Request for opinions on the current state of GA

[f13]

Hello all,

I've been reading the forums for a while now, but one thing that I haven't come across are many comments on the satisfactions with the current-day private aviation.

It seems that like with a lot of things in the world these days, there's a humongous support for the idea out there, to 'get it done as soon as possible, regardless of the quality, then f**king teach yourself along the way', regardless of how much the person may be interested in and dedicated to the actual flying itself. Similarly, I can't help but notice numerous, nearly-continuous reports, that somewhere, somehow, by some miracle, a student froze midway through solo flight, and nearly messed-up the airport for the entire day. One other crucial thing that I've been partially following over the past decade, is the ever-increasing talk about the flying cars(And similar ideas), and a whole bunch of people wanting to get the CAAs around the world, to "loosen up the regs". This on goes hand in hand with the previous point, and I must say, I'm starting to feel less and less safe, even on the ground, with the recent announcement that such a feat was achieved. Lastly, it seems that there's an ever-increasing amount of technology entering the aircraft. I'm not talking only about the glass cockpits, but in things like NextGen in the US, which would as FAA puts it, effectively remove the pilot from the equation, in preference of keeping tighter spacing, which only the computers can do(Yet constantly there are reports that pilots NEED to be involved more, in order to keep up with the skills and the situations at hand). The lists go on and on, and are all generally intermixed with each other.

I was wondering if a few of you out there, flying mostly in the private GA sector, would share some opinions on how all the recent developments in the technologies are impacting or are about to impact you soon. I've been preparing to get into flying(Purely for myself, non-commercial), for quite a while now, but I can't help and be a little discomforted by *these kinds* of trends.

Out of you flying, what are your thoughts on the matter? Am I wrong to think that aviation as it used to be for the past hundred years is about to go the way of the Dodo, and that we'll just be zooming about in computer-piloted craft, regardless of our interests to grab the stick?

It seems like it would be quite a waste of time and money, if soon none of it will be the same again.

Thanks!

[jeta1]

[light chop]

As a current owner/pilot who enjoys GA, the biggest threats are (in my opinion / no particular order):

1.) Governments / groups / individuals who for some reason have a personal hate on for GA / airports/noise etc. How about all the rice rockets with the big pooper pipes blasting around, or the bikes with loud pipes? Don't move in next to an airport if you don't like the noise. Other reasons may be a lack of tax base to support local airports, etc.

2.) Leaded AvGas being phased out - Until a suitable lead free replacement is developed that maintains 100 octane and doesn't cost a fortune, this is a wait and see. 94UL ain't gonna cut it with big bore, high compression / turbocharged aircraft engines. I'm optimistic about this though.

3.) Declining Pilot Population - We need more people to fly for fun / business, and become owners and get involved. I don't know if it is the cost of flying only, or other factors (lots of people are lazy, want instant gratification, it's easier to buy a boat and float around, or sit at home on your ass and watch your 60" TV).

Flying around in your own airplane is (once again, my opinion) one of the most satisfying things you can do - engines, noise, power, speed, math, physics, meteorology, eye/hand coordination, judgement, constant learning and plain old FUN!!! It's about the only thing that keeps all your senses engaged.

[Shiny Side Up]

1.) Governments / groups / individuals who for some reason have a personal hate on for GA / airports/noise etc. How about all the rice rockets with the big pooper pipes blasting around, or the bikes with loud pipes? Don't move in next to an airport if you don't like the noise. Other reasons may be a lack of tax base to support local airports, etc.

I'm not sure what it is that drives some people, but the ones who hate aviation seem always to be very vocal and very motivated in their hatred. Like Morbo's people they are also often belligerent and numerous. Suprisingly enough, some of them are also pilots! There's a very large contingent of NIMBY's in this country. To me its a big concern. The people have the ear of the powers that be and too often I've found myself at odds with them. Flying an airplane puts me in the league of being an despoiler of the enviornment and I've been accused of everything including convincing geese to shit on people's houses, making dogs go deaf, terrorizing children, endangering joggers, and devaluing property. What is it that some people hate about airplanes? Are they really that much of an affront to the sensibilities of the average Joe?

