Model T of Aviation

[SoonerAviator]

For those who think there is the vast untapped market for GA airplanes, I suggest you go buy a type certificate, let's say for a 4 place fixed gear (one of the TC holders would be glad to sell it to you) and go raise the capital and get with it.

We'll all anxiously await that brand new 4 place airplane that can be bought for the same as the toyota corolla.

Ah, such a great response, lol. Just because I believe there is a large gap in the market that could be tapped by creating a $150K 4-seater doesn't mean that I have the desire to undertake such an endeavor, nor would the chances of finding investors willing to shell out the hundreds of millions of $$ required to achieve such a result when the ROI would be measured in decades, not years, if at all. It doesn't make it impossible, but only just slightly. Between capital costs and government regulations, you might have an easier time getting funding to start a nuclear power generation facility.

 

[Bell206]

Having to custom-build every one of them is ridiculous.

As I said, monocoque construction is not capable of that type of precision with pre-drilled components. You need to change the type of construction. Even Boeing and Airbus, in general, haven't figured out a way to 100% computerize monocoque construction except to change to the type of construction or materials. It is what it is.

 

[AlphaMike]

Count the rivets.
A 172 is not designed for rapid assembly.

Maybe the can change to “flow - friction screws “. Much faster, easier and lighter than rivets. We have been using them for a few years now in the automotive industry when assembling aluminum vehicles. Crash tests have shown them to be very strong!

Here’s a little article about them.
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/93220-flow-drilling-screws-help-carmakers-shed-weight

 

[Bell206]

I believe there is a large gap in the market that could be tapped by creating a $150K 4-seater

I think the one of the people who could really answer your question would be Vans Aircraft. They don't have to start from scratch and have existing aircraft, years of design and production experience, material suppliers, but most importantly an existing client/market base. Why haven't they taken advantage of the relaxed certification standards and certified one of their existing models like several other kit manufacturers have? Rotax anted up with a certified version of their engine, but few are following their lead. So there must be something driving their decision to remain a kit builder. Perhaps send them an email and find out?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Between capital costs and government regulations, you might have an easier time getting funding to start a nuclear power generation facility.

People keep falling back to government regulations being in the way of the mythical low cost GA airplane.

If there was this hidden market just waiting to emerge when someone can offer the low cost airplane, all one would have to do is a market research to find out what kind of reception it would have. Several on this forum are convinced the market is there.

Venture capital is not that difficult. We are being told that with modern manufacturing that the cost can be greatly reduced.

So again, with this huge untapped market ($150k 4 seater) why is no one going after it?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Point to a riveted construction "house" that has found a way to truly make a difference in the labor required to build an airplane. Honestly, I think the technology (aluminum semi-monocoque) drives you to an assembly method which is labor intensive. Now, Grumman with its glued construction might have had something, but that didn't work out either. I never understood why, but the advantage must not have been big enough to make a difference.

You're getting caught up on the C172 specifically. If Cessna were more like the auto industry, it would have abandoned the riveting in favor of a different fastener style, use welds, or go composite. It would have taken the C177 and turned it into something similar to what the Tecnam P2010 is today, instead we have the same monocoque hand-drilled/hand-deburred/hand riveted design they pioneered in the 1950s. That's mostly a gov't regulation TC issue, since it's so expensive/difficult to get those changes certified, where auto makers aren't quite so burdened and are able to spread that cost over higher volume. However, you can look at something like aluminum boats as an example of a design that was previously hand-riveted by most manufacturers back in the 50s/60's, but now has been pretty commonly moved over to welding and metal forming which eliminates or reduced the need for rivets.

 

[Bell206]

Crash tests have shown them to be very strong!

FYI: there have been a number of attempts to inject aviation construction with "newer" different methods over the years. While some work, one of the main reasons a lot of the efforts fail is not from a lack of strength or durability but a lack of elasticity in the material to handle the fatigue cycling when exposed to the environment that aircraft operate. For example, there have been aircraft made from stainless steel and bolted togather that were cheap, strong, a bit heavy, but durable. Problem was after several thousand hours it started to crack on a regular basis and became basically a throw away airframe.

