What attributes do you think new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have to return General Aviation to 10,000 aircraft sales per year?

T

TJB

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 18, 2023
Messages
4
Location
Georgia, USA
Display Name
Display name:
TJB
My suggestions for manufacturers of new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft to sale thousands a year are:
1. Cruise airspeed of at least 150 knots.
2. Cabin interior width at least 42 inches.
3. Four seats.
4. Fixed tricycle landing gear.
5. Full aircraft parachute.
6. Air Conditioning.
7. Full glass panel with two axis autopilot.
8. IFR compliant for IMC conditions.
9. Fun to fly with good control harmony.
10. Priced around $300,000 in 2023 US dollars.

With the new Rotax 916is engine this is attainable. I see new LSA aircraft under the current(old) rules listed new for under $300,000 with Garmin glass avionics and aircraft parachutes. I know the Rotax 916is cost more than a 912is and the current LSA aircraft do not have air conditioning but they were restricted to 1320 pounds gross weight. The new MOSAIC rules for LSA aircraft do not have any weight restriction, only a clean stall speed restriction of 54 knots.

Tell us what attributes you think new, MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have with the new MOSAIC rules.
 
I'm really not sure ever getting back to 10000 per year is attainable. The airplane you are describing is one that I would buy if it existed for under $300k.
 
Joby Aviation is building an eVTOL factory in order to build 100's of thousands of magic aircraft that do whatever you want them to do. They're faster then every other aircraft, they go farther then every other aircraft and they are just plane magical :rollercoaster::rollercoaster::rollercoaster::wonderwoman:
 
aftCG said:
If that set of goals were attainable the plane would be for sale already (MOSAIC or not).

You're asking for a 916 powered Cirrus for 1/3 of what a Cirrus sells for.
Click to expand...
What he says.

Air conditioning? Really Gracie?

Engine $50,000
Avionics $70,000
Ballistic parachute $25,000
Doesn’t leave much for anything else not counting liability insurance
Oh, and profit. Or it’s gonna be a government program?
 
If you're looking to bring general aviation back, the biggest barrier to entry into general aviation for most is money. A lot of the general public simply can't afford to drop $300k on anything, much less a hobby. All the fancy avionics and comforts are a moot point when most people's feasible budget is 1/6 or less of the purchase cost of the plane.

In my (unimportant) opinion, general aviation needs just a barebones plane that doesn't do much except fly - but is new, sturdy, and inexpensive to purchase and maintain. As in $40/50k or less. Maybe it's just my Midwest farming country background showing, or maybe it's my middle class mindset, but I would sacrifice speed, avionics, and a lot of comforts (like air conditioning) to be able to own and fly my own new plane.
 
TJB said:
suggestions for manufacturers of new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft to sale thousands a year are:
Click to expand...
First find your 10,000 person market who will actually buy an aircraft and ask them what they want. But for reference the premise of returning private GA to the days of "10,000" aircraft per year was already tried 25+ years ago without success even with the influx of 10's of millions in private and public monies. Simply no market. Even the most popular result of that attempt has not produced more than 10,000 aircraft in the past 20+ years. Now if you're really serious to build up private GA get congress to pass a reasonable tort cap on all general aviation activities. Then you might have something to build on.;)
 
I doubt if there are that many people who want to pilot their own airplane. Take the 300k and spend it on airline tickets and it will go a long way. Spend even part of it on X-Plane, virtual reality and C6 (full immersion six-sided VR cubes) and you can get a lot of 'whoopee" for 300K, and you don't have to drive to a distant airport or worry about the weather. People's heads are in a different place these days. The old days will never come back.
 
I think the price would have to be a lot lower than $300k, though I’m not saying that is possible

And throw in a credit for up to $15k in flight instruction at a school of the buyer’s choice. Gotta make more pilots if we want to sell more airplanes
 
A couple of aviation events equaling the magnitude of Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic and WWII to generate interest.
 
GaryM said:
Gotta make more pilots if we want to sell more airplanes
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.

You have to convince me (and pilots like me) to buy a new airplane for six figures when I can buy a used one for five figures that meets all my needs. Old Pipers, Cessnas, and Beechcrafts sell quickly, and that’s the real competition new planes face.

