Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 138

Thread: Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?

  1. #41
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by iflyamphib View Post
    Personally I prefer more analog panels. That said, as a kit distributor working the booths at the shows, the customers coming into the booth 'demand' glass panels. If we don't provide what the customer wants (or 'think' they want), they will go to another aircraft that WILL provide that product.
    Exactly. I'm noticed the same thing although on an LSA, I see very little point to the inclusion of a glass panel but then again with a kit the assembler can always install whatever they want.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #42
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  3. #43
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar).
    At least that's what we have deluded ourselves into believing. I'm not sure if I believe that was the primary reason behind it.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by iflyamphib View Post
    Personally I prefer more analog panels. That said, as a kit distributor working the booths at the shows, the customers coming into the booth 'demand' glass panels. If we don't provide what the customer wants (or 'think' they want), they will go to another aircraft that WILL provide that product.
    Does anyone on the supply side have access to a cost analysis of glass vs conventional instruments? I think when you consider the big picture, glass is the way to go.

  5. #45
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    Does anyone on the supply side have access to a cost analysis of glass vs conventional instruments? I think when you consider the big picture, glass is the way to go.
    At least for the Vireo (the design I am building), the cost of the glass cockpit was only two-thirds of that the "steam gauge" option for just the average VFR setup. Also, it is a lot lighter (by a couple of pounds).
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  6. #46
    taylorcraftbc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.
    You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65 View Post
    ... I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA.
    Where are they? I live in an area with a population of over 1 million and I haven't seen an ultralight actually flying for at least the last year. Several years ago, there was one that made occasional evening flights. In the same time, I've seen thousands of GA and LSA aircraft flying.

    At Oshkosh, through I've never counted carefully, there are 100's of GA aircraft for every ultralight.
    Bill

  8. #48
    Eric Page's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toledo, WA
    Posts
    317
    Comparing analog and glass on price alone isn't very meaningful, given their vastly different capabilities. Analog can provide the basics (altitude, airspeed, engine gauges, etc.) quite easily, but has no answer for digital flight planning, moving map, GPS RNAV, visual and aural alerts, electronic checklists, and so on.

    I guess it comes down to an assessment of your mission requirements or simply your desires. If you're happy with stick, throttle and airspeed, then an analog panel makes sense. If you want the additional (and in my view, compelling) capabilities offered by glass, then you better get good at crimping D-SUB pins.
    Eric Page
    Building: Kitfox 5 Safari | Rotax 912iS | Dynon HDX
    Member: EAA Lifetime, AOPA, ALPA
    ATP: AMEL | Comm: ASEL, Glider | ATCS: CTO
    Map of Landings

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65 View Post
    You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.
    I like this.

    When they build and sell a complete "hand held instrument panel", maybe then I will convert to glass panel. Something for $500 that can kept dry at home.

  10. #50
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65 View Post
    I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA.
    No there aren't.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •