The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment (2020)(airfactsjournal.com)
airfactsjournal.com
The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment (2020)
https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/11/the-20-an-hour-cessna-172-experiment/
339 comments
Mike is perhaps one the most impressive plane hackers I've seen. His creativity and transparency (he shows all the process!) are much appreciated. He inspired me to try and make some carbon fiber models for RC planes. By the second half of this year I plan to have built an RC delta wing, and use my programming knowledge to automate its flight path.
EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
I worked with a flight test engineer at Cessna who spent an hour describing his personal CitationJet RC model plane project. I was a little skeptical, but he said it even had miniature kerosene-powered jet engines.
Not that crazy, you can buy them for hobby size jets.
Fascinating. They probably have some pretty good coping techniques, since ADHD medication is generally not allowed if you're going to be flying.
Eh, maybe. They both strike me as being medicated.
There are two routes for those with ADHD who want medication and want to keep flying:
A) Get a regular or Special Issuance class 3 medical, ideally before treatment but it's possible while pausing it if you have $$$$. Immediately afterward, go get a BasicMed medical which prevents commercial operation but basically can't be denied. There's fairly limited data on ADHD medication and BasicMed but you can generally do this without fanfare, but if your regular doctor objects, find a temporary second one and just:
B) Lie (by omission). This is actually much easier than it sounds. Just go to the Aeronautical Medical Examiner's office, ask for a class 3 and Shut The Fuck Up. This is generally how the airline guys do it. If you're truly paranoid, pay for therapy and medication out of pocket. If even a minor accident occurs the FAA can and may elect to pull your insurance records. Nope, nothing is sacred to the government, not even HIPPA.
FWIW, you shouldn't have to do any of this. Mild to moderate ADHD has no impact on your ability to fly safely, ask me how I know :/
There are two routes for those with ADHD who want medication and want to keep flying:
A) Get a regular or Special Issuance class 3 medical, ideally before treatment but it's possible while pausing it if you have $$$$. Immediately afterward, go get a BasicMed medical which prevents commercial operation but basically can't be denied. There's fairly limited data on ADHD medication and BasicMed but you can generally do this without fanfare, but if your regular doctor objects, find a temporary second one and just:
B) Lie (by omission). This is actually much easier than it sounds. Just go to the Aeronautical Medical Examiner's office, ask for a class 3 and Shut The Fuck Up. This is generally how the airline guys do it. If you're truly paranoid, pay for therapy and medication out of pocket. If even a minor accident occurs the FAA can and may elect to pull your insurance records. Nope, nothing is sacred to the government, not even HIPPA.
FWIW, you shouldn't have to do any of this. Mild to moderate ADHD has no impact on your ability to fly safely, ask me how I know :/
There's a lot of overdiagnosis of childhood ADHD ≈ unruly in class.
An adult who wants to fly may be ill advised to pursue a formal diagnosis of ADHD along with prescription medications.
We all have our own particular mental quirks. If after the usual amount of flying lessons, your instructor decides you have become a competent pilot and the examiner agrees, you have demonstrated the required mental fitness. There is a drop out rate, often because of finance, but also lack of ability.
There are of course those enough affected by ADHD that they require medication to function in daily life, who unfortunately will be found unfit to fly.
Some decades down the road, aviation authorities may find a way to approve medical fitness for pilots on ADHD medication as has been done for diabetes, successfully treated alcoholism and depression treated by drugs. Most of this evolution is driven by pilot unions looking to get members back to flying status. Practically speaking, onset of ADHD is likely non-existent in airline pilots and therefore unlikely to attract the attention of pilot unions
An adult who wants to fly may be ill advised to pursue a formal diagnosis of ADHD along with prescription medications.
We all have our own particular mental quirks. If after the usual amount of flying lessons, your instructor decides you have become a competent pilot and the examiner agrees, you have demonstrated the required mental fitness. There is a drop out rate, often because of finance, but also lack of ability.
There are of course those enough affected by ADHD that they require medication to function in daily life, who unfortunately will be found unfit to fly.
Some decades down the road, aviation authorities may find a way to approve medical fitness for pilots on ADHD medication as has been done for diabetes, successfully treated alcoholism and depression treated by drugs. Most of this evolution is driven by pilot unions looking to get members back to flying status. Practically speaking, onset of ADHD is likely non-existent in airline pilots and therefore unlikely to attract the attention of pilot unions
Not sure how it cross applies to flying, but I can anecdotally say I had way more accidents and speeding tickets driving unmedicated for adhd.
I had way more speeding tickets before I decided I didn't want any more speeding tickets.
No meds needed.
No meds needed.
Could you ELI5? I was just looking into this question but I’m not familiar with the various medical examinations. What are the differences between regular, special and basic?
Traditionally to fly a plane in the US you need A class 1, 2, or 3 medical. 1 and 2 are required for airline and general commercial ops respectively and they have various rates of renewal based on class and your age ranging from 1 to 5 years. This is an FAA rule but flows down from ICAO, the international version of the FAA. They have to get all the government bodies to allow flights into each other's airspace so they standardize things like licensing, airspace rules and routes, runway layout and markings, etc. This means Saudi Arabia, China, etc, all get a say in whether your mental health condition means you can't fly a Cessna in upstate NY.
Within these rules, there is a carve out for edge cases as one would expect. If you have one of a variety of issues that are well understood but would otherwise prevent you from getting a regular medical, you can petition for a special issuance. Usually stuff like past alcohol abuse, mild depression, various physical disabilities (frequently mild types of colorblindness), etc. Ultimately these are class 1, 2, or 3 medicals with an asterisk requiring more documentation. Notably however, they do not approve them for ADHD while medicated. Typically to get one you need enough psych assessments to show it was a misdiagnosis or is extremely mild, but you can shop around until you find a psychologist who will write whatever you want.
Somewhat more recently (2016) congress passed a bill adding a 4th type of medical called BasicMed. It's a program where you complete an online web powerpoint, take a document to your doctor to fill out, and then everything after that is a conversation between you and your doctor. It is not internationally recognized so breaks the ICAO dependence stated above, but means you can't fly outside the US, even to Canada/Mexico/Caribbean islands etc, among other restrictions. It also has an extremely random requirement to have held a class 3 or higher medical after July 14th, 2006. That ended up really neutering the bill from this perspective as ADHD isn't really a late onset disorder and most people who would want to use this with ADHD have already been denied or are incapable of obtaining a class 3 without some significant effort.
