What GA needs

This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?


If all that was available for my 16 year old and his friends was a 75 Nova
there would be lots of them in the driveways of homes today. A drivers
license for a 16 year old isn't about the car as much as it is about
freedom. Sure kids are spoiled now and a 75 Nova would be tough to sell but
if there was nothing else and the other kids only had 75 Novas, don't kid
yourself they would be all over them.

While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
to the current airplanes to even see the technology. I have little doubt
that the average 17 year old kid thinks the inside of the average GA plane
looks like the cockpit of a 777.

Point by point...

Small Turbine: I'd love it but the volume just isn't there for a clean sheet
design. Our best bet is an APU that has been reworked. And don't think
turbines are the end all be all of simplicity. I watched a while back hot
start his new Jet Ranger. That was a $80K error on his part.

Gas Mileage: Lots of aircraft approach that. The only problem is once you
get where you are going you still need the SUV.

Composites: All depends on the aircraft you design. If you design it without
complex curves good old aluminum will often be just as light. Add to that
you can let an AL aircraft live outside a hanger.

Interiors: Weight, and weight. It will always be an issue.

Cost: 3 x $50,000= $150K. We're there if you count the LSA planes. and for
$150K you can by a pretty damn nice certified aircraft.

There's something else there and I'm not sure what it is. In WWII how many
pilots were trained by the US? We've been in a war in Iraq since 2003 how
many pilots has the US Military trained in that time?

Let's face it in the post WWII USA airline pilots were considered at the
high end of the cool scale. Now, not so much.

Recently, Andrew Sarangan posted:

This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

(rest snipped for brevity)

I think you've hit on a big reason already. iPods, internet computing and
such are passive involvements that require little in the way of
commitment, education, sacrifice, and focus. In short, just the opposite
of what is required to get actively involved in GA.

Beyond that, the barriers to entry have increased significantly in the
last couple of decades due to many factors, including an overly-litigious
society and urban sprawl. One way that interests can grow into active
involvements is through incremental experiences. When I was a kid,
although we lived in large cities, there were plenty of public places to
fly model planes within walking distance of our house. Today, I don't know
of one place within an hour's drive to do that. There isn't even a decent
hobby shop in our city from which to buy materials or kits to build flying
model planes. It makes it tough to maintain interest if you can't have
positive experiences along the way.

Neil

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?


Thanks for jump-starting this discussion again.

Comments, not in any particular order:
1. When I started attending fly-ins, the first impression was the decrepit
state of the airport facilities. Most of the buildings/hangers were built
in the 1930s through 1950s, and many of them look like they haven't been
painted since.

2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
and deserved to be assissinated.

3. I wish LSAs hadn't been prohibited from using turbines, even if a good
one to use isn't available now.

4. I just put up a longwire antenna for my shortwave, I still think being
able to hear news from a long was away is a pretty cool thing; basically,
ZERO kids do. But a subset do find the technical aspects of propogation
interesting. Ham radio and shortware used to be exotic, they aren't
anymore. When long distance phone calls were $5 for 3 minutes, long
distance was exotic, it isn't anymore. Aviation isn't exotic anymore, but
pitching the personal achievement aspect of it will get (some) kids
interested. I'm not sure pitching the "utility" of GA works, anymore the
pitching the utility of a $20,000 bass boat does, while Safeway is having a
seafood sale this week.

5. As for your specific points, I think a small turbine is always going to
cost more that a piston engine, we are there on mileage, composites,
interiors, and pretty close to there on price.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?


"Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
just don't support both without real exotic materials.

Other than that, though...


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Sep 10, 3:07 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Any comments?

First, my "kid" credentials: 34 years old, heavy internet user, geek
extraordinaire. I'm an instrument-rated private pilot. I think it's
also relevant that my pilot training was self-financed starting at the
age of 26 or so. I am not a home owner, not an aircraft owner, not a
business owner, not independently wealthy.

