Cessna vs Beechcraft

[JEB]

I would bet that my '71 A36 is cheaper to fly 100 hours per year than a 5 year old SR22. I think Cirri are great planes, but they aren't on the "less expensive" side of things.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the difference is spending $30K on something you bought for $800K vs spending that same $30K on something you bought for $50K. That's the threat with "cheap" planes.. the owners can't afford to keep them flying. But I'd be willing to bet a new NA SR22 will have less yearly maintenance costs than a 30 year old Bonanza..

Oh, gotcha. I thought you were comparing a NEW Mooney to a NEW SR22. I doubt they differ by a whole lot - Maybe the Mooney is cheaper because you don't have to plan for a parachute repack, maybe the Cirrus is cheaper due to fixed gear (though my gear has only cost me whatever it costs to get it swung at annual, which is not much).

I would bet that my '71 A36 is cheaper to fly 100 hours per year than a 5 year old SR22. I think Cirri are great planes, but they aren't on the "less expensive" side of things.

I doubt it. When I was on the board of my flying club, our DA40 cost roughly 30% less to operate per hour than our late 70s/early 80s Archers.

 

[GRG55]

...(though my gear has only cost me whatever it costs to get it swung at annual, which is not much)...

But if you are using the plane the gear will, in time, require more than just that.

I doubt it. When I was on the board of my flying club, our DA40 cost roughly 30% less to operate per hour than our late 70s/early 80s Archers.

That's interesting. Our Club used to have two Continental powered DA20-C1s and they were both consistently more expensive to keep in the air than any of our 172Ns. Mostly airframe parts that broke and repairs to same. They just didn't seem as robust as the 172s to the abuse students can sometimes deliver. We finally gave up and sold them, replacing them with two more 172s.
They also proved not very popular with the students, although our renters seemed to like them. But on average they were booked out for about 1/2 the hours each month that our 172s log (some of that due to the time in maintenance). These outcomes were completely unexpected when we bought them to add to the fleet.

 

[Tantalum]

Oh, gotcha. I thought you were comparing a NEW Mooney to a NEW SR22. I doubt they differ by a whole lot - Maybe the Mooney is cheaper because you don't have to plan for a parachute repack, maybe the Cirrus is cheaper due to fixed gear (though my gear has only cost me whatever it costs to get it swung at annual, which is not much).

It's probably largely a draw.. I'm not aware of what kind of programs Mooney offered but Cirrus has a pretty solid warranty program in place. But yes, the chute is one of those guaranteed expenses you'll face. I've heard Mooney gear are bulletproof. Individual owners may also have different levels of "OCD'ness" as far as how they maintain their planes

I would bet that my '71 A36 is cheaper to fly 100 hours per year than a 5 year old SR22

I wasn't going to touch this.. but

I doubt it.

..I agree

The clubs I've been part of the older planes seem to be constantly in and out of maintenance.. while the Cirri soldier on, whether its a G5 turbo or a g1 NA. Things don't seem to randomly break as often.. but that's a mostly subjective data point

Granted, some planes are just tainted.. one Arrow in our club is *always* having some kind of issue.. the other one (which cosmetically looks far more beat to hell) never has any problems, starts immediately, smooth engine, almost no mag drop.. it just works.

 

[Brad W]

......
Finally, a point I've made before...private and corporate GA is moving steadily and inexorably upscale. Of all the manufacturers Textron (along with Gulfstream and Daher) has absolutely done the best job recognizing and responding to that market shift. 30 years ago at my airport an A36 Bonanza or turbo-Mooney were the top end airplanes we all aspired to own, unless we could afford a pressurized twin Cessna. There wasn't a single turboprop or jet using it as a home base. Today my airport is home to dozens of Mirages, Meridians, TBMs, privately owned Navajos, 414s, Conquests, Cheyennes, King Airs, one private PC-12 and a handful of personal Citation and Phenom jets (interestingly, not a single Cirrus Jet so far). There's one member here on PoA who ditched his Cirrus SR-22 for a leased Citation.