Within these rules, there is a carve out for edge cases as one would expect. If you have one of a variety of issues that are well understood but would otherwise prevent you from getting a regular medical, you can petition for a special issuance. Usually stuff like past alcohol abuse, mild depression, various physical disabilities (frequently mild types of colorblindness), etc. Ultimately these are class 1, 2, or 3 medicals with an asterisk requiring more documentation. Notably however, they do not approve them for ADHD while medicated. Typically to get one you need enough psych assessments to show it was a misdiagnosis or is extremely mild, but you can shop around until you find a psychologist who will write whatever you want.
Somewhat more recently (2016) congress passed a bill adding a 4th type of medical called BasicMed. It's a program where you complete an online web powerpoint, take a document to your doctor to fill out, and then everything after that is a conversation between you and your doctor. It is not internationally recognized so breaks the ICAO dependence stated above, but means you can't fly outside the US, even to Canada/Mexico/Caribbean islands etc, among other restrictions. It also has an extremely random requirement to have held a class 3 or higher medical after July 14th, 2006. That ended up really neutering the bill from this perspective as ADHD isn't really a late onset disorder and most people who would want to use this with ADHD have already been denied or are incapable of obtaining a class 3 without some significant effort.
> Typically to get one you need enough psych assessments to show it was a misdiagnosis or is extremely mild, but you can shop around until you find a psychologist who will write whatever you want.
Just want to clarify something on this point. Doctor shopping doesn't really work well here. The FAA has a list of doctors it listens to, and anyone else's opinion is as good as useless.
Just want to clarify something on this point. Doctor shopping doesn't really work well here. The FAA has a list of doctors it listens to, and anyone else's opinion is as good as useless.
Oh very cool. I have a friend who gets some medication from another friend for this reason: he doesn't want it to interfere with his PPL.
[deleted]
The run around is just "if you built more than half of it, you can be trusted to maintain it" which isn't really all that scandalous. It's actually been a very healthy thing for the GA industry in recent years given the issues outlined in TFA
Not so much a "runaround" as "established procedure by the FAA". The big restriction is that you really can't use them for commercial purposes.
But they're getting rid of the LODA requirement for experimentals at least so flight training can be done again in them at least.
"They" in this case is Congress. The FAA never does anything unless forced to do so by Congress.
LODA requirement is gone now btw
Mike is the real-life Tony Stark.
I like how you talk about a Carbon Cub and then link one of the more famous Cub Killer (Kitfox) Youtubers. ;)
[2020]
Seemingly the author is still working at it:
https://corsairpower.com/
Last update (2022):
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...
Seemingly the author is still working at it:
https://corsairpower.com/
Last update (2022):
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...
Very cool. And also a little depressing that the state of the art is still back where it was in 2000 when I last looked at this.
May they drive a revolution.
May they drive a revolution.
I worked as a software engineer on the single engine "reboot" at Cessna in the mid '90s. At the time the company would pay for your private pilot's license, up to ATP cert IIRC. I knew a number of people who got their license that way. Cessna had a great ground school and a nice flying club with well-maintained planes. Ultimately, many of the people who got their license ended up not carrying on with flying. It is a very time consuming hobby and not really a practical mode of (even occasional) transportation. I now regret contributing to the single engine program (and the jets) due to the cost to the environment--I can't believe they still use leaded avgas. I read recently that private jets have at least an order of magnitude higher emissions per passenger mile than commercial.
Jets have a huge fuel consumption per passenger per mile; airliners have it lower because of the scale. GA is different, in some cases it takes less avgas to fly from A to B than driving a car. In my case, flying a Rotax 912 powered plane to my parents' house takes 2 hours and 30 liters of unleaded gas, driving takes 8-9 hours and 40 liters of Diesel, the environment is happier with me flying than driving.
It was hard to find emissions data on the Rotax 912, from a Rotax support list [1]:
>> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions.
> I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck.
even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem.
(I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.)
I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?"
In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets.
--
[1] https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/653...
[2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410
>> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions.
> I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck.
even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem.
(I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.)
I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?"
In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets.
--
[1] https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/653...
[2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410
Back of the napkin calculation is that burning 30 liters of unleaded gas gets you less emissions than 40 liters of Diesel; it is not only more fuel burned (with more CO2 as a result), but Diesel emissions are usually worse than gas.
The "living closer" is not an option, the place where my grandparents lived and my father was born cannot be moved. Me moving closer to the middle of nowhere (village in the mountains) is not really an option. Flying or driving there once a year is not a big deal, it is a short flight in a straight line versus a long, slow drive around mountains. The airstrip is a few hundred meters away.
The "living closer" is not an option, the place where my grandparents lived and my father was born cannot be moved. Me moving closer to the middle of nowhere (village in the mountains) is not really an option. Flying or driving there once a year is not a big deal, it is a short flight in a straight line versus a long, slow drive around mountains. The airstrip is a few hundred meters away.
Leaded gas is on the (long overdue) way out, now that there's finally an unleaded option approved for the entire piston fleet.
A modern piston plane can get the equivalent of 30 MPG, and fly directly to its destination. So there's no need to rag on it.
A modern piston plane can get the equivalent of 30 MPG, and fly directly to its destination. So there's no need to rag on it.
Except that to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) they still have non-closed loop emissions--no catalytic converter or EGR--which would mean a brand new Rotax 912 would emit more NOx, CO, and VOCs than my 20 year old Mazda gas engine car. I feel like it is my right to "rag" on something which doesn't have to follow the same rules as I do.
To be fair, my neighbors probably emit 10X the pollution running their backpack-mounted, gas-powered leaf blowers and open fire pits year round. I rag on them too, and display my rake in protest.
To be fair, my neighbors probably emit 10X the pollution running their backpack-mounted, gas-powered leaf blowers and open fire pits year round. I rag on them too, and display my rake in protest.
This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed.
Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages.
An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit.
The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing.
The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up.
And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane.
Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems.
Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.
Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages.
An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit.
The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing.
The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up.
And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane.
Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems.
Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.
> This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.
The engines don’t require lead, it was just the only high octane fuel available. We do have a 100LL replacement now, and work is being done to get it into service. Lower compression engines run just fine on mogas where it’s available too.
The issue I have is why should an air cooled engine designed in the 50’s cost 30k to buy?
I think that is just the reality of non-mass manufacturing. In the 50's those engines were going into production cars in the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Now they are produced in numbers of hundreds, maybe thousands, and as such they are hand-built specialty engines, even as primitive as they are.
