And I thought flying was expensive!

[weilke]

You get that number set from where?

From looking at what is parked in my neighbors driveways and garages vs. the few that I know to own boats in slips and moorings.

93% of all registered boats are less than 26ft long, that's according to the coast guard which surveys the respective states that register boats. Most of those are what I would consider 'trailerable' (disregarding the fact that plenty of owners still elect to rent a slip for convenience sake).

 

[Henning]

From looking at what is parked in my neighbors driveways and garages vs. the few that I know to own boats in slips and moorings.

93% of all registered boats are less than 26ft long, that's according to the coast guard which surveys the respective states that register boats. Most of those are what I would consider 'trailerable' (disregarding the fact that plenty of owners still elect to rent a slip for convenience sake).

Ahhh, yes they do, or storage slots in big hangar like buildings.

 

[wsuffa]

"If it flies, floats, or ****s, it's going to be expensive"...

Isn't that the saying?

 

[weilke]

" If it flies, floats, or ****s,it's going to be expensive"...

Isn't that the saying?

I though the saying was: 'If it flies, floats, or ****s, rent it'

 

[dell30rb]

Anyone want to buy my 30' Pearson? $5500

1967 Solid fiberglass hull. No wood core, no rot.

http://norfolk.craigslist.org/boa/2527927346.html

 

[dell30rb]

I though the saying was: 'If it flies, floats, or ****s, rent it'

For an airplane or boat stored locally It would be very nice to own, but otherwise renting makes sense. My dad bought a new 43' beneteau a few years back that we keep on the chesapeake bay. Parents take it out for about a week every summer, daysail about once or twice a month. Not gettin much out of that 200k plus investment and about 5,000 per year in maintenance (we keep the boat at our dock so no slip fees)

However, our family takes a trip around every other year that is really fun. Fly down to the BVI's, plop down a few grand (I think around 2-3k) and take out a 47' beneteau for a week. I wonder how many times we could do charter trips like this for the money my dad spent on the boat.

There is pride of ownership though which makes up for alot of it.

 

[Ghery]

1980 Hunter 27, Renault RC8D inboard, not in a well. It's top speed motoring is 6kts (maybe 6.5 if the water is glass and there is no wind)

1994 Hunter 23.5. 5 hp outboard for an auxiliary. Not the fastest boat on the inlet on the motor.

From looking at what is parked in my neighbors driveways and garages vs. the few that I know to own boats in slips and moorings.

93% of all registered boats are less than 26ft long, that's according to the coast guard which surveys the respective states that register boats. Most of those are what I would consider 'trailerable' (disregarding the fact that plenty of owners still elect to rent a slip for convenience sake).

Water ballast trailerable. That's 1000 pounds I don't haul down the road. That is, if I take it out of the water. It's in a slip in a marina 5 minutes from the house. Hasn't been on the trailer in years and until I fix the trailer it won't be. Darned thing is overdue for hauling, cleaning and painting. And with my wife's joint replacements she can't help docking, so it sits. Hasn't been out of the slip in several years. Anyone want to buy a sailboat?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

And with my wife's joint replacements she can't help docking, so it sits. Hasn't been out of the slip in several years.

I used to have a line hanging from a piling that I could drop over the jib winch as I came in single handed with the outboard idling - that would bring me to a stop in the right spot. Right rudder held me off the dock, and then I would have time to walk around and connect all of the tie up lines. No big deal. 26 foot Seafarer Polaris.

Going out, I had a line looped over the piling with one end cleated by the cockpit and the other in my hand so I could get turned in the narrow space behind (and downstream from) my slip.

 

[Henning]

From looking at what is parked in my neighbors driveways and garages vs. the few that I know to own boats in slips and moorings.

93% of all registered boats are less than 26ft long, that's according to the coast guard which surveys the respective states that register boats. Most of those are what I would consider 'trailerable' (disregarding the fact that plenty of owners still elect to rent a slip for convenience sake).

Oh, BTW, one thing about that registration number... Many boats over 26'-30' are not registered, they are "flagged", documented with the USCG whereby many states forgo registration.

 

[dcmoser]

his wife probably likes going out on the boat for the weekend. and if she doesn't his girlfriend probably does.

Or, maybe they both will go..........

