Simple. An affordable price.
None of that other stuff matters.
None of that other stuff matters.
What attributes do you think new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have to return General Aviation to 10,000 aircraft sales per year?
- Thread starter TJB
- Start date
I hear you; and you are right, of course. But to just talk about production numbers gets back to the chicken/egg argument about pilot numbers. OTOH, being the once and reigning king of most-produced aircraft hasn't stopped the price of a new C172 from topping that of the median home.If you want to reduce maintenance hassles and expenses, it makes sense to own the airplane with highest production numbers ever made, having been produced since the 1950s, and that is still in production today.
List of most-produced aircraft - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
For historical reference, when introduced, a new 172 cost $9,000, roughly half the price of the median home then. So, by that simple inflation metric, the price of a 172 has doubled.
Sad, but true. Sadder still, it's not just that particular airplane but affects all of GA.
Agreed. The ideal new airplane must be simple, easy to fly and affordable.
Of course, that's a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup…if you make it affordable, it doesn’t matter if nobody wants ‘em, they’ll buy ‘em.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
The two largest barriers to entry in GA are time and money.
To bring GA back into its heyday, we need to not only reduce the cost of acquisition of a plane, but the operating costs also need to come down significantly.
To reduce the training and currency time constraints, we need bullet proof automation and dramatically simpler systems with much simpler failure modes.
I see only a few ways these two aspects are addressed.
1. Someone actually invests gobs of money to build small turbines which are very efficient (talk about a way to lose money).
2. Government subsidy for fuel, and capital costs (not likely).
3. Energy storage has a breakthrough (I think this will happen, question of when) and we switch to electric aircraft (battery, hydrogen fuel cell, whatever).
4. Automation to significantly reduce pilot workload and monitor the environment including all systems. (Give it time, we are gradually getting there).
So, to get back to the hey day will be a few decades. But it will happen.
Tim
To bring GA back into its heyday, we need to not only reduce the cost of acquisition of a plane, but the operating costs also need to come down significantly.
To reduce the training and currency time constraints, we need bullet proof automation and dramatically simpler systems with much simpler failure modes.
I see only a few ways these two aspects are addressed.
1. Someone actually invests gobs of money to build small turbines which are very efficient (talk about a way to lose money).
2. Government subsidy for fuel, and capital costs (not likely).
3. Energy storage has a breakthrough (I think this will happen, question of when) and we switch to electric aircraft (battery, hydrogen fuel cell, whatever).
4. Automation to significantly reduce pilot workload and monitor the environment including all systems. (Give it time, we are gradually getting there).
So, to get back to the hey day will be a few decades. But it will happen.
Tim
I don't think small turbines are efficient. Especially when installed on non-pressurized aircraft.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
When a luxy new car costs $70-80,000....ain't no way you're gonna see plane prices cheaper than that.
wanttaja
En-Route
I got curious on this, and ran a quick experiment. I took my January 2023 FAA registration database, and extracted all the 2020 model Cessna 172. Fifty total entities are listed as the owners. Here's a summary of the ownership for those entities with five or more 2020 Cessna 172s:
Total aircraft the registry is 120, these account for a bit over half (70).
There are no aircraft listed as owned by an individual, though 61 aircraft are owned by LLCs. 30 additional aircraft show a corporation as the owner. Of the remaining 29, 18 show universities as the owner, and the last 11 are all CAP.
Ron Wanttaja
That's an interesting analysis for schools. Since they are businesses, they have cost accounting & tax rules different from individuals, which effectively reduces the price, I suspect they are more likely to buy new, compared to individuals, who are more likely to buy used.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 6,165
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
On a tangent - a local flight school just got a deal on several used North Dakota flight school 172s. They have the old non WAAS G1000 that can’t be upgraded.
This local school is renting them out at a premium because they have “G1000 Glass Cockpit”. No mention that they are non WAAS. So, how exactly does that work on LPV instrument approach training????????
This local school is renting them out at a premium because they have “G1000 Glass Cockpit”. No mention that they are non WAAS. So, how exactly does that work on LPV instrument approach training????????
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,770
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
Pretty much what I'd expect. Not a whole lot of individuals with $400K+ laying around wanting to buy a C172, as they would be more likely to want to spend extra to buy a new SR20/SR22 or a used higher performance aircraft. Although I can tell you that Christiansen Aviation has all but dissolved its rental fleet as of about 2 months ago, so those 5- C172S models are likely moving to new ownership, lol.