This is what most people miss. Yes the FAA is slow, certification is costly, and liability messed things up in the 80s -- but you can't get the huge cost reductions we see in the automotive sector without mass-production. Aircraft are essentially hand-made in a labor intensive processes, using individually crafted components.
It's not hard to see what certification costs, take an EAB kit, use all non-certified avionics, and even take an automotive engine and convert it for aircraft use if you want. If you spec that out equivalently* to a certified aircraft, taking labor costs into account (you don't get to count the 1500 hours in your garage as free), it's less than comparable certified aircraft, but not orders of magnitude less.
(By equivalent, I mean safety and redundancy -- ifr capable. Not talking about making my own AP with cheap servos and a raspberrypi and navigating with a handheld gps)
It's not hard to see what certification costs, take an EAB kit, use all non-certified avionics, and even take an automotive engine and convert it for aircraft use if you want. If you spec that out equivalently* to a certified aircraft, taking labor costs into account (you don't get to count the 1500 hours in your garage as free), it's less than comparable certified aircraft, but not orders of magnitude less.
(By equivalent, I mean safety and redundancy -- ifr capable. Not talking about making my own AP with cheap servos and a raspberrypi and navigating with a handheld gps)
None of the common air-cooled aviation engines designed in the 50's were used in production cars.
I think the mooney bravo had a porsche engine at some point? But otherwise you are correct. It wouldn't make any sense to use engines in both cars and planes because they are such massively different requirements: One needs extreme reliability at basically one RPM and power output and has things like double spark plugs for robustness, the other wants to keep costs down and reach higher RPMs
Price gauging. Same for Rotax 912, the most popular small engine on planes that don't need certification (LSA/ULM) and they are 20,000 Euro for a 1.3 liter engine with an 100 HP output.
9k for a rebuilt Toyota 2f designed in to 50s & meant for a measly ground vehicle. 30k seems about right for an airplane. What do you do for a living? Why don’t you do it for less?
That's the whole point, Toyota automotive engines are mass-produced by machines that literally work for less.
The Toyota 2F is an out of production engine that fulfills a niche market, it costs 3x as much to rebuild one as a new Toyota engine. The parts don’t cost much more and there are fewer of them. They cost more to rebuild because that is the going rate. Should the shops doing 2F rebuilds charge less? As others have pointed out in this thread, car engines are not well suited for air use, so the market will remain small and made up of people willing and able to pay 30k.
+ if the Toyota engine fails in a car you tow it to a shop -- if the 172 engine fails you emergency land in the best case (or crash in the worst). There is just a whole lot more onus to work on plane engines and that should and does come with a price tag...
Their mod of a car engine is claimed to work with 4 failed cylinders out of 8, has redundant ignition and fuel injection.
[deleted]
The very short answer is certification and what goes into the overall environment of certified aircraft.
(The slightly longer answer is it's a cottage industry. Small shops, small quantities. Car buyers are spoiled, general aviation is more like buying a built motor from a tuning shop.)
Haven't these engines been certified many many decades ago, so that cost should already have been paid?
Yes but!
There are still many other things in certificated aircraft that are changing regularly based on ADs. This means “we found something in this decades old design that shows up when the fleet is in its 30s.”
Aircraft have VERY long lifetimes in comparison to most things. I own a 1962 Cessna - it is on its second engine, the first having been overhauled once. Some Cessnas from the 70s are still running on their originally installed engine.
Defects and issues are still addressed ongoing, and maintaining the certification for things like modifications for improved power generation still means significant work. It’s definitely not a one-and-done thing - part of the value of certification is in the continuous future improvement that comes from NTSB findings or inspection reports sent to the FAA.
It’s like an engine fault light spread across the whole fleet. The certification keeps the light working.
There are still many other things in certificated aircraft that are changing regularly based on ADs. This means “we found something in this decades old design that shows up when the fleet is in its 30s.”
Aircraft have VERY long lifetimes in comparison to most things. I own a 1962 Cessna - it is on its second engine, the first having been overhauled once. Some Cessnas from the 70s are still running on their originally installed engine.
Defects and issues are still addressed ongoing, and maintaining the certification for things like modifications for improved power generation still means significant work. It’s definitely not a one-and-done thing - part of the value of certification is in the continuous future improvement that comes from NTSB findings or inspection reports sent to the FAA.
It’s like an engine fault light spread across the whole fleet. The certification keeps the light working.
The market is not determined by covering costs.
Ultimately, how many new engines are getting certified to put the current ones out of business through lower prices?
Ultimately, how many new engines are getting certified to put the current ones out of business through lower prices?
Even if the design is certified, I’d imagine the shops that produce them would still have ongoing certification costs to validate the equipment, tooling, etc. On going costs that would have the distributed across a limited number of engines.
I'm a fan of the Rotaxes. I fly one in our club's Tecnam. I prefer it over the old tractor engines that run the Piper I fly sometimes.
Curious if you have any thoughs on Sling for kit builds? I'm very serioulsy considering building their new HW (https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-hw/) that has the new Rotax 915 (turbocharged) in it in the next 12-18 months.
Curious if you have any thoughs on Sling for kit builds? I'm very serioulsy considering building their new HW (https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-hw/) that has the new Rotax 915 (turbocharged) in it in the next 12-18 months.
You’ll be waiting longer than that for a Sling HW. It was nearly a 3 year waiting list when I ordered one last summer.
Are you still waiting?
Yes! I should check on that, see if they at least have a number for me yet.
I’d love to chat more with you about this. My emails in my profile… feel free to ping me.
One other very big advantage to a more modern engine design is the ability to potentially run on unleaded fuels.
Unleaded avgas is now fully approved for the GA fleet with existing engines and is actively being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption next year. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
That's good, but if the FAA had been more permissive in allowing automotive-derived engines with electronic fuel injection and ethanol fuel mixes, we could have phased out 100LL back in the 90s.
Really? Electronic ignition and fuel injection alone are advantageous enough, not to mention the ability of at least one Rotax engine to use true automotive gas (gasohol).
As the article points out, the writing was on the wall for leaded fuel decades ago. The GA industry killed itself by dragging ass on eliminating the need for it, abetted by the burdensome FAA certification process for any aviation advancements.
It may be too late to save GA. BasicMed was a big help, and the increased pace of STC approval has been a boon. But with the FAA derelict in its duty to protect airports (see the sellout of Santa Monica as an example) and corrupt local governments eager to destroy our public airports and sell their land to developers... the future looks grim indeed. Just as electric training aircraft, unleaded fuel, and less-polluting and more-efficient engines render the anti-aviation cabal's excuses moot.