 

[TMetzinger]

When I was in the CG, my first duty station was a small boat station, after one year there I knew more than I wanted to about maintenance, and that I'd never want to own anything other than the Grumman aluminum canoe I had (which has been maintenance-free for three generations now).

I was really glad to move into aviation and become a brown-shoe.

 

[weilke]

Oh, BTW, one thing about that registration number... Many boats over 26'-30' are not registered, they are "flagged", documented with the USCG whereby many states forgo registration.

If they are flagged with the CG they would show up in CG statistics, right ?

 

[Anthony]

I'd never want to own anything other than the Grumman aluminum canoe I had (which has been maintenance-free for three generations now).

Did it require more canal-way than other canoes?

 

[jxdrl]

I may be qualified to comment on this thread. As I collect a certain old boat. All tolled I have 8 boats and two jet skiis. If anyone is interested in the extent of my illness, check my site www.andysclassicglastrons.com
At any rate, I have owned several airplanes over the years. My latest is a 1974 Archer.

Boats smaller than 25 feet are less upkeep and annual expense than an airplane. By a long shot. If your talking cabin cruiser type boats, I'm no expert in this area but can only surmize that it could be on par or even more than an airplane. The old saying. Hole in the water you pour money into.

I grew up trailering a 1979 glastron carlson with orange flake paint and burnt orange interior to the nearby lakes. I think it was the 16'. A 90hp Mercury outboard was not original but the boat was awesome to me, tubing and kneeboarding.

 

[jwriteclub]

What's wrong with everybody? Clearly, what most of you want/need is one of these

It has all of the features of a boat and an airplane:

1) It's ungodly expensive to maintain
2) The coast guard is all up in your s**t
3) The FAA is all up in your s**t
4) Since it has radial engines, it gets truly horrific fuel economy -- but it sounds great doing it.
5) There's a chance it will sink.
6) There's a chance it will crash into a mountain.

But, you can bring a bunch of friends down, drink beers and then fly where you want (assuming a designated pilot of course).

More Pictures

(P.S. As an aside for the nerdly nerds out there: the "seaplane" is my example used when lecturing for why multiple inheritance (in O-O systems) is a good thing).

 

[jesse]

What's wrong with everybody? Clearly, what most of you want/need is one of these

It has all of the features of a boat and an airplane:

1) It's ungodly expensive to maintain
2) The coast guard is all up in your s**t
3) The FAA is all up in your s**t
4) Since it has radial engines, it gets truly horrific fuel economy -- but it sounds great doing it.
5) There's a chance it will sink.
6) There's a chance it will crash into a mountain.

But, you can bring a bunch of friends down, drink beers and then fly where you want (assuming a designated pilot of course).

More Pictures

(P.S. As an aside for the nerdly nerds out there: the "seaplane" is my example used when lecturing for why multiple inheritance (in O-O systems) is a good thing).

Not going to sell me on multiple inheritance that easiy

 

[denverpilot]

Not going to sell me on multiple inheritance that easiy

Nor even OO.

(Hasn't produced even a more secure OS than the ones written in the structured language days, yet. Never will, probably.)

 

[jwriteclub]

Haters gonna hate.

But seriously, if you want to manipulate logical objects (like say, airports in a giant database of the country), then OO is the logical conclusion. As for multiple inheritance, consider a seaplane in Java (or some other strict single inheritance language).

How do you define it? Obviously you cannot inherit from both "Boat" and "Airplane". So which is the interface? They're both first class concepts and probably both exist as classes somewhere. Therefore, multiple inheritance. QED.

Edit: Plus, with multiple inheritance your buddies can come down to the dock and drink, and then you can fly wherever you need to go (see how I tied it back to the OP?).

 

[jesse]

Nor even OO.

(Hasn't produced even a more secure OS than the ones written in the structured language days, yet. Never will, probably.)

There are tradeoffs with everything, and there are most certainly applications that are better off written in OO and there are some that aren't.

If you were to start writing a high-level application involving lots of business models that was going to be very large you'd need a REALLY damn good reason to not use object-orientation. Don't think you'd come up with one either.

Haters gonna hate.

But seriously, if you want to manipulate logical objects (like say, airports in a giant database of the country), then OO is the logical conclusion. As for multiple inheritance, consider a seaplane in Java (or some other strict single inheritance language).

