Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[flyingcheesehead]

You think it might have something to do with the fact that the guys who buy these new LSA's are also the ones who have to figure out a way to pay for them from rental income? How long does it take to pay for a 6-digit airplane? Have you noticed the posts by the guys who have no clue about running an FBO--or anything else--are the ones that are just sure the new LSA's are the answer?

Wayne,

An $80K used LSA will need either twice the amount allocated in the hourly rate, or twice the hours, to pay for itself compared to a $40K 172 - No doubt about that.

But, let's look at the two options. Let's compare a $40K 172 and the aforementioned $80K SportStar. 10-year loan at 6% on each.

So, the 172 is going to cost $444.08/mo on that loan payment. Let's say $1000/yr for liability insurance, $1500/year for hull. Hangar/Tiedown at $150/month. So, fixed expenses of $9,629/yr.

The SportStar is going to cost $888.16/mo on the loan, $1000/yr liability, $3000/yr hull, $150/mo hangar/tiedown. So, $16,458/yr fixed expenses.

Now, let's say gas is $5/gallon, 172 burns 8gph, so $40/hr for fuel. Let's go with $1/hr for oil. Let's also assume we have an A&P on staff or at least on contract for a much lower labor rate. I would budget a good $30/hr for maintenance on the 172. Engine reserve ($22K/2000 TBO) is $11/hr. So, $82/hr for variable costs. If we charge $100/hr, we need to put 535 hours per year on it to break even.

Now, the SportStar is gonna burn 4gph, but it runs better on auto fuel - $4/gallon, $16/hr. We'll stick with the $1/hr for oil and coolant, and go with $20/hr for maintenance. Looks like Rotax got their TBO's upped to 2000 hours finally, with an overhaul cost of about $12,000. So, $6/hr for the engine reserve. $43/hr for costs. We charge $80/hr, and we only need 445 hours/year to break even.

BUT, now we have a nice new-ish airplane that's renting for $20/hr less than the old clapped-out 172 - I bet it gets flown a lot more! So, the FBO makes more money, the renters can afford to fly more, everybody's happy.

So, tell me again why the established FBO's are instead charging $130+ for a 172 rather than replacing some of those 172's with LSA's so that more people can afford to fly?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Down only a week?

Dude... Read what I wrote. Plane's totaled. Insurance wrote me a check. I bought another one.

I bet it could be done in a week. And really... So what? Like I said, there are solutions to these problems.

 

[zaitcev]

So, tell me again why the established FBO's are instead charging $130+ for a 172 rather than replacing some of those 172's with LSA's so that more people can afford to fly?

I do not know how prevalent it is, but ignorance may be a factor. One day I mentioned that I rent a Remos for $99/hr to the (co-)owner of the FBO where I rent a Cherokee for $135/hr. He replied that they considered taking LSAs into a leaseback several times, but could not justify having another airplane only to train SPs. At first I thought I misunderstood his answer, but it turned out he did not know that PPs can be trained in an LSA (with proper equipment, including transponder, since the airport is in Class C).

That said, I think that even $100/hr is too expensive for GA to be popular. I see the "people's" flying drifting gradually to Quicksilvers, long term. LSAs will help FBOs to stay afloat, but will not make GA popular again.

 

[jsstevens]

And I'll say, having flown a SportStar, I'd be all over that for even the same hourly rent as a C-172 for local hamburger flights, etc. The C-172 is better for 1 more person (or 2 kids) along and probably for longer range traveling.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And I'll say, having flown a SportStar, I'd be all over that for even the same hourly rent as a C-172 for local hamburger flights, etc. The C-172 is better for 1 more person (or 2 kids) along and probably for longer range traveling.

No doubt. I took a demo flight in a SportStar and was really impressed with its handling qualities. VERY well harmonized controls, easy to fly yet very fun.

 

[ChrisRikli]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who'd stopped a few hours short of getting his PPL about eight years ago; when I told him what I paid for my PPL ($125-140 for a 172, $50 for instruction) his jaw hit the floor. He told me that he was paying $65 wet for a 172 and $20 for instruction back in 02/03.

Have prices really gone up that much in eight years? I tried to research this but there's not really a historical database of rental prices out there.

In other news on affordable flying, I talked to a family friend today who's got a beautifully restored J-3 that he'll let me fly for the cost of mogas. Just gotta get that tailwheel training.

 

[SkyHog]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who'd stopped a few hours short of getting his PPL about eight years ago; when I told him what I paid for my PPL ($125-140 for a 172, $50 for instruction) his jaw hit the floor. He told me that he was paying $65 wet for a 172 and $20 for instruction back in 02/03.

Have prices really gone up that much in eight years? I tried to research this but there's not really a historical database of rental prices out there.

In other news on affordable flying, I talked to a family friend today who's got a beautifully restored J-3 that he'll let me fly for the cost of mogas. Just gotta get that tailwheel training.

What's interesting is that airplane rental fees have more than doubled, but flight instruction hasn't gone up that much (I pay between $25 and $30 usually).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who'd stopped a few hours short of getting his PPL about eight years ago; when I told him what I paid for my PPL ($125-140 for a 172, $50 for instruction) his jaw hit the floor. He told me that he was paying $65 wet for a 172 and $20 for instruction back in 02/03.

Have prices really gone up that much in eight years?

Yes. When I got my private in 2003, I was paying $69/hr for a 172 and $30/hr for instruction.

 

[jesse]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who'd stopped a few hours short of getting his PPL about eight years ago; when I told him what I paid for my PPL ($125-140 for a 172, $50 for instruction) his jaw hit the floor. He told me that he was paying $65 wet for a 172 and $20 for instruction back in 02/03.

Have prices really gone up that much in eight years? I tried to research this but there's not really a historical database of rental prices out there.

In other news on affordable flying, I talked to a family friend today who's got a beautifully restored J-3 that he'll let me fly for the cost of mogas. Just gotta get that tailwheel training.

$55 per hour in 2005 for a C150. C150 now is going to run you about $80 thanks to the climbing fuel costs.

I just don't pay attention to the cost - that way it doesn't bother me in the least. For some reason I keep thinking the cost hasn't changed much but when I look back I guess it has.

 

[wabower]

So you're personally willing to write the check or go on the hook for $80k knowing that you need 450 hours/yr to break even?

Wayne,

An $80K used LSA will need either twice the amount allocated in the hourly rate, or twice the hours, to pay for itself compared to a $40K 172 - No doubt about that.

But, let's look at the two options. Let's compare a $40K 172 and the aforementioned $80K SportStar. 10-year loan at 6% on each.

So, the 172 is going to cost $444.08/mo on that loan payment. Let's say $1000/yr for liability insurance, $1500/year for hull. Hangar/Tiedown at $150/month. So, fixed expenses of $9,629/yr.

The SportStar is going to cost $888.16/mo on the loan, $1000/yr liability, $3000/yr hull, $150/mo hangar/tiedown. So, $16,458/yr fixed expenses.

Now, let's say gas is $5/gallon, 172 burns 8gph, so $40/hr for fuel. Let's go with $1/hr for oil. Let's also assume we have an A&P on staff or at least on contract for a much lower labor rate. I would budget a good $30/hr for maintenance on the 172. Engine reserve ($22K/2000 TBO) is $11/hr. So, $82/hr for variable costs. If we charge $100/hr, we need to put 535 hours per year on it to break even.

Now, the SportStar is gonna burn 4gph, but it runs better on auto fuel - $4/gallon, $16/hr. We'll stick with the $1/hr for oil and coolant, and go with $20/hr for maintenance. Looks like Rotax got their TBO's upped to 2000 hours finally, with an overhaul cost of about $12,000. So, $6/hr for the engine reserve. $43/hr for costs. We charge $80/hr, and we only need 445 hours/year to break even.

BUT, now we have a nice new-ish airplane that's renting for $20/hr less than the old clapped-out 172 - I bet it gets flown a lot more! So, the FBO makes more money, the renters can afford to fly more, everybody's happy.

So, tell me again why the established FBO's are instead charging $130+ for a 172 rather than replacing some of those 172's with LSA's so that more people can afford to fly?

 

[jesse]

450 hours per year is a lot for a rental. A whole whole lot of them don't get that much. Most probably.

 

[ChrisRikli]

If you have $100K to invest and you earned that $100K rather than inheriting it, you are probably not going to invest into a flight school. It's the worst kind of investment: frighteningly high risk, equally frighteningly low return.

The only way it happens is if you have a passion for aviation and don't give a damn about ROI.

But if you've managed to earn your way to the level where you've got $100K in liquid funds, you probably give a pretty noteworthy damn about ROI.

 

[zaitcev]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who'd stopped a few hours short of getting his PPL about eight years ago; when I told him what I paid for my PPL ($125-140 for a 172, $50 for instruction) his jaw hit the floor. He told me that he was paying $65 wet for a 172 and $20 for instruction back in 02/03.

Have prices really gone up that much in eight years? I tried to research this but there's not really a historical database of rental prices out there.

I remember how my cart of groceries was $100 in Costco around 2000. Now the same cart is $230. Feds are trying to finance the deficit by debasing the dollar.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So you're personally willing to write the check or go on the hook for $80k knowing that you need 450 hours/yr to break even?

I'd rather write that check than the one for the two clapped-out 172's that will need 535 hours/yr each to break even.

However, there's a lot more that goes into a business - Location, location, location for example. Population near the airport, percent of that population who makes enough $$$ to have some left over for flying, number of other flight schools and rentals available in the area, etc. would all have to factor into the decision.

My point is, that the LSA *does* compare favorably with the 172, and can break even with fewer hours per year even at a lower rental rate. That means that with the MORE hours per year that you're likely to get at the lower rental rate, or the same number at the same rental rate, that you will make a larger profit. Isn't that what a business is about? It'll also help by allowing a lower hourly rate, increasing the pool of potential new pilots. Good for business, good for GA.

Yes, I've never run an FBO. I was the treasurer of my flying club for 5 years, and I have owned a successful business as well. Taking a very basic look at it here, it seems that the business case for an LSA is a good one. So tell me... Why does the established industry refuse to even pay attention? "Oh, they're not 'real' airplanes." Sure they are. "Nobody wants to learn to fly in a 2-seater." Bull****. People have been training in 2-seaters forever, they don't train in 2-seaters now 'cuz they won't fit in a 152. I'll tell you what nobody wants to do: Rent a C172 for $140/hr. And, it's showing.

 

[wabower]

I'd rather write that check than the one for the two clapped-out 172's that will need 535 hours/yr each to break even.

You didn't answer the question. It's going to cost $80k up front to find out it your theory works. Are you willing to commit today?

Who (other than you) said the option is buying two 172's? Why wouldn't he just buy one?

However, there's a lot more that goes into a business - Location, location, location for example. Population near the airport, percent of that population who makes enough $$$ to have some left over for flying, number of other flight schools and rentals available in the area, etc. would all have to factor into the decision.

Do I detect a bit of waffling here?

My point is, that the LSA *does* compare favorably with the 172, and can break even with fewer hours per year even at a lower rental rate. That means that with the MORE hours per year that you're likely to get at the lower rental rate, or the same number at the same rental rate, that you will make a larger profit. Isn't that what a business is about? It'll also help by allowing a lower hourly rate, increasing the pool of potential new pilots. Good for business, good for GA.

So your answer is yes to the $80k?

Yes, I've never run an FBO. I was the treasurer of my flying club for 5 years, and I have owned a successful business as well.

You keep talking about achieving break-even on the rental as though it's the goal of the business. Was that the model for your successful business? What happened to it?


You're paying $80k for an airplane that will have 2,500 hours in service in 5 years, all from student use. Does your break-even case include the loss of resale value when you sell it?

Taking a very basic look at it here, it seems that the business case for an LSA is a good one. So tell me... Why does the established industry refuse to even pay attention? "Oh, they're not 'real' airplanes." Sure they are. "Nobody wants to learn to fly in a 2-seater." Bull****. People have been training in 2-seaters forever, they don't train in 2-seaters now 'cuz they won't fit in a 152. I'll tell you what nobody wants to do: Rent a C172 for $140/hr. And, it's showing.

Because they know something you don't?

PS: If you're wondering whether I'm interested in buying one for rental, the answer is hell no. The guys who aren't buying them know a lot more about that business than I do.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You didn't answer the question. It's going to cost $80k up front to find out it your theory works. Are you willing to commit today?

Nope. I'm back to being a starving student for the time being. Except I'm not starving this time.

Who (other than you) said the option is buying two 172's? Why wouldn't he just buy one?

The $80K check in question...

Do I detect a bit of waffling here?

Heh... No. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't unconditionally write the $80K check for any flight school at any airport in anytown, USA.

OTOH, I *really really* would like to start an FBO. Yes, I know it's crazy and I know I'm not gonna get rich - I just want GA to still be around when I get old, and want to do my part.

So your answer is yes to the $80k?

In the right situation.

You keep talking about achieving break-even on the rental as though it's the goal of the business? Was that the model for your successful business? What happened to it?

No, break-even is merely a baseline comparison between the two. I could have picked 500 hours of rental time and showed how the LSA would make a little money and the 172 would lose a little money, etc...

And no, that was not the goal of my business, which, BTW, is still going strong. I just didn't want to be part of it any more.

You're paying $80k for an airplane that will have 2,500 hours in service in 5 years, all from student use. Does your break-even case include the loss of resale value when you sell it?

Only in that the loan will be paid off in 10 years, at which point it would theoretically be more profitable.

Because they know something you don't?

I bet they do... But I also think that they've fallen into the trap of doing the same old things that have worked in the past. But rental rates (due both to fuel and the insane cost of new airplanes) have outpaced inflation by quite a bit - Even in the 9 years since I started flying. If rates went with inflation, a 172 plus an instructor should cost $117/hr. I'm not sure you can get an hour of dual in a 172 for that price anywhere any more.

Businesses must adapt to survive. GA must adapt to survive. Unfortunately, it ain't happening right now.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I did a silly thing and used Google to see what I would find using the keywords "evektor" "sportster" "rental".