As the article points out, the writing was on the wall for leaded fuel decades ago. The GA industry killed itself by dragging ass on eliminating the need for it, abetted by the burdensome FAA certification process for any aviation advancements.
It may be too late to save GA. BasicMed was a big help, and the increased pace of STC approval has been a boon. But with the FAA derelict in its duty to protect airports (see the sellout of Santa Monica as an example) and corrupt local governments eager to destroy our public airports and sell their land to developers... the future looks grim indeed. Just as electric training aircraft, unleaded fuel, and less-polluting and more-efficient engines render the anti-aviation cabal's excuses moot.
Having trained in some old 172s, I appreciate regulations that require updated weights and balances with a licensed mechanic when the owner does something like upgrading avionics. So I understand the cost of keeping those things airworthy.
But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go.
It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.
But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go.
It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.
He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.
He's in a cheap area or something.
Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point.
I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..
Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point.
I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..
Yeah, prices in CO (where Corsairpower is based) are ~100-150/hr wet for a 172, plus 30-40/hr for an instructor. I think I'm paying ~120/hr plus a varying "fuel surcharge" of ~20/hr for a T41-D.
The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.
The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.
> The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up
Why is this?
Why is this?
>People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
Safety purposes. If you're away from the school, a student gets off course, bad weather, etc, they would much rather you have extra fuel than too little.
It's also dependent on what's being flown. Sometimes they will fly with less for weight and balance.
It's also dependent on what's being flown. Sometimes they will fly with less for weight and balance.
Also condensation in the tanks. Keeping them topped off helps prevent that.
Other than a slightly nicer looking dash with a digital radio, the brand new $500,000 Cessna 172, is almost exactly the same as the 1950s-1970s era models that make up the overwhelming bulk of the fleet.
The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?
I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods.
Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells?
Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells?
Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
They’re all much cheaper than they were and more advanced by leaps and bounds.
GA airplane production collapsed from a peak production of 17k a year in the 1970s to a few thousand a year starting in the 90s continuing to today. Cars and tractors and tanks and even jets have all seen their markets grow, not disappear.
GA airplane production collapsed from a peak production of 17k a year in the 1970s to a few thousand a year starting in the 90s continuing to today. Cars and tractors and tanks and even jets have all seen their markets grow, not disappear.
"Fun" fact - it was the lawyers that did it.
There was a real nasty lawsuit against one of the GA manufacturers. I believe it was Cirrus but it could be Cessna. Basically, this person sued everyone because their relative died in a flight. I mean everyone, if your part could be installed in this aircraft, sued.
The result was that Cessna stopped making the 172 in 1986 because the legal liability was too high. The most popular aircraft ever made was not for sale because of the liability. Production has resumed but something like 50% of the cost is just liability insurance for the inevitable lawsuit.
There was a real nasty lawsuit against one of the GA manufacturers. I believe it was Cirrus but it could be Cessna. Basically, this person sued everyone because their relative died in a flight. I mean everyone, if your part could be installed in this aircraft, sued.
The result was that Cessna stopped making the 172 in 1986 because the legal liability was too high. The most popular aircraft ever made was not for sale because of the liability. Production has resumed but something like 50% of the cost is just liability insurance for the inevitable lawsuit.
In the mid 90s, Congress passed a law capping the liability tail for manufacturers. That helped some, in that most of the planes from the 50s and 60s were off the manufacturer’s books.
But it’s still crazy because GA is a high income pursuit. So any lawsuit for lifetime earnings is going to be huge.
But it’s still crazy because GA is a high income pursuit. So any lawsuit for lifetime earnings is going to be huge.
could it have been Beechcraft? They made the Bonanza, not so affectionately called the "fork-tailed Dr killer" and maybe not so fairly either. I think they weren't particularly unsafe, but being more expensive they had a different population flying them.
No, the rate of accidents with Bonanza was found to be caused not by any defect of the airplane, but the high performance airplane-low pilot skill combination. It was a had too big for many people.
Those swinging yokes on the Beechcraft Bonanza were way weirder than the V tail.
That’s sometimes true but the standards have improved so much it’s hard to do these comparisons.
A new Model T in 1925 cost had fallen to 260$, that’s roughly $4,348 in todays money. Sure it’s missing a great deal of modern features, but it’s hard to get a new golf cart at that price.
A new Model T in 1925 cost had fallen to 260$, that’s roughly $4,348 in todays money. Sure it’s missing a great deal of modern features, but it’s hard to get a new golf cart at that price.
Very basic cars, similar to (probably better than) the Model T can still be made. For example the Tata Nano.
People can afford much nicer cars now. Regulations also require decent crash safety. There's not much of a market for these kinds of super-cheap cars.
Though it'd be interesting to work out how much an exact clone of the Model T would cost today (mass produced using modern technology).
People can afford much nicer cars now. Regulations also require decent crash safety. There's not much of a market for these kinds of super-cheap cars.
Though it'd be interesting to work out how much an exact clone of the Model T would cost today (mass produced using modern technology).
It’s funny you use the term “afford”. People generally can’t afford modern cars, but thanks to buying on credit becoming such a big part of our culture (curiously enough, also thanks to Ford) we can pretend that we can!
I suspect most people buying new cars could actually afford to buy a new car without using credit. The difference is companies want you to make poor financial decisions.
The numbers suggest this is false, for the US at least. The oft-repeated study comes into mind that 47% of Americans can't cover a surprise 500 dollar expense without it being a major worry. See also the fact that the average new car purchased in the US today is 50 grand. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here but if both those stats are true then it's clear there's likely a large overlap between people who are broke and people who are driving expensive cars.
Aside from that, there's the fact that if you can actually afford it, then it's likely better to finance than to pay cash because you can invest the full purchase price of the car for a higher return than the interest you would pay.
Aside from that, there's the fact that if you can actually afford it, then it's likely better to finance than to pay cash because you can invest the full purchase price of the car for a higher return than the interest you would pay.
On average a new car buyers keeps their car 8.4 years, while cars are lasting 25 years. Thus new car buyers are literally quite different than the average American.
Anyway, that’s an unexpected 500$ expense. My point was people financing a 50+k new car could fairly easily buy a 17,600 car out of pocket by waiting a little longer before purchase. Large scale changes in purchasing habits would have significant knock on effects for the used car market, but that’s another story.
Anyway, that’s an unexpected 500$ expense. My point was people financing a 50+k new car could fairly easily buy a 17,600 car out of pocket by waiting a little longer before purchase. Large scale changes in purchasing habits would have significant knock on effects for the used car market, but that’s another story.
