The problem with general aviation

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.

If I could just hook a box trailer to it, it might just work.

We came up Yesterday. I didn't know you were here until you posted about Angel's hangar last week. Next time give me a heads up and we get together and go play Black Mesa (great course if you haven't been).
 
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? ;)
Ha! Exactly

I fly my EAB off my community private strip. Packing, planning and departing at our leisure is sweet. But having ATC high speed taxi us right into KCLT's Wilson Air so we could be on way to some downtown good times as if we had arrived in a limo, that's priceless. Didn't touch a bag, pick up a pencil or show an I.D.

Yeah, tagging along with all those nice high dollar kerosene rides to destinations where we want to be is what makes it work for us.

Pick your spot and enjoy, but don't knock the rest of it. Just make it better.

Long live GA, big and small!
 
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.

Why won't an RV make 16,000 hours? They are too new to have been flown that long. Several are approaching 10,000 hours with no structural problems. :dunno:
 
If only certification rules would allow companies like Remos to build a replacement for the 172 like they've already built a replacement for the 152...

Or replace those magnetos with advanceable electronic ignition, etc.
 
Why won't an RV make 16,000 hours? They are too new to have been flown that long. Several are approaching 10,000 hours with no structural problems. :dunno:

I'd be genuinely interested to see one. Just haven't had a chance to see a really high time RV to see how they hold up.
The only experience building RVs I have would be with the -10s, and those didn't appear particularly overbuilt to me in certain areas. Not that they are unsafe - not by any measure - but flimsy in certain spots.
And then there's always the builder, who knows how to do it better :rolleyes: Like when I built my Lightning - that's the only Lightning with a throttle quadrant instead of the normal push-pull controls. My intro to RVs - flying the back seat of a RV-8, I pull us into a steep climbing turn... next thing I grunt "your flight controls" as the seatback falls back through the bulkhead - it was a custom razorback RV-8 and that part where the seat back meets the bulkhead wasn't particularly thought through :D Eh.. Good times.
 
I'd be genuinely interested to see one. Just haven't had a chance to see a really high time RV to see how they hold up.
The only experience building RVs I have would be with the -10s, and those didn't appear particularly overbuilt to me in certain areas. Not that they are unsafe - not by any measure - but flimsy in certain spots.
And then there's always the builder, who knows how to do it better :rolleyes: Like when I built my Lightning - that's the only Lightning with a throttle quadrant instead of the normal push-pull controls. My intro to RVs - flying the back seat of a RV-8, I pull us into a steep climbing turn... next thing I grunt "your flight controls" as the seatback falls back through the bulkhead - it was a custom razorback RV-8 and that part where the seat back meets the bulkhead wasn't particularly thought through :D Eh.. Good times.
Have you actually built a '10? Interesting perspective if you have.

I completed mine 2 years ago and obviously only have a few hundred hours so far. 'Well built' is a relative term but the later RVs are certainly well designed. How else could so many survive so many amateur hands? In my opinion, a well built and maintained RV10 will last as long or longer than a comparable Cessna or Piper. Perhaps it's not designed and overbuilt like the robust 'Bo but what else is or ever will be?

A main safety and durability feature of certified aircraft are all the rules, regs and marketplace controls like liability & litigation. Bad design points are ferreted out and fixed. Poor construction is severely punished. Parts and materials are controlled and tracked. But this is what makes it pricey and slow to evolve. All the stuff owners and pilots like to complain about.

What EAB aircraft lack is obvious - most of the controls, regs and constraints that the certs have. Perhaps worst of all, each one is unique.

I think the sweet spot is when a capable builder executes a well designed kit, with minimal modifications, and then maintains and operates it.

Buyers of built/used EAB aircraft are not quite in that same sweet spot. They'll never have complete assurance of many things. Some maintenance will be learn as you go. If due diligence is done, it will usually work out fine and the owner can have the newest stuff in a hot plane that can fit his or her's mission better than some 40yo spammer ever can (that's called Jay's '8).