The worst part is how often their ignorance of the thing they hate so much is almost laughable - or would be If I wasn't worried about them really impacting the business of flying over absurd issues. One group once protested the STARS helicopter making so much noise when it picked up one poor soul. The RCMP PC-12 was another offender, to which I took the pleasue of pointing out to the ignorant one "Call 'em up! Complain!"

[kamikaze]

I'm a private owner and pilot ... with little commercial ambitions (other than maybe be a part time instructor some day).

Some things that concern me:

1) The quality of GA AME's. I've yet to have anything done on my plane that didn't result in something else going wrong. Sometimes they're big things, sometimes they're little ones. But never have I received my plane back from an AME with everything A-OK. It's unbelievable. I blame lack of competition, a small market, and old guys with bad habits.

2) The fuel issue is a little worrisome, but I think it'll sort itself out ... I don't need 100 octane myself, so 94UL would also work. I'm more worried about the economics and the future pricing of whatever replaces 100LL.

3) Existence of small airports. Probably the biggest one for me ... Without a national strategy for airports, and the "haters", they seem to be at risk ... Even some really busy popular ones. Due, mostly, to encroachment of suburbs (Mascouche comes to mind, and the recent restrictions at St. Hubert). Even if some airports must close because of a growing metropolitan centre, that wouldn't be so bad if they just move/reopened somewhere else, but that doesn't seem to be the pattern.

4) We need an LSA(-like) category. Fully certified aircraft (the Canadian way) and products cost a bloody fortune. Sometimes I think experimental/home-built is the way of the future. Much more freedom, but of course, the stats suggest, less safe, sometimes a lot less safe. but bigger and more powerful A/C are coming to be in that market, with RV-10's and Lancairs.

5) Not specific to GA (But specific to certified A/C), but goddamn, they need modern engines already, with fuel injection, electronics, common rail, etc ... get some fuel efficiency going! 20-30K for 30 year old, simple engine technology ... seriously?

But despite all this, I keep going, cuz I love my baby, and I love flying. It's a passion, especially for the private flyer who doesn't get jaded by it being/becoming work.

[Wilbur]

GA is slowly dying as it becomes more and more costly to participate. When I started flying in the late 70's, I could rent a near new 172 for $18.00 per hour, which was probably between 2 and 2.5 times an average hourly wage for a working person with a half decent job. That same airplane, now 35 years older, rents for about $160 per hour, which is 5 to 6 times the hourly wage for that same half decent job. If you compared it as multiples of take home pay, that spread is likely even greater.

When I look at who is flying GA these days, I see pretty much two groups. Well off people, usually older guys in the 50 plus age group, and young people building time toward a commercial licence and flying career. The average Joe has been priced out of GA, and the required income bar is continuously rising. I'm fairly convinced that GA is seen by many within TC, expecially the ex military types, as nothing more than an administrative burden perpetuated by underqualified, dangerous pilots who would be better gone. Hence, they will continue doing what they can to raise the costs of everything associated with GA.

[Posthumane]

I've only held a PPL and owned an aircraft for about a year, but my thoughts are similar to those mentioned by previous posters.

a) Maintenance cost and quality is abominable. I have a rather old and simple aircraft, yet the cost for an annual inspection this year was over $9k, which is almost a third of what I paid for the plane. This is despite me deferring a number of items which were not critical, and helping out with a bit of the work. I try to do elementary maintenance items like oil changes myself to save money.

b) Since I have an MoGas STC I only put 100LL in occasionally, so I'm not to worried about not having it for my aircraft, but I can see it being an issue for larger and more powerful engines. That being said, I think the way of the future for piston aircraft is 94 UL for the lower power class (Rotax, Jabiru, etc), and Jet-A for the higher power engines. There are already a few piston engines around which burn Jet-A (compression ignition, presumably), including the ones that come on a DA-42.

c) Lack of GA airports is a big issue. GA aircraft can't be used as practical personal or business transport when there are no airports nearby, or if you have to pay a huge landing fee to land at the closest "big" airport. Some of the most practical airports, such as Edmonton City Centre, are being closed off because the land is too valuable to be wasted on a small GA population.

d) Public opinion, however, is the number one issue with GA. A lot of people I know will simply not fly in "those deathtraps" no matter what the safety stats tell them. Every time there is a GA accident reported in the news, I see numerous comments which state something to the effect of "get those cowboys out of the sky and leave the flying to the real pilots."

[f13]

Ooops...forgot to say thanks. Your opinions are much appreciated!

[slam525i]

I only have a PPL, no commercial, no IFR. I'm hoping to some day get out of graduate school and fly more than an hour a month. And that, my friend, is the biggest problem. I have friends who would love to learn to fly. Some of whom would buy an airplane with me, except for the cost issue. It's not even the cost of buying the airplane, it's the cost of maintaining and keeping it.

We all know the biggest cost in the airplane is probably the engine. It's amazing that we can have new airplanes with G1000 glass cockpits, and yet have an engine that still requires 50 hour inspections. Surely we can extend to 100 hours if we had reliable, automated "idiot lights" like the check engine light on a car. With all the technology we have, individual cylinder monitoring, GAMI injectors, knock-sensors, we still have 50 hour inspections? 100LL being phased out also scares me a bit, but not as much as for some people. I'm a firm believer in aero-diesels running Jet-A; there aren't many STCs for diesel engines yet, but I'm sure it'll come as 100LL gets more and more expensive. I don't know what the people with 300 HP engines will do since I'm not sure a physically-equivalent-sized diesel can put out similar horsepower. Maybe we'll see even more conversions to turbine power on the upper end of the piston range. We've already seen smaller and smaller turbofans; maybe some of that will translate into a 300HP range turboprop?

Really, in the end, its a cost thing, and there's only 1 way to drive down the cost: WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO FLY. The more people require a service, the more people will move in to supply the service, more competition, lower prices & economy of scale. When I say we need more people to fly, I don't mean we need more 200-300 hour, "will fly for anything to build hours for an airline job" We need more people to fly for the fun and for transport. We don't need more professional flight schools. We need to bring back the old flying clubs.

The only thing that worries me not relating to costs are governments and big business. Governments see no public benefit to what we do and big business don't get much of a profit from us. It'd be easier for all involved to simply chase us out entirely by charging ridiculous fees. (Look at CYHM.) I wouldn't be surprised if more and more airspace becomes Class B/C and we end up with nothing but grass strips in the middle of nowhere.

[comfail]

Really, in the end, its a cost thing, and there's only 1 way to drive down the cost: WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO FLY.

Exactly. There are still quite a few GA airports around my neck of the woods but it is a hell of a lot quieter now than it was 25 years ago. I was visiting an airport close to home and struck up a conversation with a guy mowing the grass around his C172. He says that 12 hours is all he logged this year. I refused to pry but I guessed that lack of free time wasn't the reason for such a low amount of flying. I mentioned that I wanted to buy a share of a plane such as his but he was content with sole ownership, and not interested in the idea. To each his or her own I suppose but there has to be more people out there that want to either share their plane or partner up to purchase one.

[summitx]

+1 for pretty much everything said by others. I've owned since 85 with a short drought between planes 89-90. I really feel I've gotten very lucky. Trained in the 80's when it was cheap and a good tax deduction. Managed to find good planes at a reasonable price and sold for more than I paid for them. Fly out of a airport where you can get fuel from the flying club at a reasonable price. so you can do it just fine but it is very expensive if you don't watch your step. If your a rich guy you can ignore most of this, I'm not.

Hangers are expensive.........most advise not to tie down outside but for me a hanger will double my cost of flying. If you leave your plane outside however there is some real risk of damage you have to watch out for. I corrosion proofed my plane, lube the hell out of all the hinges, use wing covers in the winter and cover the windows to keep the sun off instuments, belts etc. And most importantly fly it lots.