My 1969 baby Beech does all I need and cost me $24k in 2021. I could drop a new engine in and give it most of the features of the imaginary $300k new bird and still be under six figures. Now why should I buy the new plane?
 
Two of the many issues driving the death of GA is new aircraft cost AND pilot training. To expand the number of new planes bought the number of customers must be increased.

MOSAIC would have to bring the cost of a new plane down to the cost of a mid-level SUV, but it can't make more people interested in traversing the arduous path to pilotdom.
Neither will ever happen.
 
SkyChaser said:
If you're looking to bring general aviation back, the biggest barrier to entry into general aviation for most is money. A lot of the general public simply can't afford to drop $300k on anything, much less a hobby. All the fancy avionics and comforts are a moot point when most people's feasible budget is 1/6 or less of the purchase cost of the plane.

In my (unimportant) opinion, general aviation needs just a barebones plane that doesn't do much except fly - but is new, sturdy, and inexpensive to purchase and maintain. As in $40/50k or less. Maybe it's just my Midwest farming country background showing, or maybe it's my middle class mindset, but I would sacrifice speed, avionics, and a lot of comforts (like air conditioning) to be able to own and fly my own new plane.
Click to expand...
spot on!!
I agree 100% that prices are several orders of magnitude out of reach for most....and that is probably the single most driving variable
it's hard to justify spending more for a hobby than you do on your daily driver car.

behind that I think might just simply be availability of airports, hangars, and tie down options. I can arguably afford a plane, but have no place to keep it. There are several airports "sort of" near me, but they are all >30 minutes drive..... a bit too far in a perfect world (huge investment in time just to go do a couple laps around the pattern after work)...and none have room for me anyway. I just can't wrap my head around the long waiting lists and high prices for this stuff...and why the airports just don't build more hangars and ramp space....most around here anyway have acres and acres of open space and clearly there is already huge demand.... maybe if there was more reasonable priced aircraft around, then maybe the supply and demand equation would change enough to drive more hangars and ramps to be built...
 
I see a lot of new EAB planes.....and those are dominating newly built planes. It won't get any cheaper than that.
 
Half Fast said:
I dunno. Rutan’s round-the-world flight didn’t do much.
Click to expand...
Part of the magnitude of those events was taking aviation a leap forward rather than baby steps. The Voyager flight achieved the dreams of a small group of people, not society as a whole.

But I will admit it was a boon for headset manufacturers.
 
SkyChaser said:
In my (unimportant) opinion, general aviation needs just a barebones plane that doesn't do much except fly - but is new, sturdy, and inexpensive to purchase and maintain. As in $40/50k or less. Maybe it's just my Midwest farming country background showing, or maybe it's my middle class mindset, but I would sacrifice speed, avionics, and a lot of comforts (like air conditioning) to be able to own and fly my own new plane.
Click to expand...
That’s how EAA started…and what EAA has largely outgrown. Very few Pietenpols and Pober Pixies at Oshkosh anymore.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s how EAA started…and what EAA has largely outgrown. Very few Pietenpols and Pober Pixies at Oshkosh anymore.
Click to expand...
The cost of ownership of the Pietenpol/Pixie/Fly Baby-class airplane isn't much different than traditional airplanes. Acquisition cost may be lower, but maintenance, insurance, and hangarage is about the same. Typical airport in my vicinity has a five-year waiting list for hangars, and as more airports close, that's not getting any better. I pay about 1/2 the value of my airplane in hangar rent every year, and about 3/8ths of the value of my plane is in government-mandated electronics.

Unless one is ALWAYS needing to travel, and needs flexibility in schedule and destination, it's cheaper to fly airlines.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
DING DING DING!

Exactly! Society as a whole does not have aviation dreams anymore.
Click to expand...
Which is something that I can't really understand, as I've explained to my wife (who is excited that I'm excited, but has no desire to fly).

As demonstrated by my incredulous pleadings in her direction: "LOOK! How is this not everyone's dream come true? I can ACTUALLY FLY! UP THERE!!"
*Points frantically towards the sky*
*Wife's eyes slowly return to her crochet project*
 
Baked Potato said:
Which is something that I can't really understand, as I've explained to my wife (who is excited that I'm excited, but has no desire to fly).