How do you define it? Obviously you cannot inherit from both "Boat" and "Airplane". So which is the interface? They're both first class concepts and probably both exist as classes somewhere. Therefore, multiple inheritance. QED.

Edit: Plus, with multiple inheritance your buddies can come down to the dock and drink, and then you can fly wherever you need to go (see how I tied it back to the OP?).

Through multiple interface inheritance

 

[Lawreston]

Not even close. Slip fees are same or more than hangar fees. While you may not need "an annual", you will spend a lot of money every year. Boats tend to measure in gallons per mile of fuel consumption.

Look at Henning's 3rd sentence. It reminds me of what one of my long time customers once told me. Jay Paris, Naval Architect -- Google him --well-known in the boating industry -- said that a boat owner, to properly maintain the craft, should plan to "spend yearly 10% of the vessel's original cost," to properly maintain the property.

HR

One of Jay's designs, boat lives in Houston. http://www.lonestarcapehorn.com/

 

[denverpilot]

If you were to start writing a high-level application involving lots of business models that was going to be very large you'd need a REALLY damn good reason to not use object-orientation. Don't think you'd come up with one either.

I'll let the mainframe COBOL and ADA folks know that none of their code could have possibly worked to run multinational companies in the 80s and early 90s.

You code how you were taught mostly. Or taught yourself. The industry changes buzzwords every few years to keep bored coders interested.

The software world needs to get over the desire to change the "how" of coding every few years and get on with developing techniques and tools that actually produce consistently secure and operable code.

It ain't going to be cheap. People may finally have to admit that in some cases, a filing cabinet and a couple of good clerks actually are a safer, slower, and generally more secure option than sending entire databases home by accident on people's laptops.

Not going to actually happen, but we could hope.

Anonymous has proven that even the organizations with much more to lose than the average business, who even actually try to secure their data, haven't got even the faintest clue about real data security. They *think* they do, though -- and that is a huge problem.

Ask any coder on a large software project what they've done in their new code to enhance security. They blank stare is always fun. Or the "that's not part of my scope".

 

[Henning]

Look at Henning's 3rd sentence. It reminds me of what one of my long time customers once told me. Jay Paris, Naval Architect -- Google him --well-known in the boating industry -- said that a boat owner, to properly maintain the craft, should plan to "spend yearly 10% of the vessel's original cost," to properly maintain the property.

HR

One of Jay's designs, boat lives in Houston. http://www.lonestarcapehorn.com/

That's kinda true, however it's a dangerous assumption on a used boat because it takes for granted that the money had been spent in the last few years. It's cumulative and if it's been let go down, it can exceed the cost of new to bring back "up to spec". That's the reason only real classic boats survive, someone has to love it. You rarely see that outside the wood boat crowd, plus nothing lasts like wood.

 

[jesse]

I'll let the mainframe COBOL and ADA folks know that none of their code could have possibly worked to run multinational companies in the 80s and early 90s.

You code how you were taught mostly. Or taught yourself. The industry changes buzzwords every few years to keep bored coders interested.

I code however makes sense for the application. I wouldn't exactly call a lot of that legacy code -- efficient to develop or easy to maintain. Nor are the software requirements today the same as they were 30 years ago.

The software world needs to get over the desire to change the "how" of coding every few years and get on with developing techniques and tools that actually produce consistently secure and operable code.

It ain't going to be cheap. People may finally have to admit that in some cases, a filing cabinet and a couple of good clerks actually are a safer, slower, and generally more secure option than sending entire databases home by accident on people's laptops.

What does this have to do with object orientation which has been around for nearly 50 years?

Not going to actually happen, but we could hope.

Anonymous has proven that even the organizations with much more to lose than the average business, who even actually try to secure their data, haven't got even the faintest clue about real data security. They *think* they do, though -- and that is a huge problem.

Ask any coder on a large software project what they've done in their new code to enhance security. They blank stare is always fun. Or the "that's not part of my scope".

A security problem isn't the fault of object orientation and can happen no matter how you build out your stuff. OO really has nothing to do with making software more or less secure.

There are PLENTY of examples of MAJOR security issues in procedural software out there. I'm not sure why you're grouping that together with OO.

