Jump to content

Crazy aircraft prices


NT5224

Recommended Posts

Yes !.

I agree about my' dream-machine being too much for recreational flying. 

Did you see the garage bill  ?. ( hangaridge ) ,  $ 15,000

Insurance only $ 50,000 , delivery cost , $ 95,000 .

Management cost ,WEEE !.  $ 163,650 ,

 For twelve months , UNBELIEVABLE .

spacesailor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me look again ! .

To buy & build a Hangar-Home $ 150,000 .,  ( someone said ).

A brand new Aeroprakt Vixxen , ?. ( I will have to let someone fill that price in ) .

But less than $ 250,000 . ( I hope ).

How much to get it delivered  ? $ 95,350  ! Seems awfully steep .

So , only half a $ million , I would still feel like a millionaire. 

spacesailor

PS the wife would have something to say about the house !. LoL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A VH Gazelle was 73.000 dollars.  What does that translate to now? Nev

if you paid 73k in 1990 it is equivalent to roughly 172k now

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

AT LEAST THAT. look at Land, Houses and even cars .  Money is losing it's VALUE fast.  Nev

i got the figure off an online calculator, has to be right because its on the internet.😁

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it - you don't even think about taking to the air if you're on a limited low income, or a pension - unless it's a corporate pension, of course - which then lends a whole new world of meaning to the term "struggling on a pension".

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/28/ceos-have-millions-of-dollars-in-retirement-accounts.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps , that could be Why the " Hummel bird " was singled-out to be grounded by that innocuous " wing loading rule " .

The specs for most aircraft are nowhere, as good for a " home- build " single seat , all metal monoplane. At 6 lph cruising at 100 mph. It say heaps for the design. 

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Perhaps , that could be Why the " Hummel bird " was singled-out to be grounded by that innocuous " wing loading rule " .

The specs for most aircraft are nowhere, as good for a " home- build " single seat , all metal monoplane. At 6 lph cruising at 100 mph. It say heaps for the design. 

spacesailor

thats impressive economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheap to. Build ,  Cheap to fly, Cheap to hangar .

Then insurance,  but it's not a $ million aircraft so it ' should be cheap ..

Then , I'm told " It's Fun to fly " .

spacesailor

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, spacesailor said:

grounded by that innocuous " wing loading rule

What exactly are the figures used in that rule?  

 

According to the published specs, for the Hummel Bird's  18 ft (5.5 m) wingspan with wing area of 57.2 sq ft ( and Gross weight of 550 lbs (250 kg), it has a wing loading of 9.6 lbs/sq ft (5.3 kg/sq m)

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are "bargains"; we have our Lightwing for sale with a 912 with 86 hours on it, 55 rego, so it can be used for training.  Asking $20k.  A new 912 is $33k?  We've had a little interest, but not a sale.  It's on the Lightwing forum (Classies were not working when I listed it)

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! If wishes were wing'ed horses, buggers like me would fly.

 

 Lexicographer's Alert.

Spacey wrote, that innocuous " wing loading rule 

 

Spacey, you've chosen the wrong word for to describe that rule as it applies to the Hummel Bird. Innocuous means "not harmful or offensive". The word you really wanted was iniquitous which means "grossly unfair and morally wrong".

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When pricing new aircraft, it seems to me that most people are costing  the "top of the line bird" (or near too) with all the bells & whistles - try costing the basic varient  or even the advanced kit. You might find that for many many $K less you will have an aircraft that performs as well, if not better (lighter), than the bling upon bling varient.

 

The manufacturer that I used to sell a few aircraft for had a  a roughly $50k difference between the basic and the top of the line aircraft - same airframe/engine/prop the difference was almost all in the avionics and a few upmarket additions like autopilot, electric flaps, electric trim, fancy paint job, etc

Edited by skippydiesel
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O M E

 Thank you ! .

It was close though.  I tried to google it , and that was the only one ( I thought) recognisable. 

Such a small rule , that if you said " I flew a test circuit " , that rule didn't apply. 

' Grandfathers rule ' .

SO

It Is an ' iniquitous ' rule that targets ( seemingly)  one aircraft , out of all the models , they are changing rules , to accommodate , G A aircraft .

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

It Is an ' iniquitous ' rule that targets ( seemingly)  one aircraft

Spacey,

You haven't told us what the rule is. I would have thought that high wing loading would be the killer. Is 5.3 kg/sq m  a high wing loading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Spacey,

You haven't told us what the rule is. I would have thought that high wing loading would be the killer. Is 5.3 kg/sq m  a high wing loading?

There's a thread on it; from memory one of our members, Kasper. took the trouble to explain step by step to him what was involved in registering it to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...