MOSAIC does NOTHING to lower the cost of GA

AlphaPilotFlyer said:
European countries decided to reduce bureaucratic hurdles to better compete with US in 1980's,
Click to expand...
Exactly. But they have not reduced them near enough which is why 1000s of private aircraft remain under N reg in the EU and and surrounding countries for its simplicity over the EASA rules. And if you look close enough, the EASA is merely copying what the FAA has been doing for decades. Just look at the Part M-L which was released in 2020.

The FAA is still light years ahead of the EASA and it's predecessor the JAA on a number of levels. So while you may not believe the FAA system is no longer the gold standard, most in the industry still do as they flock to the US system for a lot of their aviation requirements.
 
It sounds to me like one of the most effective ways to get any kind of worthwhile production out of a MOSAIC model would be for the puppy mills to get together and put out design specs…we need this combination of characteristics for the most effective primary training, that set of characteristics for the most effective instrument training, and the other set of characteristics in a multi trainer (although I’m not sure how well a multi trainer would work under MOSAIC.) Between them, they could generate a certain number of each per year for 5 or 10 years, and make worthwhile targets development and production.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Unfortunately, like nearly everything else, we've *********ied things in the pursuit of short-term profits to the extent that we are likely to lose our leadership position, and there's a good argument to be made that we already have.
Click to expand...
I see the word has caught on. Nice. For those not familiar, it was a term coined by Cory Doctorow when describing tech/internet customer capture, leading to product decay across the entire space. He actually goes into detail wrt encouraging the term be generalized in use, certainly in the way you used it, as it describes parallel macro mechanisms of decay and regulatory capture.

For those interested, the author on it (TLDW/NSFW as applicable):

TCABM said:
That’s not an FAA problem to solve.
Click to expand...
Certainly a stance further clarified in my eyes, when they made their position on the matter "known" in October 1996.

With friends like these... and I'm talking about the general public on that one. In the end, they [FAA] have to pander to the US flying public, as they should of course, bad as it may be for holders of those of us in the minority stake (aspiring recreational aviation entrants/re-entrants) of that kerfuffle.
 
TCABM said:
GA production in American died sometime in 1980 or 81.
https://legacy.trade.gov/td/otm/assets/aero/Shipments1971-2010.pdf

I can’t explain the spike from 1971-1981, but those kind of production numbers will never be seen again for piston aircraft.
Click to expand...
Ooooh, data. I do love me some data.

So, I took the data for GA, divided out the per-unit cost, squeezed out a nice dollop of inflation data on top, and found something interesting.

It's hard to say what's the chicken and what's the egg here, but when corrected to 2019 dollars (pre-Covid so as to avoid the recent inflationary upheaval), in the 70s the unit prices were consistently in the mid-$300K range. Now, it was likely somewhat lower for trainers and higher for twins and turboprops, of course, but that's where things were.

Now, here's what the numbers and unit values looked like:
1973-1977: 13,646 to 16,904 units produced, unit cost between $333K and $370K in 2019 dollars
1978 (peak): 17,811 units, $392K each
1979: 17,048 units, $447K each
1980: 11,877 units, $652K each
1981: 9,457 units, $867K each
1982: 4,266 units, $1.23M each
1983: 2,691 units, $1.4M each

And, it has only gotten worse. The low point was 1994, with just 928 GA aircraft delivered. GARA helped that climb back to 2,802 by 2000. There's a noticeable bump in sales in 1998, the first full year Cessna was building singles again, then Cirrus got into the game in 1999 with the SR-20. There was a noticeable drop in the average unit price from $4.7M in 1997 to just under $4M in 1998, and it's mostly been climbing except for a few years in the mid-2000s, dropping to 3.847M in 2006 before skyrocketing as the economy crumbled and piston sales fell off again.

Unfortunately, the dollars aren't split by aircraft type anywhere that I'm aware of, only by manufacturer, so it's hard to get a good feel for how much of this is "airplanes got too expensive for people" vs. "people aren't buying singles so the average cost per unit has gone up." I'm still shocked at the numbers, though, which I've verified against GAMA data: In 2024, the average unit price of a new GA airplane is $8.452 Million!!! That's across 1,592 piston singles, 180 piston twins, 565 turboprop singles, 61 turboprop twins, and 764 bizjets, so 3,162 total airplanes. That means roughly half are SEP, yet while we know SEPs aren't cheap any more, the prices and sales of higher end stuff is bringing in enough money to drag that average up.

FWIW, here's the 2024 unit average for a few GA manufacturers:
Flight Design: $171,190
American Champion: $290,187
CubCrafters: $436,712
Diamond: $815,110 (252 total aircraft, 117 twins and 135 singles)
Cirrus: $1,402,439 (101 Vision jets and 630 pistons, 364 SR22T/145 SR22/121 SR20)
Piper: $1,410,263 (291 units: 203 piston singles consisting of 182 Archers and 21 M350s, 26 piston twins (all Seminoles), and 62 M-series SETPs)
Daher: $4,722,195 (all SETP, 26 Kodiaks and 56 TBMs)
Textron: $5,869,138 (559 total units: 279 piston singles (274 Cessnas and 5 Bonanzas), 2 G58 piston twins, 70 turboprop singles, 57 turboprop twins (44 Super King Air, 13 SkyCourier), and 151 Citations in 7 flavors)
Pilatus: $8,736,122 (96 PC-12 SETPs, 51 PC-24 jets)
Embraer: $15,753,461 (75 Phenoms, 55 Praetors)
Bombardier: $47,923,287
Dassault: $51,193,548
Gulfstream: $60,813,602

hindsight2020 said:
I see the word has caught on. Nice. For those not familiar, it was a term coined by Cory Doctorow when describing tech/internet customer capture, leading to product decay across the entire space. He actually goes into detail wrt encouraging the term be generalized in use, certainly in the way you used it, as it describes parallel macro mechanisms of decay and regulatory capture.
Click to expand...
Of all the new words that have appeared in my lifetime, *********ication is the one that most easily captures its intended meaning. It's a damn fine word, and props to Cory Doctorow for coining it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
…. Cirrus got into the game in 1999 with the SR-20…….
Cirrus: $1,402,439 (101 Vision jets and 630 pistons, 364 SR22T/145 SR22/121 SR20)
….
Textron: $5,869,138 (559 total units: 279 piston singles (274 Cessnas and 5 Bonanzas), 2 G58 piston twins, 70 turboprop singles, 57 turboprop twins (44 Super King Air, 13 SkyCourier), and 151 Citations in 7 flavors)
…..
Click to expand...
Think about that for a minute; three clean sheet Part 23 designs, including a turbine (yes, there was some help from AGATE, at a quarter of the per unit price of Textron. What’s even more interesting is Cirrus is pumping out almost as many jets and half the total turbines as Textron at a quarter of the average price.

They’ve done something right and given Cessna wasn’t acquired until 1992, we can’t hang Textron as much as we all want to.
 
TCABM said:
They’ve done something right and given Cessna wasn’t acquired until 1992, we can’t hang Textron as much as we all want to.
Click to expand...
One significant thing that helped Cirrus was they were insolvent after AGATE was terminated in 2000 and the middle-eastern company/country that bought them in 2001 wiped out all their development debt. Yet in 10 years they still sold Cirrus to the Chinese. Have also heard since that purchase the financials may not be what they seem which was discussed when Cirrus listed on the Hong Kong exchange. There are some in the industry who think the profit margins are not what seem but there is no way to verify that other than company released data.
 
Bell206 said:
One significant thing that helped Cirrus was they were insolvent after AGATE was terminated in 2000 and the middle-eastern company/country that bought them in 2001 wiped out all their development debt. Yet in 10 years they still sold Cirrus to the Chinese. Have also heard since that purchase the financials may not be what they seem which was discussed when Cirrus listed on the Hong Kong exchange. There are some in the industry who think the profit margins are not what seem but there is no way to verify that other than company released data.
Click to expand...
We may nt know the profit margins, but the shipment numbers would indicate revenue from new planes at just more than $1B, then there is parts, service, and training. My guess is that they're probably doing quite well.
 
StraightnLevel said:
We may nt know the profit margins, but the shipment numbers would indicate revenue from new planes at just more than $1B, then there is parts, service, and training. My guess is that they're probably doing quite well.
Click to expand...
Thats provided $500M of that revenue didnt come from a bank check with CCP in the left corner.;)
 
TCABM said:
Think about that for a minute; three clean sheet Part 23 designs, including a turbine (yes, there was some help from AGATE, at a quarter of the per unit price of Textron. What’s even more interesting is Cirrus is pumping out almost as many jets and half the total turbines as Textron at a quarter of the average price.
Click to expand...
That kinda caught my eye too, but Cirrus' only jet is a fraction of the cost of Textron's cheapest jet, AND they are selling 2.25x the number of piston singles, which skews their number even lower.

As far as I can tell, the SF50 is selling for around $3.5 million, while the Citation M2 is going for $5-6 million.
 
I read all of the first page because I was curious about this topic myself. I did not read pages two through eight because it seems as though… It wasn’t a productive discussion.

But I do want to chime in on something that I haven’t noticed anybody else discussing, at least not yet, and the reason I was interested in this topic, which is: I’m a private pilot I’ve owned a Cirrus SR-20 when it fit my mission, and like so many people in aviation, life-changing event, kids going to college, and other things competing for my disposable dollar including a divorce attorney, the series had to find a new owner. That was 2018.

I haven’t stayed abreast of aviation and did not know about MOSAIC rule, I don’t hang around the airport anymore, so no one had told me that when I decided to get back into aviation and went looking for something that fits my current mission, I could have considered an EAB. I mean, I knew I could consider one of those, but what kept pushing me off of them is I didn’t wanna buy something built by an amateur and have to take it to an A&p for a complete bend over and grab your ankles an annual.

That’s not intended as a slam against A&P guys, I put this blame squarely on the insurance industry. No mechanics gonna sign off an amateur built airplane until he has been through that thing with such a fine tooth comb that he knows when he signs it off his insurance carrier is not gonna fire him tomorrow. Add to that the cost of the premiums which have to be passed through and they’re in lies the problem. It’s also the same problem we have with aviation in general. Manufacturers have to spend so much money on liability coverage because although we have a statue of repose, they’re still on the hook for 15 years. Try suing an automobile manufacturer three years after a car is built and see how fast you get thrown out of court, but an airplane…

The point is, if I had a state of breast and knew about the new mosaic rule, I very likely would have spent much more time looking for an experimental. Show in that regard, the rule would have saved me a substantial amount of money, not on the purchase… I ended up with a Luscombe… But a weekend class and I could do all my own maintenance, I’m kind of a handy type in like working on things, so I see a substantial savings there. But then in over a decade of owning my own airplane, I’ve never had an annual come in less than $8k and I paid for my last one in 2017. Based on the way, everything else is going up. I would expect those annuals to be.$15k or more in today’s dollars.

Here’s to hoping an 80-year-old airplane will pass annual for $3k in today’s cost…
 
N1230k said:
No mechanics gonna sign off an amateur built airplane until he has been through that thing with such a fine tooth comb that he knows when he signs it off his insurance carrier is not gonna fire him tomorrow.
Click to expand...
There are A&Ps and there are A&Ps. If you take an experimental to the same shop that worked on your Cirrus, yeah, there's a good chance that won't want to it. But there are a lot of small shops and freelance A&Ps that are comfortable working with experimentals.
N1230k said:
But a weekend class and I could do all my own maintenance, I’m kind of a handy type in like working on things, so I see a substantial savings there.
Click to expand...
You don't even need the weekend class to work on an experimental, you only need it if you want to do the annual condition inspection yourself.
 
Dana said:
There are A&Ps and there are A&Ps. If you take an experimental to the same shop that worked on your Cirrus, yeah, there's a good chance that won't want to it. But there are a lot of small shops and freelance A&Ps that are comfortable working with experimentals.

You don't even need the weekend class to work on an experimental, you only need it if you want to do the annual condition inspection yourself.
Click to expand...
An A&P won't go through your experimental with a fine tooth comb - too many can be noted to have issues from 3 feet away. Then they have to fight the "it's an experimental so any which way is fine."

Hard pass.

Maybe an RV will get an A&P to at least consider looking at it if needed, since these are basically kits that in principal hew to known design factors and have a long track record.

Mosaic planes don't really exist yet under Part 22 since ASTM has to set the new standards as I understand it.
 
That is pretty low cost. Less than some luxury SUV's, and if your luxury SUV loses all its electrons, or engine, or runs out of gas, you just coast to the side of the road. A plane that can safely fly into controlled airspace, at night, for less than a car... covers profit, maintenance, regulation, liability, just doesn't seem possible to me. There are cheaper hobbies. Flying is not cheap. Annnnd flying the cheapest stuff is not necessarily safe.
 
Rockymountain said:
There are cheaper hobbies. Flying is not cheap. Annnnd flying the cheapest stuff is not necessarily safe.
Click to expand...

....*yawn* that again. Everybody go home y'all, the gospel has been decreed from the heavens...

Well-heeled weekend warriors continue to misrepresent winged lawnmowers as apollo moonshots for rationalizing effect. I call it, "To a canary, a cat is a monster" syndrome.

NO, it doesn't have to be this expensive. And it sure isn't because following GPS signals with a radio receiver is "hard and dangerous". But a subset of folks in this hobby love their distraction apologetics. Let's speak plainly and translate for the outgroup: High cost is the feature for some of y'all. Stop hiding behind the "everything is a moonshot" pedestrian-downtalking sleight of hand.

To be fair, that false equivalence story of "things have always been unaffordable" transcends this hobby. Reference the degree to which family formation is being crippled in this country whilst trying to argue housing affordability isn't objectively worse in inflation adjusted terms than it was for people in 1981, for instance. One marker of the 'tyranny of incumbency' is that very reticence to ever admit the degree to which that monetary inflation timing affects your lot in life. But I'm straying from the aviation topic; the rest of this dissertation will be for my podcast so I digress.

I got nothing against kerosene burners beyond the second tier effects the co-opting the pedestrian-use of the term general aviation, which hurts the optics for the sub-100K market as pedestrians don't understand the stark socioeconomic distinction. I know this goes against the presumed ethos of this message board, but we're not all pulling the rope for the same team here; pilot class solidarity is a myth.
 
TCABM said:
That’s not an FAA problem to solve.
Click to expand...

hindsight2020 said:
Certainly a stance further clarified in my eyes, when they made their position on the matter "known" in October 1996.
Click to expand...
It's the easiest job in the world for a regulator to ensure the absolute "safety" of flying.

No flying == No accidents. QED

There may be concessions to be made, but when that is your only pole star, there's little to be gained straying too far from it.
 
Steamflyer said:
Maybe an RV will get an A&P to at least consider looking at it if needed, since these are basically kits that in principal hew to known design factors and have a long track record.
Click to expand...
There are still a good number of A&Ps who sign off E/AB condition inspections. I know the ones around my area that don't inspect E/ABs has more to do with available free time than not wanting to work them because they are E/AB. However, I think the new MOSIAC rules may open up some new opportunities for A&Ps to assist those new LSRI/Ms in learning the ropes. I know of a couple future LSRIs that have approached some A&P friends about helping them out as they get their feet wet. Easy money for my buddies and a confidence builder for the LSRIs.
 
hindsight2020 said:
NO, it doesn't have to be this expensive.
Click to expand...
agreed on this point. Small GA is too expensive and getting worst as it's recreational segment shrinks. There is no reason why it cost $175/hr to rent a near original relic...what other industry is this occuring? Juxtapose this to A&P making less than auto mechanics in most places.

my c172 experimental cost $20/hr to fly all in and out performs any other model ... there are practical solutions out there but there needs to be a consorted effort to make it happen, especially for legacy fleet that will likely be flying decades longer. it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
There is no reason why it cost $175/hr to rent a near original relic..
Click to expand...
I will politely counter with what would it cost to rent a similar era high end car that equaled its purchase price when new, that has had documented and legally required periodic maintenance and inspections to ensure it was it proper condition and fully mechanically sound to perform within its original design specifications? (My hunch is the airplane would be cheaper).
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
agreed on this point. Small GA is too expensive and getting worst as it's recreational segment shrinks. There is no reason why it cost $175/hr to rent a near original relic...what other industry is this occuring? Juxtapose this to A&P making less than auto mechanics in most places.

my c172 experimental cost $20/hr to fly all in and out performs any other model ... there are practical solutions out there but there needs to be a consorted effort to make it happen, especially for legacy fleet that will likely be flying decades longer. it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is.
Click to expand...

$20/hr?

wow, burning less than 2 gallons per hour, and zero maintenance reserve, zero oil burn, zero insurance/tie-down costs amortized.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
agreed on this point. Small GA is too expensive and getting worst as it's recreational segment shrinks. There is no reason why it cost $175/hr to rent a near original relic...what other industry is this occuring? Juxtapose this to A&P making less than auto mechanics in most places.
Click to expand...
It's a relic because interest in light GA peaked in 1977 and it's been downhill ever since. Consider that a dinner in a white table restaurant for two can easily cost around $175, that auto mechanics (sadly not GA ones) are billed out at about $175 (or higher), $175 an hour seems reasonable.

Overall, something about 25% of the GA fleet actually seems to fly much - many many aircraft come in for annual with 5 to 25 hours on the tach since the last annual. Slowly rotting away, and the same accidents each week putting a pall on the idea that the average GA pilot won't kill themselves and their family in their spam cam. Near as can tell, the majority could just pass the check ride some time ago, and their skills have only deteriorated since. Nose wheels landed on, upwind wings lifted by the crosswind, inability to hold altitude within 50 let alone 20 feet, etc. If IFR "rated" no idea how to use the new boxes they paid 70k for, not familiar with the flow of a flight from clearance to landing, and struggle to keep the needles in the middle.

All can say is God bless Lycoming, because those 0-320s in the proverbial 172 seem for the most part to soldier on regardless of how they are operated or maintained. So the pilot at least has that in their corner.
 
Steamflyer said:
Overall, something about 25% of the GA fleet actually seems to fly much - many many aircraft come in for annual with 5 to 25 hours on the tach since the last annual. Slowly rotting away, and the same accidents each week putting a pall on the idea that the average GA pilot won't kill themselves and their family in their spam cam.
Click to expand...
I think its closer to 50-60% and determined more by location or personal drive vs a general statistic. For example, I've found aircraft in southern and western areas average closer to 100hrs per year and aircraft based outside of congested airspace with similar usage. But I agree the recreational type flyer is on the downhill side mainly due to lack of interest in the younger generations. Unfortunately, I think once it does recover your average recreational owner will be flying some version of an e-aircraft which MOSAIC also covers on several levels. Time will tell.
 
Steamflyer said:
It's a relic because interest in light GA peaked in 1977 and it's been downhill ever since. Consider that a dinner in a white table restaurant for two can easily cost around $175, that auto mechanics (sadly not GA ones) are billed out at about $175 (or higher), $175 an hour seems reasonable.

Overall, something about 25% of the GA fleet actually seems to fly much - many many aircraft come in for annual with 5 to 25 hours on the tach since the last annual. Slowly rotting away, and the same accidents each week putting a pall on the idea that the average GA pilot won't kill themselves and their family in their spam cam. Near as can tell, the majority could just pass the check ride some time ago, and their skills have only deteriorated since. Nose wheels landed on, upwind wings lifted by the crosswind, inability to hold altitude within 50 let alone 20 feet, etc. If IFR "rated" no idea how to use the new boxes they paid 70k for, not familiar with the flow of a flight from clearance to landing, and struggle to keep the needles in the middle.
Click to expand...
We see the same accidents every hour of every day on the roads: That doesn't deter people from driving. The difference I see are the high barriers to entry and usage.

Steamflyer said:
All can say is God bless Lycoming, because those 0-320s in the proverbial 172 seem for the most part to soldier on regardless of how they are operated or maintained. So the pilot at least has that in their corner.
Click to expand...
Its almost like they are the Toyota or Honda of the sky. I wonder why the technological advances present in every compact economy car engine haven't found their way in front of every aircraft firewall [he said, tongue-in-cheek]? 2000 hr TBO x 50-60 mi./hr == 100k-120k mi. A MB E-class diesel will go 250k miles without blinking. If one disassembled and re-toleranced it even that often, it would run forever.
 
DJTorrente said:
We see the same accidents every hour of every day on the roads: That doesn't deter people from driving. The difference I see are the high barriers to entry and usage.


Its almost like they are the Toyota or Honda of the sky. I wonder why the technological advances present in every compact economy car engine haven't found their way in front of every aircraft firewall [he said, tongue-in-cheek]? 2000 hr TBO x 50-60 mi./hr == 100k-120k mi. A MB E-class diesel will go 250k miles without blinking. If one disassembled and re-toleranced it even that often, it would run forever.
Click to expand...
The data from Waymo, as recently reported in the press, suggest that over the next say 30 years driving will become automated, which will decrease the accident rate substantially as essentially the autonomous cars don't have accidents. It will first be a choice, then it will become mandatory. Automation in the 121 world from first Airbus and then Boeing has already massively decreased the accident rate, even as the aircraft were deployed in countries that did not have an aviation history. Fifty years ago, a morning headline every two to four months of an air carrier crash somewhere was common. Not so much now.

IFF the 172 was being sold at a rate of 10k per year, some improvements might have appeared. But the design was essentially frozen at the point of the 0-320 switch in the late 60s. The Toyota comparison is fatuous, since Toyota build more of a slow moving line in a year than the number of 172s have ever been built in the history of the aircraft. And that's the most common aircraft ever built!

Remember, somewhere in America, some shop or shops is injection molding 750k F-150 left side rear lens assemblies. Oh, and another 750k right side ones. This is scale. Aircraft are hand built model-shop productions. And weight is at an absolute premium, especially in a 150 hp machine, so the least structure is best, though that may prove to be crack prone 50 years later.
 
Bell206 said:
similar usage. But I agree the recreational type flyer is on the downhill side mainly due to lack of interest in the younger generations
Click to expand...
reduce cost just to rent a plane and participate and you will will see a substantial increase in interest.
Steamflyer said:
God bless Lycoming, because those 0-320s in the proverbial 172 seem for the most part to soldier on regardless of how they are operated or maintained.
Click to expand...
lycoming is a major reason GA has dwindled... they lobbied to exempt themselves from all modernization improvements every other engine segment was required by law. this essentially a FAA protected monopoly allowed the cost just to overhaul be more than a new hybrid car and burn leaded fuels. statistically, certified aircraft piston are less reliable than automotive counterpart.

Bob Noel said:
$20/hr?
Click to expand...
yes. Actually less than than 20 with local gas now $2/gal if fadec set at max 180hp....$23 if set at 220hp max.

I let a few local CFIs build time in it, they pay own gas ..two flew it to OSH this year at 4.7 gph about 80'ish kts ..they calculated a new efficiency matric of cruise speed....lowest time building cruise cost for flight time hungry CFIs.
 
It's a free market. Supply, demand, cost of goods and such. How do you feel we should fix this?... Short of pushing more of the cost onto the non-flying taxpayers? Maybe government subsidies, such that the first 200K of an aircraft falls on uncle Sam's wallet? The costs aren't made up. And almost nobody is getting rich in aviation. Want to make a million dollars in aviation? About the only way to do that is to start with two million. ;-)

Or sadly, as is common in aviation with a judicial use of snake oil, promise something that defies the laws of physics and gravity, promise efficiency through unreasonable scale, take a lot of innocent peoples money, and then with indignation take the money and run when physics, or the economy, or the law puts an end to your scam. Reality is tough.
 
Last edited:
Steamflyer said:
The Toyota comparison
Click to expand...
good point as, like Porsche, built and certified a small piston aircraft engine based on their Lexus aluminum V8. They ended project based on number of factors....mostly the added complexity required to meet part 33 (regardless of service history and numbers in cars without real issue) and the shrinking GA market. one could imagine if it worked out and what it would look like today..image a Toyota engine in your c172 that would allow you to simply replace entire engine for about 1/3 of overhauling OE Lycoming....not to mention parts cost savings and availability.

