US AOPA - why pilots drop out [Archive]

POBJOY

11th Nov 2010, 20:08

If that was the scene in the States what chance has Europe got.
We have to accept that we are in different world now with so much virtual reality equipment around and that the expense of real flying is way out of reach for most people unless they are looking for a career.
Because they never get to see the fun side of going into strips or joining a simple group the "open prison" scenario on lots of airfields hardly encourages the spending of many thousands of pounds to try and enjoy yourself.
The feedback i get from those who can afford it is they are less than impressed with the facilities provided for what seems an awful lot of money and even trying to explain how the clubs/operators struggle to survive with huge increases in costs/charges fails to help the situation.
Yet despite all this, hangarage is in very short supply and the UK fleet is hardly dwindling away.
Another factor is that the "microlight system" has diverted many away from what is seen as a very regulated and cost burdened pastime.
When the "fun factor" is outweighed by the cost/regs the result is inevitable.
If someone in the know can post the cost of issuing a driving licence compared with a PPL it may proove a point. There is even VAT on medicals now !!!

flybymike

11th Nov 2010, 22:42

I tried to make myself as scenic as possible when learning to fly but none of the constantly looking rich women gave me a second glance, the bastards.

LH2

12th Nov 2010, 14:46

If someone in the know can post the cost of issuing a driving licence compared with a PPL it may proove a point

Can't remember how much my car licence cost, but my HGV and PCV (aka Class C+D) licences were probably around €3000.- for the whole lot. That's compared to ~€6000 for my PPL and ~€30000 for my CPL+MEIR.

Oddly enough, hiring a bus for my lessons cost about the same as hiring an aircraft: about €100/hr.

Now, what point is this meant to prove? :confused:

soaringhigh650

12th Nov 2010, 15:00

hiring a bus for my lessons cost about the same as hiring an aircraft: about €100/hr.

Interesting, but how many can your bus hold and how many can your aircraft hold?

Pace

12th Nov 2010, 15:28

Everything we do has to have a purpose. The more expensive it is the more that purpose has to be justified.

When I started flying 25 years ago my sole intention was to be able to say I had flown an aircraft on my own ie first solo then I was going to drop it all.

Some how that goal having been achieved lead to another goal the PPL.

In my early days I had this stupid idea that I could use an aeroplane like a car. Sailing above the traffic jams it would be yet another means of practical form of travel.

It took a lot more licences before that possibility became a reality and some pretty expensive, capable hardware to make it a reality.

Now I am paid to fly others expensive hardware I feel sorry for the poor PPL churning out vast sums of money to get his fix.

If I went back it would be to something I could fly out of a field on a sunny day which sipped fuel anything more practical means mega money and time and would feel like a hobby in spending money.

Pace

IO540

12th Nov 2010, 15:48

The bit I have never understood is that anybody with the IQ to pass the PPL exams can easily add up what it will cost to get a PPL and fly afterwards.

Obviously those who just want to "learn to fly" are not going to be concerned about the long term cost of the minimal currency, but everybody else in the sausage machine ought to be aware of it. Up front, I mean.

OTOH, to be fair, there is b*gger-all information available to the student about what they can do afterwards. IME, the school/club tries hard to channel everybody into the self fly hire option, and then they feed them like mushrooms to keep them there for as long as possible.

I was nosing around at "options" from quite an early time (started looking at IFR at about the time of the 3rd cancelled lesson :) ) and I was fed a huge amount of bull about ownership and about the IFR options. It was 2 years before I discovered the N-reg option and that was over the internet...

24Carrot

12th Nov 2010, 15:49

...I feel sorry for the poor PPL churning out vast sums of money to get his fix.PPL's are hardly unique though! Horses, skis, boats and oversized motorbikes are all theoretically modes of transport. In practice, they are expensive, (and enjoyable according to taste), ways of getting from A to A via somewhere else...

Pace

12th Nov 2010, 16:05

24Karat

That is a good comparison. I would add racing cars going no where as fast as you can :sad:
But what is a travel machine and a fun machine? Fun machines for me would be something Hot and quick. Sia Marchetti, Glasair or ex military jet.

Somehow a 20 year old PA28 fits the not much fun travel machine category but then in your horse example so does a Donkey and plenty love Donkeys :rolleyes:

I would want more for my money to justify the outlay

Pace

IO540

12th Nov 2010, 16:19

I would want more for my money to justify the outlay

That's a good point. Most long-term owners are flying more capable hardware.

The entry level for serious IFR is not short of £100k and that only gets you something well used...

Captain Smithy

12th Nov 2010, 17:17

A number of interesting points here.

We could for ever argue about the % of the various factors but I would add some bigger ones to why people (students and post-PPLs) drop out:

- they just wanted to tick the 'learnt to fly' box

- the lack of 'scenery' (women) makes it a lousy activity choice for a single bloke, given how time consuming a hobby it is (single men are almost constantly 'looking' and have to choose any time- and money-consuming activites carefully)

- a lot of very young jobless pilots are doing it from a gift of money and when that runs out...

Have to agree with IO540's points above, I can certainly relate to the second one. The number one issue however still has to be cost. It's not just fuel/rental costs but all the other things that add up, maintenance, insurance, landing fees, club fees, silly CAA charges for licenses, renewals etc. Especially in these difficult times when everybody wants their pound of flesh from you - the taxman, gas, leccy, mortgage, the supermarket etc. - keeping a roof over your head and food in the freezer is of much greater need than a quick hour on a Saturday morning in the club spamcan. Not many folk can justify up to £150/hr when the mortgage/rent/gas needs paying.

Also post-PPL things change. At my club the instructors are quite good at encouraging folk to go beyond local jaunts, however many folk get caught in the trap of doing a quick hour in the local area and do nothing else. Hence ennui and tedium sets in, the end result is people give up. Unfortunately to avoid doing so we run into the money problem again. Doing trips costs £££. Landing fees, parking fees, B&B, fuel... or if you decide to do an IR, aeros course, complex checkout, multi, again the wallet takes a hammering.

Then there are the rules and the red tape. JAR/EASA is a nightmare that would drive the calmest of saints to dispair. Why do you need to renew your license every 5 years at considerable cost? Why is an IR for private owners so rediculously unaffordable and over-engineered to the same standards for commercial pilots flying 757s? Why is maintenance and the associated costs and paperwork so onerous compared with FAA-land? Etc. Ad Nauseum.

Until such problems are addressed, the numbers will continue to dwindle.

Smithy

Squeegee Longtail

12th Nov 2010, 19:55

Over regulation (and, for many, the associated costs). Pure and simple. It takes a lot, if not all, the fun out of flying.

My flying is all for pleasure (ex-mil jets and aeros), but when the aggravation outweighs the pleasure, I will quit.

I have been close to that point fairly regularly recently.

martinprice

12th Nov 2010, 20:55

Some of the points noted (cost, for example, and the work required to learn to fly) aren't necessarily particularly new. I've been thinking about this lately as I hear more and more reasons thrown out for the decline in pilot population and I have a feeling that there's one underlying problem: the romance has gone out of flying. Flying used to be a glamorous activity, with the highly skilled, highly respected, well-paid airline captain at the top of the pyramid. That glamour ran all the way through aviation, from the 747 down to the J-3 Cub, and made it seem worth the time, money and effort to get into the skies.

All of the reasons quoted herein have contributed, of course. Horrible over-regulation rather takes some of the fun out of things, as does expensive 100LL, and the fact that you face ever stronger security even to get into the podunk strip where that J-3 is hangared. Most of us flying now probably still maintain that sliver of romance in our minds (admit it, how many times have you all watched One Six Right?) and it keeps us going. Every time I leave the ground I have my own personal "I can't believe I'm doing this moment" and I hope I can convince just one person that they should feel the same way.

Anybody that tries to sit down and rationally run the numbers is probably going to have their aircraft up for sale within a matter of hours. I'm going to keep doing this until the FAA physically chains me to the ground.

IO540

12th Nov 2010, 21:09

Flying used to be a glamorous activityYeah, very true.

However, this is not a recent thing. Romance went out of private aviation decades ago; probably before WW2.

A slightly more recent thing is a general uplift in peoples' expectations. In the 1970s, standards everywhere were pretty disgusting. I remember going to exhibitions and air shows, where the toilets were disgusting and the food was crap. That's all gone today. But "we" still fly the same 1960s crappy planes. A lot of people today won't climb into a knackered old 1970s Cessna/Piper. I had a trial lesson 10 years before I started flying and I remember the radio was held by 1 screw and about to fall out. That put me off for a long time.

There has been a big decline in PPL issues in the last decade - about a 1/3 drop. That is probably something else. I don't know if anybody has done an analysis of whether there has been a change of the student pilot age profile, but younger people have so much else nowadays bidding for their time and money, and I would expect their numbers to be declining.

Anybody that tries to sit down and rationally run the numbers is probably going to have their aircraft up for sale within a matter of hoursWell, yes, but you could say that for horses (which as I well know cost an obscene amount of money, as well as creating more emotional issues (for women) than anything else including kids), boats (which cost loads of money and have absolutely zero utility value), and just about every sort of sporting activity. At least GA has utility value - once you drag yourself above a certain level of capability.

Unfortunately, a "certain level of capability" equates to ownership and nobody in the training system is going to promote that option...

martinprice

12th Nov 2010, 21:46

There has been a big decline in PPL issues in the last decade - about a 1/3 drop.That big? I didn't know that stat. I wonder if it's closely correlated to 9/11 and the subsequent Big Fear of everything with wings.

A lot of people today won't climb into a knackered old 1970s Cessna/Piper.You're right there, and in the same timeframe we've managed to build eyeball-popping amounts of technology into even relatively inexpensive cars. I heard somewhere that Cirrus tried to make the interior of their aircraft feel like a BMW. I think they succeeded but at an eye-watering price.

At least GA has utility value - once you drag yourself above a certain level of capability.That's what I told myself when I was learning to fly but I've actually never done anything truly useful with a plane, and I wonder if we're losing at least some people when they come to realize that utility comes with such a high cost. It's a damn sight cheaper to bash around in a Citabria for an hour than it is to fly several hundred miles in a Cirrus. Nothing against Cirrus here, BTW. They're nice planes but far, far outside my current budget as is any other nice, modern, fast IFR platform.

I'm somewhat biased in this respect - the Pitts has about as much utility as a Formula 3 car, and for much the same reasons - but when I realized that I wasn't going to be cruising across the country at 180 knots it was aerobatics that gave me a direction in flying.

AN2 Driver

13th Nov 2010, 06:56

Agree with most of what has been said. Certainly, and speaking with an European perspective, overregulation is the largest and most effective killer, combined with a lot of folks' idea that GA is to blame for everything from noise to airport congestions and we pilots are all rich and spoilt brats who don't know how to trash our money so we spend it going up in airplanes with creature comforts which went out of fashion with the Trabant.

I know, I know, it makes me mad every time I hear it, but there is nothing harder to kill than prejudice. And since our politicians keep fueling this, we see the result in a runaway bureaucracy of knitwits who seem to think that new pilots for the airlines will be trained as direct entry 737 or 320 FO's without having set a foot into a C150 to train the basics first, so why not do away with the bothersome lawnmowers?

Flight schools are hard pressed to get people to at least have a go. Most do it by promising the prospect of a life in the airlines, which comes true for very few of the candidates. Some are still too blasé to actually think a pure PPL candidate is worth their time, they want those willing and able to shell out 200k for an ab initio ATPL/MCP/whateverelse. Leaves the PPL's for the clubs and those FTO's who don't do more or actually still do it for the love of it. Both often enough will go to great lenghts to entrice their potential clientele with pictures we all know from Cigar commercials.

IO540, your remark about the appeal that GA has to most women and the deviastating result on prospective PPLs who thought being a flying hero will open some doors made me chuckle. Thankfully my wife loves flying in our Mooney, but there are overwhelming odds that if you take the lady of your fancy to the apron they'll steer right to that G V and will run as fast as their high heels allow once they spot they are supposed to enter a 1960's PA28, never to be seen again. Some may be happier if you point them to a Stearman or something like this, but in reality, for most of the womenfolk not infected with the flying virus themselfs, our propeller planes of today (possible exceptions the latest sexy curve Cirrus/Corvalis or Diamond models or cabin class twins) will have about the same appeal as if you turn up on your first date with a 1972 Lada.

So the drop outs would be in many cases easy to spot before they ever set foot on an airplane. Nervous wrecks, would be playboys, over-eager underachievers are the daily bread in aviation. Many who actually have the brains, composure and character go for more lukrative careers these days, others will hang up because they run out of money, motivation and the missus has brought up the "aeroplanes or me" card shortly after spending the third weekend in sequence without their supposedly better half.

On the other hand, I do hear some frightening tales of REALLY dedicated folks who get laughed out of the FTO's office even before their first evaluation flight by the pure mention of the fact that they've been flight simmers for a few decades. Heck, when will flight schools (and even airlines and ppruners) wake up to the fact that aviation these days can really do with some REALLY dedicated supporters, who often enough have spent more on their virtual hobby than some might ever spend on real life aviation? Most of these folks are dedicated to flying-period. No dreams of getting that D-cup beauty laid in a C150, no irrational folks who look at flying as a means to achieve a totally different end. IF these guys are finally taking the plunge and make a step towards getting licensed, they should be received with open doors and treated with the same respect any customer warrants, even if a few bad habits need to be trained out of them.

I had the great fortune to learn before the time of EASA/JAR, the Internet, and regulators who see airplanes as something best grounded for security reasons. Aviation has been my career, on the ground and in the air and I am still passionate enough about it to put up with all the crap we have to deal with sufficiently to own and operate my own aircraft. If we want to get more real pilots rather than wannabes-become-dropouts then I reckon we'd be well advised to be looking out for those who are into it all for the sake of flying rather than something inachievable else.

And, most importantly, we need to make our regulators see the light that flying is, after all, not a professorate in a kazillion of useless subjects but a very basic and instinctive skill, which needs to have a practical and theoretical formation to teach us to fly, not become aviation experts. We do need, especcially in Europe, come back to an affordable and realistic training syllabus and therefore achievable instrument ratings and CPL's at a cost a normal person can afford. We have to be able to maintain our planes to a high standard without paying EASA $$$£££ for each bolt changed in the sunshade resulting in affordable rental and ownership. Eliminating the financial dropouts may well be the foremost goal but that can only be achieved if the regulators finally realize it is aviation they serve and not the opposite.

Best regards

AN2 driver.

IO540

13th Nov 2010, 07:25

Agreed, AN2.

If you think over-regulation is an issue, you need to send a letter to Mr Seebohm (an EU aviation official) who, near the end of this video (http://tinyurl.com/3ygevby) says that the EU must create regulation in every area where there isn't any.

Mr Goudou (head of EASA), starting around 17:44, shows what sort of duplicious people are in the game these days.

You are right about flight simmers. They are the keenest would-be pilots these days - they are among the few kids who have not spent their youths spouting random gibberish on MSN, or hanging around street corners. I have one such son (14) who lives dreams and eats airplanes. Yet, speak to almost any instructor or read the instructor forum here, and you get very negative opinions. Anyway, I will make sure it doesn't cause him any trouble...

AN2 Driver

13th Nov 2010, 09:38

IO540,

I am well aware of Mr Seebohm and his merry men at EASA... also what they are trying to do to you N-Flyers ... and to us once they got that escape opportunity out of the way. Basically, I think EASA is out to eliminate GA as we know it, have some sport aviation like LSA/VLA left for local grass strips but primarily to get rid of just about anything else. He's got plenty of help by airport officials who decide that the light GA is the reason for all their problems and try to kick us out, such as LSZH is trying now with rising their landing fees by up to 800% for light planes.

As you know I got friends in the South East of Europe whose aviation world has all but disintegrated with the invasion of EASA. Yet, they do actually have a growth in light GA, with quite a few new airports opening, but horrendous problems meeting "requirements". One of the pilots there told me recently that the visions EASA seem to have are not unlike some he recalls from the communist days in Russia, where aviation was a purely state organized business, no private planes at all and an almighty, yet generally aviation friendly, authority to make or break pilots.

Good luck to your son, with you as his mentor he'll do just fine. He'd do best not to mention flight sim at all initially once he gets involved unless he sees that the FI goes for it. It's much more effective to keep quiet and then quietly explain the above average progress when the time comes :cool:

Captain Smithy

13th Nov 2010, 10:50

Interesting point by AN2 about prejudice. I also often come up against the "aren't all you pilots rich gits?" thing often from various quarters, friends workmates etc. Often in a jokey way, but in some cases there is a serious assumption that all aviators are loaded folk of an upper class with double-barreled names who like wearing tweeds, driving Bentleys, shooting etc. Fair enough some are but not all of us. The vast majority of pilots are just ordinary folk. After all if I was rich I wouldn't be renting 1980s Pipers and driving a 15 year-old 1400cc Clio, would I. :suspect: The result is that because in Britain any sort of personal progress is frowned upon, because flying is stereotyped as a rich man's plaything it is looked upon with scorn.

This is further stoked by political types - politicians, activists, people with some sort of axe to grind etcetera - who, for the same reason, view aviation in a bad light. "It's too noisy". "It pollutes the environment". "It causes Global Warming". "It uses fossil fuels". Therefore it is given bad publicity to stoke public resentment against it, and various political agendas are crafted against it to help restrict its progress. Global Warming, Tax, EASA etc.

A shame really, if people understood aviation, it would probably be as revered and respected as it is in North America. Instead all we get over here is beaten down by idiot politicians, NIMBYs and Green freaks.

Smithy

IO540

13th Nov 2010, 11:08

LSZH is trying now with rising their landing fees by up to 800% for light planes

How recent is this? I went there in 2009 and it wasn't anything horrid - below £100 I think.

Yet, they do actually have a growth in light GA, with quite a few new airports opening, but horrendous problems meeting "requirements".

Do you mean Serbia and further south towards Greece? I was going to stop in Sofia this year and their charges list was the length of my arm. A total pi**take.

Croatia remains excellent though - I hope it stays.

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Nov 2010, 11:24

boats (which cost loads of money and have absolutely zero utility value)
I know a couple who planned to travel to the party conference, held in a seaside town, by sailing round the coast.

Surprise surprise when the day came they looked at the weather and went by train. So about as useful as a non-instrument PPL and spamcan for actually getting places.

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Nov 2010, 11:26

This is further stoked by political types - politicians, activists, people with some sort of axe to grind etcetera - who, for the same reason, view aviation in a bad light. "It's too noisy". "It pollutes the environment". "It causes Global Warming". "It uses fossil fuels". Therefore it is given bad publicity to stoke public resentment against it, and various political agendas are crafted against it to help restrict its progress. Global Warming, Tax, EASA etc.
Helps if you have a politician who flys. My political colleagues usually ask for my comments before making any such statements, so I explain to them what's really going on, and the outcome is usually sensible. It might also help that I've taken several of them for rides :)

IO540

13th Nov 2010, 11:42

I know a couple who planned to travel to the party conference, held in a seaside town, by sailing round the coast.

Surprise surprise when the day came they looked at the weather and went by train. So about as useful as a non-instrument PPL and spamcan for actually getting places.However, you can reclaim the cost of flying on business, but you would be hard pushed to reclaim the cost of sailing there.

Sailing is also incredibly slow. Even a £10M boat only does about 15kt in economy cruise, say 300 litres/hr, with ~ 30kt top speed on some 1000-1500 litres/hr. Basically, going anywhere at all is an overnight stay.

Radio Ham? People will sneer mightily, but it's fairly cheap and doesn't really isolate you from the family. You may even learn some useful skills.That made me smile. I was doing that aged 10-12 - OK1OFA. I learnt morse code and lots of other electronic stuff, but my parents would have been arrested if I transmitted something political :)

Boating. This is almost acceptable. "Floating Gin Palace" is a hint, as is that somehow it has retained a certain cachet; "The Yacht Club" has a ring to it which "The Flying Club" does not. Very much a bird puller (of a certain type of bird; the sort which comes with the money and goes with the money) but a huge money pit. It is also very time consuming because a lot of sailing is a "multi family" activity and your whole life is planned around "the weekend with the Smiths". It is something people do until one day they cannot do it anymore and then they suddenly drop the whole lot. At the lower end of the market (e.g. Weirwood in Sussex) you have a sailing club which demands regular member participation in activities.

However I would say a nice new/newish IFR plane is also reasonably attractive in this department :) The key is to get flying before looking for the gurl :) It is the blokes who get the gurl before they get into flying that get the biggest problems.

Captain Stravaigin

13th Nov 2010, 12:38

As any Economist will tell you Cost is very rarely the reason for any decision to stop buying. It may be given as a post-facto rationalisation - but it is not the reason.

Why do people fly ? A number of reasons - achievement, overcoming fear, new skill, because Golf is not possible (I did my back in which is why I took up Flying) etc. But the main driver is that it brings them some kind of reward and personal satisfaction.

So how does the Industry keep that feeling of Satisfaction and Reward going ? Hmmm. It doesnt ! Flying is not unique, young males take up many interests and pastimes and equally quickly drop them again. Once Romance blooms I agree that will definitely play a part in terms of restricting available time. If you don't do something about it what do you expect ?

My point is that whilst Gyms on both sides of the Atlantic have recognised the fact people can and do drop out and brought some intelligence to their pricing to reduce defections (or at least the loss of revenue) the Flight Training industry has no clue.

If you still do not get my drift think of a Harley Davidson. Expensive, slow, does not go round corners well, crap in the wet, needs loads of love and polishing and in summary not terribly practical.

Do the Marketeers have any problem selling it ?

IO540

13th Nov 2010, 14:25

I think the difference between a motorbike (I used to ride them too) and a plane is that a plane involves vastly more hassle (ownership issues, regulatory, airfield politics and related brown-nosing, currency, etc) so one needs to get a proportionally bigger "fun return" from it, and that takes some doing. It's very hard to extract this return from some old wreck, flown on a basic PPL.

If OTOH one had a runway next to one's house, a hangar, then the "hassle landscape" would be almost totally transformed. For most people, this is not achievable, except at a very low end of flying.

IO540

13th Nov 2010, 19:01

It needs a different syllabus, designed for the job, and some honest marketing.

Captain Smithy

13th Nov 2010, 19:02

It's not a lost cause, but I don't think marketing is the problem. What's needed is the whole regulatory system to be torn down and replaced with regulations run by people in the know on the basis of common-sense and safety, rather than profit, empire-building, petty rule-making for the sake of rule-making and politics.

Then we could do with a much cheaper, widely available alternative to 100LL, which might help some.

Finally, perhaps most difficult of all, is a culture change in how aviation is perceived. How we achieve this I am not sure, but people have to stop looking down (or rather up) on aviation as some guilty Earth-destroying noisy selfish pleasure reserved for the rich mighty few.

Smithy

AOB9

13th Nov 2010, 19:24

"Perhaps then an annual contract for "tuition"? Say £200 per month for an hour's lesson each month?"

Good suggestion and may apply to many but there is a potential pitfall. If flight schools in Ireland provided this service (particularly during our wonderful :yuk: Celtic Tiger years) they would be full to the rafters with bull**it artists that would be there purely to tell their friends in the pub they were pilots.

In fact I personally know one person that had a share in a LA even though he never held a yoke or stick in his life, not even on a SIM. It sounded good on the golf course though. BTW he couldn't play golf either. You may think I'm joking, believe me I'm not.

Squeegee Longtail

13th Nov 2010, 19:30

"It's not a lost cause, but I don't think marketing is the problem. What's needed is the whole regulatory system to be torn down and replaced with regulations run by people in the know on the basis of common-sense and safety, rather than profit, empire-building, petty rule-making for the sake of rule-making and politics.

Then we could do with a much cheaper, widely available alternative to 100LL, which might help some.

Finally, perhaps most difficult of all, is a culture change in how aviation is perceived. How we achieve this I am not sure, but people have to stop looking down (or rather up) on aviation as some guilty Earth-destroying noisy selfish pleasure reserved for the rich mighty few."

Not a lost cause then!!! Sorry, but short of a major revolutionary uprising, you've got more chance of getting a whale up your @rse than that lot happening.

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 08:14

@Captain Smithy

Interesting point by AN2 about prejudice. I also often come up against the "aren't all you pilots rich gits?" thing often from various quarters, friends workmates etc. Often in a jokey way, but in some cases there is a serious assumption that all aviators are loaded folk of an upper class with double-barreled names who like wearing tweeds, driving Bentleys, shooting etc. Fair enough some are but not all of us.

It's exactly that. I did initiate a thread about ownership in a swiss forum a while back and even the PILOTS there were stunned that they would in today's market be able to pick up an acceptable aircraft for leasure flying and actually operate it for less than it costs to rent. I had discussions with people working at this here airport about efficiency of the said rides and even THEY don't have an idea and think us all gits. A few months ago after I received pretty severe hazing in my social environment for being so forward as to actually BUYING a plane, I put up a competition saying the one who could guess the price (like in the BBC "to buy or not to buy" series) would win a flight with me. Hell, the closest guy was 100k over the top!!

These bozos drive £50k cars (owned by the bank in most cases) but they get kittens if someone spends £15k on an aircraft which will get them to the same destination faster AND cheaper. You're right, the thing is, it's just not socially acceptable.

At the same time, the same kind of nerds often believe that ticket prices ala Ryan are a human right now.

The result is that because in Britain any sort of personal progress is frowned upon, because flying is stereotyped as a rich man's plaything it is looked upon with scorn.

Remember the maginficent 7 sins? Envy is top of the list and it's not only Britain, but most of Europe which works on a socialist, that is envy based, political system. It's not just aviation.

Friend of mine told me a nice analogy. He is in the pleasure boating business.

-An American with his 10 year old and a European with his offspring visit a boating show. They wander between the displayed boats of splendour and take in the sights. Sais the American to his son: "Son, if you work hard, if you live the American Dream and never let up, one of these can be yours one day". On the other side, the European takes his son aside. "Of course, my son, you realize that only those who have stolen from the middle classes like we are will ever be able to afford a boat like this." Sais all.

Of course politicians play this game with frevor. Look at the financial crisis rethoric right now. Almost all of them, including conservatives, now blabber about how to best get one over the guys on top, no matter if they did well or not. That, unfortunately, includes the current US administration, so probably political correctness there will also change.

A shame really, if people understood aviation, it would probably be as revered and respected as it is in North America. Instead all we get over here is beaten down by idiot politicians, NIMBYs and Green freaks.

What many don't realize is that Aviation, and GA in particular, is a sitting duck in many regards. No real lobby (at least in Europe), politically regarded as incorrect and playboy gameplay, it is a testing ground for the socialists to see how far they can go in taking away our freedoms one by one. Wanna bet that the day after the last GA plane has been put in the shredder in Europe, the run will intensify on personal vehicles? The race is already on against personal wealth, and I am not talking millionaires but what used to be middle classes. Heavens, we'll have to vote about a "fair taxation" bill in the coming weeks which would drive anyone with an income above worker level out of the country! It's against the evil rich, who, according to the left, own too much but oh, btw and conveniently forgotten, also pay 3/4 of the taxes here. If they leave, and they will leave for cheaper shores, the whole population of this country will face a tax increase of up to 20 % to compensate. I bloody hope they see that, but I wonder if their (envy)green petty feelings might prevail...

It's not a lost cause, but I don't think marketing is the problem. What's needed is the whole regulatory system to be torn down and replaced with regulations run by people in the know on the basis of common-sense and safety, rather than profit, empire-building, petty rule-making for the sake of rule-making and politics.

Then we could do with a much cheaper, widely available alternative to 100LL, which might help some.

Finally, perhaps most difficult of all, is a culture change in how aviation is perceived. How we achieve this I am not sure, but people have to stop looking down (or rather up) on aviation as some guilty Earth-destroying noisy selfish pleasure reserved for the rich mighty few.

full agreement on all points. The last one being the most hard. If that would come across, the rest would fall in place by itself.

There are few and far between encouraging signs. A community in Southern Germany has decided not to sell their airport to a housing development after all after a fly in day produced 2 million visitors. They decided, there must be something in aviation after all which attracts people = voters....

Sorry for the rant, but sometimes it's difficult to resist :E

AN2
(who hasn't driven one of those thanks to EASA's invasion of that save haven for 3 years now...)

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 08:19

IO540,

How recent is this? I went there in 2009 and it wasn't anything horrid - below £100 I think.

it got published in November now and is set to go in force in April. They will basically rise the basic landing fee from about £10-20 to £100 and then pack the rest on top. We hope it will go like the Samedan one, but we don't bet the house on it.

Do you mean Serbia and further south towards Greece? I was going to stop in Sofia this year and their charges list was the length of my arm. A total pi**take.

Sofia is like this unfortunately. The "safe" plan in Bulgaria is to land at Plovdiv, but they do not have fuel, and then proceed to a smaller place like Lesnovo or Primorsko for fuel. Still quite expensive (the fuel) but the landing fees and all are very civil at the smaller airports, if they'd get customs there we'd be having ourselfs some nice airports.... but comes time, come wealthy customers and they'll do it.

Croatia remains excellent though - I hope it stays.

true. One of the last save havens of GA for now... Even Makedonia and Bosnia have very civil prices I understand.

Best regards
AN2 driver

IO540

14th Nov 2010, 08:47

-An American with his 10 year old and a European with his offspring visit a boating show. They wander between the displayed boats of splendour and take in the sights. Sais the American to his son: "Son, if you work hard, if you live the American Dream and never let up, one of these can be yours one day". On the other side, the European takes his son aside. "Of course, my son, you realize that only those who have stolen from the middle classes like we are will ever be able to afford a boat like this." Sais all.

Another variation of that one is: if a poor American sees a rich American, he asks himself "what can I do to make even more money, whereas if a poor Brit sees a rich Brit he asks himself "what can I do to bring him down to my level".

This is true in much of "old" Europe though. I know a German man who bought a nearly new IFR tourer, on the N-reg. He could (should) have kept it on the N-reg, but he transferred it to D (at a vast cost). I asked him why he did it; his explanation was that the Germans will assume you are fiddling your taxes if you fly an N-reg.

He then did some avionics work which cost him untold hassle and money, through EASA giving him pointless grief. At one stage he said he is giving up the project; EASA then caved in (because they wanted the fees).

I rarely fly on business on formal customer visits, because in most cases you do not want the customer to know you have a plane. I have one customer in a part of the UK which takes 5-7hrs to drive to (but just 1hr to fly to) and he knows, but I told him the plane is shared among 15 people. So, most "flying on business" in low-capability aircraft (below the level of pressurised de-iced with radar) involves visiting exhibitions, conferences, etc where the sky does not cave in if you don't turn up.

When I got divorced 11 years ago, and a year later started on the PPL, I did not tell the ex (or the boys) that I was flying, for several years, because she would have given me grief over access. A divorced man is supposed to be in the gutter (according to her, and most others :) ). You drive a beaten up old car, etc...

This "envy" stuff is a tricky issue and I don't know how one will deal with it. BUT pilots do have a voice. Watch that EU hearings (http://tinyurl.com/3ygevby) video - the chairman says his second biggest mailbag (after saving the whales) were angry latters from pilots about to be screwed by EASA. Goudou (the head of EASA) then declares all these pilots are idiots... so if pilots get organised, they do have a voice. Most pilots are very motivated individuals; they would chuck flying in after 5 mins if they weren't :)

Pity about Zurich. They will go the way Prague went - very little GA traffic. LKPR jacked up its fees about 4x between 2005 and 2010. I was born there and go there occassionally and I will still go but only "when I have to". Actually LKVO is a new cheaper option - PNR Customs though. Airport management in Europe is mostly a bunch of stupid people who got MBAs from the University of the Isle of Wight :)

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 09:37

pboyall

Mmm. Difficult one. The environmental lobby doesn't really respond to reason or logic. I tried pointing out to a colleague that a light VLA type takes off from a grass field, flies to another grass field in a straight line and thus achives the equivalent of anywhere from 40-80 miles per gallon on unleaded fuel [the flight may be 80 miles while the drive could easily be 160 as you can't go "as the crow flies", ahem]

had the same discussion. In our area, where there is a lot of granite around, flying straight and level may well cut your distance in half. My "racetrack" of going to Austria from Zuerich cuts up to 150 NM from the track I'd have to drive. Doing that at 8gph and 140 knots will make a 9-5 day worthwile going there. Driving? 6 hours one way, a higher burn off and basically no productivity. Won't buy the basket for greens. They'll put you on the train which has used up more real eastate to build than all airports in Europe combined, which makes nuclear power plants for the next generation an absolute necessity and which will take you 7-8 hours one way at a price higher than an economy ticket on a scheduled service. Talking of which, the places I got to usually need a transfer, meaning 4-5 hours travel time which I can do in 1-20 with my 45 year old lycosaur.

He still wouldn't have it. Even when you add in the amount of CO2 and environmental damage caused by building a road, he still wanted to argue that he was "greener" driving 400 miles than I would be flying 200 to get to the same place.

what a moron. The kind I have to put up with here would just as well forbid driving as flying. Anything with the infernal combustion engine is an absolute no-no. The same goes for deodorants in most cases....:}

Since the "carbon footprint" calculations have an ultimate end result of requiring us to live as subsistence farmers never venturing further than our front allotment to gather food, it's probably not going to be practical to present GA as anything other than a planet-destroying selfish pleasure for the few. But then so is yachting (more so really).

Um, well. Subsidence farmers yes, but how many of us? If it were for the ultimate green wet dream, we are talking a future with substantially less mankind than we have now. Close the airlines, close the car industry, close the power plants, close most of the economy and how many people can an economy like that sustain? Maybe ask the Soviets how things like that worked and they only had socialists to fend with. The combination of the two is as deadly as it gets. In the true sense. Even Al Quaeda might rise an eyebrow at the idea of halving or quartering earth's population in order to achieve greener air. The resulting carnage would put just about all massakkers organized by mankind for the greater good to shame by a multiple factor. Let's face it, a green dictatorship is no place for humans. Not even animals (forgotten the problems with the co-2 issued by cows?)

In the "Green world" even having a sports car counts as a earth-devouring guily pleasure that we should be denied.

sports car? Any means of self transport or individualism. As for denying of pleasure, they are at least as good as the Taliban or other sunshine folk around, but without even the prospect of a next world :)

btw, anybody ever wondered why the colour of envy is green :E

Best regards
AN2 driver

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 09:52

IO540

Another variation of that one is: if a poor American sees a rich American, he asks himself "what can I do to make even more money, whereas if a poor Brit sees a rich Brit he asks himself "what can I do to bring him down to my level".

add to it the semi influential political class who will ask himself "what can I do to bring everyone else BELOW my own level. It's all about power really.

This is true in much of "old" Europe though. I know a German man who bought a nearly new IFR tourer, on the N-reg. He could (should) have kept it on the N-reg, but he transferred it to D (at a vast cost). I asked him why he did it; his explanation was that the Germans will assume you are fiddling your taxes if you fly an N-reg.

Oh, the Germans will seek out hidden taxes everywhere. They taxed most of their succesful folks out of the country already and then carry on to threaten the countries their own people have fled to. The GDR with their anti fascist protection wall is not an idea they have abandoned yet. At least the GDR's minefields were easy to spot. As for N-Reg in Europe, we've got a whole thread about that. Eliminate "N" and then eliminate EASA light GA, once the save haven "N" is out of the way, that is what this is all about.

I rarely fly on business on formal customer visits, because in most cases you do not want the customer to know you have a plane. I have one customer in a part of the UK which takes 5-7hrs to drive to (but just 1hr to fly to) and he knows, but I told him the plane is shared among 15 people.

Isn't it disgusting you have to justify what you achieved even to your own customers??? :yuk:

This "envy" stuff is a tricky issue and I don't know how one will deal with it. BUT pilots do have a voice. Watch that EU hearings video - the chairman says his second biggest mailbag (after saving the whales) were angry latters from pilots about to be screwed by EASA. Goudou (the head of EASA) then declares all these pilots are idiots... so if pilots get organised, they do have a voice. Most pilots are very motivated individuals; they would chuck flying in after 5 mins if they weren't

Problem is that we might well be betting on the wrong horse if we rely on the European Comission, certainly when it comes to the conflict with the US. Somehow I think that EASA's rampage suits quite a few people in the EU just fine, otherwise they'd have put their collective feet down with a force sufficient to make EASA resurface somewhere in Australia, feet first.

Airport management in Europe is mostly a bunch of stupid people who got MBAs from the University of the Isle of Wight

Or worse, the so called elite universities which produce naught but the people responsible for much of the current and most past economic crisises... heck, sometimes I do prefer a MBA with a fake degree but common sense to these indoctrinated elitist ba*"?tards.

Hey, IO540, if you do set foot into ZRH again before the curtain falls (we are still trying to fight that, otherwise that will be april 1, 2011, no joke) I believe we should meet and talk over a few mugs of the yellow foamy stuff :) I think it might be fun to talk to people who speak your language from a time to time, ah well, that is what we are here for as well....

Gertrude the Wombat

14th Nov 2010, 10:05

Sailing is also incredibly slow. Even a £10M boat only does about 15kt in economy cruise
This particular boat (I spent a few days on it on another occasion) does 6kt with a decent wind. You can turn the engine on as well if you want to but that won't make it go any faster. Typical cost of a trip is a few pence for the fuel to get in and out of harbour.

What it does have (the owner is an engineer geek) is glass screen instrumentation with GPS and autopilot, so driving it can consist of just looking at the screen every few minutes to check that it's sticking to the magenta line and to see where other traffic is (well, that's a bit like flying too, as of course you only see other traffic that has the right GPS and radio fit).

AOB9

14th Nov 2010, 11:37

Complete novice here but I'll ask anyway. A friend of mine recently offloaded a share in a 1970's Piper Cherokee because it was too expensive to fly, fuel consumption being his major gripe. He's not a "Greeny", although he is a responsible individual IMO. Lucky for him he was able to afford a kit plane ( Europa) which is much cheaper to run in many ways.

I know it's not practical/fair to ground older Light Aircraft based on fuel consumption alone but is this something the regulators are going to be looking at?

In Ireland all Cab/Taxi drivers have been forced by regulation to take any car over 9 years off the road. Hardly a direct comparison but not a million miles apart either.

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 12:27

AO9,

Complete novice here but I'll ask anyway. A friend of mine recently offloaded a share in a 1970's Piper Cherokee because it was too expensive to fly, fuel consumption being his major gripe. He's not a "Greeny", although he is a responsible individual IMO. Lucky for him he was able to afford a kit plane ( Europa) which is much cheaper to run in many ways.

Depends what Cherokee. A 180 will use around 40 liters, a 140/150 about 28-30 with reasonable power settings. A 140 can be converted to Mogas. 28 lph Mogas and about 90 kt will produce roughly a 500 NM range, 2 folks and ample bags.

I've seen many such calculations recently. Some guy was raving about a VLA he bought, brand new, some £80k or so, which is happy with 18 lph and 120 kts. I put my finger on the problem very fast: with full tanks (allowing some 500 NM range) it's a single seater with about 20 lb left for bags. Him and the missus can do about 40 minutes if she leaves her purse home. Useful?

I know it's not practical/fair to ground older Light Aircraft based on fuel consumption alone but is this something the regulators are going to be looking at?

Old does not mean worse. The main problem is that we use very old engine types, which are basically only facelifted instead of going to nowadays materials and consumptions. Certification cost is the main problem there. I do reckon that this is why the VLA/LSA hype is so much in fashion, as the certification criteria are much less than for a fully certified airplane. If I compare this with cars, we should be able to achieve a 30-40% less thirsty engine these days, which is what the Diesels do. Might well be the way to go for the future.

Yet: A 1960ties construction can still outdoo the new plastic toys, at least in overall cost. If you calculate honestly rather than with pink glasses the manufacturers like to give away for free, a plane which costs you maybe £30k to buy and will keep this value for the forseeable future will cost you less in the end than a brand new restricted airplane, which costs 3-4 times as much but uses a bit less fuel. New airplanes will loose value fast in the first 10 years. That loss of value has to go into the calculation too. Plus, many VLA/LSA types will not do a better gas mileage and over all trip cost than a 45 year old machine, as most of them are fairly slow. If it burns half the gas per hour but it needs twice the time to get there? :D

In Ireland all Cab/Taxi drivers have been forced by regulation to take any car over 9 years off the road. Hardly a direct comparison but not a million miles apart either.

Wonderful. No wonder Ireland is in such deep .... if they do such things to their own people. 9 years sais NOTHING about it's ecological impact. It's politicians like that I have a soft spot for..... a swamp.

Best regards
AN2 driver

IO540

14th Nov 2010, 14:41

The reality is that a Lyco engine, operated peak EGT or LOP, is more efficent (fuel flow per HP) than any petrol car engine.

I have this from the chief at GAMI and I have seen some data to support it.

Only diesels deliver a better SFC than the old Lycos.

In the end, power can come only from combustion of the fuel, and if the cumbustion happens at about the right time in the crankshaft position.... physics is physics! The Lycos and Contis do have issues with getting rid of heat, etc, which translates into a requirement for non-dumb engine management procedures, but that is a different question from SFC (and can be addressed with FADEC, which will come...).

The other reality is that, thanks to decades of dumb PPL training, most UK pilots have little idea what the red lever does, and flying with it all the way up uses about 30% more fuel than flying peak/LOP. These people are not well placed to moan about fuel costs :)

My TB20 does a similar MPG (15-20) at 150kt TAS to a 4x4 going along the motorway at 70mph. That's not bad, considering no car ever made will do even half my MPG at 172mph. The green anti-GA argument just doesn't wash at all.

AdamFrisch

14th Nov 2010, 14:52

I agree with everything that's been said here, but I would add a couple of things:

Too bloody hard and too many obstacles.

Poor students are being lured into flight schools thinking they can do it in 45hrs, when in fact it's going to take 70 more likely. The syllabus for PPL has just grown exponentially over the years and today just too much is asked of new students. Sure we want to be safe, but 20 years ago 40hrs was enough - they didn't fall out of the sky more then. So what's changed?

And why on earth do we need a medical at all? Give me one valid reason. Unless the medical profession suddenly developed a way to predict heart attacks...

AN2 Driver

14th Nov 2010, 14:58

IO540

My TB20 does a similar MPG (15-20) at 150kt TAS to a 4x4 going along the motorway at 70mph. That's not bad, considering no car ever made will do even half my MPG at 172mph. The green anti-GA argument just doesn't wash at all.

Green arguments never wash. My Mooney will do between 23 and 28 mpg at 140 kt TAS in a straight line. But that is only half the story. If you use GE or some other navigator and calculate the actual ground distance a car would use vs the air distance you use by plane, that factor can be up to 2.

So let's say from A to B is 500 km road distance over a mixed motorway/country lane environment, you will need 4-5 hours and burn some 45 to 50 liters doing it. Do it by air, the air distance will be around 300 km or less, giving me a flight time of around 1-10 to 1-15 and a burn off of around 30-35 liters @ economy cruise.

IO540

14th Nov 2010, 15:05

Sure we want to be safe, but 20 years ago 40hrs was enough - they didn't fall out of the sky more then. So what's changed?

You can still do it in 45hrs but you need some pre-PPL mentoring (unofficial of course :) ).

And why on earth do we need a medical at all? Give me one valid reason. Unless the medical profession suddenly developed a way to predict heart attacks...

- ICAO
- vested interests

One can sure moan about ICAO but I bet you that without ICAO there would be no private GA, except in a few places where civil liberties are a basic assumption (America), where there is no regulation, or bribery is a way of life (Africa), or where there has been a continuous private aviation tradition since 1910 (UK, Germany, France... any offers?).

24Carrot

14th Nov 2010, 17:52

SoCal App's last post made me think, there must be at least two student groups.

The younger ones who want to earn a living flying. If they start at all, I suppose they would be pretty motivated, spending borrowed money. And the PPL is just a stepping stone.

The older ones who already earn a living doing something else, and regard the whole PPL thing as discretionary spending on a leisure activity. Perfectly ready to try fly-fishing or Harleys if the flying doesn't work out.

Addressing the drop-out rate has to recognise the difference between the groups.

POBJOY

14th Nov 2010, 19:05

Have just seen part of a BBC ONE "Countryfile" program where Julia Bradbury pitches up at the Chiltern Air Park and is taken up in a "Microlight" (Dynamic WT9) that looked more like Spocks personal transport than an aeronautical effort from scapheap challenge.
Guess what ; No yellow jackets,no suitcase of good knows what,no security fences and machine gun posts,no dressing up and being told how it is all under very strict control,no endless radio chatter and gobblygook,no one suggesting it was difficult and if the engine stops etc etc.Several million viewers on prime time national TV saw someone they know quite well stroll out on a tidy green field sit themselves down in a very smart machine and have a great time and that was before the pilot said he might pop down to the Isle of Wight for a cuppa.
Guess who will be getting the phone calls tomorrow (it was so obvious they were "enjoying" themselves and thats the difference)
Pobjoy

flybymike

14th Nov 2010, 22:25

I agree that it was a great advert for flying, and for microlighting in particular. Just a shame that with Julia and her weighty pilot on board they probably only had enough (legal) fuel for a couple of circuits.

POBJOY

15th Nov 2010, 07:51

The basic payload on these machines is approx 200 kg, but i always consider them as "good" single seaters, as in all fairness they are built down to a weight limit.
However the performance and low fuel burn is quite impressive and there is the added health benefit of keeping everyones weight down.
Time will be the judge of durability and value's but i bet there will be no lack of enthusiasts going to the NEC soon to see whats on offer for the future.
Running costs are the big factor when decision time comes along and i can see the attraction of this new breed of high tech "fun" flyers that operate on mogas and that is before the airframe and engine AD's factor for the ageing GA fleet is taken into account.
I know its not anybodies fault "due to cost" but if you look at the UK training fleet it has not really changed for 40 years and portrays a rather tired image as does the average premises.

IO540

15th Nov 2010, 08:06

Looking around where I am based, over the past 10 years, the big problem with setting up a "nice" shop is that there will always be somebody willing to sit in a tatty leaking portacabin, 9am to 7pm, with a phone next to them, waiting for it to ring from somebody who wants a pleasure flight (a "trial lesson" ;) ) and willing to do this for nothing.

These people will always undercut you.

They go bust every 1-2 years, doing a lot of damage by vanishing with student deposits, but there isn't much one can do about it. I know the airport started putting a clause in all new leases to ban the operation of a flying club, to try to cut down the number of these short-lived businesses, but I don't know how long that lasted. Somebody said it was an illegal restriction...

At one stage there were EIGHT fixed wing training operations there.

W2k

15th Nov 2010, 09:23

Piltdown Man

15th Nov 2010, 10:57

Here's my two-penneth worth - I believe the post licence drop-out rate is due to the pastime not offering value for money and being a bit boring. I can not believe that anybody really wants to pay in excess of £100 to fly a crappy 152 to another airfield, go to a clubhouse with smelly bogs, buy a cup of tea and fly back. The sense of fulfilment is pretty close to zero. So unless you meet someone who can enlighten you, it's only a matter of time before you give up.

The sports pilots appear to last a lot longer. Pulling g, air-racing, rallying, vintage, gyro-coptering, gliding, racing are all pastimes which involve flying but are not the main reasons for doing so. So these people stay longer because they have more to occupy their minds, are part of a community and have a sense of achievement when they progress through there chosen areas of interest.

So if training organisations spent as much time teaching you how to enjoy yourself, maybe people would stay around a bit longer?

PM

IO540

15th Nov 2010, 11:05

The sports pilots appear to last a lot longer. Pulling g, air-racing, rallying, vintage, gyro-coptering, gliding, racing are all pastimes which involve flying but are not the main reasons for doing so. So these people stay longer because they have more to occupy their minds, are part of a community and have a sense of achievement when they progress through there chosen areas of interest.I also think the much higher % of ownership in that group is a major factor.

Also, I know some of them and to a man they are the sort who like to tinker with hardware. They are the sort of people who keep old cars which they fix themselves. It is a very different population to spamcan renters, most of whom know nothing about the aircraft and don't really want to (which is why they are renters, generally).

Ownership is a key motivating factor. In the certified scene, very few people who own a plane give up. They tend to give up only when they lose their medicals. And, to look at things in reverse, almost everybody with an IR and almost everybody who does long distance touring is an owner.

I can not believe that anybody really wants to pay in excess of £100 to fly a crappy 152 to another airfield, go to a clubhouse with smelly bogs, buy a cup of tea and fly back.Absolutely so. The trick is to avoid doing that.

I can't speak for others but there are several (grass) airfields within 20 mins' flying time from where I am based, but I have never flown to any of them. Why not? I can drive there in less time... The trick is to find more interesting stuff to do with one's flying. N France is accessible for most southern UK pilots, and the straight utility value totally beats alternative transport. I also do much longer trips (Greece, etc) and they are really interesting but they need a more capable plane.

POBJOY

15th Nov 2010, 13:22

Back in the mists of time ( 60's) i used to escape occaisionally from ATC gliding and go over to Biggin to take in the power scene.
In those days it was really buzzing with all sorts of clubs using a very diverse assortment of machines from T/Moths,Austers,Chipmunks, Condors, through to the fairly new trikes from Piper, Cessna, Beagle and Rallye.
Another rather quaint factor was the communal meeting place "Dillows" that seemed to be the hub of all things at Biggin.
It was a very friendly place and certainly encouraged people to get involved at whatever level you could afford.
The "Damascus" point for me was being there when a RF3 pottered along the taxiway having flown in from France.
Coming from a gliding background it immediatley struck a chord of interest that was only increased when i found it had the same engine as my 1200 VW Beetle.
A few weeks later i was there in the early evening when a Turbulent arrived from France and the driver(complete with lifejacket) ran over to control to do the "Customs" thing.
I wandered over to have a closer look at this fine machine (i knew they had VW engines) when the pilot arrived back jumped in and after a brief exchange of information said he had to get off (for Redhill)before it got dark.
With that he pulled the recoil starter and promptly took off across the taxiway and turned left for home.
That was it for me, i now had a goal and within a few years i was happily zipping around (non radio) in my own Turb with a huge grin.
Why; well i had the reason,it was affordable,the airfields were friendly and the whole thing was FUN!!!
Pobjoy

AdamFrisch

15th Nov 2010, 16:01

Sure is a lot of doom and gloom going around in this thread... I wonder if this is a UK thing, the situation over here in SE doesn't seem nearly as bad.

Yes, weather restrictions are a pain in the ass without IR, although despite having 6+ months of mostly unflyable weather each year I know several people at my club using the aircraft for "utility" purposes (eg business or pleasure trips within Sweden+neighbours). Yes, you need to plan ahead. OTOH you always have the car/train/ferry as a fallback.

Trips with mates, same thing. Plan ahead, prepare them for the fact that it might not go ahead as planned if the weather is bad. No big deal, just try again another day. It's the same as with a boat.

Sorry, but being a single guy I would protest the notion that trying to pick up girls would take any sort of precedence over my hobbies. The girls I've taken with me flying (yes, 70's PA28 spamcan) have positively LOVED it. It's not a "chick magnet" but it sure doesn't hurt. All this talk about flying not being socially acceptable makes me thinks you guys are hanging with the wrong crowd. I got nothing but positive remarks from my friends and family when I took up flying.

Cost is certainly an issue and I agree that it's probably the main reason people leave. But for an IFR-capable PA28 with GPS, I pay £90/hr including fuel and landing fees. Hardly a ripoff, going by PA28 is actually cheaper than train+ferry to some domestic locations. Not to mention much faster. And while the club Pipers are old, they are not in any way poorly maintained. Even minor things like an u/s landing light are usually fixed the same day.

Hej, W2k.

Well, I got my PPL in Sweden in the early 90's and flying there was always pretty straightforward. The thing with all northern hemisphere (western) countries, like Canada and the nordic ones, is that they rely to great extent on aviation to fulfill basic transportation needs. Combine this with a GA scene that's small enough to "fly under the radar" and generally you have a pretty good and accessible flying environment. This is certainly true in Sweden and from what I hear in Norway, Finland and Canada as well. You don't have to venture far south for the troubles to begin - Denmark being a case in point.

And for the rest of Europe - where everyone lives on top of each other and have no basic need for aviation smaller than the charter taking them to the next all inclusive southern resort - this is very tangible. Want to plop down on a lake with a Lake (see, I made joke) in Sweden, Norway, Finland or Canada? Go right ahead, no need to ask. Try doing that anywhere else in Europe and it's most likely prohibited or such a rigmarole that anyone would be insane to try to attempt getting proper permission. And the list goes on and on with similar examples.

I'm actually looking as I write this on a sectional VFR chart of southern Sweden and there's pretty much nothing but G airspace everywhere with the odd exception for some C around bigger airports. I have issues with Sweden when it comes to bureaucracy in other fields (hence why I moved), but aviation there is admirably straightforward and user friendly.

Shorrick Mk2

16th Nov 2010, 09:06

Hey, IO540, if you do set foot into ZRH again before the curtain falls (we are still trying to fight that, otherwise that will be april 1, 2011, no joke) I believe we should meet and talk over a few mugs of the yellow foamy stuff http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif I think it might be fun to talk to people who speak your language from a time to time, ah well, that is what we are here for as well....

Actually he should set foot in Gruyères LSGT so we can all have a tasty fondue and some white to go with it ^^

Plus the fees are cheaper and the scenery much nicer :E

IO540

16th Nov 2010, 13:59

Just looked up LSGT.

It has no instrument approaches, so no way I can get in there ;)

But hey it does have Customs (on PPR) so that's a start :)

It has some interesting terrain around... I would have to fly there at FL150 and then do a descending orbit all the way down :)

Actually I know a pilot who used to fly cargo 707s into Kabul that way - an orbit from FL350 all the way down.

Anyway, yes, I am up for this. Especially after today; cancelled a flight because of a lot of OVC003/300m around, either actual or forecast or both. But absolutely perfect for IFR because all the muck is low down.

AN2 Driver

16th Nov 2010, 14:32

Can we make that Ecuvillence or Lausanne? I do prefer hard surface runways to swamp in this season.

Re the drop out rate and ownership:

I tried club and rental but it was never for me. Main issues were not old and worn out planes, the Swiss FOCA would never let something like that fly, but primarily availability, penalties for all sorts of things such as being back a few minutes late, having to pay even if i did not fly (on longer trips) and so on. Bought my first plane (2seater) immediately after having my PPL. The only rentals I used since were for training (PASE) and I did rent my current Mooney before I bought it in a kind of a try before buy deal.

Ownership however takes a lot of stamina these days, and not only financial.

My own becoming an owner again rose some eyebrows in the local community, my laying open some of the details even more. I published a lenghty forum message on "affordable planes" and got swamped with questions and request for help. NONE of the ones who did talk to me then are owners now.

Why?

One who really liked the idea was mentally beaten over the head by just about the WHOLE flight school environment plus the whole club gang where he pays to learn the trade. "Who the hell do you think you are to even think of the travesty of owning your own plane?" "Never mind it costs less than a 1970 Capri, you'll NEVER be able to afford the costs, and anyway who are you, a measly student..... " went on and on. Heck, the guy could have gotten a PA28-140, nice avionics, half time engine, for an absolute pittance, had a great time and travel all over Europe with it for very few money.

There are folks who have stopped talking to me since I came open about owning a plane, it just "isn't done". Dont'cha know that unless you're Michael Schuhmacher or the likes you don't have the social standing to own a plane?

Gosh, these envy mongers, I'd sometimes would love to give them a good kick up their green with envy noses. And what the heck are they jealous about? It's not a Citation, not a biz wiz jet nor a Boeing 707, nor a private A380 with private whirlpools. And when I go fly someplace, I don't alight at the Ritz Carlton, thank you very much, I need that cash for fuel!

I'd really like those people to overcome their socially depraved prejudices and accept the truth when it dances in front of their faces. All they need to do is to visit planecheck or avbuyer to see what can be had for how much money, even if they don't know that those prices are about as realistic as the asking prices for anything upwards of a second hand Volkswagen.

I'd just hope that some more folks finally take their courage out of their front pockets and just make owning a plane as normal as owning your car. Would do a lot for our rep. Until then, let me put my 4 stripes left and right so the security guard will let me out to my plane :}

IO540

16th Nov 2010, 14:57

:ok:

I too recall a lot of "lack of assistance with information" when I started looking for a plane, so I would no longer be renting.

Of course they could not stop me; once I had the do$h together I was simply going to buy the thing.

But no more invitations to "club" fly-outs.

I have written this before but a major thing to help people grind through the PPL, and then to help people who have the PPL but are not sure what to do with it, would be allowing experienced owner-pilots to hang around the school/club.

I have discussed this with some school owners in the past. Schools don't like this because

- the pilots would end up acting as mentors, and usurp the instructors' superior authority and knowledge (we need an icon for sarcasm here...). Mentoring is a very tricky topic... ask AOPA ;)

- the pilots would end up getting cost sharing contributions from students/PPLs they fly with, when these students/PPLs ought to be spending all their spare money at the school, having lessons, etc (the fact that if you fly say 20hrs with a "mentor" you might do your PPL in 45hrs instead of 65hrs is of no interest to the school).

- one would need to provide extra space, for flight planning, internet access, etc... gosh maybe even a Jeppview 3 subscription :) :)

W2k

16th Nov 2010, 16:08

AdamFrisch, thanks for sharing your experiences. Your post adresses the regulation issues but other people in the thread have also mentioned things like other people's enviousness and disapproval towards airplane ownership or flying in general, tight-a*sed flying clubs making you pay if you show up a bit late, etc. It simply doesn't seem to be that way here. Maybe I've just been lucky so far.

funfly

16th Nov 2010, 17:16

One reason that flying lost an interest to me is that I lacked any idea of what to do. Great you can fly to exotic locations but flying to place to place just to get a bacon butty can only be done so many times.
I enjoyed learning because there is an objective and others are involved, you are part of a structure, a system. I subsequently enjoyed flying all over Europe but the fact of the matter is that you are very limited just what to do with it!
I bought a number of aircraft, each 'better' than the previous one, in search of what it was all about but to be honest I had the best time with my first, an X-Air microlight, where I could just wheel it out and bumble around, little cost and fun flying, land almost anywhere etc.
If I had the money now I would get another three axis microlight and search for the fun I had at the beginning and forget all the 'serious' stuff.

IO540

16th Nov 2010, 17:22

What was your last "serious" plane, Funfly?

I do know of pilots who went quite a long way and then gave up.

Of those who got at least an IR, one gave up after a TB20 (though I suspect he hit hard times financially) and another gave up after working his way up to a twin turboprop (he declared that he got sick of "running an airline").

I think a fair few VFR-only owners give up for "getting fed up" reasons, but not so many IFR pilots do that.

FleetFlyer

16th Nov 2010, 18:33

I fly a fast glass three axis microlight and love it. My hourly costs are tiny. However, every girl (and boy) that I've given a ride to has had a hard time with their nerves, despite some very sedate flying and calm airline captain style commentary from me.

Girls don't like planes, girls like the evidence of money.

As for other reasons to quit...

If you're VFR only then get yourself to a small uncontrolled airfield with no radio service.

When you can turn up as you please, pull your Cub or whatever out of the hanger by yourself and pop off for and hour to watch the sun making the clouds into ruby and custard coloured candy-floss, when you can turn the donkey down and catch the last thermal with a local buzzard, and he joins you because he saw you circling first, and when you land that perfect greaser with only the oldest club member to see you and he gives you a thumbs up, its then that you realise that the ten-year-old in you standing in the garden with the Keilkraft model was right all along.

Shorrick Mk2

16th Nov 2010, 18:42

Can we make that Ecuvillence or Lausanne? I do prefer hard surface runways to swamp in this season.

Or LSGK Saanen? Much better restaurants in the vicinity, plus a hard surface :)

Keef

16th Nov 2010, 19:19

I'm with FleetFlyer. I've tried all the upmarket options (never did twin, because that seemed absurdly expensive), and settled on an IFR-equipped Arrow which has been all over Europe many times. Yes, it is fun.

Nowadays, my delight is a permit Jodel at a farm strip in rural Suffolk. It's dead cheap to fly, with no complicated bits - there's not much point looking inside the cockpit because there isn't much to see. But it's a joy to fly.

I'm not out to impress anyone - I feel sorry for those who are - but it is "fun" to take some happy friends on a trip somewhere.

One friend was 60 and had never flown - he was far too scared. He was a mad keen yottie, so I told him all about flying, and then took him for a very gentle flight round the local rivers and marinas and yottie bits for about 20 minutes. He loved it! He and his missus are now making up for lost time, going on holidays all over the place (by air).

There is no "one size fits all", and that short flight you give someone may just change their life.

bartonflyer

16th Nov 2010, 20:28

Like many here, I went the twin rating, PPL-IR route, gave up on a twin as being just ludicrously expensive then have been flying a Cherokee6 for the last 10 years.

BUT the flying group seemed to lose interest, one emigrated, one retired - we could not attract any new members so the trips to Prague and Malaga and Gerona etc etc just became a memory. The Cherokee6 is gone and I'm contemplating what to do next - my inclination is to see if I can get a small group together around something like a CTLS and just get back to flying just for fun, but with an aircraft that is capable of touring if we want to.

IO540

16th Nov 2010, 20:59

I recall (from hearing about times long before my time) that twins used to be "the next logical thing after singles". I suspect this was when juice was 30p/gallon :) Today, they are monstrously expensive - partly because ~ 80% of the 2nd engine's fuel flow is wasted (in performance terms) and partly because most of them are very very old airframes and all old airframes cost a packet to keep going and an old and big and nontrivial airframe is the worst of all worlds. There is only one thing which will bring more hassle than an old twin, and that is an old turboprop :)

With decent-payload singles around, most of the argument for a light twin is the "spare engine", and some extra electrical redundancy.

I do think that the best way for many (that want to go places) is setting up a syndicate around something new-ish and capable, like an SR22 or a TB20. The challenge, as I found out during the few years I ran mine as a "zero equity group", is digging out enough people who
- put money where their mouth is
- can keep doing so long-term
- are good pilots but don't already have their own plane
- are honest
Each of the four things above reduces the "market" by at least 80% and it doesn't leave much. But I remain convinced this is the best way. A £100k plane split 5 ways will give you more or less everything - except a jet-like despatch rate, and flying in crap wx is not fun anyway.

At almost any level of syndicate, finding the right people is going to be the hardest thing.

24Carrot

16th Nov 2010, 21:09

Does the Tecnam P2006T change the thinking about light twins? Not a plug, just genuinely curious.

englishal

17th Nov 2010, 09:00

I think a light twin split 4 ways would be the ideal - something like a TC Seneca with 7 club seats.

You can pick these up relatively cheaply for an older one, then I'd completely strip the thing down (to inspect everything) and completely rennovate and fit zero timed engines, di-ice, modern avionics (G500?), interior and repaint.

For GBP 150-200K you could end up with a sweet "as new" aircraft. Fuel burn would still remain reasonable.

IO540

17th Nov 2010, 09:36

The problem with a "project aircraft" is that you need somebody willing to manage the project. You can't (in general) find a maintenance company who will do it and do it right. These things have to be micro-managed. So you will have one bloke running it, and six hangers-on :)

And then you still need to find the six other pilots...

These are great ideas which would work with the right people.

Shorrick Mk2

17th Nov 2010, 11:16

Does the Tecnam P2006T change the thinking about light twins? Not a plug, just genuinely curious.

Why would one want to go through the hassle of getting the ME rating if you can do exactly the same (or actually more!) in a PA28-236?

24Carrot

17th Nov 2010, 13:11

IO540

17th Nov 2010, 13:25

The Tecnam twin is very expensive. Not by the standard of a new DA42, but I suspect not many buyers with £250k or so are going to fly behind a Rotax - even if they have a spare one, and even if Rotax's reputation is much better than it used to be.

AdamFrisch

17th Nov 2010, 14:24

Mark my words - the Tecnam P2006 is going to sell like chocolates in a kid store.

Just ask yourself if you wanted to go and get an ME rating tomorrow, what would you prefer? A 35 year old clapped out Duchess or the Tecnam? Exactly. It's going to be the twin for the training market in the near future. It's also the first high wing twin in ages to come along, so all the relief and missionary outfits will most certainly be interested in it. I'm sure coast guards, fire services, law enforcement will too. Anyone who needs to get in to small fields or have a view other than of the sky only will be coming for it.

Also, Tecnam wanted to certify it with diesels, but Thielert went south. As soon as they can find a new diesel I'm sure they will try again. And when they do, it's going to sell even more.

BTW, it just got its FAA certification this week, so expect the US demand to ramp up.

Shorrick Mk2

17th Nov 2010, 14:45

Fair point, but performance is part of the cost of going for a twin.
Allegedly it consumes 10 USG/H, it is a new design, and is dual Mogas/100LL.
It also costs a lot, at least until the Euro zone disintegrates.

Dakota cruise speed (per POH) 138 kts. Tecnam samey-same.

Dakota available traffic load (full fuel) 340 kgs. Tecnam 290 kgs.

Dakota endurance 5 hours with reserves. Tecnam endurance 4 hours.

We operate the Dak out of a 600m grass strip at MTOW so while it may need longer fields than the Tecnam, it's not by a huge margin.

So - what performance?

AdamFrisch

17th Nov 2010, 15:27

Yeah but overhauling both Rotaxes costs less than the one Lycoming. So why not have twin safety for a lesser price?

24Carrot

17th Nov 2010, 16:28

So - what performance? Shorrick, I should have been plainer, I meant that a lower performance is part of the cost of choosing a twin.

For any given horsepower, splitting it across two engines is less efficient and heavier. And if putting two great lumps on the wing was such a wonderful idea, singles would have them too.

Without wishing to re-kindle many ancient threads, some people do choose twins. Once that decision is made, what is the best twin to go for? Most of the old favorites seem to come with expensive maintenance bills, and guzzle gas, as IO540 pointed out.

The Tecnam seems like a break from all that, but frankly I don't know enough to comment. Hence the question!

funfly

17th Nov 2010, 17:39

What was your last "serious" plane, Funfly?
is was a beautiful looking, all glass but ill fated Kiss Cruiser which was unfortunately destroyed just after I sold it.

I think a fair few VFR-only owners give up for "getting fed up" reasons, but not so many IFR pilots do that.
well, I also found the IFR a very enjoyable learning experience and improved my own flying a lot.

In the end it was the ratio of: where to fly to / the effort of getting the aircraft out / the poor weather / the cost.

It should also be pointed out that being a sole owner of an aircraft is LONELY.

AN2 Driver

18th Nov 2010, 05:56

@FleetFlyer

Girls don't like planes, girls like the evidence of money.

Truer words were rarely spoken in this here flyers pub :cool: . And you need to be very lucky to find one of them who will consider sitting for 4-5 hours in a cabin with creature comforts akin to a Trabant either evidence of money, lifestyle or enough to impress their circle of "it-girls" with unless it's something like a Citation upwards. And even a Citation is only fun if they can show it off to their mates. Know some folks who are into boating for the same reason, but heck, either you do it for the sake of enjoying what you do yourself or just about save your money. Girls like that are not worth pursuing, the best one can expect are a few entertaining rolls in the hay (and most of our GA fleet is singularily unsuited for that kind of thing) and a forced sale when said pax will eventually grab the evident money and run for better prospects. Seen it happen, thankfully never to myself but it was ugly enough to watch.

Re Twins, frankly I had a look at the Tecnam and don't find much appeal in. Neither speed nor range nor payload compute for more than a basic twin trainer. Tecnam sais 145kt@75%, 135kt @ 65% and a range of about 600 NM @65%, combined with a usefull load of around 250 kg with full fuel makes it a good trainer, but not more. I've flown Senecas I-III's, they are expensive to run and, in the case of the I certainly, have neither the single engine ceiling nor the range to make it viable in our regions.

The one I have observed from a distance but talked to several owners is the Twin Commanche, especcially the turbo one or at least with Rajay's. They are the ultimate long haul light twin for 2 plus baggage, a bit like a Mooney with 2 engines and they are, at least in terms of fuel flow, financially manageable. 170kt @ 17 GPH or 200 kt @ 20 GPH with a range of around 1000 NM seems more than reasonable for a twin and is not far from some singles. Actually, an SR 22's manufacturer's figure sais 180 kt @ 17 GPH, so that's close enough. Combine that with 6-10 hours endurance, depending on configuration, and one can contemplate going places.

I am not surprised that the drop out rate in VFR is bigger than IFR, being VFR myself for the moment I can see why. Routing and airspace restrictions make VFR a very cumbersome planning solution and of course, it is a Russian Roulette with the weather in Europe. I can easily imagine there are folks in the sunnier spots of greenery who never bother about an IR, in Europe, flying without it needs drastic reserves in time planning. Apart, once someone has spent the money and time to get an IR, he's probably a lot more reluctant to let go of all the investment.

One thing I never contemplated as a possible reason to hang up flying is the lack of places to go to. Granted, I am a bit more centrally placed and a mere 2 hours from the beaches of the med, but so far I've not grown tired of the capability to hop to warmer and greener pastures in just a short time. Comes to it, airline tickets to smaller and less frequented places are expensive, especcially if you fly back and forth the same day. That was actually one of the incentives that convinced my significant other, after we had to travel to a not 500 NM away place short notice and had to shell out almost £ 1k each... heck, I could easily have flown that myself, had we owned the Mooney by then.

Best regards
AN2 driver

IO540

18th Nov 2010, 07:23

overhauling both Rotaxes costs less than the one LycomingThe engine fund is not a major issue these days, with fuel costing so much. For example my TB20 engine fund (IO540-C4) is around £10/hour. The VP prop fund is around £3/hour. These costs are not that significant, when fuel costs about £60-£70/hour (say 10 USG/hr).

The biggest issue is the lack of capital in the GA market - outside the "glamorous" areas like an SR22, or above that (turboprops, etc).

It should also be pointed out that being a sole owner of an aircraft is LONELYThat's very true. But it is vastly better to have control and be able to pick your flying companions, than to be in a group where some may be great and others may be t0ssers. This applies to every other aspect of life also, of course.

Apart, once someone has spent the money and time to get an IR, he's probably a lot more reluctant to let go of all the investment. I am sure that is very true, and this is why we see so many p1**sed off pilots over the EASA proposals. If it was just a PPL conversion, few would care (except those who will get well and truly screwed over on medicals).

As regards girls and planes, yes, girls are not so keen to be flying for its own sake. But one doesn't do a 5hr flight and then land back where one started (usually). One goes places. And flying out of the UK to say the Adriatic (5hrs in a TB20) is very rewarding and would (with many of the really nice destinations) be a right hassle using airline transport. I don't see many women being averse to that kind of thing. I met just one young woman, years ago, who had a serious hangup over even seeing a picture of a small plane, but she was a bunny boiler anyway with various other mental issues. My girlfriend flies long trips to these places with me happily - though she doesn't like turbulence especially in IMC so sometimes, when the weather cannot be assured, she takes an airline flight and we meet up there. For these flights I now find the satellite IR images priceless because one can see what is "up there" at high altitude. But anyway I think this will always be a problem area unless you have a nice long-distance-capable plane and get that sorted before you hit the internet dating scene :)

24Carrot

18th Nov 2010, 13:57

Thanks for the Tecnam comments.

Airbus Girl

19th Nov 2010, 16:13

Most of the girls I know DO like flying, but cannot abide the way grown men behave once given their "wings". They seem to think that by having a PPL and a shiny leather flight bag they can talk out of their backsides, show off their bravado and skill at landing in weather that is below limits and generally scare themselves as well as their passenger whilst trying to cover it up. They do not think about their passenger's comfort. I have seen it so many times, a new PPL will take a girl/ woman up with him for a flight on a horribly hazy and/or bumpy day, bumble about with his barely-there skills and often cause the passenger to feel ill. They get stressed because now not only are they working hard to ensure a safe flight but they have the additional stress of a passenger they are trying to impress. I told my OH when he got his PPL that he was to go off and fly on his own for a bit and that when he took me up the first time I expected him to have done full flight preparation including take off performance, weather, etc. So many times I see newly qualified PPLers think they can abandon all they learnt on their course and just wing it.

As for why people drop out, I think alot of it has to do with cost, obviously, but a greater proportion has to do with the social side. In the old days people would come to the airfield for the day, chat, have lunch, and often a couple of pilots would decide to go fly together to somewhere, would chat with more experienced pilots to increase their knowledge, and would be keen to give new things a go. These days that side has largely gone (except at some airfields), as people don't have the time any more and people seem more afraid to share their experiences (good AND bad). People are scared of the regulation, and the main thing is that they are scared to ask. They don't want to be seen as incompetent by asking for advice about the weather or flight planning. Or they just don't care, because flying has become much more informal, and with that informal attitude passing down from instructors, the student and then the newly qualified PPL has the same attitude.

Imagine an airfield where you turned up wanting to fly. You were met by a cheery instructor who sat down for a few minutes with you to see what you were planning to do that day. He was actively on hand to help you gather all the information you needed, and could discretely have a look over your shoulder to make sure you had covered everything. He might also give you a couple of pointers, perhaps mentioning an airfield that was closed, or a NOTAM you may not have read properly. Then perhaps he knew of another pilot coming in who was also flying to that airfield, and he suggested maybe you both fly over there together. When you get back from your flight you have a beer at the clubhouse and talk about your day.

It just doesn't seem to be like this any more. Airspace is complicated, getting information is complicated, no-one has time to help, landing fees are expensive, aircraft hire and fuel is expensive.

It is a shame but I don't see the situation improving until the school owners/ chief pilots change.

timcfi

20th Nov 2010, 18:54

Many excellent (and accurate) comments on this thread, thanks all. I would like to point out that as one on the other side of the Atlantic, we are no more revered as pilots than you, but the regulatory environment may be slightly better and certainly we have a cost advantage. I have been measuring pilot numbers for several years and we're decreasing at an alarming rate. In the past it was decreasing 1% per year, but recently it has accelerated.

I would like to toss an idea out for discussion. Most discussions of quantity of pilots involves the high cost of flying. In my mind, there never has been a "Henry Ford" moment where someone actually builds a factory capable of building a large quantity of GA airplanes to take advantage of the economies of scale. Today, Cirrus and Cessna proudly point at a capability to build 2000 airplanes a year with 1000 hours of hand touch labor per aircraft, while a single production line at Toyota is capable of producing 250,000 cars with 19 hours of hand touch labor per car (ignoring the occasional brake problem).

I'm not advocating an "if we build it, they will come" philosophy, but it does seem like the cost of aircraft (and insurance, and every other aviation-related product) would drop significantly if we had real production. I hold great hope for the LSA movement, but until someone gets serious about production, the promise of lower costs will not be realized. Of course, the other side of the equation is to create more pilots as more airplanes become available.

I am actively working the "more pilots" problem, as the president of a non-profit promotion organization (IAPG Iowa Aviation Promotion Group (http://www.flyiowa.org)), and the president & owner of a flight school (Iowa Flight Training (http://www.IowaFlightTraining.com)). We have the first new LSA in our state, a Flight Design CTLS, and I am working on low-cost motion simulators (Flight Design Pilot Center News (http://www.fd-pc.com/index.php?page=news&n=17&ps=0)) that we could place in classroom settings to help lower the cost of flight training by minimizing time in the cockpit.

I'm open to other ideas to recruit & retain new pilots as well as methods of increasing aircraft production numbers. We're all in this together.

Tim
Iowa Flight Training (http://www.IowaFlightTraining.com)

BroomstickPilot

21st Nov 2010, 10:45

Hi timcfi,

I think the point you make about the absence of low cost, volume produced aircraft is an important one. However, there is another angle to this situation.

Some years ago, a club I belonged to decided to replace their ageing C152s. They decided to trawl the market to see just what was available. Since I was known to archive flying mag articles, (I know, sad isn't it,) they asked me to pull out all my available articles on the two-seat training aeroplanes then available.

Without difficulty, I assembled articles on fourteen different types. I'm quite sure I could have found more, but these would have taken more digging to find.

Now with that many manufacturers competing for such a small market, very few are going to make a decent profit and most are going to vanish within a few years as buyers stick to the 'tried and tested'; (such as 1960s design Pa28s costing £100,000 when bought new).

I left that club shortly afterwards, but I know they bought some nice Italian VLAs. However, most clubs seem to have delayed buying until there was something new from Piper or Cessna. No doubt this was because concern that products from any smaller company, no matter how good, would soon lack manufacturer support as their originators went bust, while Piper and Cessna would be reasonably certain to survive.

This then served to maintain the world duopoly of Piper and Cessna, which is not good for light aviation as it makes improvement and innovation less likely: (rather like the old Eastern Bloc where choice of cars was between the Lada and the Trabant).

Broomstick.

