Greetings,
I've flown most of the models of aircraft mentioned in this thread, and many others, and've liked all of them. That said, I tool around in a C-172 that is thirty-nine years old, albeit nice in every way, because I can afford it and not more. Cherokees and Skyhawks didn't used to be trainers. Now that the C-150/152 fleet has been pretty badly beat up and due to the obesity epidemic, somehow these same Cherokees and Skyhawks are now trainers, and that is despite their perhaps too-benign flying habits. Anyway, even a 100-110 kt airplane that carries 3 FAA-approved souls can be highly useful. For example, I regularly fly from the SF Bay Area to Tucson and do it door-to-door faster than the commercial boys (there are no non-stops between the Bay Area and Tucson, and of course to many other destinations as well). My point is that even a "trainer" can be a wonderful alternative to driving or the airlines, and I use mine to go everywhere west of Denver.
I too want all the manufacturers to do well. They all seem locked into a low-volume, high-price business model. The results are:
--while some aircraft are safer than others, all have per-mile fatality rates several times higher than driving. I agree that the news media is guilty of sensationalist reporting but, excepting parachutes, the old, certified designs have safety features locked into the 1960s. Our overall record as pilots is equally abysmal. We need:
(1) collapsable yokes or side-mounted sticks (like the Cirrus),
(2) benign stall/spin characteristics (like the C-172),
(3) crumple zones (none, as far as I know),
(4) air bags and four-point harnesses (like, for harnesses, the Decathlon),
(5) gas tanks and fuel lines better protected during crashes (like w/the Diamond Star),
(6) modern dual electronic ignitions (nobody!),
(7) 406 Mhz ELTs (like all new certified aircraft),
(8) airframe parachutes (like the Cirrus line), etc.
No manufacturer has done all of these. In fact, there is a tradeoff between benign stall/spin characteristics and top speed, and somehow everyone is focused on speed. Meanwhile, enabled by extremely high volume, auto makers have upgraded their cars to include:
(1) tubeless radial tires,
(2) electronic ignition and variable electronic engine timing,
(3) fuel injection is totally standard (can one even buy a carbureted car anymore),
(4) myriad crash protection safety features,
(5) far longer lasting interiors,
(6) engines that will typically run >200K miles w/only modest maintenance,
(7) and much more, and for about the same inflation adjusted pricing as in 1971.
So you see, our airframe manufacturers never had the volume to climb out of the 1960s and, as others have intimated, light GA has become an anachronism, a curiosity and noisy hobby for the rich, as viewed by the public. Oh, and locking up our airports like prisons hasn't helped, either. Let's see:
--cost to get a PPL: $10K
--cost for an instrument rating: $8K
--cost per hour for a C-172 rental (low end): $110/hr "wet"
--cost to purchase a decent, low-performance used "4-seater": ~$60K
--cost to fix up said four-seater after purchase: ~$10K.
I realize others' experiences may vary.
However, the manufacturers are caught in a low-volume trap. They must:
--cover the costs of certification (legacy models have already done this, hooray!),
--spread the costs of low-volume manufacture and product liability over few sales,
--locate the few (percentage-wise) in the whole population capable of and willing to buy a new airplane,
--and convince said potential buyers to part with multi-100s of AMUs.
That said, I believe Cessna and Piper could begin to increase their sales volumes for C-172s and PA-28/160-180s by trying lower prices to increase sales volumes while, hopefully, maybe cleaning up some of the drag inherent to the old designs (wing/window or fuselage, landing gear, for example) and adding about 10 kt to the aircraft. I would also like to see Cessna restart production of the C-152 to help make training more accessible. I realize these suggestions really only help at the margin but they would be steps in the right direction.
Finally, GA has been moving steadily upscale since after WWII. The Champs and J-3s of yore were replaced by C-172s and PA-28s, and now Cirrus and Diamond are the entry point for many. We now see turboprop singles and biz-jets proliferating as our GA regional airports morph into an alternative transportation network for the truly rich. The result: high FBO ramp fees and avgas prices at regional airports to discourage us old timers. Oh well (sigh).
Best,
Don
