The problem with general aviation

e.pie

e.pie

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
233
Location
Falcon, CO
Display Name
Display name:
e.pie
General Aviation 1956
RE9b4b5.jpg


General Aviation 2013
ItnPJ3M.jpg



Wheel pants and a rear window, 60 years of advancement.




Now compare that to:

Cars 1956:
ZYEeRFZ.jpg


Cars 2013:
OBzcfLK.jpg
 
I'll take the 56' Vette over the plastic batmobile any day.

Just get your checkbook out for modern day General Aviation.

20080314-gulfstream-island-g650.jpg


1137.jpg
 
Looks like the interior of a new sea ray
 
LOL. I'll take the C7, C6, and C5 over a 56 'Vette any day. The only thing good about them is the value of them if you want to sell it.

As far as the Cessna's. If it's a good platform and works well, why change it. Like said, it's just gotten so expensive to afford any new plane. However, look at the advancement in avionics.
 
The laws of physics… are kind of the law of physics.

You have to look on the inside for technological improvements…

PirepCessna172-1956-7.jpg



g1000_1.jpg
 
Nothing wrong with a proven design. But I do wonder why we don't have electronic ignition and why we have a mixture knob instead of a computer controlled mixture.
 
cowman said:
Nothing wrong with a proven design. But I do wonder why we don't have electronic ignition and why we have a mixture knob instead of a computer controlled mixture.
Click to expand...
Because there's nothing wrong with magnetos and mixture control?

That proven design is fine but newer designs outperform it. Mags and mixture work but there are higher performing solutions. $$$$$$
 
bartmc said:
Does it matter? :D

Point is, you can get as nice of a plane as modern day technology can build as long as the check clears the bank.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? Only if we get the guy who posted it when he takes the polygraph and tries to pretend the boat shot was intentional.
 
So you put a couple of TV screens in a 60 year old design and charge $500K+ for it. :mad2:

I agree OP. GA has screwed the pooch.

Every young broke pilot I hear is talking LSA or experimental.
 
txflyer said:
So you put a couple of TV screens in a 60 year old design and charge $500K+ for it. :mad2:

I agree OP. GA has screwed the pooch.

Every young broke pilot I hear is talking LSA or experimental.
Click to expand...

Agreed, experimental is where it's at right now for GA.

When I am in the position to buy a plane in 4-5 years there isn't a single certified GA aircraft that really piques my interest, and will probably end up in an RV, Glasair, or most likely a Lancair.

A Lancair going almost 2x the speed of a 172 with less power and lower fuel burn is nothing to sneeze at.
 
txflyer said:
So you put a couple of TV screens in a 60 year old design and charge $500K+ for it. :mad2:

I agree OP. GA has screwed the pooch.

Every young broke pilot I hear is talking LSA or experimental.
Click to expand...

Even the cost/age of the new planes out there isn't a concern compared to the options (or lack thereof) for flight training/rental. One of the local flight schools in a non-major city is charging $149/hr for a "refurbished" 172M with updated panel... including Loran!

LSAs are either porky 162s or 90+ min away, and the only way to get training for <$150/hr is either an LSA with a non-CFI SPI or a C-150 that came off the line before most of the students.

I blame 2 things:
1) hostile communities / airport authorities
2) A lack of understanding by schools of what's available- LSAs and mogas STCs for Skyhawks come to mind.
 
I bet there's hundreds of significant improvements in both the new Vette and the new Cessna. More bling in the Vette, but improvements in things like front end geometry and suspension are no more apparent to the untrained eye than wing chord and twist changes in the Cessna.
 
An unbelievable amount of performance improvements in the Corvette no doubt.