 

[Bell206]

That's mostly a gov't regulation TC issue,

Not necessarily. Mono construction is not a requirement, but fatigue loading/cycling is and it's mono construction that meets those requirements along with being one of the lightest all metal construction methods. There's a reason we have 70 year monocoque constructed aircraft still flying because it works plus it is one of the most economical to repair without losing core strength. I suppose if you went the disposable route you could design a 4 seater for $150k but give it a 2500hr/10 year life limit and build it to match and still meet the cert requirements.

 

[LesGawlik]

My ex-wife also told me she loved me....

No, what she said exactly was "Me love you long time."

 

[SoonerAviator]

People keep falling back to government regulations being in the way of the mythical low cost GA airplane.

If there was this hidden market just waiting to emerge when someone can offer the low cost airplane, all one would have to do is a market research to find out what kind of reception it would have. Several on this forum are convinced the market is there.

Venture capital is not that difficult. We are being told that with modern manufacturing that the cost can be greatly reduced.

So again, with this huge untapped market ($150k 4 seater) why is no one going after it?

You apparently didn't pay any attention to the ROI part of my comment. Even venture capitalists want a return on their money that doesn't take decades to get back because the margins on such a low-margin product. Let's say you were able to make a 20% end-to-end margin on a $150K aircraft. That's $25K/unit that goes back to paying off the capital investment. So, even if you found a big market and sold 500 units per year (1/3 of all GA piston sold in 2019) you only made $12.5M (again let's pretend all of the overhead was covered in the margin), towards paying off say, $250M in capital. You think venture capitalists are going to enjoy those numbers? If you could sustain 500 units per year it would take 20 years to break-even on the initial capital, not inclusive of interest on that initial capital. Again, the scenario isn't impossible, it's just that no investor in their right mind is going to trade throwing their money into a low-yield investment that takes decades to recover; they'd be better served letting it ride in an index fund, lol.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

I think the one of the people who could really answer your question would be Vans Aircraft. They don't have to start from scratch and have existing aircraft, years of design and production experience, material suppliers, but most importantly an existing client/market base. Why haven't they taken advantage of the relaxed certification standards and certified one of their existing models like several other kit manufacturers have? Rotax anted up with a certified version of their engine, but few are following their lead. So there must be something driving their decision to remain a kit builder. Perhaps send them an email and find out?

They probably are making great money and don't care to mix it up for the chance of greater returns and greater risk. If there are no shareholders, the owners might be fine with the scale they are currently at.

Since everything in aviation is already priced super high, they may be taking advantage of that and not passing on any cost saving to their customers, because it is not necessary. If you found a way to make your kits 50% cheaper, but none of the competitors could match it yet, would you bother to let anyone know or lower your prices? Probably not with their customer support and production backlog.

 

[Bell206]

They probably are making great money and don't care to mix it up for the chance of greater returns and greater risk.

Exactly. When you have existing market players who don't jump at the chance to increase that market share there usually is a very good reason. There's been more done in the last 25 years to get people interested in all phases of aviation than in the previous 50 years yet the only facet that increased was drone use. And with the final rule passed this week on drone use that includes the Remote ID requirement I think you'll see an exponential increase in drone numbers as they are allowed further use of the airspace. For comparison, the growth potential for all private GA, i.e., the $150k, 4 place market, is marginal at best. Will be interesting if Cessna and Piper open a drone line in the future and what that may mean to the future of the GA hobbyist.

 

[LesGawlik]

If our products liability laws were then as they are now, there would have been no Model T's of automobiles, either.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Exactly. When you have existing market players who don't jump at the chance to increase that market share there usually is a very good reason. There's been more done in the last 25 years to get people interested in all phases of aviation than in the previous 50 years yet the only facet that increased was drone use. And with the final rule passed this week on drone use that includes the Remote ID requirement I think you'll see an exponential increase in drone numbers as they are allowed further use of the airspace. For comparison, the growth potential for all private GA, i.e., the $150k, 4 place market, is marginal at best. Will be interesting if Cessna and Piper open a drone line in the future and what that may mean to the future of the GA hobbyist.