That trend is not going to stop or reverse. Airplane manufacturing is brutally competitive. A single strategic mistake can put a company under. Mooney and Bombardier, which sort of bookend the range, are case study examples.

As GA moves upscale the market for really expensive unpressurized single engine piston airplanes is quite limited and I can't see anyone with any business sense wasting time and money trying to steal market share from Cirrus.

an interesting observation I think.... especially considering that I think there are still plenty of folks like me that either are into aviation or those that want to get into it, but are not even close to the league of buying any of that stuff!

I think there's a twist to that... I suspect a lot of that upscale trend, if you are correct, is really driven by "business" decision by the big corporate folks pushing those larger ticket items.
I'm reminded of my search for a "starter home" many years ago as a young single engineer wanting to buy a small house. I was an Engineer, but not making huge money....still I was doing ok. It seems though that the builders were all either building really big and expensive houses...or really small and really crappy houses. I don't think they were making any small high end houses and certainly weren't making any of the small but decent houses that I was looking for (not high end luxury, just nicer and better quality).

I recon it could be sorta like that for GA.... they might sell a lot more units if they would build something folks can afford to buy....not low end garbage but simpler systems, less bling, etc....

 

[steingar]

*Mooney.. a tiny plane with a pathetic useful load.. the "I can go 500 knots on 1.3 gallons an hr" can only go so far

My Mooney will lift close to a half ton. I can't imagine the load you don't call "pathetic".

 

[bnt83]

Cessna exists as a piston company solely to sell planes to the fight schools

Cessna has created more makes and models than any other manufacturer, using everything from round piston engines to turbojets...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_family

 

[Tantalum]

My Mooney will lift close to a half ton. I can't imagine the load you don't call "pathetic".

The ancient ones had a respectable load, but were also slower, closer to the neighborhood of an Arrow

But my comment was in reference to the statement that the lack of a parachute is what killed TTx and Mooney. One of the many issues that affected Mooney sales recently is weight

The whole reason they don't offer both air conditioning and TKS together is because with both of them you'd end up with a full fuel payload of 240 lb.. that's comically low. Oh, and with AC you lose part of your cargo compartment area

$800K for that?! Wow. The chute is just one (small) reason it didn't sell

 

[Tantalum]

Cessna has created more makes and models than any other manufacturer, using everything from round piston engines to turbojets...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_family

Cessna exists [presently] as a piston entity for the flight schools

Back in the 70s they were a proper force to reckon with.. the 210 (if you are okay with a high wing) beats the Bonanza in just about every category

 

[steingar]

The ancient ones had a respectable load, but were also slower, closer to the neighborhood of an Arrow

Go find me the Arrow that can keep up with my Mooney. Good luck with that.

But my comment was in reference to the statement that the lack of a parachute is what killed TTx and Mooney. One of the many issues that affected Mooney sales recently is weight

The whole reason they don't offer both air conditioning and TKS together is because with both of them you'd end up with a full fuel payload of 240 lb.. that's comically low. Oh, and with AC you lose part of your cargo compartment area

$800K for that?! Wow. The chute is just one (small) reason it didn't sell

Modern Mooneys carry 100 gallons of gas. you trade gas for payload, like on any other airplane. Unless you've never flown anything but a trainer and just don't know any better.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The clubs I've been part of the older planes seem to be constantly in and out of maintenance.. while the Cirri soldier on, whether its a G5 turbo or a g1 NA. Things don't seem to randomly break as often.. but that's a mostly subjective data point

Subjective, for sure. There are good reasons why old club/school airplanes are in maintenance more often and it's due entirely to the quality of maintenance they're getting.

Whenever we bought another '70s 172 to add to the school's fleet, we went through it first, from nose to tail and wingtip to wingtip, and fixed EVERYTHING. Stuff that was worn to margins, or crumbling due to age and UV and vibration, was replaced. Engine replaced, for sure. New engine controls, NDI'd engine mount, all new hoses. Fuel tank bays opened, tanks removed, tank bumper strips replaced, vent line hose couplings replaced. New Cleveland wheels and brakes and nosewheel if they had the six-bolt three-piece McCauleys on them. All applicable service bulletins reviewed and the ones we'd had issues with on the other airplanes were done immediately. New radios in most of them. New vacuum pumps. Alternators opened, cleaned and inspected and new brushes installed. A $50K airplane turned into a 100K+ airplane that only went into the shop at inspection time and never broke down far from home. Pretty much the only in-between stuff were flat-spotted tires or burned-out lights, and replacing the landing and taxi lights with LEDs eliminated most of the light problems.

But that sort of thing costs money that a lot of outfits don't want to spend, so they cheap out and lose dozens of flights instead, thereby losing more revenue (and goodwill), than they would have spent in the first place by doing it right up front. And they live with increased risks, too.

 

[bnt83]

Cessna exists [presently] as a piston entity for the flight schools

Back in the 70s they were a proper force to reckon with.. the 210 (if you are okay with a high wing) beats the Bonanza in just about every category

I bet they sell just as many pistons to governments as they do flight schools.

 

[bnt83]

I bet Beech hasn't had any model in the top ten selling airplanes for the year in 40 years.

 

[Tantalum]

Go find me the Arrow that can keep up with my Mooney. Good luck with that.

It's well advertised on this forum that your Mooney is the best plane out there. But if you compare real world cruise speeds of an M20C against really any PA28R they're comparable. 135-145 vs 130-140... I didn't say they were the same I said they were close

Modern Mooneys carry 100 gallons of gas. you trade gas for payload, like on any other airplane

Yes. But you're still carrying less in the Mooney even if you only fill up with 60 gallons, or whatever, at any given fuel load it is carrying less. Few people also fly them straight out, when you pull the power back towards the 16 or so gallons an hour the planes are about 10 to 15 knots apart


*Incidentally, I always find this funny when someone says "yeah but just put 37 gallons in it and I can still fly 2 hours with a plane full of people and luggage" .. most people don't have the ability to offload fuel and their fuel gauges are dubious at best.. the typical person flies at tabs or tabs plus something so they have an accurate idea of what they actually have for gas on board

 

[Tantalum]

I bet they sell just as many pistons to governments as they do flight schools.

The point I am making, apparently inadequately, is that they are still in the piston business not for the average consumer

 

[bnt83]

The point I am making, apparently inadequately, is that they are still in the piston business not for the average consumer

What is an average customer?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But if you are using the plane the gear will, in time, require more than just that.

Eventually. But after nearly a decade of owning it, and flying it well over 100 hours per year, it's been pretty bulletproof.

That's interesting. Our Club used to have two Continental powered DA20-C1s and they were both consistently more expensive to keep in the air than any of our 172Ns. Mostly airframe parts that broke and repairs to same. They just didn't seem as robust as the 172s to the abuse students can sometimes deliver. We finally gave up and sold them, replacing them with two more 172s.
They also proved not very popular with the students, although our renters seemed to like them. But on average they were booked out for about 1/2 the hours each month that our 172s log (some of that due to the time in maintenance). These outcomes were completely unexpected when we bought them to add to the fleet.

Interesting.

That could be, at least partially, because the DA20 was Diamond's first powered aircraft. They were a glider manufacturer before that. Maybe they weren't used to dealing with vibration when the DA20 was designed.

However, I also noticed when talking with flight instructors about the DA40 that many of them didn't like it, but not really for the right reasons, just that it was *different* than your average Cessna or Piper trainer that they were used to. Yes, it has a castering nosewheel. Yes, peeking in the tanks doesn't suffice for a fuel quantity check unless you're nearly full. Yes, it has a canopy instead of doors.

But if you look at the whys behind most of the differences, you find that it's a much *better* airplane. The fuel thing, for example - After you burn maybe 3 gallons a side, the tanks look dry when you peek in the filler caps, and you have to use this funky contraption they made to do a physical fuel level check... But the reason for that is that the tanks are really long and skinny. Why? Because they're stuck between the dual main wing spars. And when Diamond got the plane certified, they did the structural certification with one spar missing and it still passed! So, it's the only composite certified airplane that does not have an airframe life limit, and with the aluminum tanks between the main wing spars, the DA40 has *never* had a post-crash fire in an otherwise survivable crash. So, is the C172 better than the DA40, or is the Cessna just what we're used to and we don't like change?

Now, if your instructors are just poo-pooing the plane because it's different and they didn't take the time to understand why, your customers aren't going to know any better and they'll rent what the instructors tell them to.

Of course, it could also be that the DA20 is designed for smaller people. It's one of the only aircraft that I literally could not fly because there was so little headroom there was no way I could have safely flown it with the canopy closed. I'd have needed to cut off the top half of my head to fit in the thing. Luckily, the DA40 got just enough headroom, and starting in 2007 added a little more. Ours had been in a hailstorm that cracked the canopy, so it had been replaced with the bigger canopy.

I've heard Mooney gear are bulletproof.

Pretty much the whole plane is. I'm nearly a decade into this and I have yet to buy a single Mooney part. Plenty of stuff from King, Whelen, Lord, Continental, etc but the airframe has been bulletproof.

Yes, the Lord part was the rubber biscuits for the gear, which I just replaced a year ago, they were over 20 years old. Much more reliable than the oleo struts I've dealt with on other planes (including fixed gear).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Go find me the Arrow that can keep up with my Mooney. Good luck with that.

Get off your high horse and stop making the rest of us Mooney owners look bad. An Arrow IV will keep up with your M20C, a Turbo Arrow IV will leave it behind on any trip of sufficient length to get up to altitude.

There is no perfect airplane. Mooneys are damn good airplanes, and often unfairly maligned, but they aren't perfect. I wish I could use as little runway and haul as much load as a C182. I'd love to have an R182 if it were as efficient as a Mooney. We all pick our poison.

*Incidentally, I always find this funny when someone says "yeah but just put 37 gallons in it and I can still fly 2 hours with a plane full of people and luggage" .. most people don't have the ability to offload fuel and their fuel gauges are dubious at best.. the typical person flies at tabs or tabs plus something so they have an accurate idea of what they actually have for gas on board

Most? I dunno, I think we've made a lot of progress on equipping the GA fleet with good instrumentation over the last 20 years. I don't ever need to offload fuel to accomplish my partial-fuel missions, I just don't top the plane off on every flight and I don't fill it up when I'm going to fly a high-payload mission. And my totalizer has never been more than 1% off, which is within the margin of error when it comes to fueling the plane, so I'm happy to rely upon it to give me a good number.

 

[asicer]

Go find me the Arrow that can keep up with my Mooney. Good luck with that.

This one will do 150kts:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...4-people-135-or-more-kts.131339/#post-3063545

 

[Tantalum]

What is an average customer?

This can't be an honest question. There's a difference in John Smith looking to purchase an airplane for his wife and kid to go visit their summer house 300 nautical miles away verse a school buying 200 airplanes at once..

Get off your high horse and stop making the rest of us Mooney owners look bad.

.. and it makes me look anti Mooney.. which I'm not. Actually love the aesthetic lines of the plane and the pushrod controls, and how remarkably well built they are. The Mooney J is in my opinion one of the absolute best airplanes out there that money can buy, at least from an overall dollar for what you're getting perspective

If only they had hung on to the TBM..!

 

[AKBill]

I think the difference is spending $30K on something you bought for $800K vs spending that same $30K on something you bought for $50K. That's the threat with "cheap" planes.. the owners can't afford to keep them flying. But I'd be willing to bet a new NA SR22 will have less yearly maintenance costs than a 30 year old Bonanza.. but that also depends on how anal the owner is

What % of the GA population has 800K to spend on an aircraft? Heck that's about my net worth.