Did you mean buying a new used car vs a new car? That would financially be a better choice for most americans, yes. But of course you then run into the uncertainty of how long the used car you buy might go before it needs major service. A riskier option that loosely reflects the Pratchett/Vimes “new boots” theory.
No, I meant the cheapest new car vs the new car they can reasonably finance. The cheapest new car is generally cheaper than a nice used car and it’s got a vastly lower cost of ownership.
Holding off on a X$/month car payment on a 50k car can very quickly turn into a new 18k car. Continuing to put away that same car payment and you’re able to buy a 50k car out of pocket quite soon. Essentially financing doesn’t make expensive cars more affordable it simply allows people to buy them sooner.
Holding off on a X$/month car payment on a 50k car can very quickly turn into a new 18k car. Continuing to put away that same car payment and you’re able to buy a 50k car out of pocket quite soon. Essentially financing doesn’t make expensive cars more affordable it simply allows people to buy them sooner.
I guess I misunderstood your point. I was thinking you were saying that you thought most people walking into a dealership and getting loans a on 30k+ new car could afford to pay cash instead. For the same car.
Mass produced with modern tech? Probably sub $1k and sold at harbor freight.
The model T was pretty simple, and you can buy engines with waaaay more power - and longer life, quieter, more efficient, etc. too for sub $500 at harbor freight and strap it to a frame, and off you go.
The model T was pretty simple, and you can buy engines with waaaay more power - and longer life, quieter, more efficient, etc. too for sub $500 at harbor freight and strap it to a frame, and off you go.
[deleted]
If you buy a new car today, it'll be better than a 40 year old car in pretty much every metric. Performance, fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, etc.
I think the OP is complaining that they're paying "modern vehicle" prices to rent a plane that has had minimal changes since the 1960s. The vast majority of old cars (other than collectable ones with low mileage) are gonna be cheaper than they were new.
I think the OP is complaining that they're paying "modern vehicle" prices to rent a plane that has had minimal changes since the 1960s. The vast majority of old cars (other than collectable ones with low mileage) are gonna be cheaper than they were new.
I think one of the gotchas with that is that there are no “equivalent” no frills new vehicles to purchase. Until recently I drove a 91 Ranger (original MSRP apparently around $9600). Inflation-adjusted that comes to $20,627 in 2022. My only two complaints about it was that it was only 2WD and it had small wheels that were more difficult every year to find winter tires for. In the harsh Canadian prairie winter it would readily get stuck on flat ground. Otherwise it perfectly met all my needs.
In the end I replaced it with a 5 year old low mileage Tacoma, but paid close to twice what the Ranger’s inflation-adjusted MSRP was, and that was before the used car market went crazy. If I’d wanted to I could have probably resold it and made a $10k profit on it 6 months later. Do I love this truck? Definitely. Would I have been perfectly happy with a 4WD no-frills manual transmission truck and a $300 aftermarket deck with Bluetooth? Definitely, but it wasn’t an option.
In the end I replaced it with a 5 year old low mileage Tacoma, but paid close to twice what the Ranger’s inflation-adjusted MSRP was, and that was before the used car market went crazy. If I’d wanted to I could have probably resold it and made a $10k profit on it 6 months later. Do I love this truck? Definitely. Would I have been perfectly happy with a 4WD no-frills manual transmission truck and a $300 aftermarket deck with Bluetooth? Definitely, but it wasn’t an option.
The core features of most capital products are basically commodities. Every car now has an automatic transmission, A/C, fancy radio, electric windows, etc...
Manufacturer's can only increase prices (and thus keep ahead of inflation) by innovating the edge with new features, wanted or not.
Is Ford or Caterpillar really best positioned to design and deliver a mobile flat-panel touch screen device? Not likely, but putting one in their vehicles creates opportunities for higher prices and new innovations.
VERY LITTLE of this is available in the aircraft market where every new part number requires justification, testing, and approval.
The health-care market is very similar yet demand is so high and inelastic that it still justifies huge investments.
Aviation... not so much
Manufacturer's can only increase prices (and thus keep ahead of inflation) by innovating the edge with new features, wanted or not.
Is Ford or Caterpillar really best positioned to design and deliver a mobile flat-panel touch screen device? Not likely, but putting one in their vehicles creates opportunities for higher prices and new innovations.
VERY LITTLE of this is available in the aircraft market where every new part number requires justification, testing, and approval.
The health-care market is very similar yet demand is so high and inelastic that it still justifies huge investments.
Aviation... not so much
Cars are a lot cheaper, taking inflation into account and before taxes (I am writing from Denmark)
And they are much better. You can get a small car with ABS brakes, airbags, radio, air-conditioning, a fuel-efficient engine, etc that drives really well, for two months salary.
Tanks and jets are probably much more expensive. But some of that is because there is literately an arms race.
You need to pay for something that is much better than you had before or you service men will die because the enemy did get something that is better and more expensive.
I would love to own a classic sports car. I would happily pay for the extra fuels and take the risk of not having airbags, ABS brakes etc.
I am grateful that I do not have to go to war. But if I were, I would not want to do it a "classic" tank or fighter jet.
Now Ukraine is getting our old Leopard 1 tanks which have a lot of firepower and moves fast but have less armour than modern tanks, which might work because the Russians most have old tanks left.
But there is a good reason that European countries have bought Leopard 2 tanks that are much more expensive and 24 tonnes heavier.
Tanks and jets are probably much more expensive. But some of that is because there is literately an arms race.
You need to pay for something that is much better than you had before or you service men will die because the enemy did get something that is better and more expensive.
I would love to own a classic sports car. I would happily pay for the extra fuels and take the risk of not having airbags, ABS brakes etc.
I am grateful that I do not have to go to war. But if I were, I would not want to do it a "classic" tank or fighter jet.
Now Ukraine is getting our old Leopard 1 tanks which have a lot of firepower and moves fast but have less armour than modern tanks, which might work because the Russians most have old tanks left.
But there is a good reason that European countries have bought Leopard 2 tanks that are much more expensive and 24 tonnes heavier.
> I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods.
The government doesn't. They artificially suppress inflation numbers by counting technological progress as deflation.
The government doesn't. They artificially suppress inflation numbers by counting technological progress as deflation.
Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars.
https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...
https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...
Their cheapest one failed a crash test against a child's pinata.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI
Well, yes, they're not particularly good or safe cars.
I didn't expect one to fare well in a crash test against another car.
I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box.