Be careful not to spend money on aesthetics (paint) and spend on airworthiness things and radio work.

The tech stuff will not take over if you don't let it. Some like all the high tech radio stuff and that's why they fly, I don't.

GET MORE TRAINING...not just flight school stuff but try to find some mentoring from experienced pilots. I fly ga now but have a commercial, multi, instrument (expired) night, floats, and worked in the business for a short stint (8 years). It just you have no idea what you don't know with a rec permit or ppl and 100hrs. I never discourage new pilots but man its scary what you see going on out there sometimes

Even when you can afford it you have to live through it. If you can put it all together there is nothing better.

[ywglive]

I have a PPL and about 130 hrs and the biggest problem is cost. I am not going for my CPL and prefer to be a weekend flyer. Could we not have planes that burn less fuel ? I mean with the increase in technology you would think we could build a plane that runs on 3-4 gallons per hour.

[zed]

3.) Declining Pilot Population - We need more people to fly for fun / business, and become owners and get involved. I don't know if it is the cost of flying only, or other factors (lots of people are lazy, want instant gratification, it's easier to buy a boat and float around, or sit at home on your ass and watch your 60" TV).

I think this is the big one, there is no GA without the people. We have a country that since the start of the 1990's has grown by some 25% over the last two decades. During that time according to TC stats the number of PPL/CPL&ATPL licences issued from year to year has remained pretty steady (barring occasional lows-highs). However, the total population of CPL&ATPL has grown with the population and are about 34% greater in numbers... Which makes sense from our population growth and developments in different industries.

However, the licenced PPLs for the same period have shrunk by nearly 20%. Doesn't sound too, too bad. But don't forget it probably should have grown during that period, just based on the increased population. So our actual loss of PPL type GA just flying for fun is even greater and slowly dissappearing over time. And before anyone else brings it up... No they are not all running to fly gliders, Ultralights, Rec Licences, or Balloons. The total number of licence holders for those licences have remained steady.

The smaller the pilot pool at the local flying clubs become, the harder/expensive it is to own an aircraft, the worse GA's health is going to become. It makes me rather sad about the whole issue. We aren't going to realize what has been lost until it is gone.

[dcabrown]

I would say the #1 contributing factor to the decline is cost.

Additionally, young people have more which they need to save for that the boomer generation didnt.

Post-secondary education, saving for a house (difficult when you have school loans), then saving for your own retirement, then putting aside money to help you kids with part of their education etc...

All of these factors, combined with the cost of flying recreationally, mean that for the average person, their discretionary income is not enough to support flying as a hobby. Unfortunately, I dont think this is going to change.

How can we supprt GA? Partnering up!! This is something I'm doing now and if you can find a way to afford the up front costs of a "share" in an aircraft whether it be 1/2 or 1/4, then yearly flying costs can be reduced substantially. It would mean less actual planes flying, but more people flying, and thats what we want.

Someone above mentioned they would like an aircraft that burns 3-4 GPH... we have em!! Look no further than the booming number of LSA manufacturers in the U.S. But unfortunately, the upfont costs for those aircraft are prohibitive. Answer: (again) PARTNER UP!!

For recreational flyers that fly 50hrs a year, you can easily work out a schedule with 4 people on a plane. Its better for the engine, you have the opportunity to leverage each other's skills and learn from each other, in additiona to pooling your resources.

There ARE solutions to at least mitigate some of the negative factors influencing GA (wave of boomers retiring, high costs, less GA infracstructure). BUT we NEED to be both creative, innovative and flexible.

I encourage everyone, old and young, to look ahead and find ways to keep the industry moving forward in a way that is sustainable and encourages people both in and outside of the industry to take part.

[dcabrown]

To my second point about having to save... and before I get blasted by boomers...

Saving for school/house/retirement isn't the problem per se, the problem is:

a.) education costs have sky rocketed over the last decade and continue to do so. Additionally, people must remain in school longer (minimum 4 years and up). net - massive opportunity cost because instead of making money for 4-6 years, you're spending money with no guarantee you will even be employed!
b.) housing costs are about 5x higher relatively speaking than they were in the 60's. As an example, in the 60's when my mom was in Montreal she and my Dad bought their first house for 35K. She made at the time, 23K (as a lab technician) - so for about 1.5x a single person's gross salary, they could by a detached home. I dont know of any metropolitan city in Canada where you can buy a detached home for 1.5x a single person's salary...
c.) few people have defined benefit pensions which means more of us as individuals are responsible for funding our own retirement. Net - less discretionary income

So overall - less money in people's pocket for recreation. I dont think its a matter of instant gratification. But when looking at the affordability of boating, RV'ing, playing sports, camping...aviation ranks dead last by a light year in terms of affordability for the average person.

[f13]

Wow...this is still getting replies, and more of them than I even expected. Thanks everyone for chiming in!



It really is sad that all I came across during research is actually true. I must admit, as much as some aspects are known to be in the shitter, for someone who isn't actually active in the arena, you'd think that for whatever reasons, some things are just plainly exaggerated....much like with anything else.



So I guess the only other solution is to form a team to infiltrate and.....um...."neutralize" those other hobbies, and thus get more people into the air

[kiloindiapapa]

Pretty much the same for me as all have said. I have owned for 8 years now and I love it. Stated with a C-150 and now have a 172. Built a hangar this year also. I barely afford to hang on to what I have but I make it work. I really have not done the math and dont want to know. People dont understand how I can do it but i guess I am lucky and feel lucky. Maintenance has not killed me liek some.........I still cannot understand these $2000 annuals for a C-150 or 172.

That being said though I do understand there are huge costs of operating and maintaining the higher performance airplanes. I think part of the problem is that if you listen to most new buyers for aircraft they want a 180kt tru four place at 10-12 gal per hour. Or they want the ambhibs or a plane on regular floats. Id love all these too but maintenance and insurance would kill me. So I stay away from $10,000 over hauls on prop hubs and $10 G + for insurance on a float plane or an RG aircraft and I am happy.

Flying is different for all and that is what makes GA flying such a great thing, just look at Airventure and the hunderds of booths, and planes, ect, so to each his own.

Biggest things for me are preserving small airports and lowering costs while still somehow allowing for safety and other advancements in the LSA categories ect that will encourage others to fly and make it easier for them to fly.

[Shiny Side Up]

I have a PPL and about 130 hrs and the biggest problem is cost. I am not going for my CPL and prefer to be a weekend flyer. Could we not have planes that burn less fuel ? I mean with the increase in technology you would think we could build a plane that runs on 3-4 gallons per hour.

This always gets me when people say this. Dollar to dollar being a weekend warrior renting pilot is no more expensive than any other hobby or recreational activity people do. Several cases in point. I own a motorcycle, the money I bought it for could have easily paid for a PPL. Every year it costs me roughly $1200 to operate, with insurance, fuel, parts, gear, etc. It would cost me considerably more if I didn't do all the work myself maintaining it, and even more if I was silly and owned a BMW or a Harley - which I might add there are a lot of on the roads. I'll admit I spend a liitle extra on parts and making sure my gear is in good shape.

Likewise my father is a golf fanatic and every bit of time he has free he's on the course. Green fees aren't cheap and I think the ammount he spent on a new putter is insane - but to each their own. Never mind travel costs and everything else that goes along with it. With all the balls lost and replaced its a likewise chunk of change every year.

Regardless, the ammount of money spent if put towards renting an airplane would equal more hours per year than most renter pilots fly (which isn't a lot, I'm talking less than an hour a month). Keep in mind that both of the activities above and various similar hobby/recreational activities the price can go up depending on how much you do it and how fanatical you are - for instance if I owned a BMW bike I could at least double my figures for operating it for a year, or if my Dad decided to hire the services of a golf pro to improve his game the same deal.

The moral of the story is simply that flying isn't any more expensive than anything else. If you tell yourself its too expensive then you're really not telling yourself the real reason why you don't do it. Often something else has a priority, that's all there is to it.

The idea that the cost of it has risen to much ignores also the fact that the cost of everything has risen. People are stuck in the past when it comes to general aviation and I'm not sure why.

[slam525i]

Dollar to dollar being a weekend warrior renting pilot is no more expensive than any other hobby or recreational activity people do. Several cases in point. I own a motorcycle, the money I bought it for could have easily paid for a PPL. Every year it costs me roughly $1200 to operate, with insurance, fuel, parts, gear, etc.

The problem is, I'm sure you ride more than 10 hours a year. $1200 will buy you only 10 hours of wet-152 (give or take a little). I would love to fly every weekend for over an hour each time, but I can't afford it.

So, yeah, flying is expensive.

[Shiny Side Up]

Dollar to dollar being a weekend warrior renting pilot is no more expensive than any other hobby or recreational activity people do. Several cases in point. I own a motorcycle, the money I bought it for could have easily paid for a PPL. Every year it costs me roughly $1200 to operate, with insurance, fuel, parts, gear, etc.

The problem is, I'm sure you ride more than 10 hours a year. $1200 will buy you only 10 hours of wet-152 (give or take a little). I would love to fly every weekend for over an hour each time, but I can't afford it.

So, yeah, flying is expensive.

Flying for every weekend for more than an hour would be considerably more than I ride my bike per year (seeing as though I'm too much of a wuss to break out the snow suit and studded tires...) and would be far away more than what many would consider just a hobby pilot. The point of the matter is that the motorcycle for me is simply an extra, its something I could give up if I really wanted to fly more - recreational wise that is. Many people I know - especially the renters I deal with have much more expensive things they do, yet always complain that they don't have money to fly as much as they would like. Two differnt fellows one who showed up in his Ferrari, the other in his BMW both told me about how much they spent on their cars, then worried that the measly rate for the Cessna was going to be too much to do any flying for the next month or so... It just doesn't add up.

I have to ask if flying is expensive, is it your only fun activity? If not, what else do you do?

[petpad]

Many people I know - especially the renters I deal with have much more expensive things they do, yet always complain that they don't have money to fly as much as they would like. Two differnt fellows one who showed up in his Ferrari, the other in his BMW both told me about how much they spent on their cars, then worried that the measly rate for the Cessna was going to be too much to do any flying for the next month or so... It just doesn't add up.

That's a question of how you rationalize value. For many, money is no object on their car. Flying is arguably an expandable activity, and the value associated with one hour of flying cannot be compared to BMW ownership at all. In fact, most rich folks are also the biggest mizers... (makes you wonder how they got rich euh...). The problem with a one-hour rental is that once you've flown your hour and swiped your card for some 120$, it's all gone, just a memory, like an expensive roller-coaster ride at Six Flags. A BMW monthly payment is much easier to rationalize, because your car is there in your driveway. Bottom line : recreational flying is expensive.

[slam525i]

PetPad has it exactly right.

One of my other hobbies is photography. Each of my lenses are only 2 hours of wet-rental. The body is 7 or so wet hours. It's low end equipment relatively speaking. The difference is these I can use without additional operating costs. Same with my car. Same with expensive computer equipment. They're all one-time costs. By my nature, I shy from operating costs, whether its cellphone data plans or magazine subscriptions or dining-out. Purchasing an airplane isn't that expensive; flying one is, whether its rented or owned.

[Shiny Side Up]

You both have proved my point. I'm not saying flying isn't expensive, I'm saying that it isn't any more expensive. In the mind of most though, it is. For example:

A BMW monthly payment is much easier to rationalize, because your car is there in your driveway.

In this case the owner has rationalized the higher monthly payment and insurance costs - very significant I might add over and above what they actually require. A used toyota would have done the same job and been considerably more cost effective without compromising essential performance and safety. The point being that the owner has rationalized the expense in whichever way in their mind.