The archetypical general aviation aircraft? not so much.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/air...na/1957-cessna-172-straight-tail-skyhawk.html
Cruise speed (kts.): 75% power: 108
Fuel consumption (gph): 75% power: 8.0

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/cessna/2009-cessna-skyhawk-172s.html
Cruise speed 75% power (kts.): 126
Fuel consumption, 75% power (gph): 9.7

And that increase in performance is likely attributed solely to an increase in power.
 
e.pie said:
An unbelievable amount of performance improvements in the Corvette no doubt.
Click to expand...

1956 Corvette: 0 - 60 in 7.5 seconds, top rated speed 120 MPH.
2013 Corvette: 0 - 60 in 4.2 seconds, top rated speed 180 MPH.

1956 top US highway speed limit: Unlimited (Wyoming)
2013 top US highway speed limit: 85 MPH

Looks like the 2013 Corvette just gives you the ability to be arrested for being 95 MPH over the speed limit, while the 1956 didn't have that "performance improvement." ;)
 
Well you do get RNAV and LPV approach minimums with weather and moving map in the new Cessna w/G1000, old Cessna was probably VFR. Early Cessna maybe 150 hp, new Cessna 180 hp, no carb heat. Certainly, the ground track indication on the EHSI is much better than factoring in cross winds to stay on cou rse.
 
Bill Watson said:
Because there's nothing wrong with magnetos and mixture control?

That proven design is fine but newer designs outperform it. Mags and mixture work but there are higher performing solutions. $$$$$$
Click to expand...


Can't agree with you here. The problem is the cost of certification. Experimentals have had electronic ignitions getting 25% better performance and fuel economy for decades, but when you can only sell 1,000 units there is no good way to recoup the cost of certification and R&D.

The OP has a good point that reinforces mine. The old (certified) design just keeps getting recycled hoping the buying public won't tire of a plane that does 115 KNOTS burning 12 gph of 100LL. :mad2:

Look at the foreign competition and experimentals, there you will find the future of GA. ;)
 
Last edited:
kontiki said:
Well you do get RNAV and LPV approach minimums with weather and moving map in the new Cessna w/G1000, old Cessna was probably VFR. Early Cessna maybe 150 hp, new Cessna 180 hp, no carb heat. Certainly, the ground track indication on the EHSI is much better than factoring in cross winds to stay on cou rse.
Click to expand...

I just got my pilots license and I never calculate cross wind stuff anymore. The gps keeps me on course anyway
 
The problem with GA is folks living in the past, driving 30+ year old spam cans thinking there has been no improvements made. True most of those improvements are not engine related, but the electronics industry has always led "change".

1956 Cessna shipped 172 (~$9k) with no vacuum system or any navigation radios as a baseline, no shoulder hanress, no crash tested seats, no fireblocking, no ELT, no gyros, unheated pitot, no autopilot, carburated 145 hp engine with Case Tractor mags, manual flaps, bare aluminum airframe, fuses, oil screen, lax CAR 3 standards, incandecent lights, 30 amp generator system


Today standard equipment on the 172S ($289K)
G1000 panel with GTX-33 & TIS
406 ELT
Backup gyros
Corrosion Proofed via epoxy primed airframe
Certified to Part 23 standards
Fuel Injection
Oil Cooler
Oil filter
Fuel Flow
Standby Vacuum
Static Wicks
Refueling Steps
Electric Preselect flaps
Circuit Breakers
Fire extinguisher
All LED lighting
60 amp alternator
Fully articulated pilot and copilot seats
Cup holders


Optional (the main ones) - Autopilot, ADF, DME, TAWS-B, Chartview, Synthetic Vision, XM-Weather, Amsafe inflatable Seatbelts, airconditioning,


Clearly the new 172S is the exact same plane as your grandpa's 172A
 
Last edited:
Nothing has changed. Young broke pilots have never been a target market for aircraft manufacturers.

txflyer said:
So you put a couple of TV screens in a 60 year old design and charge $500K+ for it. :mad2:

I agree OP. GA has screwed the pooch.

Every young broke pilot I hear is talking LSA or experimental.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Nothing has changed. Young broke pilots have never been a target market for aircraft manufacturers.
Click to expand...


