| >Sure, using an A&P is fine. Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A&P isn't "fine," it's mandatory, and it's very expensive. >...less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? Maybe a little, but not significantly. This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic maintenance way more often than cars, and airplane mechanics cost way more than car mechanics. The complexity of the airplane isn't the primary cost driver, the frequent maintenance and the safety requirements placed on that maintenance are. >It appears this vehicle costs $84K. I believe any person able to afford a 100K class of car would certainly be able to pay the maintenance and insurance costs to drive it as a car ;) I know a lot of people who own small planes. Most of of those planes were purchased for a price comparable to this thing (because they were purchased used--they would have cost considerably more than $84K if purchased new). All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them. They all have to be very careful about how much they fly their planes or they would break their budgets; using their planes as cars would be a terrible waste of money. Becoming certified as an A&P is a very expensive and time-consuming process, but it pays off in the end for professional A&Ps because they can charge a premium for their work. However, I know a few people who went through this process even though they already have great careers and have no intention of working professionally as A&Ps. Nor were they especially enthusiastic about aircraft maintenance as a hobby. They did it because, in the long run, it was cheaper for them to become certified so they could do all of their own maintenance on their planes rather than pay somebody else to do it. That's how expensive aircraft maintenance is. |
I was trying to say factoring in an A&P wouldn't lead me to believe operational costs would necessarily jump to be prohibitively expensive.
This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic maintenance way more often than car
But you're still missing my point. It's not an airplane :) In other words, I would expect the work and associated costs (including a fully certified A&P) to be quite different on a hot air balloon, let's say with an added engine driven propeller, than on an airplane. The complexity difference is relevant because there is less to go wrong for safety and repair.
I know a lot of people who own small planes...All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them.
Yes, but I'd wager those planes are capable of more than 40 mph in the air, and I seriously doubt they would have been bought by under such strenuous expense if they were not. Boats can also represent a source of strained expense, but, like airplanes, they provide recreational function outside the normal cost of living. A person buying this vehicle at 84K with the duplicate function of use as a car, which happens to be capable of 40 mph in the air, is probably going to be richer than upper middle class.
Hey, I'm just an observer looking in at all this. Maybe Maverick LSA hasn't thought your points through, and their project path is flawed. My belief is that it would be workable as a car.