Its not so much the new build designs are not durable or hard to repair, it’s the limitations and more in depth ICAs that are imposed on new TC Part 23 aircraft. In a high usage operation like training or aerial patrol these increased requirements can dramatically increase the overhead when compared to the current Pipers and Cessnas.
For example, all new Part 23 TC aircraft, and new Part 33 TC engines are required to have an airworthiness limitations section and ICAs that address certain requirements. So right now you have some new Part 23 aircraft with airframe life limits or for those that don’t have an in-depth inspection program that will negate a structural life limit.
So from that point alone its cheaper and easier to continue to buy new legacy aircraft like the 172 and keep things status quo on the ops side vs rewrite the entire business plan to incorporate a new TC’s design. And thats especially true if you were to need to replace aircraft at 12,000 hrs vs 30,000 hrs or perform a SIDs level inspection program every year.
Keep in mind the majority of GA is doing just fine and enjoying new aircraft models and increased opportunities. Its only the private or recreational side that has lost its “heyday” which is only about 35% of the entire GA market. And if you only want to count the TC aircraft side its less than that.
The only part of that “heyday” that may come back, i.e., private people controlling flying aircraft, will be through eVTOLs and drones. Which if you look at the numbers they have already vastly exceeded the 10k numbers of the original “heyday” aircraft on the drone side alone.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
wanttaja
En-Route
Ran the same process on Cirrus aircraft (both the -20 and -22 models). Interesting results.
There were 310 2020 models of Cirrus aircraft in this January's aircraft registry...almost three times as many as the 2020 Cessna 172s. The only single entity owning five or more aircraft was Cirrus itself. Almost 75% of them (73.9%) were owned by LLCs. About 13 percent were owned by Corporate entities (owner name with Inc or Corp). About 10% listed a human's name as the owner (though, of course, other private individuals may have done their ownership through an LLC).
Ron Wanttaja
bflynn
Final Approach
They're not. I have an idea of using two PBS TJ150 engines to power an experimental. The catch of course is that they're 50k each and burn something in the neighborhood of 25 gallons/hr. If I could afford 100k in engines and 50 gallons of Jet-A per hour, this is the dream.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Maule used to build a turbine version. Unlike the rest of their offerings, they didn’t publish range numbers for it. I figured with standard tanks it would have enough range to fly a traffic pattern with reserves.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
IMO the critical decision is 2 vs 4 seats.
4 seats are nice, but 95% of the GA flights I have observed in a lifetime of hanging around small airports were 1 or 2 people.
If the FAA sticks to 2 seats, their political risk goes down because they don't have to worry about news stories of families dying in their new class of aircraft. That gives them more room to be aggressive on performance. LSA limits on speed and weight are crippling.
2 seats are cheaper to build, need less power, easier to store, cheaper to insure, etc etc.
An RV-10 for $150K is fantasy. An RV-9 for $150K should be doable. In a few years those planes would sell used for under $100K.
4 seats are nice, but 95% of the GA flights I have observed in a lifetime of hanging around small airports were 1 or 2 people.
If the FAA sticks to 2 seats, their political risk goes down because they don't have to worry about news stories of families dying in their new class of aircraft. That gives them more room to be aggressive on performance. LSA limits on speed and weight are crippling.
2 seats are cheaper to build, need less power, easier to store, cheaper to insure, etc etc.
An RV-10 for $150K is fantasy. An RV-9 for $150K should be doable. In a few years those planes would sell used for under $100K.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Performance and practicality matters. Otherwise LSA would be selling more. FAA can't set the price. All they can do is adjust regulations in hopes it creates market conditions where someone can produce a useful airplane at an affordable price. Here's hoping they figure it out!
Shepherd
Final Approach
The biggest impact mosaic can have is increasing the current weight limit.
Then allow retracts, constant speed prop, and higher speed.
Do the same way it's done now. Get an instructor to fly with you and sign them off.
Then allow retracts, constant speed prop, and higher speed.
Do the same way it's done now. Get an instructor to fly with you and sign them off.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Small turbines can be efficient (theoretically). However, they are much harder to design and manufacture because the mathematical proportion of the gap between the fan blade and shroud decreases in proportion to the blade length. To get around this, multiple stages would need to be utilized, which increases complexity which increases costs...
I was very vague on solution, just stating burn Jet-A. This could be done via a heavy fuel spark ignition, compression ignition (diesel), turbine with recuperator (TurboTech for example) or whatever people can come up with.
The point of Jet-A is because it is easier to refine, more available around the world, and easier to replace if desired with bio-fuels.