This is why there is a problem. What business sense does it make to chase the aging population? Who do you sell to after the geezers are gone? The young pilots wouldn't touch a certified plane after flying experimental. :dunno:

Eliminate burdensome certification costs and what GA exploded. $300K for a 172? Really? :mad2:
 
Ask the boat builders, upscale home-builders, and many others. They don't sell to the young-brokes either. And when all of us were members of that crowd we didn't buy from them either.

When I did the audit work at Beech in the '60's, a new Lincoln or Cadillac cost about one year's salary for the young professionals at the CPA firm. A Bo cost more than 6X. Could I have bought one if the cost had been only 5X? Would it have mattered if the cost had been 7X.
 
Isn't there another thread running here about how people love driving old cars? :D
 
Geico266 said:
The young pilots wouldn't touch a certified plane after flying experimental. :dunno:
Click to expand...

BS
Experimental are good for what they are, but at first I moved from an E-AB to a 40 and then I kept the 40 here and moved our RV-10 to the land of no 100LL and short runways - my left elbow hated that airplane, although it is a good performer and blah-blah-blah. One day I might get an -8 for the giggles, but that's not the same thing as the nice and capable family ride.
 
cowman said:
Nothing wrong with a proven design. But I do wonder why we don't have electronic ignition and why we have a mixture knob instead of a computer controlled mixture.
Click to expand...

We do. http://www.lycoming.com/Lycoming/OURINNOVATION/TheIE2Difference.aspx

It's a matter of getting the manufacturers to buy it. Not cheap, since the R&D and certification costs are spread out over a really small number of engines. For some of their engine models, Lycoming might build only a dozen a year. We're not talking Toyotas here.

Dan
 
There are very good reasons why the experimental/homebuilt segment is the only healthy and growing segment of general aviation. All other segments are dying, or dead.

The performance and cost advantage of Experimental over Certificated aircraft is staggering. Now that I have seen the light, I can't imagine ever wanting to own or fly a certificated spam can again.
 
Experimental aviation is like sex. The day you find out about it is the day you think it all started.

RVs are great airplanes (some more than the others, but different for different folks)
But I've flown a 182 with north of 16000 hours on the airframe and while not pretty, she flew ok. Ever seen a RV with 16k+ hours?
I wouldn't mind having a Legacy to go places for business. You know, get the same trip done in almost half the time. Does it have the lightning protection of my current airplane though? Nope. Would it be a good idea for my wife to get her ticket in one? Nope.

It's not the performance and cost advantage, it's just being different, more specialized for the mission.
 
Just something for the experimental guys to consider as they smugly predict the death of certified aircraft, there will be no airports for your RV flyins without certified aircraft. Some guy patting himself on the back while filling his RV with five gallon cans of auto gas doesn't keep an airport going. It REQUIRES the guy with something like a 421 that flies three times a week for business.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Just something for the experimental guys to consider as they smugly predict the death of certified aircraft, there will be no airports for your RV flyins without certified aircraft. Some guy patting himself on the back while filling his RV with five gallon cans of auto gas doesn't keep an airport going. It REQUIRES the guy with something like a 421 that flies three times a week for business.
Click to expand...


Yeah.. But... Several of us Experimental and even certified flyers have our own private airport.. In fact there are a few thousand private airports in the U.S...

When the public ones start to crater then we will band together and still be flying...:yes:;)
 
To go see each other for educational and recreational purposes? ;)
 
Ah c'mon Alex, you know an RV would be the perfect hauler for your trips to Taos. BTW, I looked for you last week to no avail.

Alexb2000 said:
Just something for the experimental guys to consider as they smugly predict the death of certified aircraft, there will be no airports for your RV flyins without certified aircraft. Some guy patting himself on the back while filling his RV with five gallon cans of auto gas doesn't keep an airport going. It REQUIRES the guy with something like a 421 that flies three times a week for business.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top