What GA needs

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7814f2bf2e916@uwe...
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:


Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
however, isn't one of them.


Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine
powered
Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
dramatically shorter.

A Luscombe needs a turbine engine like a carp needs an outboard motor.

On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
towards attracting new pilots.

It's called a US-Legal ultralight. Or LSA like an X-Air H or RANS S6
for a little more $ and comfort.

You sound like the kind of person who would really get a kick out of
flying even first generation ultralghts, it really is getting right
back to basics, stick, rudder, and not a whole lot else to get between
you and the art of flying.

On Sep 12, 12:07 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
I went the same route as you are now taking. It is a long hall, and the
difficult part is that once finishing residency it takes a lot of time to
start a practice, pay back student loans, take call, and find family time.

Yeah, but if it was easy anyone would do it. :-) Seriously, I
understand what you're saying, and I don't think I'm under any
illusions about the profession. you're right, it's a long road ahead.

Can I assume from your name that you joined the Air Force at some
point? I've heard that it can compare favorably to private practice
since they take care of your overhead and malpractice premiums.

However, if you still have the fire, at least the financial aspect of it is
less of a challenge, while the hardest thing is finding the time to fly
consistently and safely.

That is one problem with generalizing my case: while the money was
definitely a factor in my decision to stop flight school, the major
one was my realization that I had four years of med school and at
least three of residency in front of me. And to be perfectly frank, I
anticipate that I'll be so busy during that time that I wouldn't be
able to keep current with flying even if someone handed me an airplane
for free, let alone actually afford rentals on a resident's salary.

But I do think that the cost of learning to fly and keeping in the air
is something that the GA community should keep an eye on. As I
alluded to above, I should be a perfect candidate for the next
generation of private pilots, in some ways: airport fence kid, airshow
junkie, Young Eagle, the works. And even absent my decision to go to
medical school, I have grave doubts as to whether I could have really
afforded aviation.

I suppose the reason I'm harping on this is that, in my admittedly
somewhat uninformed opinion as a former student pilot, rec.aviation
lurker, and AOPA website cruiser, this is a potentially missed
opportunity for the aviation community. Most of the proposals I've
seen for making it easier to fly seem to center on cutting down the
number of hours needed to get a PPL, which might not be the right way
to go for two reasons. First, it doesn't do anything to address the
cost of keeping in the air once you're a pilot, and second there are
good arguments that the PPL course really shouldn't be cut any further
than it already is.

Meanwhile, as I think another poster alluded to upthread, AOPA's focus
seems to be on high-end aircraft like Cirruses (Cirri?) and Columbias
that cost as much as a house in a high-end suburb. New build Cessnas
seem to be better, but not by a lot. The Cessna 152s are soldiering
on, but they're not getting any younger and nothing seems to be coming
along to replace them in the "cheap" ($30K) manufactured aircraft
range. There are experimentals that can come assembled in that range
such as the Kitfox, but I have a hard time imagining FBOs and aircraft
clubs taking on experimental aircraft as rentals. The high cost of
new airplanes and lack of new "cheap" designs for purchase or rent
seem to present a significant entry barrier into aviation, one that's
probably as if not more important than the number of hours required to
earn a ticket.

What's particularly disappointing to me is that it seemed the new LSA
rules were a golden opportunity to introduce a new generation of cheap
airplanes onto the market, even if they didn't have all the
capabilities of a larger private airplane. I couldn't believe it when
I saw that most new LSAs are still six-figure. It seems like there's
a real need being ignored by the manufacturers here, and that if the
piloting community could bring their attention to it and make a case
for a new generation of cheaper aircraft it would probably do much to
make flying more accessible and increase the number of private pilots.

Allright. I've said my piece twice now and probably exposed a lot of
ignorance along the way, so I promise to stop beating the dead horse.
I just wish someone would come out with a new build non-experimental
for less than $100K. :-)

-JTD

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
away that makes it worth while to do.

There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

Matt Barrow writes:

I have read such thoughts emanating from peoples as far back as the ancient
Greeks and Romans. Indeed, you are correct.

Thing is, today it's institutionalized, subsidized and glorified.

It was back then, too.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not obsessed with
aviation. If I were I would have finished the plane I've been building for 5
years a lot sooner.

Since I wasn't talking about you, this is irrelevant. Odd that you thought
otherwise. Hmm.

Matt Barrow writes:

I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school.

History and geography cannot be taught any other way, since they are mainly
just memorization of facts.

Some subjects, such as math, can be taught theoretically. However, teaching
theory rather than simple rote memorization considerably raises the bar for
students, since the former requires more intelligence than the latter. For
this reason, most learning of most things is by rote rather than by theory.
Students are taught, for (figurative) example, that everything that goes up
must come down, but they are not taught the theory of gravity.

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
that involves an actual airplane.

randall g writes:

Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
just going to cost more money.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
that involves an actual airplane.



--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"