Fact of the matter is we're developing software today that must talk to many different systems, is extremely complex, and must constantly evolve. That presents a lot of problems. If the best fix for those problems were COBOL on an AS/400 that is what people would be doing. But they're not. Because it is not.

The software developers of today are not all stupid. Someone deciding to write something OO isn't because he doesn't understand security or doesn't think it could be done in another way. He's doing it that way because it makes the most sense for the application.

It's much easier to judge development then it is to actually develop.

 

[denverpilot]

The point was that every year another methodology or language comes along but software quality really hasn't improved.

What software can do has improved but not quality.

Software engineers aren't all that interested in having their work inspected or restricted. Civil engineers live with that daily.

Computers have hit a level of importance in our society that their failures can cause a lot more damage than a bridge falling down but we continue to believe the industry that says, "Trust us."

We issue building permits and inspect the work done in all other forms of engineering. In software, the engineers change tools and methods faster than anyone could possibly keep up to avoid it.

My job (system administration and systems level customer support) wouldn't even exist if it weren't for crap software, so I've always found it entertaining that I care.

Developers continue to write the same mistakes into software that got me paged at 2AM at the beginning of my career, today.

Having written some OO code in a past life I easily see how the typical mistakes happen. "Hey um, just how big is that object you just instantiated? 'Cause you know, pulling in the entire 72GB table to run a line by line sort on it via a built-in function call in your language du-jour, on a box that only has 4GB of RAM, probably never crosses your mind, but super job there chief! You crashed the kernel!"

Abstraction from the hardware actually means developers have to pay more attention to what their code will run on, not less.

But that's not what you hear at the trade shows!

There's a tad of backlash on that front right now that makes sense... The "no-SQL" movement. But I've noticed they're not quite going so far as to say they need to actually manage the data sizes or anything. They just want to get the horsepower back from waiting for the overloaded SQL engine that's trying to put some sanity around their storage of and retrieval of data that's not normalized, or limited.

 

[jesse]

The point was that every year another methodology or language comes along but software quality really hasn't improved.

What software can do has improved but not quality.

Software engineers aren't all that interested in having their work inspected or restricted. Civil engineers live with that daily.

Really? A lot of software is heavily inspected. I'm working on a project that will be PCI compliant at the highest service provider level. Quality is very important. Every line will be inspected by another developer and automated tools before it even gets anywhere near QA, yet alone production.

Computers have hit a level of importance in our society that their failures can cause a lot more damage than a bridge falling down but we continue to believe the industry that says, "Trust us."

We issue building permits and inspect the work done in all other forms of engineering. In software, the engineers change tools and methods faster than anyone could possibly keep up to avoid it.

Trying to apply what works in the construction world to the software world absolutely does not work - and that's what was originally attempted. It's a different problem.

My job (system administration and systems level customer support) wouldn't even exist if it weren't for crap software, so I've always found it entertaining that I care.

Developers continue to write the same mistakes into software that got me paged at 2AM at the beginning of my career, today.

There will never be perfect software and developers will always make mistakes. Expecting otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. Sys Admins make plenty of mistakes themselves and continue to make the same ones.

Having written some OO code in a past life I easily see how the typical mistakes happen. "Hey um, just how big is that object you just instantiated? 'Cause you know, pulling in the entire 72GB table to run a line by line sort on it via a built-in function call in your language du-jour, on a box that only has 4GB of RAM, probably never crosses your mind, but super job there chief! You crashed the kernel!"

That isn't a problem of OO code. That happens with or without OO and is a problem with the developer.

There's a tad of backlash on that front right now that makes sense... The "no-SQL" movement. But I've noticed they're not quite going so far as to say they need to actually manage the data sizes or anything. They just want to get the horsepower back from waiting for the overloaded SQL engine that's trying to put some sanity around their storage of and retrieval of data that's not normalized, or limited.

The No-SQL movement is most *CERTAINLY* not a backlash against object orientation or abstraction. It's a step further in the OO direction, being able to store objects and manage them easily instead of having to translate to a relational schema that doesn't represent the business objects at all.