As demonstrated by my incredulous pleadings in her direction: "LOOK! How is this not everyone's dream come true? I can ACTUALLY FLY! UP THERE!!"
*Points frantically towards the sky*
*Wife's eyes slowly return to her crochet project*
Click to expand...
sounds about like me and my wife.... well except I don't think she's all that excited that I'm excited....(with her mind looking at the cost of it..)
 
TJB said:
Priced around $300,000 in 2023 US dollars.
Click to expand...
Remove a zero from that!!

No in all honesty I think the largest driver in sales is going to be price. TBH I think a plane under 80k would do that
 
wanttaja said:
The cost of ownership of the Pietenpol/Pixie/Fly Baby-class airplane isn't much different than traditional airplanes. Acquisition cost may be lower, but maintenance, insurance, and hangarage is about the same. Typical airport in my vicinity has a five-year waiting list for hangars, and as more airports close, that's not getting any better. I pay about 1/2 the value of my airplane in hangar rent every year, and about 3/8ths of the value of my plane is in government-mandated electronics.

Unless one is ALWAYS needing to travel, and needs flexibility in schedule and destination, it's cheaper to fly airlines.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that “garageable” airplanes were big in the early EAA days as well.

I wonder if “10 minutes from trailer hitch to ready to fly” would have any impact on sales. Probably not, since towing is beyond a lot of people’s capacity, too.
 
Last edited:
An aircraft like an RV-7 or -9 at a price point in the mid-100's might get there. Two seats and sufficient performance to make regional XC in the 300-500 mile range worth the effort.

Peak production of the 172 was over 2,000 per year. That would be a pretty good yardstick to shoot for. At that point some economy of scale could be achieved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJB
The used market will probably see an increase in prices. Most LSA pilots can’t afford 300k . But they won’t mind finding a good used airplane and update it.
 
Why buy a new 172 when you can pick up a Ferrari Portofino for 1/2 the money? No training, no hangar, no PPL, no annual needed. If the average person was given the funds to be able to afford an airplane there would still gravitate towards things that require no effort other than signing on the dotted line. Generating interest in aviation is probably the biggest roadblock. Times change.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0678.jpeg
    IMG_0678.jpeg
    426.6 KB · Views: 18
Ed Haywood said:
An aircraft like an RV-7 or -9 at a price point in the mid-100's might get there. Two seats and sufficient performance to make regional XC in the 300-500 mile range worth the effort.

Peak production of the 172 was over 2,000 per year. That would be a pretty good yardstick to shoot for. At that point some economy of scale could be achieved.
Click to expand...
Did you know Van's Aircraft has loaned Lockwood Aviation a RV-9 to build a Firewall Forward package to mount a Rotax 915is/916is engine? Phil Lockwood says he is seeing 170 KIAS at 11,500 MSL in eco mode at 7.5 gallons per hour. The RV-9 specs are MOSAIC compliant. Maybe Van's Aircraft will produce a fully built RV-9 under the new MOSAIC rules like they did the RV-12 under the old LSA rules. Also, thanks for the positive feedback.
 
An MBA friend would say that the number of new planes sold per year, right now, is exactly the correct number, and I think he's right.
 
wanttaja said:
Unless one is ALWAYS needing to travel, and needs flexibility in schedule and destination, it's cheaper to fly airlines.
Click to expand...

It is cheaper but not always more practical. There is a zone between about 250 to 500 miles where GA is more time efficient unless both ends are at a hub.

Example: I live in Tampa, and have family in Savannah GA that I visit several times a year. There are no direct airline flights, so I have to change in Atlanta. Figure an hour to drive and park at the airport, an hour in security and boarding, 90 minute flight, 30 minutes on ground in Atlanta, and an hour flight to Savannah. Add it all up and the process takes about 5-6 hours.

It is a 2 hour flight in my Decathlon, which is not a particularly speedy airplane. It is a beautiful flight too, up the Florida coast, over the top of Jacksonville, and along the Georgia barrier islands.

For lots of people who live in more rural areas, especially in the midwest, going point to point via GA is way more effective than the airline hub and spoke model. Probably not an accident that much of the GA industry is in Kansas.
 