You hit on the second point why aviation is an unpopular expense as well - the car is in the driveway. Its there, its ready, its accessable. Its not dependant on weather for its use (though some owners might be loath to risk their toy in all but the most suitable weather and road conditions) It requires no skill upkeep to use. These are of course the most popular things that people prefer as recreational spending. Keep in mind that the guy who has the BMW in the driveway also has a license in his pocket - he's already footed the bill for the most expensive and time consuming part of the process, but then can't justify further expenditure to fly because its "too much"? It would be like saying you can't drive your car because you didn't anticipate that gas and insurance would cost so much - it begs the question why you bought it in the first place.

The problem with a one-hour rental is that once you've flown your hour and swiped your card for some 120$, it's all gone, just a memory, like an expensive roller-coaster ride at Six Flags.

Yet those activities are still more popular than aviation. People justify trips to Hawaii, expensive green fees or sports events (season ticket holders for instance pay as much to say watch the Flames lose twelve times a year over the course of twelve groups of three twenty minute periods as they would to rent an airplane for those twelve hours). They pay gross prices to watch the Eagles or the Stones for a few hours. These also aren't the top 1% of our society either spending their entertainment dollars like this. Those are all just memories they bought.

The difference is these I can use without additional operating costs. Same with my car. Same with expensive computer equipment.

But they do have operating costs, you have just been able to justify them. Your car has insurance, uses fuel and requries maintenance. Your computer probably has an internet connection you pay for and requires electricity you pay the bill for. Even your camera I assume you do something with the images. Even despite monetary costs, they also have time costs to put to use or make worth while, these also you can balance associated with the monetary costs. They might seems small, some are easier to rationalize - like the car - because it is dual purpose, it serves in work and play.

Story time: A few years back I was on a ski-lift with a fellow who was apparently very into downhill skiing. He told me he spent every day of the ski season doing what he loved best. He wasn't a professional at it, and had by no means any interest in competing. He took every winter off just to ski. I asked how he did that, did he have a means of making a lot of money in the off season? He said he made enough. How did he manage to do all season what I could only afford - in my mind - to do a few times a season? The answer was simple to him - he was all too happy to give up even stuff like what the rest of us might see as essential. He didn't own a car, himself and a group pitched in to have a van they all travelled in. They all also crammed into a small apartment and shared rent. Every extra cent was saved essentially to be put towards lift passes for the season. At the time his lifestyle to me was inconcievable, but then with thought later on the matter I realised that many pilots who wanted to fly so bad they went to work at it also shared his lifestyle.

Moral of the story is that people percieve stuff in relative expense often inversely proportional to how much they value it - the more you want to do it, the easier it is to justify the expense, the less you want to do it, the more expensive - in relation to everything else - it appears to be. Unfortuantely for General Aviation its not important enough to the vast majority of people - including licensed pilots who participate in it - for them to justify its expense.

[iflyforpie]

5) Not specific to GA (But specific to certified A/C), but goddamn, they need modern engines already, with fuel injection, electronics, common rail, etc ... get some fuel efficiency going! 20-30K for 30 year old, simple engine technology ... seriously?

We've all heard the old complaints that our aviation engines lack the sophistication and technology of today's automotive engines. Electronic ignition would be lighter and better than our old designed-for-Case-tractors magnetos. Electronic fuel injection would give us better fuel economy. Better cylinder head design would give us better efficiency and more power. If we could use stock, off-the-shelf, automotive parts, our engines would be cheaper. What if one of the exotic car manufacturers-maybe Porsche!-would build an aircraft engine. Just imagine what kind of engine we would have!

Now we know. And it's a disaster.

http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

[slam525i]

To think that a modern aero engine is the same engine from 50 years ago is a mistake. It's externally the same but there's been a lot of refinement. The problem is the 50 years of refinement also means there's very little room to maneuver in terms of improving performance and efficiency without sacrificing reliability.

The biggest improvements in internal combustion car engines have probably been fuel injection and variable spark & valve timing. Fuel injection is already used in the new engines. Variable spark and valve timing are of limited value in an aero since aero engines maintain a constant RPM, unlike a car. I don't know where one would go in terms of making it "better" without sacrificing reliability or weight.