US AOPA - why pilots drop out
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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), and the president & owner of a flight school (Iowa Flight Training). 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) 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
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), and the president & owner of a flight school (Iowa Flight Training). 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) 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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft production
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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....
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My thanks to all of you for sharing your experiences.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 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.
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, 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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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 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....
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SE v. ME stuff can be debated for ever, and has been in many places
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the twin drivers just smile and move on....
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 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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
brgds
421C
brgds
421C
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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....
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....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
In the US suitably-equipped VLAs can fly IFR but not here. Why not in the glorious free United States of Europe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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....
they could fit another prop and get up to 130-140 kts with pleasure.
In the US suitably-equipped VLAs can fly IFR but not here. Why not in the glorious free United States of Europe?
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.
Last edited by IO540; 24th Nov 2010 at 15:54.
IO540,
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.
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.
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.
That's true, though at the $400k mark one would hope they would
Was this the same man who "did" the flutter tests at Vne+20% ?
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 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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was not actually comparing to my TB20 because they don't make those anymore
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure; my main gripe is that for $400k+ one would expect some long distance utility
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.