Turboprop vs piston question

I'm not implying that aviation numbers would return to their heyday. I am just saying that the market absolutely balks at buying aircraft over triple the value they used to sell at for essentially the exact same aircraft. You've pushed into a much smaller pool of the population who could even entertain purchasing an aircraft when the price of entry is so steep.

Eh, plenty of people are buying supercars, collectibles, restomods, etc., at eye watering prices. Enough so that Mecum has a TV audience for it. At least people can finance a plane; at the auction you’re laying down purchase price + buyer’s premium in cold, hard cash.

The barrier to entry in that market is much, much lower and the desire to be in that market is much, much higher.
 
US is from Mars, Europe is from Venus, film at eleven.

The high end LSAs cited are at odds with the aforementioned GA everyman market segment; an RV12 or S21 would be more affordable choices.

Sport pilot + ELSA + mogas seems to be the surface of least encumbrance while we wait for (likely unaffordable anyway, trickle-down effects aside) MOSAIC Godot.
 
I would imagine general interest would be abysmal.
Not talking about the current status of private GA now. Its at the bottom of the slope now. Private GA interest started declining 40+ years ago and that lack of interest/market was a defining point that led to the OEMs shutting down production in the 80s. However, even with the tort costs increasing 2000% during that time period not all OEMs stopped producing new aircraft only those in declining markets, i.e, private GA. Even 20 years ago, $100+M of new aircraft/engine designs and cutting edge technology couldn't stop the decline of private GA so everyone took their toys home and pursued other ventures. Which leaves you today with OEMs producing only enough "legacy" units that they can sell per year. And the market itself takes care of that pricing. The numbers speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Without pressurization, not sure where that goes.

While pressurization is a nice to have option, it’s not crucial in deciding on a turbo prop vs piston. Plenty of people still choose to suck on O2 and fly non pressurized TIOs into the flight levels. Personally not for me. I’d rather have pressurization.

To be honest though, even the high altitude KTAS benefits aren’t that crucial depending on the platform. The Caravan and Kodiak are good examples of this. Non pressurized but require the added HP and reduced weight of a turbine to fulfill their mission. Your larger helicopters also being a prime example. But, a Caravan or a large helicopter are very different than wanting to put a turbine in a small LSA. Just not needed unless you like the sound.
 
Last edited:
Minor nit pick. I think it is desire to burn Jet-A or some form of heavy fuel is more often the reason than the sound.
If you want sound, I do not think anything beats a radial.

Tim

I was outside washing my car the other day and heard the distinct sound of two radials but couldn’t see it. Got on FR24 and it was a Catalina. Heard the same sound about year ago and it was a B-25. Unmistakeable sound.
 
Well, when a basic C172 that sold for less than $150K in inflation-adjusted dollars now sells for a half-million dollars, I would imagine general interest would be abysmal.

Pretty much nailed it: I would imagine general interest would be abysmal.

The problem with GA is that there is very little general interest. Oh sure, there's been a bit of an uptick recently, but overall the apogee was 1978 and GA has been declining albeit with a sinusoidal downslope ever since. In the late 70s the WWII generation, which was aviation crazy, reached their peak earning years, which coupled with empty nests, allowed them to buy their dream planes, be it a 172 or a Bonanza or a 210, in droves. There were something around 17,000 bug smashers delivered in 1977 or 1978, the peak year. The bounding years around the peak weren't bad either, but then the bottom fell out. Essentially everyone who wanted a plane now had one.

In the ensuing almost 50 years, of which I've flown almost 40 of them, so many small private airports not far from a town or city one might want to visit closed when their founders died and the inheritors turned them into housing. This greatly reduced the practicality of going from point A to point B, particularly on the coasts. The beautiful county fields spaced every 20-40 nm between the Appalachians and the Rockies did survive, but the population and hence economic density is lower there, making it harder to sustain sales. So now one must often fly to a fairly big and busy airport to do business or visit friends and families. All workable, but the economics are just not accessible to very large population.

So now we have about 150,000 piston aircraft in the US and somehow there's an idea that if someone just built a $100k (same as a big pickup) four seater that went 180 knots for 600 miles GA would take off. Not in my opinion - in the end flying is not trivially easy as there's a commitment and a depth of learning required that surpasses most other hobbies people like to do, perhaps because the penalty for messing up can be the ultimate one. As a contrast, motorcycles, another somewhat niche product not terribly loved by many, often for the same reasons as light planes, sell about 500,000 examples per year in the US! That's all brands all styles integrated. Ford sells more copies of one truck, the F150, every year. We just don't get any economy of scale in aviation.