I learned to fly because it was a dream I had since I was a boy, and
during the boom years in Silicon Valley I was making enough (salary,
not equity) to be able to learn to fly. I rent from a local club in
Palo Alto (Sundance) that, like almost all such clubs, has mostly the
so-called grumpy old men members. I have never taken the controls of
an aircraft that did not smell like somebody's grandpa.

Even as someone who is *into* aviation, it is simply not affordable,
and its also not all that useful. I live in California, and there are
airports galore (I've been to a *lot* of them!) but when I get to the
airport I am usually stuck. Renting a car is a necessity, and often
enough not even a possibility. Cost and utility are interrelated, of
course. I've got the instrument rating, and I keep it up -- legally --
but seriously, it would cost a lot of money to keep it up to a level
of proficiency to make it truly useful. And the equipment that I can
rent for $100/hr isn't exactly hard-IFR faith inspiring, either. I
have never flown behind a panel mount GPS. I dutifully pop all those
new RNAV approaches into my book every two weeks, and wonder who the
hell is able to use these? Nobody in my club!

Of course, it's easier to come up with problems than solutions. I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA. This trend to
make new, high tech, high-end toys will only speed the erasure of GA.
On the other hand, Garmin *is* doing something to help GA. The fact
is, the new glass cockpits are much more capable than the old steam
gauges (or so I've read ) but cost about the same -- or less. That
is real progress -- getting aircraft back onto a technology curve.

If Ly/Co could somehow get back on a real product improvement curve,
that would be something to hope for, too. I don't know if turbine is
the solution. I'd say something more akin to Jabiru/Rotax is.

The LSAs, well, since they're all hovering around six figures and
above, I'm not sure who they're supposed to appeal to, either.

There is another thing that could help GA. Imagine this (admittedly
not particularly well thought-out) scenario:
-- wealthy boomers eventually die out
-- without stream of wealthy customers, GA airframe manufacturers
also die out
-- industry goes into a coma for a decade or so
-- investors re-discover aviation, buy assets of said manufacturers
for pennies on the dollar
-- new, more modest A/C designs emerge that more people can
participate in
-- GA, reborn as something that the reasonably affluent (not just
rich) can participate in

This only works if in the meantime airport closures, user fees,
insurance requirements, etc, don't make a revival impossible.

My $0.0n,
-- dave j

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.


One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message

ups.com...





This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?

"Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
just don't support both without real exotic materials.

Other than that, though...

--

I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
materials, not thermodynamics. It may take a significant investment,
but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is
using the Rotax 914 engine which is a very popular GA engine. A small
turbine may sound far fetched now, but I am sure GPS also sounded far
fetched 20 years ago, but became commonplace after heavy military
investment.

Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.

I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine. I don't know how old
you are, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that.

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
hour in a new 172? How many sneakers do you think kids today are
buying? My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes. You
need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
even find them useful sometimes.

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!

But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up. Lately, I
have rediscovered digital photography. I can't help but notice that it
also is a skill and craft, with plenty of technical stuff to nail
down, and even at its most expensive, it's a lot cheaper than
aviation. And my wife does not worry about me getting killed taking
photos. There's an appeal to that.

-- dave j

"Matt Barrow" wrote

The newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are
minor for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000
Honda Civic with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim
"features".

I think you are way off base, with that.

$150 shoes are not a large part of monthly income. $20000 cars are getting
towards a large part, but a car is a necessity. The tastes direct them
towards fart mufflers, but a newer car is going to cost that much.

How much income is going to be left over, for an average person. Could they
take a hit for another $20000 airplane? Doubtful, but possible.

How about one twice as much. Doubtful to slim, to none.

The real rub is that there are few (what people consider a real airplane)
airplanes out there at $40000. That is plain out of reach, for most kids,
or young people starting a family. It just can't be done.

Airplanes are out of reach. Until that primary fact changes, (I don't think
it is going to) GA has little chance.
--
Jim in NC