IO540

21st Nov 2010, 13:07

Today, Cirrus and Cessna proudly point at a capability to build 2000 airplanes a year with 1000 hours of hand touch labor per aircraft, while a single production line at Toyota is capable of producing 250,000 cars with 19 hours of hand touch labor per car

Obviously one could never get a 1000hr plane down to 19hrs labour, because the volume is not there, but one could get a lot off the 1000hr figure, with decent production tooling.

I have been to the Socata factory a few times (I fly a TB20) and they do have a lot of press tooling for the countless sheet metal items like brackets, supports, etc. I don't think one can do more in that department. But they were still doing the wiring very manually - a huge number of man-hours. Their biggest problem is they are in France, where nobody works much at the best of times and the employer pays about 100% on top of the take-home packet, in Social Security. But anyway they could have shaved some 50% off their direct labour bill, IMHO. I don't know about Cirrus but surely with composite hulls they must be already automated (or they can be, but it might be expensive, with fancy computer controlled weaving machines, autoclaves etc).

What I suspect Socata worked out (they aren't stupid) is that it would not have made that much difference, because they still buy everything from the old USA monopolies (Lycoming, Honeywell, Garmin, etc) and this stuff accounts for a big chunk of the selling price of a plane. I am in electronics and it costs only about $200 to make a Garmin 430W i.e. about a 20x mark-up over their trade price (and then some more to get the end user list price). Certification cost is a non-issue on such volume products with such long production lives, so this is a pure cash cow.

To make a real dent in the manufacturing cost of a GA plane, one would need to cut out these monopoly suppliers, but nobody is going to do that. They are very firmly established, and have fantastic dealer loyalties, and without dealer take-up no newcomes can get in.

If training abandons the IFR capability ( I know it is different in the USA where IFR is possible in non-ICAO-CofA planes) then one can train in VFR-only stuff which enables the monopoly suppliers to be cut out, but this is just a dead end for the customers. Unless one regards PPL training as just a business in itself, which is a policy that is responsible for much of what we have....

421C

21st Nov 2010, 16:03

So - what performance?

The performance after an engine has failed.

W2k

21st Nov 2010, 16:37

As a junior PPL(A) - I too am finding this thread very interesting. I was planning to go the ME+IFR route as well once I become semi-competent flying PA28's (I've about 70 hours TT currently) but from the sound of things I would be better off skipping the ME and getting a few pals together around a complex single, once I get tired of the club cherokees.

My thanks to all of you for sharing your experiences.

IO540

21st Nov 2010, 17:24

The SE v. ME stuff can be debated for ever, and has been in many places :)

At the lightweight end, say Seneca-sized stuff, what you are getting is a spare engine (for which you pay dearly in avgas) plus some systems redundancy.

You are not getting any extra payload over what can be had in a suitable SE - especially if you need the payload and choose the appropriate SE for that, with ice protection etc.

And in some cases, like the Cessna 400, the systems redundancy is as impressive as the aircraft's performance - just as long as that engine keeps going around.

Everybody had great hopes when the DA42 came out and then Mr Thielert p*ssed all over that party. Diamond were - by all accounts from owners I know personally - never an easy company to deal with and now everybody got shafted between a rock and a hard place. Maybe with the new engines they will have a good product but nobody can honestly make such a statement based on any data; not for another 5 years or so.

So a SE is a very good choice to make right now. Avgas is not getting cheaper...

I bought a new TB20GT in 2002 and have not regretted that choice for a moment. Ownership is a steep learning curve, but if you are going to climb that curve you are better off doing it in something that fits your mission profile and does it at a cost which you are comfortable with.

New or newish piston twins - those few that are still being made - are ludicrously pricey. They are so expensive that actually you are getting very close to the price of a used but very good condition Jetprop (http://www.jetprop.com/), and while emotionally a JP is still a SE, statistically there is no contest in how likely you are to hit the ground in a JP, with its incredibly reliable PT6 engine, versus any piston twin, due to a systems or engine failure.

And for most would-be owners the ability to build a syndicate is vital. It is going to be a helluva lot easier to do that around a JP than around a newish twin.

But if you are training and have a chance for a ME IR, and cost effectively (which I think means doing the IR as SE and then doing the ME bit at the end) then go for it.

sunday driver

21st Nov 2010, 17:56

Airbus Girl

I dropped out after several years just hanging on to currency and finally a couple of years with zero hours. :(

Now, with more time and a bit of cash, I've dropped in again, and my local club's cfi is giving me exactly the mentoring you describe.

My skills are a long way from perfect but they're coming on very quickly, and the cfi's inputs are rebuilding my confidence.

:)

SD

Big Pistons Forever

21st Nov 2010, 17:56

Obviously one could never get a 1000hr plane down to 19hrs labour, because the volume is not there, but one could get a lot off the 1000hr figure, with decent production tooling.

I have been to the Socata factory a few times (I fly a TB20) and they do have a lot of press tooling for the countless sheet metal items like brackets, supports, etc. I don't think one can do more in that department. But they were still doing the wiring very manually - a huge number of man-hours. Their biggest problem is they are in France, where nobody works much at the best of times and the employer pays about 100% on top of the take-home packet, in Social Security. But anyway they could have shaved some 50% off their direct labour bill, IMHO. I don't know about Cirrus but surely with composite hulls they must be already automated (or they can be, but it might be expensive, with fancy computer controlled weaving machines, autoclaves etc).

What I suspect Socata worked out (they aren't stupid) is that it would not have made that much difference, because they still buy everything from the old USA monopolies (Lycoming, Honeywell, Garmin, etc) and this stuff accounts for a big chunk of the selling price of a plane. I am in electronics and it costs only about $200 to make a Garmin 430W i.e. about a 20x mark-up over their trade price (and then some more to get the end user list price). Certification cost is a non-issue on such volume products with such long production lives, so this is a pure cash cow.

To make a real dent in the manufacturing cost of a GA plane, one would need to cut out these monopoly suppliers, but nobody is going to do that. They are very firmly established, and have fantastic dealer loyalties, and without dealer take-up no newcomes can get in.

If training abandons the IFR capability ( I know it is different in the USA where IFR is possible in non-ICAO-CofA planes) then one can train in VFR-only stuff which enables the monopoly suppliers to be cut out, but this is just a dead end for the customers. Unless one regards PPL training as just a business in itself, which is a policy that is responsible for much of what we have....

I own a little Grumman AA1B. Compared to a C150/152, it is 10 knots faster has 5 inches more shoulder room, outstanding visibility, delightfully light controls and was reportedly built in less than 1/2 of the man hours required for to build a C150. ( the entire fuselage is 1 part number, the flaps and ailerons are interchangeable both on the same wing and the opposite side etc etc). So why isn't the sky dark with Grummans and all the C150's reduced to moldering away in the back row of the grass parking?

To me it seems the actual aircraft is the least important reason why people get into flying. I think historically people got into flying because of a personal connection. In my case it was the fact that my father was a PPL. For many others I know the interest was sparked when somebody took them for a ride. I do not htink there is a magic bullet solution to this problem, but if every PPL made a special effort to introduce one familymember/friend to flying at least once a year I think measurable progress could be made.

421C

21st Nov 2010, 22:10

The SE v. ME stuff can be debated for ever, and has been in many places

It's the anti-twin stuff that is most often repeated for ever, I guess the twin drivers just smile and move on....

This isn't about anyone's choice of aircraft. That's a pointless debate, since there is a vast range of aircraft and people chose the one that suits them best. It's about the abstract principles.

But, the wonderful thing about the Tecnam Twin is that, for once, there isn't a big cost or fuel burn trade-off. Its weight, cost, fuel burn and performance are similar to the 180hp class of singles. In the market it competes in, that is pretty compelling.

rmac

22nd Nov 2010, 04:51

I love my twin. It was source of great comfort when I operated it out of Singapore on airways over some very remote places.

However, while I am happy (more or less) to pay a fuel penalty, its the constant chiselling here in Europe which has finally got to me, for example if I buy data from Jepp, why can't I pay once for the data and then apply it to all the diverse glass in my cockpit instead of one up to date unit and the rest updated from time to time ? answer: greed. Why is it that the coverage in Europe is designed to make sure that for any decent trip you need to susbscribe for additional trip kits or pay a fortune for an annual sunbscription for a region that you might use twice in a year ? answer = greed. How the hell do mandatory handlers get away with handling charges that exceed the, already astronomically priced, approach and landing fees by a significant margin and deliver almost no services in return. answer = greed. Where do route charges of 300Euro for a two hour flight where I talked to ATC five times come from. answer = ?? you tell me

So to hell with it....my beautiful, well maintained, highly equipped twin is on the market and I am going back to classic taildraggers and maybe a share in an ex-mil jet

Enough is enough :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

IO540

22nd Nov 2010, 07:04

I guess the twin drivers just smile and move on....

That's true but a lot of them throw in the towel a lot sooner than they otherwise might, because they are paying way over the odds for the actual mission capability.

I can immediately think of 2 people I know personally, who have chucked it in.

I can think of some more who hardly fly now, or who sold shares to bring the operating costs down.

A 421C is in its own category because that is a highly capable machine with a big payload, deice, radar, and a despatch rate in the 98-99% department, but... are you still flying the same # of hours you were flying 2-3 years ago when money was flowing freely? Who is?

Everything costs more on a twin. Even the hangar owner smiles with an extra big smile when a twin owner asks about hangarage; it costs about twice as much, which in my case would be about £12000/year.

The emotional value of a 2nd engine cannot be debated but I would not recommend a piston twin to a newcomer to GA, unless they are absolutely loaded and are likely to remain so.

The Tecnam twin is an interesting proposition but with Rotax engines you really do want a spare one :)

There is not a lot of hard data around (I believe, largely because the bulk of that market is in the "homebuilt" category in which incident reporting is "somewhat less than enthusiastic"; some pilots casually say they've had half a dozen engine failures and they think this is OK) but while they have got a lot better, every indication I have seen is that their MTBF is an order of magnitude worse than Lyco/Conti engines.

The P2006T may be great for schools doing professional training but is not a good touring machine. From here (http://www.nac.co.za/files/pdf/73_THE%20P2006T%20Twin.pdf) the zero fuel range at 65% power is about 670nm. You can get a single with an IO540 up front which does 2x that, which is vastly more useful in Europe, with its sparse Customs/Avgas matrix (and almost no airport has Mogas). The quoted ceiling of 15000ft probably translates to a realistic ceiling of 12000-13000ft which in Euroontrol/IFR terms puts you bang in the middle of icing conditions much of the time in Europe. The useful load of 420kg (inc fuel) is similar or slightly worse than the SE option and translates to 276kg with full fuel, and with a realistic (meaningful reserves - not the 30 mins in the data sheet which is a recipe for disaster) range of about 400nm one will want to fly with plenty of juice if going anywhere. That's a lot better than a C152 but nothing special. Even a trip to the S of France is likely to need a fuel stop.

It's good for schools looking for a cheap way to do ME training. For for an owner looking to spend $410000, and presumably looking for a decent plane for going around Europe, it falls too short. The IFR mission capability is similar to a PA28-181.

421C

22nd Nov 2010, 16:01

Pace

22nd Nov 2010, 17:51

But, the wonderful thing about the Tecnam Twin is that, for once, there isn't a big cost or fuel burn trade-off. Its weight, cost, fuel burn and performance are similar to the 180hp class of singles. In the market it competes in, that is pretty compelling.

Saw the Tecnam twin and it is a very smart machine. My reservations are that it is not deiced/anti iced and for me that is a no no on a twin.

The whole idea of a twin is capability over a single and part of that capability is flying day/ night, summer/winter. It is to fly over long stretches of water, over fog banks in IMC with low cloud below.

On top of that twins are used to carrying passengers rather than friends on a summers day joy ride. The second engine rightfully or wrongly gives them the impression that they have a spare engine.

Like many things in life its success depends on confidence. Would I be happy flying over Scotland at night in IMC, icing knowing the cloud goes almost to the ground in a single? Afraid not. That second engine purring away is a big plus statistics or not.

I know some of the companies I have flown would not have considered a single for their personel as most wont consider a single pilot either.

Pace

AN2 Driver

24th Nov 2010, 13:15

Actual mission, IO540, is one of the things people rarely seem to consider when shopping for that airplane.... And then, often enough, it's a question of being able to afford the aircraft which can do that particular mission.

We were musing away in another forum not too long ago. How about someone come up with a VLA kind of airplane, < 750 kg, but with real capabilities? It should be possible. Many folks here fly alone or with one pax most. My rear 2 seats have not been filled more than once since I had my plane, before I was doing well enough with my 2 seater.

A real two seater realistically needs about 200-220 kgs payload with full tanks. I'd like to have a range of 700 to 800 NM with it, a good cockpit and adequate baggage for going on a trip without having to carry 2 seats in order to fit the usual baggage most folks carry. Combined with the fuel flow of say a 115 hp Rotax or even a O235, it should be possible.

The said engines will burn between 20-25 lph (5-6.5 gph). A 200 liter (50 USG) tank such as it's available on PA28's and Mooney M20's will provide for 8-9 hours range at that consumption, with say 130 kts, that would translate into about 900-1000 NM range. Looking at a normal empty weight equipped for say a Sport Cruiser or similar (390 kg), with full fuel of 130 kg and 230 kgs payload you'd end up right at the limit of 750 kg for the VLA fleet but have a very capable airplane. I've seen one of these Sport Cruisers, which are legally, not structurally, limited to 600 kgs. One guy at that factory told me that during the test flight program it was flown much heavier than that and could probably do the 750 kg class certification easily, likewise, were it not for the 120 kt limit imposed on those planes, they could fit another prop and get up to 130-140 kts with pleasure.

2 seater long haul traveller with these specs anyone? Apart from the fact that you could fit all those fancy avionics that only the experimentals and VLA's may fit but which are often enough vastly supperior to our steam gauges and cost a fraction? That sport curiser I checked out features a 2 axis AP and dual Dynon EFIS plus a lot more for a lot less cash than only the HSI costs in a "normal" plane.

Ah yes, and please let these things fly light IFR too, as they do in the US.

Right now however, there are preciously few airplanes around which can carry the full pax load advertized by their number of seats with full fuel and over a decent distance....

Captain Smithy

24th Nov 2010, 13:39

AN2's penultimate point got me thinking, and raised a question in my mind.

In the US suitably-equipped VLAs can fly IFR but not here. Why not in the glorious free United States of Europe?

IO540

24th Nov 2010, 14:08

You are comparing the P2006T with a TB20. I am comparing it with its direct competitors, which I perceive as the PA28-180 and C172 (and perhaps even the SR20). They have the similar payload range limitations.Have you checked the purchase prices of all these?

It is not easy to find out how much one would actually pay for a new C172 today (without working a few dealers on the phone) but it appears around $220k, which is only 53% of the Tecnam price. This figure is close to what I know one flying school paid for a C172 several years ago, in the UK.

The base price of an SR20 appears to be around $280k.

I was not actually comparing to my TB20 because they don't make those anymore but a mint condition 2002 TB20GT would fetch (and has done so) about £140k, with factory standard equipment. This is about $220k. This aircraft will totally outclass all of the above in mission capability for IFR.

The Tecnam has a spare motor and you pay for that - nearly $200k. How much does a Rotax cost? :)

IMHO the Tecnam is a toy plane for ME training. It does not have the capability of a traditional twin (say a Seneca) and it cannot escape the eyes of most likely buyers that a half decent single will outclass it by so much. I can't see many zero due diligence beginners playing in the $400k market. And with two Rotaxes it cannot even claim to be economical - it is comparable to an IO540 LOP SE at FL100, 140kt TAS.

Actual mission, IO540, is one of the things people rarely seem to consider when shopping for that airplane....That's true, though at the $400k mark one would hope they would :)

they could fit another prop and get up to 130-140 kts with pleasure. Was this the same man who "did" the flutter tests at Vne+20% ? :)

In the US suitably-equipped VLAs can fly IFR but not here. Why not in the glorious free United States of Europe?A lot of people ask this Q but there are few answers which appear to be coming from even remotely anywhere near the horse's mouth.

My take on it is this:

The USA concession is sub-ICAO and it is free to do this within its airspace.

EASA/EU could do the same if they wanted to, but EASA has so far shown very little ability to propose (never mind deliver) anything much that actually benefits anybody i.e. some serious deregulation, in this obscenely over-regulated game.

There are real issues with IFR certification of a lot of "light" planes. If you are going to allow IFR then you are allowing IMC, so you need to be pretty sure of the capability in not only turbulence (and even the most casual stroll and finger-poking around say the Friedrichshafen show will show just how "minimalist-construction" much of that stuff is, despite being ostensibly rated for +2.8g ot whatever) but also static electricity, right up to a lightning strike. Even certified planes have had issues with static while flying in IMC; I personally know pilots whose Cirrus glass cockpits just crashed. In the end it comes down to whether the State has the right to dictate an individual's attitude to risk; in the USA they back away from that (in this case) but this isn't going to happen in "we know what's best for you" Europe.

That is not saying that an ICAO CofA will always be mandatory for IFR but by the time you have built the thing properly, getting it certified is probably on your plan anyway because it will open up export to the USA and elsewhere.

AN2 Driver

24th Nov 2010, 21:57

IO540,

That's true, though at the $400k mark one would hope they would

Well, one of the misconceptions. Not many new buyers will or have the remote means of shelling out that much for a privately owned airplane. On top, there is no need. Used planes are available for a fraction of that, pretty decent VFR planes from 20k to 30k and IFR from 50k up.

Was this the same man who "did" the flutter tests at Vne+20% ?

I don't know about that. The current Vne of that particular plane is 130kt/150 mph with a cruise speed of 110 kt. I was told that during development they did test several variants and were aiming for higher speeds and payload, but with the 600 kg restriction they had to meet decided to stay with the Rotax 912. They do have a payload problem however, especcially the CAPS equipped ones, with about 120 kg total load available with full (114lt) fuel...

The guy who demonstrated the aircraft said that it would not take a lot of modifications to up the MTOW to 700kg or even higher, but it meant a different form of certification and the use of other avionics e.t.c.

Anyhow, I only used that particular plane as a base for calculation. Something of the line I am talking about would need a totally new development. Yet, looking at the figures, it should be possible to do something like that within the 750 kg limit.

There are real issues with IFR certification of a lot of "light" planes. If you are going to allow IFR then you are allowing IMC, so you need to be pretty sure of the capability in not only turbulence (and even the most casual stroll and finger-poking around say the Friedrichshafen show will show just how "minimalist-construction" much of that stuff is, despite being ostensibly rated for +2.8g ot whatever) but also static electricity, right up to a lightning strike.

Having operated an IFR equipped and licensed Cessna 150 for a while, I am an advocate for light plane IFR. Yet, anyone attached to life knows that single engine IFR in general and the lighter the plane in specific poses problems. Static is one for the plastic planes, turbulence another, these planes are not the IFR platforms like a Mooney or a Seneca or TB20. Flying them in certain conditions is bl**dy hard work. BUT, especcially in the cramped airspace in Europe, IFR is a very handy thing to have, even if you don't use it as an "all weather" option but primarily to be able to fly at decent altitudes and carefree of the hassle of avoiding the multitude of SUA's and other restricted areas.

Having seen the capabilities of some of those planes, which come with full 2 axis autopilots and pretty neat instrumentation, I'd say that filing and flying according to IFR in reasonable conditions should not be a too big issue in any of them. But you do have a point. IFR is IFR, there is no "light" involved, even if all of us flying single engine IFR or even twin in most light airplanes, that there are conditions in which we have nothing to do at all even if it is legal. Yet, we do manage with icing and most of us won't go IMC without a decent ceiling below a single or cross the alps in IMC in a Seneca I.

the other bit about the VLA/LSA IFR story is that I am not entirely clear on how it is that these planes can fly with stuff like Dynon EFIS and other great but non certified instruments, whereas we can't even get them as stand by or back up instruments. I've seen a Dynon EFIS as a back up in a N-reg Twin Com on the copilot's side, a great addition, which is not possible at all in Europe. Clearly, this does "protect" the established makes and their plating grade prices, but is it really necessary to go to such lenghts? Aspen so far are the only ones who bothered to certify a comparable EFIS platform in an acceptable price range, but if I see what is out there (TruTrack Autopilots, Dynon, the Garmin series for non certified planes e.t.c.) at a fraction of the cost of certified stuff, maybe certification cost is just a tad too extreme sometimes?

Generally, I'd say IFR is much more suitable for travelling than VFR and it's also a lot safer, regardless of type. Yet, in Europe, the IR is an extremely work intensive rating to get, compared to the US IR, which is one of the reasons we've got so many people flying N-reg. That is another tendency I'd like to see an attitude adjustment by EASA. The IR should not be a doctorate in (meta)physics, medicine and heaven knows what else but a straightforward rating with the aim of improving the overall safety especcially in the GA sector.

So maybe there really is food for thought here. Thank you all for the inputs.

421C

25th Nov 2010, 11:26

I was not actually comparing to my TB20 because they don't make those anymore
Fair point. When you said "2x the range" I guess that leaves the Mooney and (at a stretch) the Piper Matrix/Malibu.

Long-range touring is a mission, but not the mission for a light aircraft. Most light aircraft never fly sectors more than say 300-400nm. However, I agree that v.long range is very useful even if you don't use it, because you can ferry avgas and overcome availability problems or extortionate pricing on, say a 2x400nm round trip.

People do buy new airplanes. I think the C172 and PA28 are at the $300k mark new, and the SR20 at the $350k level and the C182 and base SR22 at $400k.

Of course, if you attach no value to a rectractable gear twin as an airplane configuration, one is better off buying a SE alternative. But some people do value two engines. Rightly, wrongly, rationally or irrationally. Prior to the Tecnam, the economic/age trade-off for a twin was very significant in this segment. One's typical choice might have been a new or newish single or an old Seneca. In principle, the DA42 design meets many of the performance criteria at the higher/mid level of the market (eg. SR22) and offers a sensible new twin alternative (caveated by my not knowing really what the risks of the Austro engine are following the Thielert debacle). The Tecnam offers a similar alternative. I like twins, I like the Tecnam. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything except to say I think the Tecnam adds a useful choice and set of attributes in the market. Not for everyone. To some extent, every aircraft choice fits a niche. We all inhabit our own niches of preferences, missions and economics. I think there are niches out there the Tecnam serves. And niches it utterly fails to serve, just as any aircraft fails to serve some niches.

IMHO the Tecnam is a toy plane
I suspect for any tier of aircraft you can look at the one below as a 'toy'. The Tecnam is a retractable gear, CS prop, twin engine four seater certified for Day/Night IFR/VFR. It is not a long-range SE tourer, but it is a serious light aircraft.

IO540

25th Nov 2010, 14:44

People do buy new airplanes. I think the C172 and PA28 are at the $300k mark new, and the SR20 at the $350k level and the C182 and base SR22 at $400k.

During one recent year, IIRC, total PA28 sales around the world were 14. Piper have not been a "piston player" for years, below the PA46 level.

Cessna continue to sell - into utility / short-field applications (which is a big market).

I suspect for any tier of aircraft you can look at the one below as a 'toy'. The Tecnam is a retractable gear, CS prop, twin engine four seater certified for Day/Night IFR/VFR. It is not a long-range SE tourer, but it is a serious light aircraft.

Sure; my main gripe is that for $400k+ one would expect some long distance utility.

There is a vast market for heavily compromised (range / W&B) planes, but not at $400k.

The niche for the Tecnam will be ME training. That's a big market, replacing all the knackered old ME ironware.

421C

25th Nov 2010, 15:30

Sure; my main gripe is that for $400k+ one would expect some long distance utility
...and the TTs will appeal to people whose gripe is only getting one engine in a new $400k+ aircraft.

The Tecnam also has the advantage of a high wing design and thus no over-wing entry, plus huge prop clearance (always something I liked in the Partenavia). I think as a fun, convenient means of hobby flying and shorter range business/personal transport (say for someone based in the Channel Islands commuting to the UK or Northern France) it's a great design. You have to think of it as a C172 with a $100k premium for an extra engine, not as an SR22 alternative for 800nm trips to Spain or Italy. You then pick which you want. I agree training will be a big market, but it would be nice if it gave more people access to twin flying. I suspect the twin/mogas/shortfield mix will also have appeal in developing countries. China just opened up its airspace below 4000m to GA. Bet someone will be churning TTs under licence.

IO540

25th Nov 2010, 16:29

Or not under license (http://www.le500.com.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=1286&language=US) ;)

flybymike

25th Nov 2010, 17:05

Uncanny resemblance to a certain Socata product....

AN2 Driver

27th Nov 2010, 01:49

good grief... and they do get away with this, that's what's annoying.

But performance falls short, interestingly. At least the last time I flew a TB20, it was faster and had a better range.

IO540

27th Nov 2010, 09:09

I have no idea whether rippng off an aircraft design, but with small changes, breaks any law.

If it did, the "737" business would be awash with litigation, because they are all basically the same (with small changes).

But I think it is no coincidence that they are not selling it over here. They will easily sell it to the developing world which on the whole does not care for IP, and domestically in China.

I also think it is no coincidence that Socata dropped the TB manufacture c. 2003 and never restarted it, and every 3rd party attempt to take over the mfg has also gone nowhere. The developing world is a major market for upmarket piston GA; not the USA where you have to fight Cirrus etc propped up by a raft of NIH prejudices.

I would be suspicious of a Chinese plane on QA grounds. It could be very good but only if they got really good engineers on the job.

The pricing is also too high - perhaps because they are buying in the engines etc. That is very hard to avoid - unless you also rip off a Lyco IO540-C4 down to the last nut and bolt (and then you would have real IP issues).

If this plane is a proper ripoff of the external dimensions, it has to have the same performance for the same HP, for same engine operating regime. I sometimes fly in a 1985 TB20 which flies exactly the same as my 2002 one (within 1kt at the same fuel flow).

Some Korean firm has ripped off the Cirrus also, though not quite so closely.