. There's a lot of ignorant pontificating about auto conversions.... mostly based on old amateur efforts from junk yards and direct installs.....but one of the advantages is aircraft would have ongoing modernization besides enjoying mass production economics.
 
Diamond has been doing this for 2 decades using Mercedes engines and variants. And today, they have an engine that is more expensive, less powerful, heavier and less reliable than the Lycosaurs and Continental Rex's they wanted to replace.
 
Rockymountain said:
It's a free market. Supply, demand, cost of goods and such.
Click to expand...
Really? Where can I buy a new build RV-10? Why not? (HINT: It isn't because they don't want to sell me one.)

Pull the other leg next time.

ETA: I mention diesel only because it eliminates the problem of TEL; the continued need for which is also a regulatory mandate. Its the shortest path away from 100 LL and makes everyone on the airport able to burn one fuel.
 
Rockymountain said:
How do you feel we should fix this?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it will take any government subsidies, just a want from both industry and FAA policy makers. But such government incentives have accelerated net improvements in segments it implemented, such as cash for clunkers, to ADSB rebates and safety. Free market has to have opportunity component , ie alternative solutions to acquire or deploy. we all know a larger artificial horizon or simple auto pilot would make significant Safety improvements, but certification cost has proven fundamental barrier to manufacturers and retail cost to legacy fleet owners.

my solution is simple and not just mine, and used by other government agencies such as FDA...simply identify problems and find ways to partner or otherwise work with steak holders for solutions....even policy fast track some. it's good for industry and economy (as EASA knows). FAA has similar program for drone segment....I'd argue this is one reason why most new ga innovation as certified electric planes are European, as they have made great strides in EASA making such partnerships.

as far as your statement of "ending your scam"....are you speaking genericlly of past new innovations coming to market before ready or as actual scam (there certainly has been), or accusation of my project?
 
DJTorrente said:
Its almost like they are the Toyota or Honda of the sky. I wonder why the technological advances present in every compact economy car engine haven't found their way in front of every aircraft firewall [he said, tongue-in-cheek]? 2000 hr TBO x 50-60 mi./hr == 100k-120k mi. A MB E-class diesel will go 250k miles without blinking. If one disassembled and re-toleranced it even that often, it would run forever.
Click to expand...
And what auto or truck engine runs at 100% power for ten minutes and then 75% for the next several hours? How long would they last if run like that? Cars typically cruise at maybe 30% power, max, after ten seconds of 60% power for acceleration.

Cars are not airplanes. Airplanes are not cars. Making comparisons that ignore the vast differences in operating parameters is just foolishness.
 
An airplane engine has more in common with a race car engine than a car engine. They live their whole life at the edge of their performance limits with respect to torque and temps. It would be like, well exactly like running that Mercedes at 170 mph all the time. And the Mercedes doesn't have to provide the extra horsepower to remain elevated above the ground for 1-7 hours at a time.
 
Rockymountain said:
An airplane engine has more in common with a race car engine than a car engine. They live their whole life at the edge of their performance limits with respect to torque and temps. It would be like, well exactly like running that Mercedes at 170 mph all the time. And the Mercedes doesn't have to provide the extra horsepower to remain elevated above the ground for 1-7 hours at a time.
Click to expand...
I've never known anyone with a piston single that ran their engine "at the edge of their performance limits" on a consistent basis. Are there really people out there running that way? Everyone I know is in the 65-75% power range. Heck, most of us don't even have the option of being on the edge because once we climb a few thousand feet there isn't enough oxygen to mix with the fuel to make that happen.
 
If there are those who are willing to open their nose (and their wallet), I'm not about to tell anyone how to spend their money.

Just don't presume to speak for everyone.

"Flying is expen$ive!"
"What's else ya-gonna do?"
"You don't want to fly with THAT engine, DO YOU?!?" (I've been flying with NO engine, many a time, and lived to tell the tale, thank you very much.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top