GeorgeC said:
An MBA friend would say that the number of new planes sold per year, right now, is exactly the correct number, and I think he's right.
Click to expand...
But the same MBA friend would agree that if government action changed market conditions, then a different number might be sold per year, and it would also be the correct number.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I see a lot of new EAB planes.....and those are dominating newly built planes. It won't get any cheaper than that.
Click to expand...
Surely not a coincident that those are more loosely regulated. And E-AB numbers are climbing despite the headwind of the pilot/owner having to spend thousands of hours building it him/her-self. Can you just imagine how popular the E-AB models would be if one could simply buy one and learn to fly it?
 
Brad W said:
behind that I think might just simply be availability of airports, hangars, and tie down options. I can arguably afford a plane, but have no place to keep it. There are several airports "sort of" near me, but they are all >30 minutes drive..... a bit too far in a perfect world (huge investment in time just to go do a couple laps around the pattern after work)...and none have room for me anyway. I just can't wrap my head around the long waiting lists and high prices for this stuff...and why the airports just don't build more hangars and ramp space....most around here anyway have acres and acres of open space and clearly there is already huge demand.... maybe if there was more reasonable priced aircraft around, then maybe the supply and demand equation would change enough to drive more hangars and ramps to be built...
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't park your new airplane on the street like a car/truck, and airports are closing rather than opening it seems. If there is no place to put a newly acquired plane that certainly puts a damper on the purchase decision and hence demand.
 
Ed Haywood said:
It is cheaper but not always more practical. There is a zone between about 250 to 500 miles where GA is more time efficient unless both ends are at a hub.

Example: I live in Tampa, and have family in Savannah GA that I visit several times a year. There are no direct airline flights, so I have to change in Atlanta. Figure an hour to drive and park at the airport, an hour in security and boarding, 90 minute flight, 30 minutes on ground in Atlanta, and an hour flight to Savannah. Add it all up and the process takes about 5-6 hours.

It is a 2 hour flight in my Decathlon, which is not a particularly speedy airplane. It is a beautiful flight too, up the Florida coast, over the top of Jacksonville, and along the Georgia barrier islands.

For lots of people who live in more rural areas, especially in the midwest, going point to point via GA is way more effective than the airline hub and spoke model. Probably not an accident that much of the GA industry is in Kansas.
Click to expand...
One company I flew for had a 10% increase in travel costs after they sold their jet, not including the extra days of lost productivity. They were based at an airline hub, but the other end of the trip wasn’t anywhere near an airline airport.
 
TJB said:
My suggestions for manufacturers of new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft to sale thousands a year are:
1. Cruise airspeed of at least 150 knots.
2. Cabin interior width at least 42 inches.
3. Four seats.
4. Fixed tricycle landing gear.
5. Full aircraft parachute.
6. Air Conditioning.
7. Full glass panel with two axis autopilot.
8. IFR compliant for IMC conditions.
9. Fun to fly with good control harmony.
10. Priced around $300,000 in 2023 US dollars.

With the new Rotax 916is engine this is attainable. I see new LSA aircraft under the current(old) rules listed new for under $300,000 with Garmin glass avionics and aircraft parachutes. I know the Rotax 916is cost more than a 912is and the current LSA aircraft do not have air conditioning but they were restricted to 1320 pounds gross weight. The new MOSAIC rules for LSA aircraft do not have any weight restriction, only a clean stall speed restriction of 54 knots.

Tell us what attributes you think new, MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have with the new MOSAIC rules.
Click to expand...
I agree with above sentiments that $300k is too expensive. I think we need simple inexpensive airplanes that use technology to become easier to fly. Things like glass panels, airconditioning and parachutes make it more expensive without adding much value.

1. Cruise airspeed at least 100 kts.
2. Two seats is enough, though 4 is nice
3. Fixed tricycle gear
4. Simple to operate single-lever engine that can run autogas, like Rotax
5. Minimum simple VFR only instruments
6. Fun to fly with good control harmony
7. Priced around $100k in 2023 dollars

To keep costs down: no glass panel, no autopilot, no A/C, no IFR, no parachute, etc.
 
Half Fast said:
DING DING DING!

Exactly! Society as a whole does not have aviation dreams anymore. (Mostly, society has aviation nightmares, thanks to the airlines.)
Click to expand...
I think society as a whole has dreams of a personal traveling machine that can move them cross-country at 150 mph. The roadblock is the 6 months it takes to get to that first real flight; and the fact that one needs a specialized 2-year degree to work on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top