What attributes do you think new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have to return General Aviation to 10,000 aircraft sales per year?

[Pinecone]

THAT is why we can't afford new planes anymore. The Big Bosses at the top are taking home so much of the pie, we can barely feed ourselves on the crumbs left to us. Forget lawsuits, forget regulations, forget all the lies you've been told to distract you from the truth. GA is a luxury hobby, and until we all take the blinders off and stop cheerleading this messed up form of Death By Capitalism, there won't be a middle class left to afford luxury hobbies.

And what do you propose to replace it with?????

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Really??

How many cars can you buy for $20,000 new?

More than zero.

 

[Ed Haywood]

A-22 might get economy of scale soon.

Ukraine’s New Factory-Smashing Drone Is A $90,000 Sport Plane With A Robot At The Controls

To pull off one of its deepest strikes ever targeting Russian industries, the Ukrainians took a local ultralight sport plane & swapped its manned controls for a robot.

www.forbes.com

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Name them. Humor me.

2025 Nissan Versa: Fuel-Efficient Subcompact Sedan

Experience the 2025 Nissan Versa: Subcompact car fuel efficiency with advanced safety technology and a spacious interior. Discover Versa's features and pricing today!

www.nissanusa.com

That was easy...

Once you've done that, ask if those cars are built at a quality level that you would be comfortable with in gusting winds at 5,000 ft.

Sure. Rubber on road at an elevation of 5,000 feet? Why not?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Yes, that's one.

Which fulfills my claim: A greater-than-zero number of new cars available for purchase for less than $20,000.

Now, do you honestly think you could build an airplane that would be safe and pass certification for anywhere near the cost of the lowest price version of a mass-produced car?

No. I don't own a factory.

Now, realistically, what would the total market size be for a new GA plane, even if you could get it under $50K? How many people per year would drop that much cash for a 2-seater joyride plane, given the availability of existing aircraft?

I'm not seeing it. Without massive volumes, there is no way to get the fixed costs and capitalization out of the pricing model, and you won't get to the sort of commodity-level procing you are talking about while fixed costs aren't covered.

Cool. Let's get massive volume, then.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

[N]othing you said can explain the simple facts: the top rung of society increased their wealth by 351X since 1978 while the rest of us stayed even with inflation.

So... the rich got all that money WITHOUT decreasing the wealth of the rest? That sounds like a growing pie to me...

 

[wanttaja]

2025 Nissan Versa: Fuel-Efficient Subcompact Sedan

Experience the 2025 Nissan Versa: Subcompact car fuel efficiency with advanced safety technology and a spacious interior. Discover Versa's features and pricing today!

www.nissanusa.com

That was easy...

Owned a Versa for about ten years. Really not a bad little car. Good quality; didn't have any major issues. However, it does illustrate the economies of scale. It was sold around the world (was actually a luxury car in Japan) and at its peak, they sold 100,000 a year in the US alone. There's never been *any* airplane with that high of a production rate; it equals the total number of airplanes built in the US in the middle of World War 2...and that's with dozens of manufacturers.

The basic fact is that there IS no market for light aircraft, compared to just about any other consumer transportation vehicle. You're not going to get prices down to $20,000, or even $100,000, unless there's more-general acceptance of their use as transportation. And that's not going to happen, considering the training and safety issues.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Owned a Versa for about ten years. Really not a bad little car. Good quality; didn't have any major issues. However, it does illustrate the economies of scale. It was sold around the world (was actually a luxury car in Japan) and at its peak, they sold 100,000 a year in the US alone. There's never been *any* airplane with that high of a production rate; it equals the total number of airplanes built in the US in the middle of World War 2...and that's with dozens of manufacturers.

The basic fact is that there IS no market for light aircraft, compared to just about any other consumer transportation vehicle. You're not going to get prices down to $20,000, or even $100,000, unless there's more-general acceptance of their use as transportation. And that's not going to happen, considering the training and safety issues.

Ron Wanttaja

I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. Doesn't stop me for wishing for such low prices.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Yes, the pie is growing while the size of our slice shrinks...

Uh, not according to you. You said that our slice remained stagnant accounting for inflation. Someone having more than me does not mean I have less.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

That's why airplanes, and many other luxury goods, used to be in arm's reach for many of us but now aren't.

I'll have to take your word for that (while typing on a laptop that couldn't have existed ten years ago with more processing power than anything but a super-computer in the 1980s).

 

[Ed Haywood]

Aaaand the thread has jumped the shark. Time to unfollow.

