3 ms·

Airplane maintenance is way more expensive than car maintenance, but every hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an hour towards maintenance requi

by jeromec 15y ago

Airplane maintenance is way more expensive than car maintenance, but every hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an hour towards maintenance required at airplane rates. Yes, but this isn't an airplane. It's a flying car ;) Seriously, the maintenance comparison wouldn't appear to be the same. It looks like this thing has a propeller attached to a drag style engine. I would expect maintenance costs to be more akin to a souped up car than an airplane. Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is optional.

lucasjung 15y ago
The reason airplane maintenance is expensive isn't just that airplanes are generally more complex. It's mainly because you have to pay a certified A&P[1] to do it. You're not just paying for the work, you're paying for the entire apparatus of certifications and inspections that backs it up. >Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is optional. If you go this route, you have an even bigger incentive to keep it off the road: if you get into a fender-bender, you'll have to pay to the exorbitant repair bill on your "car." [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician#Certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician...
- jeromec 15y ago
  Sure, using an A&P is fine. I'd still imagine the maintenance costs on this thing, consisting mostly of a drag engine, propeller, and chute would be less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? I do agree it would certainly make sense to opt in for covering the car as well. I was mostly making the point the liability rule could be a baseline showing insurance companies had no reason to charge a higher rate than, say, a sports car (under a minimum coverage scenario where they cover only liability costs). 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 ;)
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    >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 $84K if purchased new). All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them. They all have to be very careful about how much they fly their planes or they would break their budgets; using their planes as cars would be a terrible waste of money. Becoming certified as an A&P is a very expensive and time-consuming process, but it pays off in the end for professional A&Ps because they can charge a premium for their work. However, I know a few people who went through this process even though they already have great careers and have no intention of working professionally as A&Ps. Nor were they especially enthusiastic about aircraft maintenance as a hobby. They did it because, in the long run, it was cheaper for them to become certified so they could do all of their own maintenance on their planes rather than pay somebody else to do it. That's how expensive aircraft maintenance is.
    - simpleTruth 15y ago
      It's not a 84K airplane it's a 30k car + (84 - 30)K airplane. I bought a vary nice car even though I only drive ~5K miles a year. I could sell my car and add an extra ~800-1000$ a month to be able to fly on the weekends, but paying ~90K + hanger fees and still needing a car is much harder. PS: Renting an airplane is still a better option if you fly less than 10 hours a month, but IMO there is a nitch for a crappy flying car.
    - jeromec 15y ago
mcobrien 15y ago
Actually, it's a "powered parachute"[1] which relaxes the FAA rules required to fly one[2]. I'd guess maintenance rules are relaxed as well. [1] http://mavericklsa.com/releases.html http://mavericklsa.com/releases.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_parachute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_parachute

by jeromec 15y ago

lucasjung 15y ago

The reason airplane maintenance is expensive isn't just that airplanes are generally more complex. It's mainly because you have to pay a certified A&P[1] to do it. You're not just paying for the work, you're paying for the entire apparatus of certifications and inspections that backs it up. >Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is optional. If you go this route, you have an even bigger incentive to keep it off the road: if you get into a fender-bender, you'll have to pay to the exorbitant repair bill on your "car." [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician#Certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician...

jeromec 15y ago
Sure, using an A&P is fine. I'd still imagine the maintenance costs on this thing, consisting mostly of a drag engine, propeller, and chute would be less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? I do agree it would certainly make sense to opt in for covering the car as well. I was mostly making the point the liability rule could be a baseline showing insurance companies had no reason to charge a higher rate than, say, a sports car (under a minimum coverage scenario where they cover only liability costs). 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 ;)
- lucasjung 15y ago
  >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 $84K if purchased new). All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them. They all have to be very careful about how much they fly their planes or they would break their budgets; using their planes as cars would be a terrible waste of money. Becoming certified as an A&P is a very expensive and time-consuming process, but it pays off in the end for professional A&Ps because they can charge a premium for their work. However, I know a few people who went through this process even though they already have great careers and have no intention of working professionally as A&Ps. Nor were they especially enthusiastic about aircraft maintenance as a hobby. They did it because, in the long run, it was cheaper for them to become certified so they could do all of their own maintenance on their planes rather than pay somebody else to do it. That's how expensive aircraft maintenance is.
  - simpleTruth 15y ago
    It's not a 84K airplane it's a 30k car + (84 - 30)K airplane. I bought a vary nice car even though I only drive ~5K miles a year. I could sell my car and add an extra ~800-1000$ a month to be able to fly on the weekends, but paying ~90K + hanger fees and still needing a car is much harder. PS: Renting an airplane is still a better option if you fly less than 10 hours a month, but IMO there is a nitch for a crappy flying car.
  - jeromec 15y ago

mcobrien 15y ago

Actually, it's a "powered parachute"[1] which relaxes the FAA rules required to fly one[2]. I'd guess maintenance rules are relaxed as well. [1] http://mavericklsa.com/releases.html http://mavericklsa.com/releases.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_parachute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_parachute