No, you're absolutely right. Glasair is only 2 seat. I've been looking at a few different Experiementals, but leaning toward Glasair... and yeah. That is the one downside.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Why so expensive?
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
No, you're absolutely right. Glasair is only 2 seat. I've been looking at a few different Experiementals, but leaning toward Glasair... and yeah. That is the one downside.
The one experimental that really gives me a hard on is the Velocity RG
I like the unconventional design, and the fact that it's a fast four seater.
I like the unconventional design, and the fact that it's a fast four seater.
I completely agree with you regarding 'affordable' older aircraft, if a person looks around they can find a nice older C172 for 40K give or take. I just did a quick Google for some stats on fatalities related to GA and boating to see what came back. For GA in 2009 there were 471 listed for GA by the NTSB. For boating the most recent government figures I could find were 2003, but over 5,000 boating deaths occurred. Makes me question why boats don't have higher insurance liability costs than aircraft. But, I'm still in favor of my aircraft engine being engineered and manufactured to a higher standard than a boat or car engine. So to me, the insurance costs for manufacturer liability (separate from engineering and manufacturing costs) don't make sense when numbers show that boating is more dangerous. Automobiles should be out of touch for all but the ultra wealthy if number of deaths is what is driving that insurance costs.
Not that it really affects your desires, but I managed to get a ride in a Glassair (III, I think) last summer. I really wanted to like that plane as I've always liked the looks growing up when I'd go to Sun 'n Fun. Unfortunately, it's just not compatible with my 6' 2" frame. Smooth controls and plenty quick, just too damn short for my legs. Still, it's a sexy looking ride.
Yeah, I feel you. It's less of a concern with me at 5"10.5 but still, roomier is better. I WANT a Lancair, but I think a Glasair is a much more feasible price.
After watching this discussion unfold and talking to several people... it sounds like the FAAs cert process is completely BROKE DICK.
As I understand it you can put a non-cert (experimental) into any airplane that is experimental (i.e. Warbirds, kits, etc)... After poking around a bit it seems like the same capabilities in a non cert EFIS. And those non-cert EFIS are 1/5 the price. Thats just dumb. I can accept a little price increase, its part of the built in costs of doing business, but 400% thats unacceptable.
Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that the FAA takes there whole 'promote the cause of Aviation' mandate in a bas-ackwards way. They seem to do everything they can to promote air travel, and put up barriers to GA.
Are you suggesting a government agency may not be trying to promote and foster growth in a private industry as advertised, especially one that promotes personal freedom? pfff... Utter foolishness.
I agree with Gatordev and the sentiments of this thread, something is really odd about about GA pricing. I understand the industry essentially shutdown for twenty years and that unlike the car-makers they can't cheapen everything down to the bone, but when it comes down to it there isn't that much to a 172. Although one thing we do tend to forget is how much overhead they have to cover per unit sold. This chart was very enlightening-
That being said there are a few exceptions to the half million dollar C-172. I fly an American Champion Aurora (Citabria) which is a great little plane. It doesn't set the world on fire speed wise, but it's certainly fun and challenging to fly. Anyway, a new one can be had for a little over 100K depending on the options. Still expensive but not completely out of the realm of affordability for an "average person."
Are you suggesting a government agency may not be trying to promote and foster growth in a private industry as advertised, especially one that promotes personal freedom? pfff... Utter foolishness.
I agree with Gatordev and the sentiments of this thread, something is really odd about about GA pricing. I understand the industry essentially shutdown for twenty years and that unlike the car-makers they can't cheapen everything down to the bone, but when it comes down to it there isn't that much to a 172. Although one thing we do tend to forget is how much overhead they have to cover per unit sold. This chart was very enlightening-
That being said there are a few exceptions to the half million dollar C-172. I fly an American Champion Aurora (Citabria) which is a great little plane. It doesn't set the world on fire speed wise, but it's certainly fun and challenging to fly. Anyway, a new one can be had for a little over 100K depending on the options. Still expensive but not completely out of the realm of affordability for an "average person."
Interesting you should mention American Champion Aircraft, they are built not far from where I live. I'm told the company does not purchase liability insurance for their aircraft. Rather the company actually holds no assets and would simply fold up if they were ever sued over liability. Not sure if that is true, but when you look at the cost of their aircraft compared to other manufacturers, that may just be there business model. I also agree with you and Gatordev that the process the FAA puts manufacturers through is broken.