Believe me. I've said the same thing you've been saying and I still say the same thing. I just have some experience on both sides of the battle (as a sys admin bitching about the heavily abstracted code written by developers with no forethought towards what that abstraction is ACTUALLY doing) and as a developer abstracting to have maintainable code.

Hardware is complicated and getting more complicated. Software is getting WAY more complicated with each moment. Proper abstraction helps make things more manageable, not worse.

Much of the problem comes from inexperienced developers misusing tools.

 

[denverpilot]

Really? A lot of software is heavily inspected. I'm working on a project that will be PCI compliant at the highest service provider level. Quality is very important. Every line will be inspected by another developer and automated tools before it even gets anywhere near QA, yet alone production.

Third party outside your company folks? That's pretty rare and impressive actually. Good to hear.

I also just went through a PCI audit. It'll be the only reason the developers have to rewrite stuff to run on a more modern OS in our case.

Trying to apply what works in the construction world to the software world absolutely does not work - and that's what was originally attempted. It's a different problem.

Okay reading further you seem to hit on it, stuff is getting too complex. Why should that trend be allowed to continue?

There will never be perfect software and developers will always make mistakes. Expecting otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. Sys Admins make plenty of mistakes themselves and continue to make the same ones.

Actually sysadmin mistakes can usually be lowered significantly by utilizing techniques similar to aviation. Checklists, sign-offs by more experienced sysadmins who've been listed as instructors via formalized processes, etc. Of course those highly experienced folks often demand higher salaries and "leave to go fly for the airlines" from smaller companies, but a good Ops manual is worth its weight in gold in sysadmin work. Written procedures and management who'll back up anti-cowboy sysadmin techniques with real teeth (firing) helps a lot too.

If you log into a production system to make a change without it written on paper during anything other than an outage, you're gone. It works.

We're not quite there yet at my new employer, but the VP of Engineering I've known for over a decade hunted me down to get it done.

The No-SQL movement is most *CERTAINLY* not a backlash against object orientation or abstraction. It's a step further in the OO direction, being able to store objects and manage them easily instead of having to translate to a relational schema that doesn't represent the business objects at all.

No no, I meant it was a backlash against abstraction. Not against OO. Too many debs are tired of the bugs of the RDBMS biting them in the butt. They'd rather they were bitten by their own bugs.

Believe me. I've said the same thing you've been saying and I still say the same thing. I just have some experience on both sides of the battle (as a sys admin bitching about the heavily abstracted code written by developers with no forethought towards what that abstraction is ACTUALLY doing) and as a developer abstracting to have maintainable code.

Hardware is complicated and getting more complicated. Software is getting WAY more complicated with each moment. Proper abstraction helps make things more manageable, not worse.

Software only comes into being from the fingers of a dev. If it's getting more complex, only devs can blame devs, right? Why do their peers allow it? I'm curious. It seems when I troubleshoot and boil down most serious security problems, they always stem from basics like bounds-checking variables. Buffer overflows are rampant. Sandboxes and fancy memory management haven't even made a dent in that problem yet. But were promised as the "fix" for them a decade ago.

Much of the problem comes from inexperienced developers misusing tools.

There's inexperienced pilots too, but we manage to keep most of them from flying aircraft they're not rated to fly. The sooner the software industry comes up with some kinds of real objective measure of developer skill, and "time in type" limits, the better off we'll all be.

We don't typically hire brand new Architects to build skyscrapers, ya know? They work for years under more experienced engineers and architects.

I think the crux of the problems are rooted in business' inability to pay for the really experienced folks to say "No. That will kill the business in three years. I've seen it."

But the industry at least needs to make more of an effort internally before more PCI, HIPAA, and SAR-OX regulations are slapped on by the outsiders if you're against the regulation model. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[PilotAlan]

...I'd never want to own anything other than the Grumman aluminum canoe I had

So is that a Grumman aluminum canoe?

[ducking and running from the seaplane guys]

 

[jesse]

So is that a Grumman aluminum canoe?

[ducking and running from the seaplane guys]

Looks like an RC airplane to me...

 

[John Baker]

Given the vast numbers of boats down here, I'd say that the demise of General Aviation is not as much related to cost as I once believed...

No, it is not the cost of an airplane itself, it's the incessant knit picking regulations, that grow in number every year that run the price of everything aviation related up & up. The regulatory expenses are what can keep most people away from airplane ownership, and aviation altogether.