As best I can make out, for places that rent both C-172s and Evektors, the latter are being rented out much cheaper. The Evektor wet rental rates were less than that of their C-172s; generally closer but slightly higher than their C-152s. Here's a quick sampling; I didn't get beyond these:

http://skyventureinc.com/aircraftRental/
http://www.dragonflyaviation.com/Training_Rental_Rates.html
http://www.sunriseaviation.com/prices-purchase.html
http://www.aviationsalesinc.com/aircraft-rental/rental-and-training-fleet-at-aviation-sales.html
http://www.skyraideraviation.com/fleet.htm

There seems little need to argue theoretical pricing and payback when some have already crossed this ground in the real world. (The interesting thing is to see a 30 year old C-152 worth maybe $25k rent for $88/hr and a 6 year old C-172 worth maybe $150k rent for $142/hr. Why is the C-152 so expensive, or the C-172 so cheap, relative to the actual asset costs and fuel burn differences?)

But some people are reporting interesting "outliers" on this forum - particularly on the low end.

 

[dmccormack]

The "rebound" began in 1998 and they've been going up, up, up ever since. But what I mean in bringing up Apple is this. Apple, for a long time, was all about "user interface." That's great, but when your flagship machine costs $10K without a keyboard, monitor, or video card and people have to actively seek out the only dealer in town who sells the stuff, and then worry about support... Well, the user interface doesn't really matter. That would be like a flight school saying "Hey, check out this COOL Garmin GTN 750 we just put in our C172! You should learn to fly!" It makes no sense.

What Apple has transformed into is focusing on the entire *user experience*. That's a large part of why they have their retail stores, and when you go to those stores, you really see the "new Apple" at work. The stores are well-lit, stylish, and "comfortable." You'll be greeted at the door, but not in a "can I get in your face and sell you something" kind of way. There's a short table with computers on it for the kids to play on while you talk to someone or browse around. The store isn't product-heavy, so it's reasonably easy to find what you're looking for. When you do, there's no waiting in line at a cash register - Each employee has an iPod Touch with a credit card scanner, and they'll swipe your card and the receipt will be in your email when you get home.

In early 1985 I went to an "Apple Store" since my college class load was using up New York's supply of White-Out. The place was open, brighlty lit, and the computers wee on fancy pedestals.

"So -- how much for a basic computer I can write papers on...?"

The "package" I "needed" was $3 thousand 1985 dollars.



"I'll think about it..."



A week later I saw a K-Mart ad. We dropped by -- sure enough Atari and Commodore computers were selling for about six hundred dollars.

So I bought an Atari 800XL with printer and floppy disk for around 1,200 1985 dollars and used it for many papers.

The "Buying experience" works for some folks, and we already have that in Aviation (Hint: Cirrus)

I think the root problem isn't bad FBOs or bad business people (though they are out there), it's a lack of capital for merchandising, marketing, and various collateral required to build up the sort of attractive venue you posit.

 

[wabower]

Your answers provide all the information necessary to understand why FBO's now seek to "lay off" the ownership of flight-line airplanes via lease-backs.

The FBO's (and others who have BTDT) know that rental airplane ownership is a losing proposition, and like the tomcat screwing the skunk, they've already had about all of that stinking mess they can stand.

The "outrageously high cost of flying" is invoked into almost every conversation regarding GA health as the primary barrier to entry. Those who are so quick to invoke the "ragged-out old 172 costs $X/hr, why don't they have new LSA's?" mantra should stop for a minute and think about why that might be the case. If it were easy, all the rental airplanes would look like a Hertz lot rather than prospects for an airplane salvage yard. But it's always easier to spend OPM.

Nope. I'm back to being a starving student for the time being. Except I'm not starving this time.



The $80K check in question...



Heh... No. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't unconditionally write the $80K check for any flight school at any airport in anytown, USA.

OTOH, I *really really* would like to start an FBO. Yes, I know it's crazy and I know I'm not gonna get rich - I just want GA to still be around when I get old, and want to do my part.



In the right situation.



No, break-even is merely a baseline comparison between the two. I could have picked 500 hours of rental time and showed how the LSA would make a little money and the 172 would lose a little money, etc...

And no, that was not the goal of my business, which, BTW, is still going strong. I just didn't want to be part of it any more.



Only in that the loan will be paid off in 10 years, at which point it would theoretically be more profitable.



I bet they do... But I also think that they've fallen into the trap of doing the same old things that have worked in the past. But rental rates (due both to fuel and the insane cost of new airplanes) have outpaced inflation by quite a bit - Even in the 9 years since I started flying. If rates went with inflation, a 172 plus an instructor should cost $117/hr. I'm not sure you can get an hour of dual in a 172 for that price anywhere any more.

Businesses must adapt to survive. GA must adapt to survive. Unfortunately, it ain't happening right now.

 

[Everskyward]

Now, the SportStar is gonna burn 4gph, but it runs better on auto fuel - $4/gallon, $16/hr. We'll stick with the $1/hr for oil and coolant, and go with $20/hr for maintenance. Looks like Rotax got their TBO's upped to 2000 hours finally, with an overhaul cost of about $12,000. So, $6/hr for the engine reserve. $43/hr for costs. We charge $80/hr, and we only need 445 hours/year to break even.

What about your overhead, and your, um, salary?

 

[hindsight2020]

Lots of nay sayers on this thread. How about we push some alternate ideas if the LSA angle is soo "preposterous". Or is "eff u I got mine" the pilot standard still these days.

Seems that the only thing the LSA has going against it is the 80K price tag. Anyone care to elaborate intelligently as to why this is so and/or how the market can make these LSAs deflate down to clapped out 172 range? I think then we would really have a viable alternative to running around paying 120+ for a C-172, which I can also anectdotally vouch for, is drying up business. I won't do it, and I have the equivalent of my aircraft ownership's worth of disposable income available to rent (since I sold the spam can, bless the Lord). I just refuse to do it. I know there's a lot of people like me out there, not to mention the future of GA that's currently sidelined outside these fences, while the oldsters hiss and shrug their shoulders. I think we can do better as a collective. I could be out there giving incentive rides and motivating young folks to partake in flying; I just won't set them up for failure when I know the economics of it are prohibitive under the current model. Which is why I don't get back out there myself. But I think we can effect some change if we're able to galvanize support and push forth to the capital holding class (manufacturers et al) that there is a potential at the bottom rung of the pricing list that is VERY PRICE DEMAND ELASTIC (i.e a marginal increase of x in the price of Q yields a disproportional and non-linear drop in demand for Q), which is why it would pay to make it cheaper and KEEP it that way.
Aviation is not healthcare, it is VERY elastic, and that price point is NOT $300K 8g/hr @6bucks a pop-burning, 105GS with a headwind flying contraptions. That much we can agree on.

Rotax and newer fresher more aerodynamically efficient designs with better airframe materials are a step in the right direction, now we need to tackle the pricing points. I still think we could go a long way toward deflating the price by tackling the avionics cartel. They are overpriced for what they are and it contributes to a lot the price inflation of the aircraft. It is also a great selling point for the potential customer, so here again we see a target for improvement.

 

[Anthony]

Lots of nay sayers on this thread. How about we push some alternate ideas if the LSA angle is soo "preposterous". Or is "eff u I got mine" the pilot standard still these days.

Seems that the only thing the LSA has going against it is the 80K price tag. Anyone care to elaborate intelligently as to why this is so and/or how the market can make these LSAs deflate down to clapped out 172 range? I think then we would really have a viable alternative to running around paying 120+ for a C-172, which I can also anectdotally vouch for, is drying up business. I won't do it, and I have the equivalent of my aircraft ownership's worth of disposable income available to rent (since I sold the spam can, bless the Lord). I just refuse to do it. I know there's a lot of people like me out there, not to mention the future of GA that's currently sidelined outside these fences, while the oldsters hiss and shrug their shoulders. I think we can do better as a collective. I could be out there giving incentive rides and motivating young folks to partake in flying; I just won't set them up for failure when I know the economics of it are prohibitive under the current model. Which is why I don't get back out there myself. But I think we can effect some change if we're able to galvanize support and push forth to the capital holding class (manufacturers et al) that there is a potential at the bottom rung of the pricing list that is VERY PRICE DEMAND ELASTIC (i.e a marginal increase of x in the price of Q yields a disproportional and non-linear drop in demand for Q), which is why it would pay to make it cheaper and KEEP it that way.
Aviation is not healthcare, it is VERY elastic, and that price point is NOT $300K 8g/hr @6bucks a pop-burning, 105GS with a headwind flying contraptions. That much we can agree on.

Rotax and newer fresher more aerodynamically efficient designs with better airframe materials are a step in the right direction, now we need to tackle the pricing points. I still think we could go a long way toward deflating the price by tackling the avionics cartel. They are overpriced for what they are and it contributes to a lot the price inflation of the aircraft. It is also a great selling point for the potential customer, so here again we see a target for improvement.

LSA is not General Aviation as many people want to use it. LSA is fun flying around the patch to get off the ground. Kind of like a balloon ride. You get to go up in the air and pretend you are going somewhere.

The reason many of us own spam cans is to TRAVEL and get places. Many of us go IFR and need it for leisure and business travel. We can not do that in an LSA. LSA's are the FAA's way of keeping us out of "there" system. We as pilots are marginalized.

Many LSA's are over $100k, well over. For that you can get a legitimate IFR certfied and capable airplane and actually go places, not just see your house from the air.

 

[dmccormack]

Lots of nay sayers on this thread. How about we push some alternate ideas if the LSA angle is soo "preposterous". Or is "eff u I got mine" the pilot standard still these days.

Back in the so called Golden Years of GA flying, average folks with average incomes could afford to fly. One fact is that during that time the liability costs and the avionics costs were not as significant a contributor to overall cost as they are today.

Of course plenty of folks learned to fly in Cubs, T-Crafts, Champs, and Chiefs with no radio, no tower, no pavement, and no GPS, but I guess we're past that now.

But If those airplanes were manufactured today -- would they sell?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Of course plenty of folks learned to fly in Cubs, T-Crafts, Champs, and Chiefs with no radio, no tower, no pavement, and no GPS, but I guess we're past that now.

But If those airplanes were manufactured today -- would they sell?

I don't know. Do they? I contend that they ARE being manufactured today. There are several companies making Cub Clones. How are they doing? American Champion is making the "Modern" version of the Champ. I can't think of anyone making a Taylorcraft equivalent. But there are enough companies out there making these types of planes.

Thing is, in order to bring the price down significantly, there needs to be economy of scale. A LOT of units produced. In order for there to be a demand, there needs to be pilots.

But I think we are in a pretty much endless loop that will be EXTREMELY difficult to get out of.

People can't afford to fly new planes because there aren't enough being made to make good economic sense. There aren't enough planes being made because there aren't enough pilots out there to buy them.

I don't have any answers. But I do know if GA is to survive, it definitely needs to be marketed better. AOPA, EAA, NBAA, FAA, ALPA, all those alphabet groups need to figure out how to more effectively market GA if it has a snowball's chance in hell to survive long term.

 

[jsstevens]

Back in the so called Golden Years of GA flying, average folks with average incomes could afford to fly. One fact is that during that time the liability costs and the avionics costs were not as significant a contributor to overall cost as they are today.

Of course plenty of folks learned to fly in Cubs, T-Crafts, Champs, and Chiefs with no radio, no tower, no pavement, and no GPS, but I guess we're past that now.

But If those airplanes were manufactured today -- would they sell?

Very interesting question. Look at what is considered an entry level car today. My first car (1969 Renault R-10, not new :wink2 had rubber floor mats, no radio and no A/C. It weighed 1108 lbs empty. What now passes for an entry level car (say a Ford Fiesta) has A/C and really fancy electronics. As well as a whole bunch of safety features (airbags, ABS, crash standards etc.) weighs over 2500 lbs.

What would the average person (not pilot) think was reasonable for a car today? Hows does that extrapolate to airplanes?

I think people expect more as "entry-level" in cars, houses, etc.

John

 

[steingar]

These guys claim they'll build you a Luscombe for 90 thou.

 

[Reklats]

What the club has done for me is to allow me to get into go-places airplanes and have the scheduling flexibility and freedom from silly rules to actually use them to go places! That has done WONDERFUL things for my flying, kept me flying lots of hours per year, and just been a great all-around experience. So much so, that even though I moved and am now a minimum 1.5-hour drive from the airport, I'm still there.

We do have an Archer for "cheap" flying (though with the price of fuel, it's not so cheap any more). It's got an IFR GPS and an up-to-date database like the rest of our fleet, but the paint and interior are pretty bad. I would *really* like to replace it with an LSA - Few people use the Archer for hauling lots of people, and that's what we have the 182 for anyway. One of the faster LSA's would go about as fast as the Archer. It'd also be much better-looking, and yes that does matter to a lot of people.

I've also gotten ZERO support for the idea from ANYONE else in the club. They just don't get what the whole LSA thing is about. But, I think it could attract a lot of new members, both those who are losing (or have lost) their medicals, and those who want to learn how to fly.

Sigh.

I'd be for it, as long as I was checked out in the other planes first :wink2: I wonder if the 2 seat restriction is what causes most people to be against it. How often do you really need all 4 seats, and if you do fill all 4 seats, how much useful load is left for luggage consisting of more then a spare pair of underwear?

No matter what people or surveys say, I'm always going to go with cost as being the #1 barrier to entry. Just this past weekend I was stopped (in the restroom of all places) and asked if it still cost ~$7K to learn to fly.

While the aquisition costs for a new/used LSA seem high compared to a '78 172, that low fuel burn looks pretty attractive these days. And as an added bonus, the modern look, both inside and out would be helpful from a recruiting standpoint.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In early 1985 I went to an "Apple Store" since my college class load was using up New York's supply of White-Out. The place was open, brighlty lit, and the computers wee on fancy pedestals.

"So -- how much for a basic computer I can write papers on...?"

The "package" I "needed" was $3 thousand 1985 dollars.



"I'll think about it..."

That wasn't an Apple store. Apple opened their first retail store in 2001.

That was also the "bad old days" when Macs were sold for a LOT more money because, well, they were "better" than everyone else and had a GUI when nobody else did. But your case was repeated many times over... People don't like to spend a lot of money. (See "Maytag." )

I think the root problem isn't bad FBOs or bad business people (though they are out there), it's a lack of capital for merchandising, marketing, and various collateral required to build up the sort of attractive venue you posit.

Well... Those Twitter and Facebook pages to reach the young 'uns are FREE. Ya just gotta do it. I agree that the rest isn't necessarily easy - It's just an ideal. The people are MUCH more important than the facility, IMO.

 

[wabower]

Within the past few years, the Taylorcraft was revived and new airplanes were produced for a short time. They had o-200 engines and modern avionics, but the company did not survive. The company that tried to revive the 4-place Luscombe failed as well.

I don't know. Do they? I contend that they ARE being manufactured today. There are several companies making Cub Clones. How are they doing? American Champion is making the "Modern" version of the Champ. I can't think of anyone making a Taylorcraft equivalent. But there are enough companies out there making these types of planes.

Thing is, in order to bring the price down significantly, there needs to be economy of scale. A LOT of units produced. In order for there to be a demand, there needs to be pilots.

But I think we are in a pretty much endless loop that will be EXTREMELY difficult to get out of.

People can't afford to fly new planes because there aren't enough being made to make good economic sense. There aren't enough planes being made because there aren't enough pilots out there to buy them.

I don't have any answers. But I do know if GA is to survive, it definitely needs to be marketed better. AOPA, EAA, NBAA, FAA, ALPA, all those alphabet groups need to figure out how to more effectively market GA if it has a snowball's chance in hell to survive long term.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Your answers provide all the information necessary to understand why FBO's now seek to "lay off" the ownership of flight-line airplanes via lease-backs.

Hey, I'd be all over leasebacks if I were operating an FBO too... Wouldn't have so much of my own money tied up! (Not to mention, most leaseback contracts are a real screw job.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What about your overhead, and your, um, salary?

As I mentioned - The break-even on the rental is simply a baseline comparison. Obviously, you need to find a price that makes a small profit, yet is still low enough to keep some level of demand. At the extremes, you could charge $50/hr for the LSA and it'd take 2,351 hours/year to pay for itself. (Unlikely.) Or, you could charge $16,500 an hour and it'd only take one hour. Good luck finding a sucker for that hour.

But, whether you break even at 445 hours/year at $80/hr, 350 hours at $90/hr, or 289 hours at $100/hr, those numbers give you a good start for deciding on your rental rate.

Besides, there's more profit in the instruction side of the equation than the airplane... If we have 300 hours a year of time on the airplane at $100/hr, and 300 hours of instruction at $40/hr - The airplane is going to make a VERY modest profit ($627) but the instruction (assuming the instructor's pay and benefits are ~$20/hr and the insurance around $6/hr) will make a less-modest $4200. Obviously that's not going to keep an FBO owner clothed and fed unless they're the instructor too, but hopefully the other pieces of the business (maintenance, fuel sales, etc) are profitable as well... And hopefully they'll have enough customers that they'll get many hours over the break-even.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Many LSA's are over $100k, well over. For that you can get a legitimate IFR certfied and capable airplane and actually go places, not just see your house from the air.

A new one?

Also, there are many people who fly LSA's all over the country. 120 knots is bearable. Sure, you can't fly most of them IFR, but only about 1/3 of pilots are instrument rated anyway.

 

[shenanigans]

While the aquisition costs for a new/used LSA seem high compared to a '78 172, that low fuel burn looks pretty attractive these days. And as an added bonus, the modern look, both inside and out would be helpful from a recruiting standpoint.

This is a huge bonus towards making someone feel more comfortable learning to fly. It's not going to help if you can't afford to fly in the first place, but for those who can afford it, a modern looking plane is much more inviting and feels like you're getting a better experience for your money.

Of course plenty of folks learned to fly in Cubs, T-Crafts, Champs, and Chiefs with no radio, no tower, no pavement, and no GPS, but I guess we're past that now.

But If those airplanes were manufactured today -- would they sell?

You can get them new in the ~$100K range, which isn't exactly affordable for your average person.
I think the modern equivilants from a price point are the 2 seat 'fat ultralights' which are now LSA. $20-30K is a more reasonable price. And with lower operating costs, it can be cheap fun. But they aren't really going to get you anywhere as a traveling plane and they don't work out so well for general flight training.

 

[wabower]

A new one?

Also, there are many people who fly LSA's all over the country. 120 knots is bearable. Sure, you can't fly most of them IFR, but only about 1/3 of pilots are instrument rated anyway.

Which, by coincidence, is also the group that is most likely to use an airplane for transportation rather than circling the house?

 

[dmccormack]

That wasn't an Apple store. Apple opened their first retail store in 2001.

Nuance. The Apple Dealers were exclusive vendor boutiques once the IIc took off.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Which, by coincidence, is also the group that is most likely to use an airplane for transportation rather than circling the house?

I'm not saying everyone should be flying an LSA by any means... But was it this thread or the other one where Jay, Nick, etc. were talking about flying cross-country VFR? There's obviously VFR travelers as well. Anthony seems to think that since an LSA wouldn't work for him, that it's not a workable solution for anybody.

 

[dmccormack]

Also, there are many people who fly LSA's all over the country. 120 knots is bearable. Sure, you can't fly most of them IFR, but only about 1/3 of pilots are instrument rated anyway.

And that 30% probably logs more than 60% of the hours, I would guess....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I wonder if the 2 seat restriction is what causes most people to be against it. How often do you really need all 4 seats, and if you do fill all 4 seats, how much useful load is left for luggage consisting of more then a spare pair of underwear?