There's "unsafe", and then there's this.
I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box.
There's "unsafe", and then there's this.
It messed up the bumper? Wouldn't that happen with tons of cars?
And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.
And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.
None of that damage should have occurred from a pinata.
At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
I'd like to see some tests with other vehicles. A pinata at that speed is still a good chunk of force and many bumpers are plastic.
> At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
Sure but if you're doing that then you don't need the pinata test at all.
> At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
Sure but if you're doing that then you don't need the pinata test at all.
[deleted]
As unsafe as cars in the 60s.
A 60s Buick would not lose against a pinata.
The cars in the 60s were rigid. This meant that, by and large, the car did damage to everything else until that threshold was passed.
The problem was two fold:
1) You tended to get thrown around inside the rigid box since internal restraints weren't very good (poor seatbelts, poor headrests, no airbags, etc.).
2) Once you finally had enough energy to get past the failure point, the car collapse was uncontrolled. This generally meant that the steering column got pushed into the driver.
The cars in the 60s were rigid. This meant that, by and large, the car did damage to everything else until that threshold was passed.
The problem was two fold:
1) You tended to get thrown around inside the rigid box since internal restraints weren't very good (poor seatbelts, poor headrests, no airbags, etc.).
2) Once you finally had enough energy to get past the failure point, the car collapse was uncontrolled. This generally meant that the steering column got pushed into the driver.
No, 60s cars were rigid boxes that did not crumple --which because of a lack of other safety features meant you got ejected or got banged around inside this metal box. These things allow you to get squished inside the foil box.
So the whole rigid box thing is kinda a "they dont make em like this anymore" myth. Here's a 1959 Chevy crashed into a 2009 Chevy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck. They both crumple, but the 2009 only crumples in the crumple zones. The crumpling on the 1959 impala is more spread out and you can see includes more of the interior
It's less about that sort of crash and more about small fender benders. You're likely to get much more bumper damage hitting a car at 5 mph in stop and go traffic in a modern car. (The upside being, of course, you're a lot less likely to snap a pedestrian's leg in a similar hit.)
More bumper damage sure, but even at a couple miles per hour, a car where the bumper bolts straight to the frame moving at a couple miles an hour has to dissipate that energy. I'd expect to see some bent metal. My 82 bronco actually has a foot of steel bars that act as sacrificial bumper mounts so the frame doesn't take that impact.
> Are cars cheaper today?
Cars are AVAILABLE for pretty much the same price.
People WANT more expensive cars.
The Volkswagen Beetle was pretty much the least expensive car on the market for its entire sales run in the United States.
The inflation-adjusted price of a Beetle in 1973 was around $12,000.
The price of a Chevrolet Spark in 2022? $13,000.
Nobody wants a Spark, though. They want an SUV. So Chevy killed the Spark.
Before Chevy discontinued the Spark you could walk onto a lot and drive away in one of the dozen or so Sparks they had rotting away in the corner for less than the price of a VW Beetle in 1973-- and the Spark was superior in every measurable way.
2023's cheapest car is the Nissan Versa. You can 100% find dealers who will part with one for less than the cost of a Beetle. It is also better than the Beetle.
Cars are AVAILABLE for pretty much the same price.
People WANT more expensive cars.
The Volkswagen Beetle was pretty much the least expensive car on the market for its entire sales run in the United States.
The inflation-adjusted price of a Beetle in 1973 was around $12,000.
The price of a Chevrolet Spark in 2022? $13,000.
Nobody wants a Spark, though. They want an SUV. So Chevy killed the Spark.
Before Chevy discontinued the Spark you could walk onto a lot and drive away in one of the dozen or so Sparks they had rotting away in the corner for less than the price of a VW Beetle in 1973-- and the Spark was superior in every measurable way.
2023's cheapest car is the Nissan Versa. You can 100% find dealers who will part with one for less than the cost of a Beetle. It is also better than the Beetle.
Carmakers want to sell expensive cars.
Back in the 1970s my dad had plenty of stories about how American car dealers had all kinds of excuses why they couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't sell you a small car.
Now the Japanese car dealers do the same thing.
A few years I went to a Honda dealer looking for a new Fit, found they didn't have any because "the factory washed out in a flood" but they had 50 CR-Vs which are made in the same factory which were somehow not affected by the flood.
They really ought to put up or shut up: when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle but it is a sign they want to sell you a monster vehicle.
Back in the 1970s my dad had plenty of stories about how American car dealers had all kinds of excuses why they couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't sell you a small car.
Now the Japanese car dealers do the same thing.
A few years I went to a Honda dealer looking for a new Fit, found they didn't have any because "the factory washed out in a flood" but they had 50 CR-Vs which are made in the same factory which were somehow not affected by the flood.
They really ought to put up or shut up: when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle but it is a sign they want to sell you a monster vehicle.
The only reason for a manufacturer to want to produce a cheap car is to sell a ton of them at a low margin. If not enough people are buying them, then there's no reason to continue selling them. At sub-$20,000, you're going to be better off buying a used car than a new, bare bones car. This wasn't the case decades ago when cars were a lot less reliable and generational improvements were much larger.
>when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle
What cars are you talking about? It's generally the "monster vehicles" that have the greatest markup (e.g. Bronco Raptor)
>when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle
What cars are you talking about? It's generally the "monster vehicles" that have the greatest markup (e.g. Bronco Raptor)
> People WANT more expensive cars.
Because it's very easy to get financing for a car, that's why. If they had to pay it out of pocket you bet they'd choose the cheaper car.
Because it's very easy to get financing for a car, that's why. If they had to pay it out of pocket you bet they'd choose the cheaper car.
The car today that costs the same as the price of a car yesterday. But your car of today provides airbags, ABS brakes, much better crash protection, backup cameras, power windows, automatic transmissions, the list goes on and on. You are getting way more for the same dollar you paid in the past for cars
Cars are definitely cheaper today especially if you discount for the massive amount of features that have been added
I did a discovery flight with my son last summer in a C172. We had a blast, but I was pretty surprised how old the plane felt. My recurring thought is that Cessnas are like the TI-85s of airplanes; ubiquitous workhorses frozen in time.
Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
For certified piston aircraft, generally yes. The engines are pretty much made by a few manufacturers based on ancient designs, and while you may get some "newer" benefits in some models, such as fuel injection (instead of carborators), or digital engine control (FADEC), they're pretty much ancient technology compared to modern engines. Most still have manual mixture control for example and very limited monitoring.