I also wonder what position that would put a company like Van's into, where you have a bunch of kit aircraft you sell, and you also have a certified assembled version. Is there liability from continuing to sell kits? I'd think we'd look at something like Lancair/Columbia situation when they were building the kits and eventually sold to Cessna for the "Corvalis" certified version. I agree that there isn't likely any growth potential in the market, and in all likelihood will eventually dissolve entirely for new small GA aircraft that aren't personal "drones". It's not that there isn't a market there and some money to be made if you already have the tools, but long-term prospects are poor and there are likely better products to consider when it comes to profitability.

 

[Bell206]

If our products liability laws were then as they are now, there would have been no Model T's of automobiles, either.

Agree. It's also the same reason some of the new modifications being tested in the US have publicly stated they will only pursue markets outside the US due to tort law.

 

[Bell206]

Is there liability from continuing to sell kits?

No. There are current manufacturers who do that now. And in some cases use one production line and only segregate the final product.

 

[Doc Holliday]

And once the new $150K 4 seater is introduced, we will hear:

Why is it $150K? Why can't it be cheaper?

Can I get a 30 year loan?

Will the manufacturer give me a 10 year/2000 hour tip to tail warranty?

Will the manufacturer give me free annual inspections for 10 years?

Can an insurance company provide a policy for $500/year?

Do I get 4 free ANR headsets with it?

 

[kyleb]

You're getting caught up on the C172 specifically.

No, I'm not. I'm stating that the status quo technology for building light aircraft is labor intensive and nobody has found a way to significantly improve on that. Which in a roundabout way (I think) is your point.

 

[CaptainXap]

A 172 in 1972 cost $15,000, which is around $100,000 in today's dollars. They've never been cheap, although they've been a lot cheaper than they are now.

Also, back then GA planes had more utility - cars were less comfortable and reliable, and not as well suited for long journeys. There was much less commercial air routes available, so there were a lot more reasons to buy an airplane than there are now.

As for cost - labour is probably the biggest single item - if you assume that a plane takes 2000 hours, that's basically a whole year of worker hours to pay for. I think it's reasonable to assume you want someone who is paid more than minimum wage putting airplanes together, so that's probably $40 - $60k right there. I think that's why having airplanes that are simpler to assemble would make a big difference. The ready-to-fly Bushcat SLSA starts at $82k, due in large part to its ultralight-like design that only takes around 300 hours to put together.

I hope that the new LSA rules will make a difference - being able to build four-place planes without the part 23 certification will hopefully introduce some cheaper new family planes to the market. I also hope that some people will do some more experimentation with other systems of manufacture - both composite and aluminum ribs & rivets are pretty complicated and time consuming to build. Once someone can work out how to assemble airframes and wings out of a small number of machine-produced parts, I think that would have a positive impact on cost.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Is GA even a thing in China?

In short, No. The CCP will never allow the Chinese people that level of discretion and agency writ large.

Depends on what you mean by "China". If I had more time just over a year ago, I would have gotten a checkout with these guys.
http://aviationclub.hk/
There's a chance I'll be in Shenzhen next year, just next to HK, so I might try if time permits.

I'll grant one could disagree that isn't "China". The people who control the area now certainly think that it is.

To be honest, I'm just being pedantic- it only takes one exception to show there is general aviation in China
That doesn't mean you can do much with it, there, although I wonder what happened with these guys?
http://www.china.org.cn/china/local/2008-12/19/content_16975721.htm

 

[Dan Thomas]

Those who think current airplane designs can be mass-produced are deluded. They have no experience working on these things or in designing and building most other stuff. Modern cars are designed for robotic assembly. No tube-and-rag or aluminum airplane is designed for that; they were handmade from the start and still are. If you ever did structural repairs on a typical lightplane you'd soon realize it doesn't lend itself to any construction method other than hand-building. Every weld has to be nearly perfect. Every rivet has to be bucked near-perfect. There are standards that must be met to achieve design strength.