Tim
Doc Holliday
En-Route
An Allison 250-B17-C turbine produces 420 shp while burning approx 22 to 26gph. The Maule carried 85 gallons of JetA. Useful load was around 900lbs, so with 2 standard people and full fuel that would be 3 hours plus reserve, give or take.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,770
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
Yeah, it's tough to do too much analysis without knowing what's behind the curtain on the LLCs. I'm sure there are a ton of Cirrus aircraft in a multi-owner partnership/flying club under an LLC. New C172s could possibly be in that same arrangement, but I just get a feeling that most members of partnerships/flying clubs aren't swooning over a new Skyhawk. A new C182/Bo/Cirrus/etc. stirs up more emotion for most pilots to consider buying new, but I have no data to back that up.
Baked Potato
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2022
- Messages
- 1,119
- Display Name
Display name:
Baked Potato
This is interesting. Do we know if any other common LSA are weight limited by regulation only?
And when MOSAIC passes, we simply need a new W&B sheet from the manufacturer to be able to carry higher weights?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
The web site didn’t list allof the correct Mr. Potatohead parts. They only listed the “standard” 40 gallons of fuel.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Yea, but who would order one with standard tanks?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Probably nobody, and I doubt that Maule would even sell one with standard tanks.
I just found it humorous that the way they advertised the airplane on their website made it a worthless airplane.
I assume something like that, since these planes don’t have regular type certificates.
Dave Anderson
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
- Messages
- 529
- Display Name
Display name:
SkyDreams
We are fortunate then, KHGR just had a friend get a hangar within a month, not far from DC 265/month
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
yup....I'm surprised, cause they have a wait list also....as does MRB and DMW
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
not complicated: it's a big ##### club...and you ain't in it.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
These are from just this year, only a handful of schools I linked below. If you go down the Google rabbit hole you'll find a lot more.. there are several announcements like this each year..
15:
Epic Flight Academy orders 15 new Cessna Skyhawk 172 aircraft
Epic Flight Academy has signed an order for 15 new Cessna Skyhawk 172 aircraft with Textron Aviation
avitrader.com
40:
ATP Orders 40 More Skyhawks - AVweb
ATP Flight School has signed an agreement with Textron Aviation to add 40 Cessna 172 Skyhawks to its fleet.
www.avweb.com
The large flight schools have nearly new fleets and will often tout that in either a news announcement or marketing brochure that they're placing an order for 50 new X or 200 new Y. Contrast that to the average person who is likely not going to spend close to half a million dollars to go 100 knots. You can get a very decent G3 SR22 for the price of a brand spanking new 172
Same
Yes a tort cap is the key .First find your 10,000 person market who will actually buy an aircraft and ask them what they want. But for reference the premise of returning private GA to the days of "10,000" aircraft per year was already tried 25+ years ago without success even with the influx of 10's of millions in private and public monies. Simply no market. Even the most popular result of that attempt has not produced more than 10,000 aircraft in the past 20+ years. Now if you're really serious to build up private GA get congress to pass a reasonable tort cap on all general aviation activities. Then you might have something to build on.
I attended a legislation session where a tort cap was being voted on in Montana.
Amazing the people in wheel chairs, walkers, that the lawyers in opposition hauled in.
The cap failed .
Insurance premiums do reflected this.
Dave Anderson
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
- Messages
- 529
- Display Name
Display name:
SkyDreams
I was on a wait list for 2 yrs, but recently there have been a few openings. There are a ton of hangar queens on the field, I guess people like to keep machines that haven't flown in 5-10 yrs
There's no small amount of profit in an $80k car. If one could buy the capability of a GenAv aircraft for $100k, people may wonder why the hell they would ever **** away $80k for a mere car.
Unfortunately since congress is 60% former or active attorneys/lawyers, I serious doubt any tort reform or cap is possible at the federal level.
Thats only provided the masses want to fly an aircraft. Lately its been why **** away $100,000+ on an aircraft when they can fly a drone and see the same sights all day for $100. As the rotor turns they say....
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
And something that flies as easily as a drone with similar training requirements is probably the only way GA is going to sell substantial units.
Isn't everyone already having enough difficulty finding hangar space? Aren't the patterns already crowded enough? Isn't FAA Aeromed already swamped? Isn't it already tough to find an A&P? Aren't shop delays long enough?
Why on earth do we want to put ten thousand more people a year into cockpits?
Why on earth do we want to put ten thousand more people a year into cockpits?
FormerHangie
En-Route
Because they can use that in their everyday lives and for that occasional regional trip. The airplane is only useful for regional trips where you aren't carrying much.
The vast majority of the people in this country have no need for what GA provides.