So enjoy the aircraft we have today and the miracle of flight. Maybe the machine is not as fast as one would like, and can't handle as much weather as one wished, and can't go as far, but it can FLY. And that's a miracle that mankind has dreamed of since first seeing a bird. Maybe your machine just flies, maybe your machine "goes places" but all the piston powered aircraft are pretty much in the same bucket - hand built machines that support a very small and niche engineering base.

Still rooting for the next guy building the 220 kt 200 hp miracle for $200k. Hope springs eternal.
 
Well, when a basic C172 that sold for less than $150K in inflation-adjusted dollars now sells for a half-million dollars, I would imagine general interest would be abysmal.

Hmm, let's see, $1 in 1985 is $2.81 today.

So today's $500,000 C-172 is $177,935 in 1985 dollars. Pretty close to your $150,000.

So airplanes don't cost most, our money is worth less.
 
Hmm, let's see, $1 in 1985 is $2.81 today.

So today's $500,000 C-172 is $177,935 in 1985 dollars. Pretty close to your $150,000.

So airplanes don't cost most, our money is worth less.

The already applied inflation adjustment. The 172 cost <50k in 1981.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPM
Turbine certification doesn’t allow a “smooth air only” airspeed range.

This is kind of the right answer. The barber pole of a turbine is kind of like the lower of Vne or Vno in a piston. In essence it has to be able to handle normal turbulence up to max speed. In essence guaranteeing a bigger safety factor for turbine operations. Plus it also has to have a certified dive speed which is further buffer whether published or not.
 
Keep in mind, the Meridian is nothing but the Mirage airframe with a turbine engine strapped on.
Not exactly. The jet prop is a heavily modified version of the malibu or the mirage, but the Meridian is not. In fact there are almost no interchangeable parts on a mirage and a meridian. Some of the bigger changes. The empennage is different. 33% larger than the Mirage. The windows are different, except for the front windows. The gear are heavier and have different brakes. The deice system is different in every aspect including much larger boots. The wing is different and has thicker skins giving the monocoque structure more strength to handle the higher weight and speed. The pressurization system and safety features are completely different. Obviously the heating system is very different and works even at the higher colder altitudes. So it was heavily re-engineered and has about 300 lbs more metal in it, in spite of a lighter engine than a Mirage.
 
Not exactly. The jet prop is a heavily modified version of the malibu or the mirage, but the Meridian is not. In fact there are almost no interchangeable parts on a mirage and a meridian. Some of the bigger changes. The empennage is different. 33% larger than the Mirage. The windows are different, except for the front windows. The gear are heavier and have different brakes. The deice system is different in every aspect including much larger boots. The wing is different and has thicker skins giving the monocoque structure more strength to handle the higher weight and speed. The pressurization system and safety features are completely different. Obviously the heating system is very different and works even at the higher colder altitudes. So it was heavily re-engineered and has about 300 lbs more metal in it, in spite of a lighter engine than a Mirage.

The PA-46 line kept the name. But otherwise, from what others have posted there is nothing that Piper has not significantly re-engineered over the years. The M500 and M600, even the earlier Merdian only share a name with the earlier PA-46. The planes were completely re-engineered and could effectively be considered blank sheet designs.

Tim
 
I mean, if you guys want to burn jet fuel and be more efficient there's always the diesel option..

The DA-62 *twin* (the big one, not the smaller 42 twin) will carry seven people at 180 knots while burning 9 gallons per hour combined!

Turbines are cool as hell!

But they simply don't scale down and size well. The sonex jet is a great example of this

If someone is trying to sell you a DA-62 I would investigate those numbers before you hand over the check.
 
If someone is trying to sell you a DA-62 I would investigate those numbers before you hand over the check.
Paul Bertorelli did a good fly along in AvWeb, I'm sure you can also download a poh/afm somewhere, those figures above I put were slightly hyperbolic but the performance is fairly incredible..
 
Paul Bertorelli did a good fly along in AvWeb, I'm sure you can also download a poh/afm somewhere, those figures above I put were slightly hyperbolic but the performance is fairly incredible..

They’re not magic. I have experience flying and maintaining the Diamond diesels and while there are some aspects that I like better about them I’d much rather have something else.

IMHO there was nothing in your comment about the DA-62 that was realistic. :)
 
Back
Top