Stamping sheet metal is fine for things like ribs or bulkheads, which are often stamped from -O material (soft) and then heat-treated after stamping. That heat-treating gets expensive, and stamping 2024T3 sheet as used on wing and fuselage skins wouldn't work too well at all. Cessna's control surfaces are often made from corrugated 2024T3 aluminum, but they've had cracking problems in the bend radii on some batches. Stamping steel sheet for automobiles is far easier, as steel stretches and conforms a lot better and easier than hard aluminum. What works for cars is often totally unworkable for airplanes. Welded boats have nothing in common with airplanes; weldable aluminum grades are far weaker than the typical aircraft grades of aluminum, and they're a lot thicker, meaning a lot heavier. Boats can tolerate that. Airplanes can't. The alloying elements used in aircraft aluminum make it unsuited for welding, and in any case, welding would destroy the heat-treatment, reducing its strength all along the weld.

Composite robotic construction might work better, but the design has to make absolutely sure that maximum strength is provided with the minimum of material. Again, these aren't fiberglass boats. They have to fly, so they have to be light and strong. Every ounce matters. Even at that, the composite airplanes I've maintained were considerably heavier than their aluminum counterparts.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Those who think current airplane designs can be mass-produced are deluded. They have no experience working on these things or in designing and building most other stuff. Modern cars are designed for robotic assembly. No tube-and-rag or aluminum airplane is designed for that; they were handmade from the start and still are. If you ever did structural repairs on a typical lightplane you'd soon realize it doesn't lend itself to any construction method other than hand-building. Every weld has to be nearly perfect. Every rivet has to be bucked near-perfect. There are standards that must be met to achieve design strength.

Stamping sheet metal is fine for things like ribs or bulkheads, which are often stamped from -O material (soft) and then heat-treated after stamping. That heat-treating gets expensive, and stamping 2024T3 sheet as used on wing and fuselage skins wouldn't work too well at all. Cessna's control surfaces are often made from corrugated 2024T3 aluminum, but they've had cracking problems in the bend radii on some batches. Stamping steel sheet for automobiles is far easier, as steel stretches and conforms a lot better and easier than hard aluminum. What works for cars is often totally unworkable for airplanes. Welded boats have nothing in common with airplanes; weldable aluminum grades are far weaker than the typical aircraft grades of aluminum, and they're a lot thicker, meaning a lot heavier. Boats can tolerate that. Airplanes can't.

Composite robotic construction might work better, but the design has to make absolutely sure that maximum strength is provided with the minimum of material. Again, these aren't fiberglass boats. They have to fly, so they have to be light and strong. Every ounce matters. Even at that, the composite airplanes I've maintained were heavier than their aluminum counterparts.

I bet that SpaceX could do it. They have a rocket that actually fell off its stand and tipped over 2 weeks ago and are going to launch it in a week from now. No other space vehicle could even survive the fall, much less be trusted to be filled with propellant without a complete rebuild (now, it may well fail some tests/explode, but the fact that they even want to use it is beyond the imagination of Boeing/Lockheed).

They are building them using materials that are not supposed to work for space vehicles. They are building them in a dusty work yard under tents using welders that just learned the work recently and never worked on a space vehicle before.

To think that airplanes are these boutique things that have to exist only in the past is just like GA - old and crusty. A robot can weld joints better than anyone hand welding. Look, I can buy an off-the-shelf welding robot from them. Or an -off-the-shelf riveting robot, or fastening robot, etc. Used models are as low as $10,000.
https://www.kuka.com/en-us/products/robotics-systems/kuka-ready2_use/kuka-ready2_arc

Don't do telling me that a robot can't rivet as well as a human these days. Robots don't care if it is a nice powder day, or if it is 4:45 on a Friday.

Look at the woodworking industry. I bet there were times in history where craftsmen thought that there was no way to build a chair other than hand work, fitting each joint individually, cutting each leg to fit, etc. Now, you can have a CNC machine in a garage and crank out parts that are more precise than any craftsman and every one fits together as well as can be. And if it doesn't, no problem, a quick change to the design file and another part is produced that does fit while you go eat dinner.

If I build a plane, I may actually finally invest in a CNC for my commercial workshop (don't do cabinets, so have not gotten one yet) and try to find a set of plans that have the files for match drilled sheets and parts.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Those who think current airplane designs can be mass-produced are deluded. They have no experience working on these things or in designing and building most other stuff. Modern cars are designed for robotic assembly. No tube-and-rag or aluminum airplane is designed for that; they were handmade from the start and still are. If you ever did structural repairs on a typical lightplane you'd soon realize it doesn't lend itself to any construction method other than hand-building. Every weld has to be nearly perfect. Every rivet has to be bucked near-perfect. There are standards that must be met to achieve design strength.

Stamping sheet metal is fine for things like ribs or bulkheads, which are often stamped from -O material (soft) and then heat-treated after stamping. That heat-treating gets expensive, and stamping 2024T3 sheet as used on wing and fuselage skins wouldn't work too well at all. Cessna's control surfaces are often made from corrugated 2024T3 aluminum, but they've had cracking problems in the bend radii on some batches. Stamping steel sheet for automobiles is far easier, as steel stretches and conforms a lot better and easier than hard aluminum. What works for cars is often totally unworkable for airplanes. Welded boats have nothing in common with airplanes; weldable aluminum grades are far weaker than the typical aircraft grades of aluminum, and they're a lot thicker, meaning a lot heavier. Boats can tolerate that. Airplanes can't. The alloying elements used in aircraft aluminum make it unsuited for welding, and in any case, welding would destroy the heat-treatment, reducing its strength all along the weld.

Composite robotic construction might work better, but the design has to make absolutely sure that maximum strength is provided with the minimum of material. Again, these aren't fiberglass boats. They have to fly, so they have to be light and strong. Every ounce matters. Even at that, the composite airplanes I've maintained were considerably heavier than their aluminum counterparts.

Thank you the enlightenment Dan, "mucho apprciato."

 

[Ventucky Red]

And once the new $150K 4 seater is introduced, we will hear:

Why is it $150K? Why can't it be cheaper?

Can I get a 30 year loan?

Will the manufacturer give me a 10 year/2000 hour tip to tail warranty?

Will the manufacturer give me free annual inspections for 10 years?

Can an insurance company provide a policy for $500/year?

Do I get 4 free ANR headsets with it?

Can I get fries with that too? Asking for a friend ...

 

[Dan Thomas]

If I build a plane, I may actually finally invest in a CNC for my commercial workshop (don't do cabinets, so have not gotten one yet) and try to find a set of plans that have the files for match drilled sheets and parts.

Like I said, the airplane needs to be designed for robotic assembly.

 

[Bell206]

I bet that SpaceX could do it.

At what price point? Anything is possible with enough money.

Don't do telling me that a robot can't rivet as well as a human these days

In some cases, yes. But I have to ask.... Have you ever laid out a rivet line, matched drilled the holes, deburred, and bucked the rivets? Boeing tried it and dropped the idea after losing millions on it and their robots only did the easy rivets.
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...-step-in-after-robots-fumble-777-jet-assembly
A key quote:
"manufacturers are finding some cases where the technology can’t match the dexterity, ingenuity and precision of human hands and eyes."

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Like I said, the airplane needs to be designed for robotic assembly.

Yes, but people were also saying that the material cost of a plane was super high. Not true if you are only buying aluminum sheet and an CNC cuts and final size drills the parts.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, but people were also saying that the material cost of a plane was super high. Not true if you are only buying aluminum sheet and an CNC cuts and final size drills the parts.

Which is what Van's does. The kits cost $30K for an airplane 2/3 the size of a 172 and all that gets you is the majority of an airframe. No engine, prop, paint, panel, etc.

 

[aterry1067]

And once the new $150K 4 seater is introduced, we will hear:

Why is it $150K? Why can't it be cheaper?

Can I get a 30 year loan?

Will the manufacturer give me a 10 year/2000 hour tip to tail warranty?

Will the manufacturer give me free annual inspections for 10 years?

Can an insurance company provide a policy for $500/year?

Do I get 4 free ANR headsets with it?

1. It can be much cheaper. It depends on how much you want to put in to it.

2. Maybe, but I doubt it. 10 to 15 would be more likely.

3. Yep! And longer! The manufacturer will guarantee for as long as you own the airplane!

4. Yep, free inspections too!

5. That's between you and the insurance company.

6. Nope. Bose sells a nice one though. I prefer David Clark.


Enjoy your new Vans RV-10!

 

[FormerHangie]

You're getting caught up on the C172 specifically. If Cessna were more like the auto industry, it would have abandoned the riveting in favor of a different fastener style, use welds, or go composite. It would have taken the C177 and turned it into something similar to what the Tecnam P2010 is today, instead we have the same monocoque hand-drilled/hand-deburred/hand riveted design they pioneered in the 1950s. That's mostly a gov't regulation TC issue, since it's so expensive/difficult to get those changes certified, where auto makers aren't quite so burdened and are able to spread that cost over higher volume. However, you can look at something like aluminum boats as an example of a design that was previously hand-riveted by most manufacturers back in the 50s/60's, but now has been pretty commonly moved over to welding and metal forming which eliminates or reduced the need for rivets.

I really doubt it costs more to get a light GA airplane certificated than it does to get an automobile to meet all the safety and emissions standards that are required by law. It's the volume that makes the difference.

 

[YKA]

Puppy mills for European and Asian pilot wanna-be's. Now that those folks are out of the picture, how much flight training is going on? That's the baseline of organic demand.

Flight schools in British Columbia Canada, are very busy. But I doubt that even 1% of people who start learning to fly, go onto a career in aviation, and maybe 3% continue flying at all. Knowing my instructor well still, and us being friends since 1999 when I met her, and earned my private. Of the 16 students she had in 1999, only myself continues to fly at all, and not as a career. I strongly considered doing it as a career back then, but hated the lifestyle and low pay. Of the 149 students she had in the 1990s, only 1 is a commercial pilot today, he flies for Air Canada, and only 6 continued to fly at all. She said 2000 to 2017 wasn't much different, and she retired in November 2017. Her name was Patty, she got her license in 1978, became an instructor, and flew as an instructor as well as charter pilot for 39 years, when she retired. Hearing her tell it, is actually sad, very few people go on to buy their own planes, or fly as a job. Makes me wonder why schools are so busy, when barely any plan to make aviation a lifestyle or career. Being an instructor sounds fun to me, or flying a small charter plane, but airline pilot would be about the worst job for me possible.

So with only a tiny slice of the population even learning to fly, and then barely a speck of those who do learn, continuing to fly, the market is incredibly tiny. There is your problem, unlike automobiles, where a large part of the population drives, and most of them buy a vehicle.

 

[GRG55]

Flight schools in British Columbia Canada, are very busy. But I doubt that even 1% of people who start learning to fly, go onto a career in aviation, and maybe 3% continue flying at all. Knowing my instructor well still, and us being friends since 1999 when I met her, and earned my private. Of the 16 students she had in 1999, only myself continues to fly at all, and not as a career. I strongly considered doing it as a career back then, but hated the lifestyle and low pay. Of the 149 students she had in the 1990s, only 1 is a commercial pilot today, he flies for Air Canada, and only 6 continued to fly at all. She said 2000 to 2017 wasn't much different, and she retired in November 2017. Her name was Patty, she got her license in 1978, became an instructor, and flew as an instructor as well as charter pilot for 39 years, when she retired. Hearing her tell it, is actually sad, very few people go on to buy their own planes, or fly as a job. Makes me wonder why schools are so busy, when barely any plan to make aviation a lifestyle or career. Being an instructor sounds fun to me, or flying a small charter plane, but airline pilot would be about the worst job for me possible.

So with only a tiny slice of the population even learning to fly, and then barely a speck of those who do learn, continuing to fly, the market is incredibly tiny. There is your problem, unlike automobiles, where a large part of the population drives, and most of them buy a vehicle.