Beech put out a quality product in it's day. Never could understand why they never put 2 doors in the Bonanza series. My Sport is slow, but built like a tank, with 2 doors....

 

[JEB]

What's the all-in cost to own and fly an SR22 for 100 hours per year? Both fixed and variable costs.

It's probably largely a draw.. I'm not aware of what kind of programs Mooney offered but Cirrus has a pretty solid warranty program in place. But yes, the chute is one of those guaranteed expenses you'll face. I've heard Mooney gear are bulletproof. Individual owners may also have different levels of "OCD'ness" as far as how they maintain their planes


I wasn't going to touch this.. but

..I agree

The clubs I've been part of the older planes seem to be constantly in and out of maintenance.. while the Cirri soldier on, whether its a G5 turbo or a g1 NA. Things don't seem to randomly break as often.. but that's a mostly subjective data point

Granted, some planes are just tainted.. one Arrow in our club is *always* having some kind of issue.. the other one (which cosmetically looks far more beat to hell) never has any problems, starts immediately, smooth engine, almost no mag drop.. it just works.

 

[ktup-flyer]

TTx was killed because it did not have a BRS. Same with the Mooneys. People buy Cirruses because of the similar performance, plus the BRS. Pretty simple.

They should've never moved production to Mexico. We'd probably still have TTx's being built.

 

[Tantalum]

What's the all-in cost to own and fly an SR22 for 100 hours per year? Both fixed and variable costs.

I'm not the one to answer this accurately..

Would be an interesting poll to collect though

My experience has been secondhand or related to sitting in on club meetings..

 

[JEB]

I'm not the one to answer this accurately..

Would be an interesting poll to collect though

My experience has been secondhand or related to sitting in on club meetings..

The comparison between SR22 cost and A36 is going to differ based on the variable condition of the older Beechcraft. In my case, the A36 is fully updated and has been gone through from nose to tail. The interior, engine, prop and panel are all new or nearly new. There isn't a bit of original wiring in my plane - or even an incandescent bulb. My plane has been well cared for all it's life and I address any issues that develop immediately. The net result is that I don't see the big ticket surprises that an owner of a plane with lots of deferred maintenance might see.

All in - my investment so far (including purchase) is less than a used SR22 would cost.
My insurance is lower than an SR22 in large part because the hull value is lower.
I'm pretty sure the annuals are cheaper at around 3-5K/year.
I don't have to spread the cost of chute repack and line cutter replacement across each year.
I burn the same gas as an SR22 - possibly less because I fly lean of peak quite often.
I have an NA aircraft. My speeds are likely very similar to a NA SR22.

Don't get me wrong - this has nothing to do with whether or not Cirrus makes a great plane. I have time in both SR20 and SR22s. I think they are great to fly and having the chute is nice. I just think that my plane is less expensive to fly and I think the A36 offers something that fits my needs better. Until you have direct ownership experience, you might want to hold off on having a firm opinion.

 

[Tantalum]

I just think that my plane is less expensive to fly and I think the A36 offers something that fits my needs better.

That's totally fair. Sounds like you have taken great care of your plane and it rewards you with reasonable ops costs

 

[GRG55]

They should've never moved production to Mexico. We'd probably still have TTx's being built.

Wishful thinking.
Building them wasn't the issue when Cessna discontinued the TTx in February 2018. Selling them was.

Annual sales 2015 to 2017: 44, 31, 23. Compared to 110 planes in 2008 just before the financial crisis hit.

It's not a Cessna or Textron specific issue either. Total piston aircraft sold from all manufacturers in 2008 was 2675; in 2017 down to 1218 airplanes - less than one-half.