 

[tspear]

The basic fact is that there IS no market for light aircraft, compared to just about any other consumer transportation vehicle. You're not going to get prices down to $20,000, or even $100,000, unless there's more-general acceptance of their use as transportation. And that's not going to happen, considering the training and safety issues.

Ron Wanttaja

Nit pick. Your statement is an absolute that it will never happen. I disagree, at some point society will accept the technical cost to make it happen. We are likely decades away from this point, but it is only a matter of time. The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.
I think this point is likely decades away, but I believe it will happen. Hence I tend to avoid absolutes about such solutions.

Tim

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Mass production makes that possible, but GA will never appeal to such a massive, global consumer audience as computers do.

I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Dana]

Nit pick. Your statement is an absolute that it will never happen. I disagree, at some point society will accept the technical cost to make it happen. We are likely decades away from this point, but it is only a matter of time. The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.
I think this point is likely decades away, but I believe it will happen. Hence I tend to avoid absolutes about such solutions.

Tim

IF energy storage technology evolves to a point where such urban air transport is possible, they wouldn't be building cheap airplanes using mass production; general aviation as we know it won't exist any more, for multiple reasons. First, the technology that would make such air transport possible would also completely eliminate gasoline fueled ground vehicles, and without the automotive market supporting the gasoline infrastructure, aviation gasoline would also cease to exist. The market would just be too small to operate a refinery and distribution system. Second, if such large numbers of flying cars (might as well call them that) come into existence, they would have to be fully automated and air traffic control and airspace would have to be reorganized to let them move safely... which would eliminate the ability to fly a manually controlled conventional airplane anywhere other than the remotest areas, if even there.

But the technology to make it practical doesn't exist, and is not likely to exist, absent a major breakthrough in nuclear physics. The limits of chemical energy storage are well understood, and there is nothing known that comes even within an order of magnitude of gasoline or other existing hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[tspear]

IF energy storage technology evolves to a point where such urban air transport is possible, they wouldn't be building cheap airplanes using mass production; general aviation as we know it won't exist any more, for multiple reasons. First, the technology that would make such air transport possible would also completely eliminate gasoline fueled ground vehicles, and without the automotive market supporting the gasoline infrastructure, aviation gasoline would also cease to exist. The market would just be too small to operate a refinery and distribution system. Second, if such large numbers of flying cars (might as well call them that) come into existence, they would have to be fully automated and air traffic control and airspace would have to be reorganized to let them move safely... which would eliminate the ability to fly a manually controlled conventional airplane anywhere other than the remotest areas, if even there.

But the technology to make it practical doesn't exist, and is not likely to exist, absent a major breakthrough in nuclear physics. The limits of chemical energy storage are well understood, and there is nothing known that comes even within an order of magnitude of gasoline or other existing hydrocarbon fuels.

Dana,

Agree on multitude of issues. In fact, I think the regulatory aspect is severely being underestimated in terms of complexity. We have many very large airports which have become surrounded by the original metro areas they were built to serve. These types of environments will prove to be very difficult to manage.
In terms of energy, I disagree. For these "flying cars", they will be short ranged, even at an increase of 2-3% a year over the next twenty years will provide enough energy density for local flights. A number of current drone companies have already demonstrated the capability to fly on current battery tech for twenty minutes to an hour. That is plenty for a local run to the grocery store or to work. Even if battery technology fails, there will be SAF based solutions. The problem is currently, the turbine solutions are made from unobtanium and have a commensurate price.

Tim

 

[Half Fast]

That is plenty for a local run to the grocery store or to work.

Actually it's not, for many of us. And when traffic deconfliction is added to the mix with many many vehicles in the air, travel times will likely be much longer.

The next time you go to the grocery store, look at all the cars in the parking lot. Then try to imagine how the air traffic situation will look if half of those, or even a fourth, are air vehicles.

As you yourself said,

I think the regulatory aspect is severely being underestimated in terms of complexity. We have many very large airports which have become surrounded by the original metro areas they were built to serve. These types of environments will prove to be very difficult to manage.

 

[Daleandee]

The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.

From the driverless cars thread ...

Above & Beyond

 

[Half Fast]

Yes, the pie is growing while the size of our slice shrinks while our boss' slice keeps growing faster than the pie. How is this so hard to understand? I thought pilots were supposed to be good with numbers?

So go bake your own pie and share it with others however you like.

AFAIK, there's no law prohibiting you from building the proverbial better mousetrap and taking your place as the newest billionaire.

Who is the evil oppressor holding you back? Name the scoundrel, and we the righteous of POA will rise up in your defense! Has Bezos blocked you from opening a store? Did Musk deny to you the laws of physics, so you can't invent a new product? Perhaps Warren Buffet has locked you out of financial markets so you can't invest in other people's ideas? Tell us! What have the ultra-wealthy done to prevent you from making your own wealth?

Bottom line, I really don't care about the numbers you toss around, even if they're an accurate represenation (which I doubt). It simply doesn't matter! Someone else's success does not inhibit my own success, or anyone else's for that matter. If anything, it enhances it. So what if Gates has an enormous slice of pie (that he baked)? That doesn't mean I don't have enough pie to eat myself, and his big slice does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of what I have.

At its core, the handwringing over "unfair wealth distribution" is rooted in envy and feelings of inadequacy, and it grows into self-imposed victimhood. It's a trap, it's a helluva way for a person to live, and I for one won't fall into it.

 

[Half Fast]

The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting.

The obvious solution is for people to stay home.

Except for me, of course. The rest of you just stay off the roads so I won't have to deal with traffic.

 

[Bell206]

FWIW: The one thing people miss when it comes to true urban based transport is that conventional transport methods, ie., light aircraft and helicopters, do not have the capabilities to effectively work in that environment. Its been tried in many ways over the decades.

One of the few places it has worked conventionally speaking is in Sao Paulo, Brazil where helicopters are used on a daily basis to commute across town or to the airport. Even the 1st real-time use of ADSB was used to further test the use and control of helicopters in an urban transport environment. But failed on a number of levels.

Regardless, whether you believe in them or not, drones and eVTOL/VTOL/Hybrids have breathed new life into the decades-long Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and the more recent Regional Air Mobility (RAM) plans and programs. And none of the current UAM or RAM plans rely on conventional transport methods for the simply reason they don’t work.

But I’m merely a messenger with some limited experience. The next couple years will be the tell all as a number of planned city-level UAM implementations will take place, globally. And while flight times might be counted in minutes and blocks vs hours and miles, that is how the system is designed to operate. As I’ve said before, interesting times ahead.

 

[Daleandee]

The obvious solution is for people to stay home.

Except for me, of course. The rest of you just stay off the roads so I won't have to deal with traffic.

Sounds like a plan! "Rise above ..."

 

[tspear]

Actually it's not, for many of us. And when traffic deconfliction is added to the mix with many many vehicles in the air, travel times will likely be much longer.

In population centers, mileage is much lower. Two critical stats from here: https://www.bts.gov/statistical-pro...sehold-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts
Average driver does 29 miles a day, and that is following roads not straight line to the destination (second section from the bottom). This is well within the capabilities of current battery tech.

The next time you go to the grocery store, look at all the cars in the parking lot. Then try to imagine how the air traffic situation will look if half of those, or even a fourth, are air vehicles.

The problem in my local grocery stores are entering/leaving is a zoo (ok, inside the store also but flying cars will not help there) and that is only for an hour or two most days. By adding a third dimension, there will be a significant reduction in the congestion entering/leaving the parking lot. This will be a regulatory and process nightmare to figure out. But it is possible.

Tim

 

[2-Bit Speed]

By adding a third dimension, there will be a significant reduction in the congestion entering/leaving the parking lot.

'Adding' a third dimension is unlikely to ease congestion, but is very likely to increase complexity and risk to a very mundane, utilitarian task. And that's ignoring weather limitations. Just because some congestion has moved into the air does not mean that the congestion has reduced.

Furthermore, does anyone want to navigate a complex, congested, dangerous airspace in a bug-smasher every time they need some ground beef? Can these proposed e-wastes handle the extra 50 lbs of an average grocery run for the return trip? If not, do we want to be making more trips just to do what used to take fewer?

 

[Bell206]

This will be a regulatory and process nightmare to figure out. But it is possible.

Definitely possible, as they’ve been working on the regulatory side for years via the existing UAM policies. As for the process, the key to remember is all current UAM and RAM processes are public transport based and not private based. While there are plans for a private component to UAM I don’t think that will happen until the public UAM side has “matured.”

 

[SoonerAviator]

'Adding' a third dimension is unlikely to ease congestion, but is very likely to increase complexity and risk to a very mundane, utilitarian task. And that's ignoring weather limitations. Just because some congestion has moved into the air does not mean that the congestion has reduced.

Furthermore, does anyone want to navigate a complex, congested, dangerous airspace in a bug-smasher every time they need some ground beef? Can these proposed e-wastes handle the extra 50 lbs of an average grocery run for the return trip? If not, do we want to be making more trips just to do what used to take fewer?