Our Flying Club runs a flight training unit with 16 airplanes (13 x 172, 2 x Seneca IIs and a Citabria). Pre-COVID 80+% of our students wanted to make a career in aviation. We got shut down for 10 weeks last spring due to COVID rules. Since re-start on June 1 we've set a number of monthly records for flight hours on the fleet. Most of us figured it would taper off once students that started before the shutdown completed whatever rating they were working on. Not so. Every good weather day we still have the parking lot full. Our two twins keep logging more hours than we've ever seen before (they are not insured for rental). And we do not train any foreign students. No idea what the future holds, but this has certainly surprised all of us on the Board of the Club.

 

[GaryM]

I had a conversation with a Cessna dealer a few years ago. He tried to convince me that buying a new 172 was a great investment and its value would increase a lot faster than an older 172.

The dealer had a lot of practice telling lies if he could, with a straight face, tell you a new 172 would appreciate in value after purchase.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Flight schools in British Columbia Canada, are very busy. But I doubt that even 1% of people who start learning to fly, go onto a career in aviation, and maybe 3% continue flying at all. Knowing my instructor well still, and us being friends since 1999 when I met her, and earned my private. Of the 16 students she had in 1999, only myself continues to fly at all, and not as a career. I strongly considered doing it as a career back then, but hated the lifestyle and low pay. Of the 149 students she had in the 1990s, only 1 is a commercial pilot today, he flies for Air Canada, and only 6 continued to fly at all. She said 2000 to 2017 wasn't much different, and she retired in November 2017. Her name was Patty, she got her license in 1978, became an instructor, and flew as an instructor as well as charter pilot for 39 years, when she retired. Hearing her tell it, is actually sad, very few people go on to buy their own planes, or fly as a job. Makes me wonder why schools are so busy, when barely any plan to make aviation a lifestyle or career. Being an instructor sounds fun to me, or flying a small charter plane, but airline pilot would be about the worst job for me possible.

So with only a tiny slice of the population even learning to fly, and then barely a speck of those who do learn, continuing to fly, the market is incredibly tiny. There is your problem, unlike automobiles, where a large part of the population drives, and most of them buy a vehicle.

Something like one in ten student-starts finishes a PPL, and something like one in ten of those continue flying after a couple of years. It leads to numbers like this: In Canada and the US, one-fifth of one percent of the population holds a pilot license of any type. That's one in 500 people. A small fraction of those hold a Commercial, and a small fraction of the CPLs hold an ATPL.

Aircraft mechanics are even more scarce. From https://skiesmag.com/features/help-in-the-hangar-tackling-the-ame-shortage/ we read:

According to Transport Canada data provided to Skies, there were 17,662 active AME licence holders living in Canada as of June 26, 2019. Half of them (8,762) are currently above age 50. Of those, just over 50 per cent is actually above age 60......Think about that for a second: Half of Canada’s existing AMEs are at or near retirement age!

38 million people in Canada and 17,662 AMEs. That's 0.048%, or one in 2100 people. The US A&Ps will be about the same. Half of them retiring soon means that wages will probably go way up. Now that I'm retired, of course.

The scarcest are the guys like me that were both CPLs and AMEs. It's amazing how many younger mechanics don't fly. One of my apprentices came through his college training with, IIRC, about 30 other students, and he was the only pilot in the bunch.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The dealer had a lot of practice telling lies if he could, with a straight face, tell you a new 172 would appreciate in value after purchase.

Those airplanes used to. Sort of. When I was learning to fly in the early '70s I asked the local Cessna dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Terrible," he said. "$23,000." You could buy a nice 3-bdroom house there for that back then. That same 1974 172 will now have anywhere from 2000 to 10,000 hours on it, with a few far beyond that, and it will bring at least $30K unless it's a real dog. If it's in nice, well-cared-for condition, it could bring a lot more. But of course, these are much smaller dollars now, and that original $23K would be considerable now if it had just been left in a savings account.

That $23K house is worth $500K in that city now. Much better return. And still close to the price of a new 172.