There is no such thing as a law or regulation that can not be justified somehow, so they continue to add to the volumes.

It will not be too long before the written test for a private pilot will make the written for most states bar exams appear easy.

There is nothing we can do about it, it is what it is, a target for bureaucrats, nothing more.

The demise of General Aviation can be attributed to the cost of compliance, and all that is required through regulations to become and remain an active pilot.

In other words, GA is an easy target for the regulators. Nobody but a few old rich guys to go up against. The only thing that helps defend GA from over regulation is that a few of the regulators are pilots themselves. Even they still are not enough to keep the FARS/AIM from growing thicker every year.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The demise of General Aviation can be attributed to the cost of compliance, and all that is required through regulations to become and remain an active pilot.

John,

Not necessarily disagreeing here... But what exactly do you mean? Is there something other than the cost of operating an airplane (or in the case of those with medical problems, the cost of required medical tests) to "become and remain an active pilot"?

IMO, if you make the airplanes themselves cheaper, the costs to become and remain an active pilot other than the airplane costs are quite reasonable. Really, if you fly enough, you don't have much extra to do: Just spend a hundred bucks on a CFI every couple of years to give you a BFR. Those of us who are instrument rated need to either fly more, pay a CFI more, or find a friend to be a safety pilot for us.

Cost of airplanes pretty much boils down to liability. If there were no liability concerns, we wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance. Our A&P's wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance and could charge a lower hourly rate. Parts suppliers wouldn't have to worry as much and parts could be cheaper. Aircraft manufacturers wouldn't need to defend expensive lawsuits and new airplanes would be cheaper (and the certification process might be easier, making them cheaper still). Etc. etc. etc.

Fix our legal system, and you'd do GA a huge favor...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Cost of airplanes pretty much boils down to liability. If there were no liability concerns, we wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance. Our A&P's wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance and could charge a lower hourly rate. Parts suppliers wouldn't have to worry as much and parts could be cheaper. Aircraft manufacturers wouldn't need to defend expensive lawsuits and new airplanes would be cheaper (and the certification process might be easier, making them cheaper still). Etc. etc. etc.

Fix our legal system, and you'd do GA a huge favor...

 

[tdager]

True, we are comparing apples and oranges. An aircraft is a way to get to a destination. A boat is a destination.

Best statement on flying vs. boating I have heard in a long time.

 

[weilke]

If there were no liability concerns, we wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance.

I dont think we pay much in insurance, certainly not on the liability side. The hull insurance is simply a reflection of the value tied up in a plane vs. a jet-ski.

Our A&P's wouldn't need to pay as much in insurance and could charge a lower hourly rate.

Yes, A&P insurance is expensive, but so is shopkeepers insurance for a car repair facility. Outside of glitzy 'jet shops', I find the hourly rates for an A&P to be comparable to what I pay in the car repair shop or for a licensed plumberl.

Fix our legal system, and you'd do GA a huge favor...

Fixing the fuel prices would do a lot more towards that end. Again, it's the middle of summer and on the weekends the marinas are chock full of boats that are not being used. I dont think it's liability fear that keeps them in the dock.

 

[jesse]

I dont think we pay much in insurance, certainly not on the liability side. The hull insurance is simply a reflection of the value tied up in a plane vs. a jet-ski.

We pay it indirectly. One of the reasons airplanes and airplanes parts cost so much.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I dont think we pay much in insurance, certainly not on the liability side. The hull insurance is simply a reflection of the value tied up in a plane vs. a jet-ski.

Go back to my post - Without liability concerns, I think airplanes would cost well under half what they do now. In fact, if you apply inflation to the cost of a 172 from 50 years ago, you get a number that's about 1/3 of the current selling price. Yes, part of that is because they sold more of 'em back then, but what do you think would happen if they cost 1/3 of what they do now? You'd sell more of 'em.

So, it's not just the liability part of the insurance - If the hull cost wasn't so darn much, we'd be paying much less on hull insurance as well.

Yes, A&P insurance is expensive, but so is shopkeepers insurance for a car repair facility. Outside of glitzy 'jet shops', I find the hourly rates for an A&P to be comparable to what I pay in the car repair shop or for a licensed plumberl.