 

[hindsight2020]

It's not a Cessna or Textron specific issue either. Total piston aircraft sold from all manufacturers in 2008 was 2675

I didn't know it was that low even at the high of the mid-late 00s. We gotta get dedicated builders to start bolting together more EABs (51% rule be damned) and/or hopefully EAB OEMs to start fielding "legoland" level options for us non-builders, or we're gonna get wholly gentrified out of the NAS by the lamp oil burners. There's just so many Cirrus 6.9-person partnerships the market can successfully maintain due to job geo-skew in GA-hostile metros (I can't even get 5 people to agree to a social meeting on any given weekend, let alone an airplane marriage) before people lose all interest and steepen the spiral.

 

[GRG55]

I didn't know it was that low even at the high of the mid-late 00s. We gotta get dedicated builders to start bolting together more EABs (51% rule be damned) and/or hopefully EAB OEMs to start fielding "legoland" level options for us non-builders, or we're gonna get wholly gentrified out of the NAS by the lamp oil burners. There's just so many Cirrus 6.9-person partnerships the market can successfully maintain due to job geo-skew in GA-hostile metros (I can't even get 5 people to agree to a social meeting on any given weekend, let alone an airplane marriage) before people lose all interest and steepen the spiral.

I believe we are in the latter stages of a unique era. Private aviation is slowly and inexorably returning to an elite activity, similar to the 1920s and 1930s. Folks like us are benefitting from the boom days of the 1960s and 1970s with our ancient but "affordable" mass produced chariots that have lasted longer than any manufacturer anticipated. We will keep the game going a bit longer with retrofitted avionics, recycled airframe parts from wrecks, and perhaps new upholstery and paint. Maybe chuck the spam can for a homebuilt in some cases.

Every recession takes its toll, but it used to be temporary with a reasonably quick recovery. 1969 production was 12,132 single + multi piston aircraft produced. The recession dropped that to 7,101 in 1970. Despite the 1973 Arab oil embargo and rising fuel costs it still roared back. Cessna produced it's 100,000th single piston airplane in the mid-1970s. All time industry peak production was in 1978 with 17,032 piston airplanes produced.

Then came the wipeout of the twin recessions in 1981 and 1982, with the Volcker interest rates. Piston production fell to 2,228 units in 1983, continued down to a low of 499 airplanes in 1994, and never came close to recovering to pre-recession levels. Cessna shut down production of piston airplanes in 1987, resumed it for a few models only in 1997. The most recent peak was 2,755 piston airplanes in 2006. The industry hadn't produced even that pathetic number of piston airplanes since 1982 - 24 years earlier, in the midst of a recession.

And then it got worse in the aftermath of the 2008/09 global financial crisis. Piston production fell to 912 airplanes in 2010 and, like a chainsaw-engine Ultralight struggling for altitude, slowly clawed up to 1509 airplanes in 2019 - 55% of the 2006 peak, and less than 9% of the numbers from 40 years earlier. Piston production fared better through the COVID period of 2020, falling just under 1% in production numbers with just over a 7% revenue decline - implying the more expensive piston airplanes took the brunt of the decline (which seems consistent with the y-o-y trend in turboprop and jet aircraft, both of which saw much larger percentage declines than piston aircraft numbers).

The COVID recession isn't over, so we'll see what it does to new piston production in 2021 and 2022. I'm betting it falls further, and we repeat the pattern in place for each recession in the last four decades. When I read stuff here suggesting all the industry needs is more parachutes, less regulation, two cabin doors, better marketing or much cheaper but fully equipped (CorningWare panel) airplanes, I have to chuckle. None of this can overcome the deteriorating fundamentals that have been in play for decades now - demographics, increasing costs, multi-decade real income compression, rising income insecurity, low cost commercial carriers, greater regulation, declining societal tolerance for risk, more competition for the discretionary entertainment/amusement dollar, and on it goes. Even our resident @Ted doesn't own an airplane at the moment. Hoowuddathunk that would happen?

I bought my Aztec in the aftermath of $150/bbl crude oil and the financial crisis, when avgas was expensive and the prices & market for used piston twins had utterly collapsed. I never ever expected one could purchase such a capable airplane at such a ridiculous price. Although it's not as flashy or as fast as a new Beechcraft Baron, it will haul just as much (more, actually), just as far, just as conveniently and with the magic of a Garminized panel just as safely. @Radar Contact is another example (despite dual vacuum pump failures - how does that happen on a twin? ). That is what the manufacturers are having to cope with. With inflation in "everything" and prices for most every type of used piston airplane headed upward, that opportunity may be less today, but the gap with new is still huge. Which brings me full circle back to the first paragraph of this post.

 

[Ted]

Even our resident @Ted doesn't own an airplane at the moment. Hoowuddathunk that would happen?

Hold on just a minute my Aztec-flying friend. It seems a few corrections are in order.

First off, I’m not our resident Ted. I am THE Ted.

Now, as to me being without an airplane, the current economic state of the world has nothing to do with it.

I have not personally owned an airplane since January 2013 when I sold the Aztec (the only airplane I ever owned). The 310, 414, and MU2 were all owned by Cloud Nine, the non-profit I founded in 2009 and ran for nearly 12 years.

Note, I founded it during the 2009 recession. I CHOSE to shut it down in 2020. Financials were never any worse than they’d been previously. In many ways they were better than we’d had before. It was my choice, plain and simple. I’d had enough. Our personal financial state hadn’t worsened (in fact we’ve been quite fortunate with our personal finances in 2020, blessedly).

I didn’t want to own an airplane anymore and frankly if my personal income was 10x higher than it is, I still doubt I would own one currently. Maybe I would, but I’ve not touched the controls of an airplane since September 2020 and have had no desire. This doesn’t have to do with demographics or regulation so much as personal interests. I’m happy driving my bus at 70 MPH instead of flying the MU2 at 270.

Read the book when I publish it and you’ll learn more.

 

[GRG55]

Hold on just a minute my Aztec-flying friend. It seems a few corrections are in order.

First off, I’m not our resident Ted. I am THE Ted.

Apologies dear Sir. THAT mistake shall not be repeated.

I didn’t want to own an airplane anymore and frankly if my personal income was 10x higher than it is, I still doubt I would own one currently. Maybe I would, but I’ve not touched the controls of an airplane since September 2020 and have had no desire. This doesn’t have to do with demographics or regulation so much as personal interests. I’m happy driving my bus at 70 MPH instead of flying the MU2 at 270.

This was exactly my point. I know the planes were owned by Cloud Nine, but for all practical purposes they were your airplanes. You selected them, you flew them, you took responsibility for making sure they were maintained, and it was your decision to replace them (with another airplane and then, ultimately, with no airplane).

When active pilots like you stop flying the collective consequence filters down through GA. I thought it was a good example to illustrate.

Just as an anecdotal observation I personally know at least 7 pilots, 5 (former) Comanche 250/260 owners, 2 with turbo-182s, that in the past 3 years have stopped flying. At all. These were very capable airplanes they used to own (two were partners in one of the Comanches). All of them are younger than me, and none were forced to stop flying because of external reasons such as losing their medicals, or for economic reasons. 4 out of the 7 of them are spending far more time and money on motorcycles now (one is an avid collector and rider of vintage bikes).

In every instance these were personal choices, not dissimilar to the one you made.

Time passes, life changes, and quite naturally we make new choices about where to spend our valuable time and our discretionary income. GA isn't able to compete for as much of that time and money the way it used to during the 1960s and 1970s boom decades, and that is in a nation where the population has grown significantly over the intervening years. Fewer pilots flying for their own reasons, fewer planes. Although not a statistician's strict definition, the macro effect of all this is, imho, an irreversible multi-decade demographic trend.

That was one of the points I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, as to why "more parachutes", "two doors", "more plastic", "better marketing", whatever, is NOT going to make a material difference to the long established downward trend (actually, a near complete collapse) in light piston airplane production.

Read the book when I publish it and you’ll learn more.

We shall look forward to that.

 

[tspear]

There are only a few items which will save GA.
1. Push button automatic flying. e.g. get in the plane, tell it where you want to go, and the computer takes care of everything.
2. Significant cost reduction in both CapEx and OpEx.

The first is well within current technology for "baby steps". e.g. Have the pilot drive to the runway, and enter information from ATC. The actual flying is well within the computer's hands for almost any flight. Where the computer may/will break down is emergencies. But failure mode design, is very possible and makes it viable. That just leaves communication, and ground control to the pilot. Both of which are "doable".

The second one is much harder. The two real hopes for the second point is 1. electric powered, 2. additive manufacturing lowers the cost of turbines to the point they are retrofitted on my planes.

I just do not see either one any time soon.

Tim

 

[JEB]

That's totally fair. Sounds like you have taken great care of your plane and it rewards you with reasonable ops costs

Since you're in San Diego, maybe you can hop over to Ramona on May 1st and say hi at the Fly-In we're putting together. It'd be great to say hi in person and show you my plane.

Use this link to get the details - Ramona Beech Fly-In

 

[schmookeeg]

There are only a few items which will save GA.
1. Push button automatic flying. e.g. get in the plane, tell it where you want to go, and the computer takes care of everything.
2. Significant cost reduction in both CapEx and OpEx.

Item 1 does not resemble GA to me, and I fail to see how it saves GA.

 

[tspear]

Item 1 does not resemble GA to me, and I fail to see how it saves GA.

GA has significant fixed costs. Airports, fueling infrastructure, avionics and engine certification...
By driving volume, this automatic flights system increases the numbers of people in GA. Which lowers the costs for those who still wish to hand fly.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[nauga]

We gotta get dedicated builders to start bolting together more EABs (51% rule be damned) and/or hopefully EAB OEMs to start fielding "legoland" level options for us non-builders, or we're gonna get wholly gentrified out of the NAS by the lamp oil burners.

Professional amateur builders on a large scale will be the death of Experimental-Amateur Built certification.

Nauga,
who built and rebuilds

 

[schmookeeg]

GA has significant fixed costs. Airports, fueling infrastructure, avionics and engine certification...
By driving volume, this automatic flights system increases the numbers of people in GA. Which lowers the costs for those who still wish to hand fly.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Hmmm... okay, I guess I can swallow my contempt for these "flying elevators" the people apparently are clamoring to pay for, if it generates the economy of scale needed to get us that sub-50k turboprop with 350hp or so.

 

[Tantalum]

Since you're in San Diego, maybe you can hop over to Ramona on May 1st and say hi at the Fly-In we're putting together. It'd be great to say hi in person and show you my plane.

Use this link to get the details - Ramona Beech Fly-In

Sure, would love to!

I'll put it on my calendar

 

[hindsight2020]

Professional amateur builders on a large scale will be the death of Experimental-Amateur Built certification.

Nauga,
who built and rebuilds

how so?

 

[GRG55]

how so?

The original purpose behind the E-AB regulations was education. The best you could do was a materials kit and good scrounging skills went a long way.

Now we have NC pre-punched components, fast-build kits that are partially assembled, relatively complex airplanes that require builder assist centers as they are beyond the skills of most amateurs (the late Evolution turboprop comes to mind) and so forth. One could argue it is safer to build with this sort of knowledgeable assistance, and that well advanced kits can produce a more consistent build quality more frequently. But there is probably a limit. Anything that smacks of E-AB "mass production" might bring scrutiny and a situation the FAA can't ignore.

I remember attending one of Burt Rutans Oshkosh forums several decades ago. He was speaking about his then relatively new Defiant. Although he was proud of the design he said he felt a 4-place, twin engine airplane that could be built to fly from Alaska to the Lower 48 non-stop was going too far beyond the intent of the E-AB rules. He opined that if things went too far the FAA would start introducing new restrictions on E-AB to force it back to the original purpose. The RAF withdrew selling plans for the Defiant not long after.