The only example in that class (sub $750k) I can think off the top of my head with a better engine is DA40 NG, which uses a modified Mercedes diesel engine.
The only example in that class (sub $750k) I can think off the top of my head with a better engine is DA40 NG, which uses a modified Mercedes diesel engine.
There is a pretty big "experimental" scene with small and ultra light airplanes. Experimental here basically meaning you can't use it for comercial. So mostly because of the costs of certification and liabilities involved and how the segment of the market is lifestyle/hobyists you end up with a lot of nice modern small planes that only the owner/syndicate flies and only for personal flights.
There's plenty of neat little planes out there, my favorite was basically the go cart equivalent of a jet that I saw at our club airport. Something like this https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070
There's plenty of neat little planes out there, my favorite was basically the go cart equivalent of a jet that I saw at our club airport. Something like this https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070
The GA market pretty much died in the late 80s. Outside of very high end flight schools (think University programs targeting potential airline pilots), or the doctors and dentists flying Cirruses... yea, they pretty much ARE all that old.
Even the 172 went totally out of production for a decade. Cessna almost went under.
Even the 172 went totally out of production for a decade. Cessna almost went under.
Someone else can tell the story better than I can, but supposedly the cost of certification of new light-aircraft models got out of control in the 1980s, which stifled product evolution, so it became more cost-effective to keep a really old plane airworthy than to scrap it and buy the latest and greatest. I do know there's been a lot of innovation in the LSA (light-sport aircraft) segment, so it does seem odd that four-seater and two-seater evolution would diverge so much.
I have a feeling I'm perpetrating a certain angle to the truth (maybe that product-liability lawyers suck). I'm just passing on what I heard -- please don't shoot the messenger. A more comprehensive retelling would be appreciated.
I have a feeling I'm perpetrating a certain angle to the truth (maybe that product-liability lawyers suck). I'm just passing on what I heard -- please don't shoot the messenger. A more comprehensive retelling would be appreciated.
It’s not just Cessnas. Besides the normal wear and tear of a plane that’s potentially 40 years old, most of the single-engine planes at a flight school are going to see extra abuse from all the student pilots.
Student pilots = flying multiple trips several hours almost every day, on a tie down outside.
Compared to the doctor owner pilot who flies 1 hour to get a hamburger once or twice a year, and keeps it hangared the rest of the time.
Compared to the doctor owner pilot who flies 1 hour to get a hamburger once or twice a year, and keeps it hangared the rest of the time.
You're not paying for a depreciated product. You're paying for the maintenance and operating fees which don't depreciate in value.
On an airplane you’re really paying for the engine. Typically after 2000 hours (depending on the model) they are supposed to be overhauled, which will be a cool $20-30k or so for something like the 172 in the OP. If you’re airplane shopping you’ll see a very tight correlation between the asking price and the “SMOH” time or hours since major overhaul.
For $20-30k, you likely can buy and install a new engine, or two, were it car engines. (That's the route taken in the article.)
Car or bike engines are not made to run continuously at 75% of max power with 1500-2000 between overhauls. Otherwise you can put a motorcycle engine in the plane, even better power to weight ratio (200 HP/liter) than car engines, but it does not work.
This article suggests that they started with a marine engine, typically an automotive engine that's been modified for these duty cycles by changing cams, timing, bearings, etc. Probably not all existing automotive engines are well suited to these applications, but they only need one or two.
Obviously an aviation application has other added constraints like elevation changes, inverted operation, packaging requirements, etc, but "runs at 75% max power for hours at a time" is certainly in common with the marine applications, and trivially demonstrated on a dyno stand.
Obviously an aviation application has other added constraints like elevation changes, inverted operation, packaging requirements, etc, but "runs at 75% max power for hours at a time" is certainly in common with the marine applications, and trivially demonstrated on a dyno stand.
GA does not fly inverted; elevation changes are influencing mostly the air mixture. Just saying, not contradicting.
Old marine applications would use carburetors and often those carburetors weren't at all suited to changes in elevation. (Most of my knowledge is actually only of a specific family of Volvo / Penta pushrod engines)
Probably airplanes, even in GA situations, are able to operate under negative Gs far more often that a typical marine application.... A person adapting such an engine would ideally think about oil pickup under such scenarios.
Probably airplanes, even in GA situations, are able to operate under negative Gs far more often that a typical marine application.... A person adapting such an engine would ideally think about oil pickup under such scenarios.
It seems like kind of a slam dunk, though I wonder about the reliability of a car engine left at full-throttle (or close to it) for long periods of time the way airplane engines are.
That’s part of the secret if you head over to the Corsair website: https://corsairpower.com/. They’ve significantly derated the engine with a custom ECU and added a gearbox to better match prop RPM to engine RPM. They’re rating it at “conservatively” (their words) 3000 hours TBO.
imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.
I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
According to BLS.GOV - 1970 $45 == 2022 $353.
Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.
According to BLS.GOV - 1970 $45 == 2022 $353.
Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.
That's innovation in my book. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce your costs while improving emissions, especially when we're talking about 30+ year old technology.
If 30 years ago you could fly a brand new plane for a price and now you can fly a 30 year old plane for a lot higher price, he is right to complain. It is the same comparing the price of a new car 30 years ago with the price of that used car now, with half a million miles on it, ignoring the potential "vintage, mint condition" surcharge.
Tiny correction, it's not really true that an experimental can't land at a class bravo airport.
There's really very little reason for a GA single piston aircraft to land at a Class B airport anyway.
I fairly regularly (several times per year) land our A36 at a class B airport: mostly BWI, PIT, and DTW. They are often the most convenient airport to access something downtown (such as a sporting event via public transport or a shorter Uber ride). Even our older 182 could blend in reasonably well speed-wise [though it often meant flying at full cruise power through much of the approach to keep the speed up to 135-140 KTAS].
Family has extra members so keep thinking about an A36, currently fly a Mooney. Seems to be better than paying Baron upkeep.
Any advice welcome.
Any advice welcome.
Join Beechtalk (free).
I love the A36TN. For a traveling over 300nm airplane, I don’t ever want a normally aspirated piston again. The next clear step better than an A36TN is 7-figures and burns Jet-A.
I have only a couple hours in an M20, so I can’t fairly compare it directly. A36 club seating is well-liked by the family. (Have owned it 9.5 years; wife has literally never sat up front.) Turbo and TKS well-liked by me. It’s not cheap, but it’s reasonably economical and fairly fast. 185 knots on 16-17 gph. Can climb 1000 fpm through 12-15K (but at 32-33 gph), which is nice for quickly getting above low-level bumps and out of the maelstrom of traffic.