That's probably the place where we'd save the least. A&P's aren't a popular group to sue for large amounts most of the time. However, the parts costs would be way lower.

Fixing the fuel prices would do a lot more towards that end.

That's certainly a big part of it too, but I think it's secondary to liability. The fuel cost is generally only 1/3 or less of the operating cost even for a plane that flies 100+ hours per year. I think that the overall effects of liability are probably responsible for more than half the cost of flying on those planes, and WAY more than that on the average plane, which flies much less than 100 hours/year.

 

[weilke]

Go back to my post - Without liability concerns, I think airplanes would cost well under half what they do now. In fact, if you apply inflation to the cost of a 172 from 50 years ago, you get a number that's about 1/3 of the current selling price. Yes, part of that is because they sold more of 'em back then, but what do you think would happen if they cost 1/3 of what they do now? You'd sell more of 'em.

They sold A LOT more back then, even had overseas operations to keep up with demand. I dont know how much of it is increased liability vs. just an inefficient production process of a small-job product. I doubt that a 120k Skylane would ramp production back up to where it was once.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They sold A LOT more back then, even had overseas operations to keep up with demand. I dont know how much of it is increased liability vs. just an inefficient production process of a small-job product. I doubt that a 120k Skylane would ramp production back up to where it was once.

A 120K Skylane would be HUGE. Rather than buying a $120K 20-30 year old used Skylane, those who can do so now would buy a new one, and prices for the used ones would be much lower. Hell, I fly a 40-year-old Skylane. If a new one were $120K, the old one would be under $20K and I could have bought my own by now.

The number of people who can afford a $120K Skylane is probably at least an order of magnitude higher than those who can afford a ~$400K Skylane. They'd sell a ton of 'em, and flight schools could continue to buy used planes but they'd be way cheaper, rental rates would be way lower AND still yield higher profits, many more people could afford to fly... And GA would be in much better shape.

 

[denverpilot]

Agreed.

Secondary businesses would pop back up too, like the Robertson STOL STC owner might find someone willing to do them again...

An R/STOL T182T would be a ton of fun.

 

[psachseJr]

I have a boat, a 45 foot twin diesel Pilothouse Yacht. My tanks hold 500 gallons of diesel. Running 10 to 12 knots I average 1.5 miles per gallon, bump it up to 16 knots and it drops to 1.0 mile/gallon.

Two Staterooms, a convertible room that makes into a bunk room, 2 full heads with showers, full galley, ice maker, 3 air conditioner units, 250 gallons fresh water, 20 gallon water heater, satellite TV, 12.5KW genset.

My family and I spend every weekend on the boat. Sometimes we leave the marina and go out, sometimes we don't. We have friends come over, cook out, swim, fish and have a good time.

Boating is not about getting there fast, but enjoying the time on the water. If I go out to a quiet cove 10 miles away, anchor out, spend the night and motor back the next day, that's 15 to 25 gallons diesel (depending upon generator usage). That's a bargain in my book.

My slip runs about $250/month, + electric. Since I enjoy working on my own boat maintenance has been reasonable.

If I need a part for my boat, I have many options. I'm not reliant on "approved parts" or having a "certified" mechanic perform the work and "sign the logs".

I'm a guy that's owned 25 different aircraft over my career. An airplane doesn't give me the enjoyment that the boat does, and it's something the whole family enjoys. Your airplane cost you more than you really want to admit, and to the recreational flyer you are limited in it's use. With my boat I'm not limited by weather like a plane is.

Like anything else, boating is different for different people. Your example is on one extreme of boating efficiency. A boat that size can also easily burn 50 GPH of diesel. For many people, a boat is about getting there {not everyone wants to just hang around and picnic). My point is, your generalisms are similar to using a sailplane as an example of the costs to operate an aircraft. It's a valid example, but one that has place a major bias on efficiency. Many people would consider such a vessel relatively useless (I'm not saying they would be correct) and more of prison than anything else.

Let's face it, flying is about flying. It can't be compared to cruising at displacement speeds or sitting in a quiet cove. Also, as a fellow boater, you know as well as I do that if you include bottom paint, electronics upgrades and annual maintenance, your costs are much higher than you say; not to mention the initial costs.