Bill "thinks he's in the sweet spot" Watson
 
Have you actually built a '10? Interesting perspective if you have.

I have. Well designed metal parts, average if that composite parts, doors a friggin' afterthought - "oh... weren't we gonna have doors in here somewhere?".

What EAB aircraft lack is obvious - most of the controls, regs and constraints that the certs have. Perhaps worst of all, each one is unique.

I think the sweet spot is when a capable builder executes a well designed kit, with minimal modifications, and then maintains and operates it.

This. Having said that, I agree with Vans that the RV-8 (and possibly 7) should be spartan inside, but the -10 in my book should have a nice interior. And in many spots that was a very, very tough job.

However, the only thing that I really ever disliked about the 10 was ergonomics that didn't fit me. Nice fat wide cockpit, but my left side is pressed against that door (ooh.. those doors...) and there's enough space in between the seats to park a S1S in there. Diamond is 45" vs 49" of the RV, but feels more comfy to me.

that's called Jay's '8A
FTFY :)

Our 10 interior pic attached*. Doors were still work in progress on this one

*replaced pic with better ones
 

Attachments

  • RV_int1.jpg
    RV_int1.jpg
    247 KB · Views: 46
  • RV_int2.jpg
    RV_int2.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
I have. Well designed metal parts, average if that composite parts, doors a friggin' afterthought - "oh... weren't we gonna have doors in here somewhere?".

This. Having said that, I agree with Vans that the RV-8 (and possibly 7) should be spartan inside, but the -10 in my book should have a nice interior. And in many spots that was a very, very tough job.

However, the only thing that I really ever disliked about the 10 was ergonomics that didn't fit me. Nice fat wide cockpit, but my left side is pressed against that door (ooh.. those doors...) and there's enough space in between the seats to park a S1S in there. Diamond is 45" vs 49" of the RV, but feels more comfy to me.


FTFY :)

Our 10 interior pic attached*. Doors were still work in progress on this one

*replaced pic with better ones
Yep, sheet metal is a core compentency at Vans, composites not so much.

That is a smokin' interior!! The interior is a point where the designer and many builders really disagree. Both POVs have merit but there's no question which goes higher,faster and further. But then who cares if you are comfortable? Van is a glider guider in another life... that explains a lot.

I split the difference with Flightline and am satisfied. I added my own center console with a minimal cross section to minimize leg room encroachment and yet still house a good size O2 bottle and accessories. Take a look here:
O2 Console for RV10
(wish I could figure out how to just post a pic)

Anyway, I very comfortable after too many years in my old Maule.
 
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

I was thinking about fixing up the interior of my Warrior like that, but then I sold it instead.

-John
 
Yep, sheet metal is a core compentency at Vans, composites not so much.

That is a smokin' interior!! The interior is a point where the designer and many builders really disagree. Both POVs have merit but there's no question which goes higher,faster and further. But then who cares if you are comfortable? Van is a glider guider in another life... that explains a lot.

I split the difference with Flightline and am satisfied. I added my own center console with a minimal cross section to minimize leg room encroachment and yet still house a good size O2 bottle and accessories. Take a look here:
O2 Console for RV10
(wish I could figure out how to just post a pic)

Anyway, I very comfortable after too many years in my old Maule.
Good looking console, interior too!

To post a picture you either press "Quote" or "Go Advanced" and then you'll have the option to "Attach Files" and there will be a button "Manage Attachments"

I like Maules. They are "homebuilt" as "homebuilt" gets, but they can be a ton of fun :) Just sold a very nice light VFR M7-235C with 200 hrs on it..
Oh well, I feel fortunate that I am able to fly and own my own airplane, can't be feeling bad about not being able to own the dozen and a half airplanes that I'd love to own :)
 
Last edited:
The young pilots wouldn't touch a certified plane after flying experimental. :dunno:

Of course many of the experimental aircraft I'm truly interested in would be an incredibly expensive and stupid purchase for me and I make several times what most people my age make. Experimental or certified it's just all too damn expensive.
 
