"I remember it costing *only* about $1.2M."
Twas less than a million as a pre-production order in the not-so-distant past when the Euro was worth less than a dollar. But the USdollar has about halved its value since then. The new version was recently auctioned for $3.2million (including the $300thousand auctioneer's fee).
"What kind of idiot would buy this thing?"
The banal, the inept, the desperate, and similar wannabees. Still ain't nothin' compared to the toy for a true connoisseur of idiocy. Ya know how it goes, "A billion here and a billion there. And the next thing ya know, yer spendin' some real money."
Nope, $400million*apiece. And nope again cuz if only one were built, it would cost ~$8billion. Ya only get it down to $0.4billion apiece by dividing the R&D and tooling costs amongst 28 of 'em.
I find 'em only annoying. But then being buzzed by idiots flying way under minimum legal altitude while trying to relax on the beach does tend to irritate. Frankly woulda thought the President 'd have better things to do than ride around in an imitation ghetto-blaster/Harley trying to impress folks.
"What fuel mileage does [the Veyron] get at 254 mph?"
The Veyron'll suck dry its 100litre gas tank in under 13minutes; say ~2miles per gallon. Which is a good thing.....cuz it'll overheat&shred its new tires in 15minutes.
* Changed the link cuz I knew it cost more than an AirForceOne 747.
quote:Nope, $400million*apiece. And nope again cuz if only one were built, it would cost ~$8billion. Ya only get it down to $0.4billion apiece by dividing the R&D and tooling costs amongst 28 of 'em.
Your previous MarineOne link is where I got the $110 million. And the same argument has been used to claim that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius, because you have to divide the development cost into each unit sold. But that development will undoubtedly find its way into other products. But yeah, it's expensive. Still, somehow more justifiable than a 3 million dollar gas guzzling toy.
quote:Although Lockheed Martin does not make helicopters, the Navy chose it over longtime contractor Sikorsky Aircraft because the company's European partner had a three-engine model that seemed a logical off-the-shelf base for a new presidential helicopter. But modifying the EH101 has proven so complicated that the company is essentially building a new helicopter.
This reminds me of the Hubble space telescope contract, which was awarded to Perkin-Elmer. Why? Eastman Kodak had the background in optics, and offered a lower bid which included mounting both mirrors and testing them as a unit, which would have uncovered the spherical aberration problem that needed to be corrected with a space walk. But Perkin-Elmer was a military contractor, so they got the job. I'd bet Sikorsky would have done a better job on this one.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |