What GA needs

Paul Tomblin writes:

You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety?

No, but it's a good simulator. In fact, it's better than some older
simulators that _used_ to cost $5 million.

Maxwell writes:

You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have avoided
it.

True, but lightweight soundproofing is more expensive. So you either pay in
weight or in materials cost. I suppose the lightweight stuff would save money
over the long run--but that wouldn't help if it made the aircraft too
unaffordable up front.

Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can easily
afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly airplanes, ride jet
skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however seem to drive a Lexus, or
something a whole lot like one.

A lot of people have simply not been exposed to anything else. If everyone
were given a chance to ride an airplane, jet ski, motorcycle, bass boat, and
Lexus, I daresay there would be far fewer Lexus drivers and far more people
using the other vehicles ... at least for purposes of leisure and enjoyment
(in terms of transportation, only the motorcycle can compete with a car).

Bob Noel writes:

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

I've seen quite a few complaints about it. The noise level in many small
aircraft is high enough to damage hearing.

"Jeff Dougherty" wrote ...

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and
in some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school,...

Jeff, welcome to the head banging portion of the Mxsmanic Experience. Every
regular on this group has gone through this "reasoned discussion phase",
gotton dizzy, and fallen down. There's lots of us here to help you up. Nuff
said.

Keep focused on the med school road, but spend a bit of free time (yeah
right,...ha,ha) searching out a flying club in the area around the school.
Go to meetings and announce that you would like share some time and
expenses. You are bound to get some takers and you'll undoubtedly find
yourself on the controls (most PPLs are eager teachers). Good luck.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and
I'd
want to be instrument rated.

Speaking of Piper Cubs, I just got my tailwheel endorsement in one and I've
got to say it's one of the most fun airplanes to fly that I've ever flown.
All of a sudden it's fun to just fly around the pattern doing takeoffs and
landings again at some small grass strip, or just cruising along the
countryside with the door and windows open at 60 mph.

If you don't have your tailwheel endorsement yet and you're looking for
something fun and challenging to do that will definitely improve your
skills, I'd highly recommend doing it, especially if you can do it in
something like a '40s vintage J3. It's alot of fun and it opens up a whole
new world of airplanes to fly.

BDS

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have avoided
it.

True, but lightweight soundproofing is more expensive. So you either pay
in
weight or in materials cost. I suppose the lightweight stuff would save
money
over the long run--but that wouldn't help if it made the aircraft too
unaffordable up front.

I guess you are stupid enough to think the only way to reduce noise is some
type of insulation. Maybe wrap your head in a blanket.


Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
easily
afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly airplanes, ride
jet
skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however seem to drive a Lexus,
or
something a whole lot like one.

A lot of people have simply not been exposed to anything else. If
everyone
were given a chance to ride an airplane, jet ski, motorcycle, bass boat,
and
Lexus, I daresay there would be far fewer Lexus drivers and far more
people
using the other vehicles ... at least for purposes of leisure and
enjoyment
(in terms of transportation, only the motorcycle can compete with a car).

Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
person. Can't you follow a thread??? Take your meds.

Maxwell writes:

Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
person.

Yes, and exposing more people to aviation would potentially be a step in that
direction, although it's hard to say how many it would turn on vs. how many it
would turn off.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
person.

Yes, and exposing more people to aviation would potentially be a step in
that
direction, although it's hard to say how many it would turn on vs. how
many it
would turn off.

Give it up dip****, you still missed the point.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:07:43 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

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

You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.

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?

You have it.
Zaroc

"Zaroc Stone" ...
You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.

I've seen a lot of pilots who stop flying "cold turkey". The common first
reason given was money, but asking more questions revealed they were more
concerned about their skill degradation and the perceived value. Most of
these guys had some hard IMC in their past with the acquired skill and
equipment to match. Most viewed it as a challenge, like a mountain to climb.
Now they've "been there done that", with the nagging knowledge that their
skills have atrophied and it's costing them $400 to go up for an hour.

Side note: You're probably rolling your eyes about that $400 number. But
remember you are probably not that owner of a 30yo hi-perf airplane that has
gotten a total of 25 hrs over the last two years, with bladders, an
intermittent avionics problem, and a new Garmin " just because it would get
you interested again".

It is very hard to get these guys to give up on the Hard IMC paradigm and
get back into less complex airplanes. Their main excuse is always Speed.
Sometimes I'm successful and get them into a club; sometimes they just walk
away with their memories.

My experience of the typical flying club member: 10 to 20 hours per year,
about $100 per hour with no sales tax, and a general low whine about
availability without any actual example of when he couldn't get a plane.
That really is flying heaven for most.