Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?
IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability litigation,
high fuel prices, and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what
we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip
if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few "Cubs"
parked at the airport.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?

They would be more likely to be scrapped.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dan Luke wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

It should be here, too.

There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much
more
expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the
lower 48. When
that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel
and gas
Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and
carries less
weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that
Hawker
Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.


The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

C J Campbell wrote:

The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

But nearly all of our engines can run just fine on high-grade unleaded. That's what
will be in the pumps a few years from now. Diesels are popular in Europe because
gasoline costs four times what diesel costs. They will also be a good idea for pilots
who fly to places where gas is hard to get, like some parts of Canada and Alaska. As
long as there's something at the airport or the corner gas station that makes an
O-whatever work well, and that fuel isn't significantly more expensive than diesel,
diesels will not be common in U.S. GA aircraft.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

C J Campbell wrote:



The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

I keep hearing that. And hearing that. And hearing that....

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:07:57 -0400, Jeremy Lew wrote:
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

I think that we're hoping that if there were more pilots, there would be
more sanity. I learned my risk-management skills and attitude from my CFI
-- although I did shop around until I found a good one. Plus,
the regulatory-problems might be better if there were more pilots to
complain about them.

At least that's how I feel about it. The feeling might not reflect
reality, though... :-)

-Luke

"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

As a percentage, we are dropping as a percent of population

IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability
litigation,

True, and the best way to beat it is to make it more likely that someone on
the jury has some knowledge of aviation.

high fuel prices,

This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or
support a new engine design in the certified world. Volume would help, but
not a lot. We need to begin switching to autofuel (problem here IS lack of
volume, as it would rot in the tank before being sold at small airports) or
Jet A (turbo diesels are more complex than our current engines, and your
mechanic won't get trained because there are not enough tdi engines out
there. No one will buy one because the mechanics are not their to support
them).

and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

Which can most easily be overcome with - VOLUME. You see where I am coming
from?


"Dude" wrote in message
...
As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the
popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change
what
we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your
trip
if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
airports that
you would likely want to use.


Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
"Cubs"
parked at the airport.

Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
if you are long, and doomed if you are short.

The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the two
big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
them will care.

There is a good argument, potentially, cost of operation.

The Centurion could, if well supported, and up to its marketing, replace
about every engine in the 140 to 180 HP range. That is a lot of engines.
Only problem is the chicken and the egg.

Who will pay to get all the mechanics trained? Will they put together good
english manuals, pdf's, videos? Will there be someone to call during normal
US hours who speaks english and knows the engine and the FAA regs?

100LL is not necessarily going away, but its possible that when it does, it
will go quickly. Also, the less we use, the more expensive it will get ( at
least that is my guess, perhaps someone else knows better.)




"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dan Luke wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

It should be here, too.

There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much
more
expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the
lower 48. When
that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel
and gas
Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and
carries less
weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that
Hawker
Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony
assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.