 

[YKA]

Our Flying Club runs a flight training unit with 16 airplanes (13 x 172, 2 x Seneca IIs and a Citabria). Pre-COVID 80+% of our students wanted to make a career in aviation. We got shut down for 10 weeks last spring due to COVID rules. Since re-start on June 1 we've set a number of monthly records for flight hours on the fleet. Most of us figured it would taper off once students that started before the shutdown completed whatever rating they were working on. Not so. Every good weather day we still have the parking lot full. Our two twins keep logging more hours than we've ever seen before (they are not insured for rental). And we do not train any foreign students. No idea what the future holds, but this has certainly surprised all of us on the Board of the Club.

My ground school class had 16 students in it, 13 of those 16 said they were going into a career as a pilot. How many actually did? 0 as in not even 1 of the 16. Many people start off with an aviation career in mind, but they don't follow through. At least i kept flying, but I am the exception to the rule.

 

[GRG55]

My ground school class had 16 students in it, 13 of those 16 said they were going into a career as a pilot. How many actually did? 0 as in not even 1 of the 16. Many people start off with an aviation career in mind, but they don't follow through. At least i kept flying, but I am the exception to the rule.

If all of the 13 that intended to become professional pilots as a career chose not to I wouldn't necessary expect any of them to continue flying as recreational private pilots (as I presume you are?).

And since the count of 16 is from a ground school (presumably a PPL ground school), there's always quite a few that lose enthusiasm once they see they have to crack a book and study for an exam. Most of them don't even make it to first solo.

 

[Tantalum]

AvWeb has done some aircraft factory assembly videos and the difference in Cessna versus Cirrus is eye-opening.. one company uses a full lean methodology, pre drills the holes and heavily relies on automation while the other appears to cobble a plane together, in the video they even claim that they just recently discovered putting the propeller on after painting it saves time painting the plane

I will let you guess which is which, but I will say that Textron has absolutely zero interest in advancing piston ga. The money for them is in jet aviation and they exist solely to supply a handful of light schools and assemble a few hundred Skyhawks per year

The overall piston GA volume is so low, that's the biggest issue

 

[David Megginson]

Is it possible that a low cost GA aircraft, not some light sport or some other light but big like a Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 could be produced. It needs to be produced in large numbers to get the cost down to be affordable by most people. China has invested large amount of money in GA do they have a plan. Chinese companies have steadily increased investment in U.S. aviation by acquiring, merging, or establishing joint ventures with more than a dozen U.S. aviation companies. Including 12 mergers and acquisitions, three joint ventures, and nine other agreements.

I'm not an industry insider, but I think there just aren't enough of us (and never were, not really even in general aviation's glory days of the 1960s and 70s). That suggests aviation will always resemble the carriage trade more than the automobile assembly line.

 

[Dan Thomas]

My ground school class had 16 students in it, 13 of those 16 said they were going into a career as a pilot. How many actually did? 0 as in not even 1 of the 16. Many people start off with an aviation career in mind, but they don't follow through. At least i kept flying, but I am the exception to the rule.

When they finally get the CPL/IFR and go looking for a job, they find that they'll often have to work as a ramp rat for some time first. It's sometimes the only way a charter outfit can get people to do the grunt work around a base for minimum wage. If that CPL has a big student debt, ramp-ratting doesn't look appealing at all. And one he/she gets into the right seat the pay often isn't much better and the hours are terrible. Instructing is another way to starve, too. Too many want those jobs to build hours, and since their motive is getting lots of hours instead of being a quality teacher and turning out a quality product, the student often suffers. The accidents caused by really stupid stuff like carb ice or accelerated stalls or even botched landings show it.

I have a cousin who had to fly crappy, worn-out airplanes in the bush for several years to get the hours to apply to an airline. Then it took a long time to work up to where he was making "airline pilot" wages. Things are a little different now, with people with much lower time getting into the right seat in commuter airplanes, but you still have to earn the right to the big bucks by persisting at low-buck jobs for a long time. Persistence is not a strong characteristic in most people.