so.
aluckyguess
>
>
Dave Stadt
Matt Barrow
Boy, he certainly has done his market research.
Next he'll tell us how he can avoid FAA certification and parts STC's.
Matt Barrow
They can't sell them as it is at $16-25K and you're going to sell them ones
at twice the price?
> I was shocked when they were shipping seven 767 a month. I think it
actually
> got to 10 or 11 at one point. There is a lot of pilots in the world.
> I flew my wife to a quilting shop in San Deigo this last week end. I asked
> the lady there how many of the $20,000 quilting machines they sold last
> month I thought she would say one or two, they sold 11.
As they say, "Context is everything".
Just guessing, I guess.
John T
Dave Stadt
Maybe he has an STC for a 180RG.
Dave Stadt
"John T" <rca...@charter-for-hire.net> wrote in message
news:_Yw9e.11627$Jg7....@fe03.lga...
> But how many would actually want a warrior?
Not me at any price.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <clm861tsdt8aa5sv7...@4ax.com>::
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:03:01 -0700, "aluckyguess" <n...@no.com> wrote in
><F_P8e.2782$f6....@fe04.lga>::
>
>>It will never have the speed of a Glassair.
>
>For the CarterCopter to achieve the speed of a Glassair, would require
>considerable power I believe. There's also the stability issue of the
>rotor disk in the relative wind at high speed to address. It would
>take a cleaver fellow in deed to successfully meet Carter's goals.
>But I wouldn't characterize them as impossible.
Here's some more information about the subject TV broadcast:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 16b -- April 21, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR NEXT CAR COULD BE AN AIRCRAFT...
Flying cars are back in the news this week, thanks to Nevada
inventor Woody Norris, who is working on an ultralight helicopter
called the AirScooter. Norris has won a prestigious inventors'
award -- for his work in acoustics, not aviation -- and he and his
flying machine were featured in Sunday night's "60 Minutes" show
on CBS. Norris has developed a new four-stroke engine for his
AirScooter, which has two counter-rotating rotors, and he says it
is stable and easy to control. A video clip at his Web site shows
the single-seat AirScooter taking off vertically, maneuvering just
a few feet above the ground and returning to its launch site. An
unmanned version is also in the works. Norris says AirScooters
will be available for sale later this year at $50,000 apiece.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/390-full.html#189613
60 Minutes personality, Ed Bradley, was able to get the AirScooter*
undercontrol in a few minutes of practice. This looks like the one to
watch in the short term.
...DEEP POCKETS COULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE
"60 Minutes" also looked at the CarterCopter and the Moller
SkyCar. The CarterCopter prototype has been flying off and on for
a few years, but was sidelined by a wheels-up landing and then by
an in-flight fire. SkyCar inventor Paul Moller says his futuristic
vehicle will fly like a "magic carpet," but so far it has
test-flown only while tethered to a crane. But it probably comes
closest to the Jetson-style flying car that people imagine the
future should bring. Michael Kanellos, of CNET News, speculated
last week that flying cars could be the next thing to attract the
attention -- and the assets -- of the high-tech billionaires and
entrepreneurs who have been funding much of the new space
industry.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/390-full.html#189614
Perhaps these folks should be contacted regarding the latest
developments in this area of aviation:
http://www.venturewire.com/Default.aspx
Thomas Borchert
> The plane can be built for the price its the untangibles that might cause
> the problem like liability insurance. If thats 50k a plane than it cant be
> done.
>
Which is why everybody except you is too dumb to figure it out?
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
aluckyguess
"Thomas Borchert" <borcher...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000068b...@hotmail.com...
China. How much do you think that plane is going to cost to build.
Your probably right it cant be done. Oh wait isn't someone building a 6
passenger jet for around 1 million. I think they said that couldn't be done
either.
Matt Barrow
>
>
> Ya I guess your right. Looks like Diamond Stars are going to be made in
> China. How much do you think that plane is going to cost to build.
> Your probably right it cant be done. Oh wait isn't someone building a 6
> passenger jet for around 1 million. I think they said that couldn't be
done
> either.
Isn't for sale yet.
Oddly, those numbers usually explode, the closer they get to delivery.
Let's wait and se if they can deliver it for $1M without taking massive
losses to do so.
Dave Stadt
It has not been done and I will give 10 to 1 it will not be done. Did ya
find the 180 RG yet?
aluckyguess
>
> "aluckyguess" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:5%Bae.10462$Gq6....@fe02.lga...
>>
>>
>> Ya I guess your right. Looks like Diamond Stars are going to be made in
>> China. How much do you think that plane is going to cost to build.
>> Your probably right it cant be done. Oh wait isn't someone building a 6
>> passenger jet for around 1 million. I think they said that couldn't be
> done
>> either.
>
> Isn't for sale yet.
>
> Oddly, those numbers usually explode, the closer they get to delivery.
>
> Let's wait and se if they can deliver it for $1M without taking massive
> losses to do so.
>
risen for new orders the new cost 1.2 million
Thomas Borchert
> Oh wait isn't someone building a 6
> passenger jet for around 1 million. I think they said that couldn't be done
> either.
>
You might wanna check their current price vs. their "launch pricing" again.
You might also want to check how far along in production they are and how
stable as a company they are. Hint: You'll be disappointed. Hint no. 2: This
is called marketing. Hint no. 3: Marketing has often little to do with
reality.
Question: Are you trying marketing on us?
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)