The noise from the quad-copter-style drones and EV-aviation proposals will kill the idea long before congestion becomes an issue. Can you imagine the uproar from neighbors from the noise of a dozen or more giant quadcopters being overhead at under 500ft? It's one thing to have a sports car with a loud exhaust, or a diesel truck with a jake brake as those are quickly transient. The high-pitched whir of the blades would have people in an uproar.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Definitely possible, as they’ve been working on the regulatory side for years via the existing UAM policies. As for the process, the key to remember is all current UAM and RAM processes are public transport based and not private based. While there are plans for a private component to UAM I don’t think that will happen until the public UAM side has “matured.”

It "is" happening.....they have certified one system and more are coming....

 

[Salty]

The obvious solution is for people to stay home.

Except for me, of course. The rest of you just stay off the roads so I won't have to deal with traffic.

Except for you and everyone you want to do a service for you while you’re out…..

 

[Pinecone]

Cool. Let's get massive volume, then.

That is the problem, people don't want to spend the time to learn to fly. Heck, they don't even really learn to drive, and the actually do that.

The automated drones are more their speed.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

which is why there are probably more boats than planes.....

 

[popPilot]

If cars were regulated like airplanes were, there'd probably be less than 800,000 drivers, too.

Indeed, in general people don't want to buy things that would stress them more.

I posit its the $15,000 price of entry (not to mention the ongoing costs) that is the issue. Let's improve than, rather than accepting it as a given.

That's why makes sense see a person buying a lamborgini,ferrari,etc(average $300K) but not a airplane of the same price. Ongoing costs are much higher on a plane. And the regulatory hurdles as mentioned in first quote makes it even less attractive.

 

[Steamflyer]

Nit pick. Your statement is an absolute that it will never happen. I disagree, at some point society will accept the technical cost to make it happen. We are likely decades away from this point, but it is only a matter of time. The two dimensional road system placed on large metro areas is too limiting. The technical costs to develop and build such cheap vehicles which can "fly" passengers from point to point will be a critical solution to helping the large metro areas grow.
I think this point is likely decades away, but I believe it will happen. Hence I tend to avoid absolutes about such solutions.

Tim

See any Popular Science cover from 1950, 1960, 1970, etc. Flying is hard, driving is not. Large metro areas have less drive to grow today with distributed information (high speed net) and lack of manufacturing once actually done in the core cities. Still need the ports and rails of course.

A $30,000 or even $100,000 new airplane would be a wonderful thing. But it won't return to 10,000 sales per year - those years in the late 1970s were a generation-in-place event when those inoculated with the flying bug in WWII finally had the time and money and empty nests to indulge in their passion.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If you want to figure out how to re-ignite the market for small GA planes in the US, start with the flight schools and DPEs. Fix the training process. Create more pilots, and make it a whole lot more efficient in terms of time. The sort of people who can afford a new plane don't like having their time wasted...and right now, the system is set up in a way that is incredibly wasteful of student pilots' time.

And one of the best ways to not waste the student’s time is to get the student to do the necessary studying to not waste the instructor’s time. Probably not going to happen.

 

[MRC01]

I'm not sure that this is really true. High-performance cars have high maintenance costs, just like planes. Have you priced a Porsche or Ferrari oil change lately? Tires? insurance?
...

True. Before getting into aviation I used to race cars at the amateur level in SCCA. I do my own mechanical work, yet even so my total car expenses (especially on tires) turned out to be comparable to the ownership costs of my C-172. And I did not own particularly exotic cars. I still like cars but when I discovered that slow airplanes are more fun than fast cars, that hobby ended quickly.

But, it's also true that becoming a pilot takes far more time and dedication than racing cars. Even though it's well worth it, it is a steep curve. This is a good thing. There is a lot to learn, there are people who shouldn't be flying that the process needs to weed out, and we don't want pilots who take it easily or casually.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Nonsense.

Anecdotal, but my personal experience is that there are MASSIVE delays induced by the schools themselves, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of student preparation.

I passed my FAA written in March. Every single oral or written test I've been handed by the school has been passed easily on the first try.