You know guys the reality is until general aviation truly becomes GENERAL aviation and is made more available to the public it's going to only decline. Until people start realizing that the even the newest planes are way over priced the lifestyle will decline.
 
Last edited:
My neighbor sells Quicksilvers and Challengers. Busy as ever.
Let's just be realistic about it. Want to fly cheap - accept light a/c with a 2-stroke engine. Don't like the arrangement - be prepared to spend more on it. Or buy an older airplane.
 
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.

I don't know where you live, or what you fly, but I've flown my experimental RV-8A 61 hours in the last 45 days -- and purchased avgas at a dozen different airports during that time, in five states.

Funny how stereotypes just never seem to work.
 
I don't know where you live, or what you fly, but I've flown my experimental RV-8A 61 hours in the last 45 days -- and purchased avgas at a dozen different airports during that time, in five states.

Funny how stereotypes just never seem to work.

Sure it works and I don't help that much either although my wallet would say I try really hard. Any aircraft burning <20 GPH and flying less than 200 hours a year doesn't do much. If we look at Avgas useage the twins burning 40ish and flying for business everyday drive all the demand. That is one of the often cited reasons why an Avgas alternative is so hard, the biggest users need the high octane juice and supply most of the demand.
 
Sure it works and I don't help that much either although my wallet would say I try really hard. Any aircraft burning <20 GPH and flying less than 200 hours a year doesn't do much. If we look at Avgas useage the twins burning 40ish and flying for business everyday drive all the demand. That is one of the often cited reasons why an Avgas alternative is so hard, the biggest users need the high octane juice and supply most of the demand.

100LL is going away. The CA do-gooders are making sure of that.

Because of this, Jet-A/diesel engines are the future of GA. Another reason to love experimental -- I can slap a diesel on the front of the -8A without too much fuss.
 
So, Jay's RV burns under 10 GPH. So he burned under 600 gallons of fuel.

We burned that on the Navajo in a week. Actually once we did it in a day. Long ass day, but a day. Yep, that 20% of the piston fleet still burns 80% of the fuel.

Actually, as far as development goes, the real problem is that the engines haven't changed any on the piston side. At least in my opinion. I can put all the avionics from a G36 into an A36 and have ostensibly the same plane with the same speed and efficiency.

Diesel will be a big improvement.
 
it'll be better. the updated A36 will carry more weight than the fat pig G36. And the doors will fit better too. The old timers in wichita who knew how to put them together are gone.

So, Jay's RV burns under 10 GPH. So he burned under 600 gallons of fuel.

We burned that on the Navajo in a week. Actually once we did it in a day. Long ass day, but a day. Yep, that 20% of the piston fleet still burns 80% of the fuel.

Actually, as far as development goes, the real problem is that the engines haven't changed any on the piston side. At least in my opinion. I can put all the avionics from a G36 into an A36 and have ostensibly the same plane with the same speed and efficiency.

Diesel will be a big improvement.
 
You know guys the reality is until general aviation truly becomes GENERAL aviation and is made more available to the public it's going to only decline. Until people start realizing that the even the newest planes are way over priced the lifestyle will decline.

At the rate used aircraft prices have fallen, they won't be unaffordable for many for too much longer.

Bottom line: If you can afford an Escalade (2007 sales: 61,000) you can afford a great used aircraft.

Not a "good" one -- a GREAT one.

Although cost is part of the equation, it's not the money that's keeping GA down, IMHO. In no particular order, you've got:

1. The wussification of America.
2. A stifling regulatory environment that has crushed innovation and made new planes unaffordable.
3. Society's obsession with safety. The only "good" risk is zero risk.
4. A litigious society. There are no "accidents" in America.
5. Competition for leisure time from other exciting, easier to master activities (boating, motorcycling, etc.)
6. An elitest attitude among pilots that turns off most women, and many men.

For those of us who bull past these daunting obstacles, the only choice for most of us is to either fly antique or experimental aircraft. I, for one, could never afford even a new Cessna 172 -- even if I wanted such a plane.

It's funny. For 60 years everyone talked hopefully about "some day"owning a "personal aircraft" (helicopter, airplane, jetpack, whatever) while simultaneously allowing the development of a bureaucratic Ineptocracy that guaranteed that the promise of GA will never be realized.
 
Good looking console, interior too!

To post a picture you either press "Quote" or "Go Advanced" and then you'll have the option to "Attach Files" and there will be a button "Manage Attachments"

I like Maules. They are "homebuilt" as "homebuilt" gets, but they can be a ton of fun :) Just sold a very nice light VFR M7-235C with 200 hrs on it..
Oh well, I feel fortunate that I am able to fly and own my own airplane, can't be feeling bad about not being able to own the dozen and a half airplanes that I'd love to own :)
I loved my Maule for sure after 1700 hours or so. Had an MX7-180a (not A) which I picked up from the 2nd owner with 35 hours on it. A full 1000lb payload and fun as heck to fly, especially with one door off. Basic, even crude construction but solid and reliable. It was my first airplane after a couple of sailplanes. It flew like a truck in comparison to those birds but the '10 is more like the sailplanes.

In the background of this photo you can see my RV10 fuselage dolly... the beginning of the end for the Maule.

(I've read and followed the directions for photos more than once but it looks like I finally got it. Thanks!)
 

Attachments

  • DSC03080.JPG
    DSC03080.JPG
    2 MB · Views: 28
Last edited:
When will you be able to afford a new RV-10?

At the rate used aircraft prices have fallen, they won't be unaffordable for many for too much longer.

Bottom line: If you can afford an Escalade (2007 sales: 61,000) you can afford a great used aircraft.

Not a "good" one -- a GREAT one.

Although cost is part of the equation, it's not the money that's keeping GA down, IMHO. In no particular order, you've got:

1. The wussification of America.
2. A stifling regulatory environment that has crushed innovation and made new planes unaffordable.
3. Society's obsession with safety. The only "good" risk is zero risk.
4. A litigious society. There are no "accidents" in America.
5. Competition for leisure time from other exciting, easier to master activities (boating, motorcycling, etc.)
6. An elitest attitude among pilots that turns off most women, and many men.

For those of us who bull past these daunting obstacles, the only choice for most of us is to either fly antique or experimental aircraft. I, for one, could never afford even a new Cessna 172 -- even if I wanted such a plane.

It's funny. For 60 years everyone talked hopefully about "some day"owning a "personal aircraft" (helicopter, airplane, jetpack, whatever) while simultaneously allowing the development of a bureaucratic Ineptocracy that guaranteed that the promise of GA will never be realized.
 
When will you be able to afford a new RV-10?

If I wanted to build one, and spread the pain over many years, right now.

Not that I would ever want one. They're really nice planes, but I owned the certificated version for the last 11 years. Our time hauling kids around the country is complete -- it's time to have fun!
 
At the rate used aircraft prices have fallen, they won't be unaffordable for many for too much longer.

Bottom line: If you can afford an Escalade (2007 sales: 61,000) you can afford a great used aircraft.

Not a "good" one -- a GREAT one.

Although cost is part of the equation, it's not the money that's keeping GA down, IMHO. In no particular order, you've got:

1. The wussification of America.
2. A stifling regulatory environment that has crushed innovation and made new planes unaffordable.
3. Society's obsession with safety. The only "good" risk is zero risk.
4. A litigious society. There are no "accidents" in America.
5. Competition for leisure time from other exciting, easier to master activities (boating, motorcycling, etc.)
6. An elitest attitude among pilots that turns off most women, and many men.

