I would add that you get even more convenience because so many other things are made to accommodate shipping-container-sized things.I am with Erkki on this one, I have said before that a two-seat microlight/LSA type with quick-folding wings that could be easily stored daily in a 20' ISO shipping container would open up all kinds of possibilities, not just for using a container as a hangar, but because those limits would then facilitate other schemes to maximize space: a single plane safe in a 20' container on a farm strip or stored at home in a manageable trailer, two planes sharing a 40' container in a corner of the airport, a whole little aero club in a T-hangar.
Kind of depends on the individual situation. For some the semi permanent shipping container at the airport may be the best option. For city dwellers where space is at a premium I can see this being the case. For others, like me, that have a free place to park the trailer then the trailer option becomes attractive. I've even considered a hybrid option: Put the shipping container on my property for storage and use an open trailer to transport. In the end that is just too much work - for me. I also looked at car haulers but they cost even more than a shipping container in my part of the world.Just how much do the containers weigh? My guess is that it might be more useful to make an enclosed trailer, which might be light enough to haul around with an ordinary car.
I've wondered why this is so, any ideas? Lining up a row of containers on the grass on the edge of the ramp would cost an airport almost nothing (heck, less grass to mow!), and would be a source of income. During high winds, the containers would be far less of a hazard to other aircraft than a plane tied down on the ramp or even a standard tin hangar. And a fire inside one is much less likely to spread catastrophically compared to a similar fire in a T-hangar. I can only think the objection is based on:I don't know of any airports around here that would allow a shipping container parked. Get way out in the weeds of the weeds, sure.
Yes. A cynic's perspective would be that they would rather you pay for a long-term land lease on which to build a new hangar. Since they know you don't want to leave your pride & joy exposed to the elements and they have a monopoly on the land at the airport, they call the shots. (BTW, I'm not sure I believe that argument myself, but it's semi-plausible in some non-growth-oriented cases.)I've wondered why this is so, any ideas?
Totally agreed. Time for a design competition. Pick three or five winners, give them a stipend to build their designs, and put the finished products on display near the brown arch next year. It would be interesting, and not too expensive for EAA to sponsor this and get people thinking, 'hey, I can afford this.'Taking this on would be a good issue for EAA. Design some standards (footings, tie-down method, appearance, ramp to door, adding electricity, ventilation, optional additional door and window openings, etc), get some demonstrations in place and take pretty pictures, and highlight to airport managers and governing boards that sturdy, inexpensive, privately-owned containerized hangarage can improve the utilization rate of their airports and bring in funds. And then launch another design contest for aircraft that can best use them.
In US this might work, we would require a whole Organisation with the police in front and rear of the towing of a 9’ wide vehicle.Nine foot wide box trailers can be ordered or bought used. They require an overwide permit, which is a small fee depending on your state.
Bob Jones has a 9 footer and he brings his Kitfox in it to Airventure for his forum talks about trailer hangars.
His discussion is here: http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5537