We already have two really nice traveling airplanes. The Archer is generally not used for long-distance travel, and when it is, it's generally with only 1-2 people. I've taken it to Gaston's (when the 182 was down and we didn't yet own the DA40) with Pete, I've taken it to Kansas City solo, Larry took it to Florida solo and Arkansas with one other person... But that, and one other trip to Sun 'n' Fun, is all the cross country travel it's seen in the past 6 years I think. It rarely has more than the front seats filled - And there's always the 182 and the DA40 for that anyway.

Really, I think the Archer's main mission (bopping around Wisconsin and northern IL with one or two people) could easily be filled by an LSA. Actually, if we got enough people in the club, we could keep the Archer AND get an LSA.

I think the main barrier to others' acceptance of LSA's is simply lack of familiarity. There's a big sentiment in the GA community that those aren't "real" airplanes somehow. Unfortunately, the only LSA that was ever for rent in our area was an Allegro 2000 which is a complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true. But the Evektor, SportStar, Skycatcher, Flight Design, etc. are all decent airplanes.

No matter what people or surveys say, I'm always going to go with cost as being the #1 barrier to entry. Just this past weekend I was stopped (in the restroom of all places) and asked if it still cost ~$7K to learn to fly.

Same here.

While the aquisition costs for a new/used LSA seem high compared to a '78 172, that low fuel burn looks pretty attractive these days.

And, as fuel prices continue to increase, that's only going to tilt the equation that much more in favor of the LSA's.

And as an added bonus, the modern look, both inside and out would be helpful from a recruiting standpoint.

As Dave Higdon says, the two most important things keeping us from getting more new pilots: Air conditioning and cupholders.

He's not too far off.

 

[zaitcev]

These guys claim they'll build you a Luscombe for 90 thou.

The Luscombe-Silvaire thing is the saddest story about the LSA, type certificates, and restarted production that I've heard (pieced together) thus far in my short flying years. The trustworthy information is difficult to obtain. To the best of my knowledge they delivered 4 airplanes during the Flabob era, made out of "new old stock" parts, and fuselages that were partially assembled at Cape Girardou. There were numerous claims that some "new-new" parts were made (using old "Garland" fixtures). Some people claimed seeing, for example, an almost complete wing. Also, there existed the so-called "Phantom II" airplane, re-engined with Rotec radial (no idea what that was made out of, perhaps a restored 8E). By the time they moved to Chino, I frankly gave up. Most likely there will never be any more airplanes made, because by now they surely ran out of old parts.

Cheapest LSAs that look like normal airplanes are:

- Allegro, as made in Sanford -- same 90k that Luscombe promised. I do not know of any delivered. About 30 Czech-made "2007" models fly around. No suspicious crashes, the flying qualities are said to be improved over the "2000" model, which Mr. Flying Cheese Head called "complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true".

- X-Air -- 60k. This is basically as low as an airplane can go without turning into a complete homebuilt-like. You get a Lexan windshield, etc. The airplane actually exists, they sell about 10 a year. There are enthusiasts that fly them around and love them.

- Cheetah -- 70k, same as X-Air, but I do not know of many

- Aerotrek -- the villain in the SomethingFox scandal, apparently, but that water flowed under that bridge back in the 20th century. 69k like X-Air, but somewhat slicker marketing. Seems like the same quality from the outside and from Dan Johnson videos. Well-proven EuroFox design. Comes in 2 varieties: conventional and tricycle undercarriage.

- Also, there was an entry that tried to aim to 65k with a tube-cage airframe with the classic ultralight layout, Sport Hornet. Unfortunately, I have been informed that the company in Oklahoma folded and was liquidated.

So it seems that nobody can go below 60k for tube+fabric LSA and below 110k for a metal, composite, or combo airplane. Allegro is trying, but we'll see.

-- Pete

 

[Neal Howard]

Everyone in my piloting circle of friends has, over the past couple years, been ditching their factory spamcans and either going LSA (both vintage and homebuilt LSAs) or migrating to fast experimentals... Vans RVs in particular. You can't hardly give away a 172 or a Cherokee around here anymore. I was extremely fortunate to find a buyer for my Cherokee who knew the plane personally and wanted that particular one, because of how it was equipped and how well I maintained it, and gave me a more than fair price considering the current market.

Nobody is flying much around here either, unless they've got someplace to go on a long trip. The local pleasure flights around the pattern that used to be plentiful every Saturday morning when the weather is nice... have all but disappeared completely.

As for myself, I'm down to flying only about once a month just to stay current in the tailwheel RV-8. Of course, being airplaneless at the moment has a lot to do with that, but the owner of the RV-8 is generous enough to let me fly it pretty much whenever he's not flying it, so I still do have access to a plane to fly.

So... from my perspective here in north central TX, general aviation may not be totally dying.... but it sure looks like it's about to start pining for the fjords.