I completed all of my prescriptive flight requirements in mid-June. I sat on my hands until 2 weeks ago waiting to get a "mock checkride" scheduled with the lead instructor at the school - who has roughly zero availability. The school refused to schedule for a DPE until after that ride was complete. After being re-scheduled multiple times, I completed this August 2 (more than 6 weeks after being cleared for it by my CFI), and was then told that they would "put me on the list" and call the DPE in a couple of weeks to see what availability is, and expect another 90-120 days. As of today, I have heard NOTHING from the school - NOT A WORD. Yesterday I took the plane up for solo practice, and noticed that the "awaiting checkride" list that they have posted on the wall hasn't been updated since before I passed the "mock checkride". It's been almost two weeks, and they haven't even added my name to the list (nor anyone else who got this don in the past two weeks) - seriously? I had to burn 3 half-days of PTO to get this single stage check done (first two got re-scheduled), and they sit on their hands for two weeks? This same waste of time has occurred at every "stage check" in the school's process, and it adds ZERO value.

Since then, I've flown to another state, found a different CFI and gotten a DPE ride scheduled less than 30 days out. Problem solved.

Bluntly put, this school is only concerned about selling flight hours. They want their schedule full, and they don't put forth any level of effort to keep the process moving forward for their student pilots. The longer it takes, the more hours they can bill - and it has become painfully obvious that this is their business model.

I didn’t say the flight schools couldn’t improve. I said the students probably wouldn’t, so flight school improvements wouldn’t make a significant difference in the number of pilots.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You started your statement regarding wasting students' time.....that's not the student pilots' fault. It's a real sore spot with me right now, as I have had many months of my time wasted within this year.

If a student is not prepared, it wastes the student’s time to go for a flight lesson, also wasting instructor time.

 

[Clip4]

Really??

How many cars can you buy for $20,000 new?

How many cars are you buying with engine technology from 1940, a chassis from 1960, no catalytic converter, AC, power windows, or airbags?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yeah, but when you're killing time waiting a month for a "stage check" to be scheduled, you've wasted a full month of CALENDAR time, and it is 100% induced by the school. The normal response is "well, go do some solo practice while you're waiting", i.e., just spend some more money with us while we get our @#$% together.

Look, none of us are getting any younger. I can get more money every single day, but I can't get any more time - every day that is wasted waiting for someone else is a day that never comes back. Want my business? Help me make more efficient use of my time, even if the price point is higher. I would posit that the great majority of people who can afford a plane hold a similar view of the time/money relationship.

Ok…so your post that I originally replied to wasn’t actually about reigniting the market for GA airplanes.

 

[MRC01]

... Again anecdotally, I spoke with a few other students at the school, and every single one of them had been in training for 18 months or more for their PPL; one finally got his checkride at almost 2 years. That's just nonsense. There is no good reason for it to take that long....and I honestly believe it is because the schools don't have any incentive to help a pilot complete a certification.

I've seen this too. When I learned to fly back in 2007, I had 13 hours when I soloed, when I was ready it took 2 weeks to schedule a local DPE and I had 44 hours coming into my checkride. The hours sound low but it was not all that unusual for that time. Fast forward 17 years, now I am mentoring 2 students through the EAA Eagles program. Both of them have over 40 hours and have not yet soloed, yet both demonstrate good judgement and competent stick and rudder skills when flying with me. And with scheduling, they share similar frustrations as yours. I didn't mention this at first because 2 sample points is not a trend, but maybe it is?

 

[SkyChaser]

Yeah, but when you're killing time waiting a month for a "stage check" to be scheduled, you've wasted a full month of CALENDAR time, and it is 100% induced by the school. The normal response is "well, go do some solo practice while you're waiting", i.e., just spend some more money with us while we get our @#$% together.

Look, none of us are getting any younger. I can get more money every single day, but I can't get any more time - every day that is wasted waiting for someone else is a day that never comes back. Want my business? Help me make more efficient use of my time, even if the price point is higher. I would posit that the great majority of people who can afford a plane hold a similar view of the time/money relationship.

Honestly, it sounds like your school sucks. I probably would have bailed on your school ages ago.

 

[Salty]

Sure it was.

Every prospective pilot who gets frustrated by the lousy process and walks away is one fewer potential buyer. Trying to push that back on the prospective buyer - as you were doing - isn't the answer.

Want customers? It's simple:

1) Figure out what they want
2) Figure out what they DON'T want to deal with
3) Figure out a way to deliver (1) while avoiding (2)
4) Tell as many prospective customers as possible that you have figure it out

The problem with GA right now is that the people inside the system won't admit that the entry process is broken and keeping people out. Then, they complain that there aren't enough buyers, which makes everything too expensive due to lack of volume.

Want more GA buyers? FIX THE TRAINING SYSTEM.

I'll posit that the training system would fix itself if there was a market big enough. The system sucks because of the lack of volume, not the other way around.