For those of us who bull past these daunting obstacles, the only choice for most of us is to either fly antique or experimental aircraft. I, for one, could never afford even a new Cessna 172 -- even if I wanted such a plane.

It's funny. For 60 years everyone talked hopefully about "some day"owning a "personal aircraft" (helicopter, airplane, jetpack, whatever) while simultaneously allowing the development of a bureaucratic Ineptocracy that guaranteed that the promise of GA will never be realized.


Good points Jay. I have to say your #6 is an issue for sure.
 
Good points Jay. I have to say your #6 is an issue for sure.

Agreed. If you read POA long enough, you will become convinced that #6 is the worst problem of them all.

We are our own worst enemy.
 
A piece of the puzzle you continue to ignore or are incapable of understanding. The family that still has or will have more than two people wanting to travel must come up with at least $250k (or more, none of the RV-iacs seem to know for sure) for a RV with enough seats to haul them. If the owner wants to fly rather than build for the 2-10 years necessary to complete the 4-seater, what's his choice?

You're trying to sell that exact 4-seat package while touting it as "a great plane" instead of including it in the incessant "GA spam-can aviation is dead" threads in which you incessantly bleat the dubious virtues of the RV's. Only when other owners chime in on the well-known problems that all seem to know about do we learn that all that glitters is not glit. GMAFB

If I wanted to build one, and spread the pain over many years, right now.

Not that I would ever want one. They're really nice planes, but I owned the certificated version for the last 11 years. Our time hauling kids around the country is complete -- it's time to have fun!
 
A piece of the puzzle you continue to ignore or are incapable of understanding. The family that still has or will have more than two people wanting to travel must come up with at least $250k (or more, none of the RV-iacs seem to know for sure) for a RV with enough seats to haul them. If the owner wants to fly rather than build for the 2-10 years necessary to complete the 4-seater, what's his choice?

You're trying to sell that exact 4-seat package while touting it as "a great plane" instead of including it in the incessant "GA spam-can aviation is dead" threads in which you incessantly bleat the dubious virtues of the RV's. Only when other owners chime in on the well-known problems that all seem to know about do we learn that all that glitters is not glit. GMAFB

I have NO idea what you're talking about. I couldn't care less about new planes, or 4-seat homebuilts. Both are outside of my area of interest, and are unaffordable to boot.

WRT experimentals, Van's yearly production of aircraft now exceeds Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft COMBINED. And that's just ONE kit manufacturer.

So, I ask -- which segment of GA is healthy again? :rolleyes:
 
I'll count your response as "incapable of understanding" which was one of the two choices provided. Thanks for participating.

I have NO idea what you're talking about. I couldn't care less about new planes, or 4-seat homebuilts. Both are outside of my area of interest, and are unaffordable to boot.

WRT experimentals, Van's yearly production of aircraft now exceeds Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft COMBINED. And that's just ONE kit manufacturer.

So, I ask -- which segment of GA is healthy again? :rolleyes:
 
Agreed. If you read POA long enough, you will become convinced that #6 is the worst problem of them all.

We are our own worst enemy.

Because it's not a problem that the general public perceives the average private pilot as reckless?
 
I have NO idea what you're talking about. I couldn't care less about new planes, or 4-seat homebuilts. Both are outside of my area of interest, and are unaffordable to boot.

WRT experimentals, Van's yearly production of aircraft now exceeds Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft COMBINED. And that's just ONE kit manufacturer.

So, I ask -- which segment of GA is healthy again? :rolleyes:

One of the fastest growing and healthy populations in the US is food stamp recipients. There's a reason for that. :D
 
I soloed in 1969 but didn't bother getting a ticket until 1995. In 95 I could rent 152's all day long for $35 an hour, 172's going for about $55-$65 wet. Gas was $2.50 a gallon. Somewhere along the way everything more than doubled. Just a fun flier here, no reason to have to be somewhere, and I just mentally can't stand the thought of $2 flying out a 172 window every minute..............that's why I'm flying my Yamaha FJR these days........
 
I loved my Maule for sure after 1700 hours or so. Had an MX7-180a (not A) which I picked up from the 2nd owner with 35 hours on it. A full 1000lb payload and fun as heck to fly, especially with one door off. Basic, even crude construction but solid and reliable. It was my first airplane after a couple of sailplanes. It flew like a truck in comparison to those birds but the '10 is more like the sailplanes.

I loved flying MX7-180B - although it was a tad weird on landings until we stuck a AK Bushwheel huge tailwheel with different springs in the back (and 26" up front).
This summer flew a M7-235C for a few hours - this stripped-off-all-things-IFR M7 was a blast. Nothing but a six pack, radio and a transponder. Fuel in the mains only, two up - climbed like the proverbial ape. Getting that flap up to cruise reflex position was an easy gain of 7-8 kts of indicated airspeed too - outclimbed the Diamond hands down and could almost catch up in cruise (on higher fuel burn, but still)
 
One of the fastest growing and healthy populations in the US is food stamp recipients. There's a reason for that. :D

...beats working...
 
Of course many of the experimental aircraft I'm truly interested in would be an incredibly expensive and stupid purchase for me and I make several times what most people my age make. Experimental or certified it's just all too damn expensive.

That's good point.
 
Jay...

You say anyone who can afford an Escalade can participate in GA? Last time I checked, the average rapper and NFL player are the only people buying Escalades. LOL.

Definitely not the average family of four. The upper end of that demographic might buy in their late 30s or early 40s on a seven year debt note or lease.

Seen any RV leases lately?

Karen and I are above average/median earners, no kids, and extremely blessed/lucky/whatever sentiment phrase keeps the PC crowd happy these days. I agonized for months over whether or not to buy 1/3 share in a spamcan. And I LIKE spamcans.

After a long and careful discussion about whether or not to be significantly poorer in retirement, we purchased.

It's ALL about the money, contrary to your assertion.

There comes a point where the fun-to-dollar ratio isn't balanced. For most folks that'd start at the first look at a 30 year old piece of aviation history in need of a new interior and lots of expensive plastic fairings that costs more than a new Escalade, to use your analogy. Where's the entertainment system and fine leather? Ha.

You're the lucky recipient of someone's basically free labor building the RV, and that's great. They feel they got a win, you feel you got a win, but you said it yourself that to own a new RV would have you taking on a debt load you're not comfortable with, and you're a successful small business owner. Your business would tank if you had to take the time to build it.

None of your employees will ever be in a position to purchase an aircraft, ever. That's not a whine or any "class warfare" type complaint, it's just simply economic fact.

Many have pointed out that this has always been the case in aviation, that middle class folk have to give up a lot to aviate and pay homage to the aviation addiction demons in their heads. True.

But I think the 70s had a perfect storm of high dollar value, and manufacturing capability to mass produce aircraft that will never be repeated, after WWII, and just prior to the liability realities of building 30 year old designs came hammering down on the industry.

Prices adjusted back to where they probably should have been all along after the lawyers got paid. The effects of certain lawsuits are still rippling 25 years later. Cessna paid to install a cute little seat belt retractor locking device underneath my pilot seat this year on an aircraft that left the factory over 30 years ago.

We're almost all flying something of that heyday's vintage or maybe an 80s restart in Certificated and some are flying homebuilts that are newer. The industry gets all giddy these days when 100 new aircraft are sold per year.

Aviation isn't healthy, but it's a reflection of the overall economy and lack of personal profits. The majority of folk are indebted up well above their eyeballs to banks deemed "too big to fail", and scrambling to maintain the outward appearances of success. A seven year car loan was unthinkable in my youth, for example. Just drive your beater and be happy you have wheels. Grab a timing light, some tools, and some spark plugs and oil and filter and work on it half a day on Saturday to keep it running.

That Escalade goes into the shop, you'll pay $150 just to ask the computers hooked to one of the most boringly simple V8 power plants of all time, what's wrong with it.

Our all-in costs on the aircraft run roughly $150/hr in round numbers. I flew to Sidney, NE last weekend for absolutely no discernible reason at all, other than fun. The tach said 2.4 hours. That is $360 to enjoy the view out the window and say hi to Ed Nelson.

There just aren't many folk fiscally capable of that, and a mechanically sound Skylane with a 30 year old interior, isn't exactly the dream, or even interesting to the few folks who have $360 lying around to quite literally, blow, on a Sunday. That's a car payment for most folks.

I feel incredibly blessed to have had the ability to spend that kind of cash and not end up living in a van, down by the river, but it's so far from most people's reality, it's embarrassing to pitch flying outside of the already self-selected affluent aviation community. Your assertion that pilots come across as elitists is probably more an indication of reality than an insult.

When you figure out a way for your staff at the hotel to participate in GA on a regular basis and afford it, you can whine that other aviators are elitists. Seriously. Welcome to the 1%.

Along those lines, it's amost insane to give a kid of a $40K-$50K a year single-parent or single-wage-earner household, an airplane ride and hook them without explaining to dad that he need to go sell a kidney to put their kid through flight training. Especially knowing they really only take home maybe 2/3 of that or less after the tax man gets his cut.

Medical bills or retirement savings? There isn't anything left in the piggy bank for most people to spend on aviation.

You can't be serious saying it isn't about the money.
 
I just look at $150/hr and then at the ridicluous amount of regulation and liability placed on manufacturers and it's no wonder aviation is so broken.

The average MPGs of cars 50 years ago were lucky to get in to the teens, continuing to drive a car well past 100k miles was almost unheard of. And that's the era of engineering technology that a majority of general aviation stems from.

Get rid of the road blocks of certification, make it easier to design something new. Bring engines up to date and not state of the art for WWII. Put something in place to protect manufacturers so they don't get sued to oblivion because their engine was in a plane that crashed after the pilot flew VFR into IMC, or they were over gross on a high density altitude day. Because it happens, and it's absolutely insane to blame the manufacturers for something like that. http://avstop.com/news_april_2010/p...lycoming_engines_negligent_in_plane_crash.htm

If they could actually innovate, we'd probably have planes you could fly for far less than $150/hr, more reliably, and with longer TBOs.


Hell, look at what something as aerodynamic as a Lancair can do with a modern engine. http://www.deltahawkengines.com/Firewall Lancair.shtml


At least there are some companies trying to innovate, like Diamond and Cirrus, even though the certification and regulation makes them cost a small fortune, and with 100LL drying up engines will be dragged kicking and screaming in to the future.
 
Last edited:
Money has a lot to do with it. The only people that say it doesn't have plenty of it.

I would add that the governments desire to control every aspect of our lives doesn't help in any way. They will be thrilled when the last GA plane goes away.
 
Jay...

You say anyone who can afford an Escalade can participate in GA? Last time I checked, the average rapper and NFL player are the only people buying Escalades. LOL.

Definitely not the average family of four. The upper end of that demographic might buy in their late 30s or early 40s on a seven year debt note or lease.

Seen any RV leases lately?

Karen and I are above average/median earners, no kids, and extremely blessed/lucky/whatever sentiment phrase keeps the PC crowd happy these days. I agonized for months over whether or not to buy 1/3 share in a spamcan. And I LIKE spamcans.

After a long and careful discussion about whether or not to be significantly poorer in retirement, we purchased.

It's ALL about the money, contrary to your assertion.

There comes a point where the fun-to-dollar ratio isn't balanced. For most folks that'd start at the first look at a 30 year old piece of aviation history in need of a new interior and lots of expensive plastic fairings that costs more than a new Escalade, to use your analogy. Where's the entertainment system and fine leather? Ha.

You're the lucky recipient of someone's basically free labor building the RV, and that's great. They feel they got a win, you feel you got a win, but you said it yourself that to own a new RV would have you taking on a debt load you're not comfortable with, and you're a successful small business owner. Your business would tank if you had to take the time to build it.

None of your employees will ever be in a position to purchase an aircraft, ever. That's not a whine or any "class warfare" type complaint, it's just simply economic fact.

Many have pointed out that this has always been the case in aviation, that middle class folk have to give up a lot to aviate and pay homage to the aviation addiction demons in their heads. True.

But I think the 70s had a perfect storm of high dollar value, and manufacturing capability to mass produce aircraft that will never be repeated, after WWII, and just prior to the liability realities of building 30 year old designs came hammering down on the industry.

Prices adjusted back to where they probably should have been all along after the lawyers got paid. The effects of certain lawsuits are still rippling 25 years later. Cessna paid to install a cute little seat belt retractor locking device underneath my pilot seat this year on an aircraft that left the factory over 30 years ago.

We're almost all flying something of that heyday's vintage or maybe an 80s restart in Certificated and some are flying homebuilts that are newer. The industry gets all giddy these days when 100 new aircraft are sold per year.

Aviation isn't healthy, but it's a reflection of the overall economy and lack of personal profits. The majority of folk are indebted up well above their eyeballs to banks deemed "too big to fail", and scrambling to maintain the outward appearances of success. A seven year car loan was unthinkable in my youth, for example. Just drive your beater and be happy you have wheels. Grab a timing light, some tools, and some spark plugs and oil and filter and work on it half a day on Saturday to keep it running.

That Escalade goes into the shop, you'll pay $150 just to ask the computers hooked to one of the most boringly simple V8 power plants of all time, what's wrong with it.

Our all-in costs on the aircraft run roughly $150/hr in round numbers. I flew to Sidney, NE last weekend for absolutely no discernible reason at all, other than fun. The tach said 2.4 hours. That is $360 to enjoy the view out the window and say hi to Ed Nelson.

There just aren't many folk fiscally capable of that, and a mechanically sound Skylane with a 30 year old interior, isn't exactly the dream, or even interesting to the few folks who have $360 lying around to quite literally, blow, on a Sunday. That's a car payment for most folks.

I feel incredibly blessed to have had the ability to spend that kind of cash and not end up living in a van, down by the river, but it's so far from most people's reality, it's embarrassing to pitch flying outside of the already self-selected affluent aviation community. Your assertion that pilots come across as elitists is probably more an indication of reality than an insult.

When you figure out a way for your staff at the hotel to participate in GA on a regular basis and afford it, you can whine that other aviators are elitists. Seriously. Welcome to the 1%.

Along those lines, it's amost insane to give a kid of a $40K-$50K a year single-parent or single-wage-earner household, an airplane ride and hook them without explaining to dad that he need to go sell a kidney to put their kid through flight training. Especially knowing they really only take home maybe 2/3 of that or less after the tax man gets his cut.

Medical bills or retirement savings? There isn't anything left in the piggy bank for most people to spend on aviation.

You can't be serious saying it isn't about the money.

+1 this
 
Jay...


You can't be serious saying it isn't about the money.

As always, it's a matter of degree. If you are one of the 60,000+ people who bought a freaking Escalade, you COULD have bought a great used aircraft like Atlas.

What would Cessna do with 61,000 orders?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3...
 
As always, it's a matter of degree. If you are one of the 60,000+ people who bought a freaking Escalade, you COULD have bought a great used aircraft like Atlas.

What would Cessna do with 61,000 orders?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3...


My plane is a $65,000 plane. On top of that, I fly 100-150 hrs per year. That's about $15,000 to $20,000/yr if nothing goes wrong., if I had a payment... add another $10,000 or so Purchase price is the cost of entry. I give up a-****ing-lot to fly.
 
Back
Top