What if... Modernizing GA

[Dan Thomas]

I see a lot of critics here, but very little contribution towards the OPs ask. KInda sad. I don't mind critical positions per-se, but to be critical without offering any solution is the weak man's choice.

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

And really, it comes down to the size of the market and the extreme cost of getting anything certified and produced.

Even Cirrus had to be sold off to the Chinese, and they are by FAR the most successful new entrant into the market in the last 50 years.

Mooney's latest owners were doing some good things in a piecemeal fashion - For example, moving to composite skins in some areas. Unfortunately, the Mooney is one of those planes that is pretty complex to build, and to change that would require too much investment for the market size, so I don't expect they'll come out with anything new. The high-performance single market seems like the place to be, and has always had lots of demand, but Cirrus has sucked everything out of that market.

 

[Bell206]

they are by FAR the most successful new entrant into the market in the last 50 years.

Except their success was directly due to the NASA AGATE program. Same reason behind the Columbia and number of other aviation innovations. So they both got into the market partly funded by NASA technology and taxpayer dollars. Which without that "free" support the Cirrus would have never been designed or produced. The fact they had to sell the company even with that level of design/production subsidy further shows how the private/recreational market has slipped.

 

[RyanShort1]

In order to really give a satisfactory answer, you have to define "better" - going back to the original post, and that is pretty subjective to the individual.

For me, better, would possibly be a very simple plane, most likely a Luscombe derivative with an anonymous ADS-B alternative, a lightweight Rotax engine, wings that could fold like a Kitfox for storage, and all the bells and whistles like VGs, some speed mods, and a good useful load.

 

[Barrett50]

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

Was "easy" a requirement? He closed with 'crazy or not so crazy'. Do you know how the 'ignore' feature works? Add me when you have a few min. Thx

 

[StraightnLevel]

In order to really give a satisfactory answer, you have to define "better" - going back to the original post, and that is pretty subjective to the individual.

For some characteristics, sure. However, I think that there are a few areas where "better" can be viewed objectively. For example:

1) Reliability.
2) Cost and frequency of maintenance.
3) Fuel consumption (assuming equal performance).
4) Usable lifespan.
5) Initial cost.
6) Safety.

Any improvements in these areas that don't result in cost of performance tradeoffs would be universally acceptable, IMO.