I love the A36TN. For a traveling over 300nm airplane, I don’t ever want a normally aspirated piston again. The next clear step better than an A36TN is 7-figures and burns Jet-A.
I have only a couple hours in an M20, so I can’t fairly compare it directly. A36 club seating is well-liked by the family. (Have owned it 9.5 years; wife has literally never sat up front.) Turbo and TKS well-liked by me. It’s not cheap, but it’s reasonably economical and fairly fast. 185 knots on 16-17 gph. Can climb 1000 fpm through 12-15K (but at 32-33 gph), which is nice for quickly getting above low-level bumps and out of the maelstrom of traffic.
Landing at a class bravo isn’t really anything special and some bravo airports are pretty small. It’s more about the airspace than the airport. Some bravo airports have heavy general aviation traffic. Others charge large landing fees.
And some airports aren’t technically “bravo” but the most common method of getting there involves transiting bravo airspace.
And some airports aren’t technically “bravo” but the most common method of getting there involves transiting bravo airspace.
Landing at a class B airport is flipping cool, for one.
Taxiing at a class b airport is stressful though.
Boeing field, next to SeaTac (but not in class b airspace) was my favorite place to land, and home field for me. Not too busy, but enough real air traffic to make good practice.
My favorite times were landing shortly after the last flight of the Concord before it went to park at the flight museum and watching it taxi off the runway from overhead.
And another time being told to extend downwind and look out the window to see a Blue Angel buzz the tower.
Boeing field, next to SeaTac (but not in class b airspace) was my favorite place to land, and home field for me. Not too busy, but enough real air traffic to make good practice.
My favorite times were landing shortly after the last flight of the Concord before it went to park at the flight museum and watching it taxi off the runway from overhead.
And another time being told to extend downwind and look out the window to see a Blue Angel buzz the tower.
The main reason someone flies a small single piston airplane anymore is to work towards their commercial rating. And practice in class B airspace is an important part of that.
No one pays bravo landing fees just to get their commercial cert. You can get all your certs just fine without going to an airport that large.
I did it once at KLAS. Way closer to the hotel.
There must be something so incredibly gratifying about engineering a thing, and then successfully betting your life on the soundness of its design.
When I did safety critical engineering, I was more concerned about the other person's life than my own. It's actually more scary than gratifying.
Leaded fuel, leaded fuel fumes and spray.
Adapt the engines or ground them. There's no acceptable middle ground.
It's like secondhand smoke to the rest of the population.
No your "immune system" does not handle lead, it's forever and why it was banned in cars for 25 years
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad...
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
Adapt the engines or ground them. There's no acceptable middle ground.
It's like secondhand smoke to the rest of the population.
No your "immune system" does not handle lead, it's forever and why it was banned in cars for 25 years
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42218/if-leaded-fuel-is-so-bad...
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
The big news in the past decade or so in this space is the G100UL fuel which now has a STC for almost(?) all prop planes.
Not sure what the next step, regulation-wise, is. An official 100UL spec followed by the sunsetting of 100LL?
Not sure what the next step, regulation-wise, is. An official 100UL spec followed by the sunsetting of 100LL?
The later is already happening as cities ban the sale of leaded fuel in their airport.
Ah yes, here it is. I was looking for the "but leaded gas is going to kill us all!" comment in this thread.
First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic.
Second, unleaded avgas is here so even that 99% reduction is about to be 100%. G100UL is fully approved for the GA fleet and is in the process of being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption to be seen next year. If you're going to spout unfounded fears at least be up to the date on the facts.
https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic.
Second, unleaded avgas is here so even that 99% reduction is about to be 100%. G100UL is fully approved for the GA fleet and is in the process of being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption to be seen next year. If you're going to spout unfounded fears at least be up to the date on the facts.
https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
Okay, is unleaded avgas mandated? Is it dramatically more expensive than leaded? For how long should I look up and see a GA aircraft knowing it's some rich idiot spraying my neighborhood with lead?
> Okay, is unleaded avgas mandated?
Not yet because we're just now finally rolling out the unleaded avgas. It's probably a safe bet that the EPA will move to ban leaded avgas as soon as it's feasible to do so once G100UL has more wide distribution (which, again, is in the process of happening this year and next year).
> Is it dramatically more expensive than leaded?
The manufacturer says it will cost about $1 more per gallon for unleaded. It may end up costing about the same when you consider the overhead that EPA regulations for leaded gas add to the final cost of 100LL.
> For how long should I look up and see a GA aircraft knowing it's some rich idiot spraying my neighborhood with lead?
Honestly, this statement shows a gross misunderstanding of GA. GA is far more than "rich people flying in their planes." For one, the really rich people are flying in jets or turboprops which burn jet fuel like airliners do. Second, GA with piston planes is training for future airline pilots, medical flights, law enforcement, aerial survey, and much more. The people that do fly GA for fun with piston planes are solidly middle or upper-middle class. Flying for a hobby is very similar to having a boat or RV with most GA pilots flying around in not-at-all-fancy 1970s-era Cessnas. In terms of lead contamination, you should be more concerned of lead pipes and paint than the tiny amount that comes from 100LL fuel.
Not yet because we're just now finally rolling out the unleaded avgas. It's probably a safe bet that the EPA will move to ban leaded avgas as soon as it's feasible to do so once G100UL has more wide distribution (which, again, is in the process of happening this year and next year).
> Is it dramatically more expensive than leaded?
The manufacturer says it will cost about $1 more per gallon for unleaded. It may end up costing about the same when you consider the overhead that EPA regulations for leaded gas add to the final cost of 100LL.
> For how long should I look up and see a GA aircraft knowing it's some rich idiot spraying my neighborhood with lead?
Honestly, this statement shows a gross misunderstanding of GA. GA is far more than "rich people flying in their planes." For one, the really rich people are flying in jets or turboprops which burn jet fuel like airliners do. Second, GA with piston planes is training for future airline pilots, medical flights, law enforcement, aerial survey, and much more. The people that do fly GA for fun with piston planes are solidly middle or upper-middle class. Flying for a hobby is very similar to having a boat or RV with most GA pilots flying around in not-at-all-fancy 1970s-era Cessnas. In terms of lead contamination, you should be more concerned of lead pipes and paint than the tiny amount that comes from 100LL fuel.
The misregulation of general aviation is absolutely infuriating.
Planes should cost 2-4 years average sallary, but stupid regulations prevent it.
Planes should cost 2-4 years average sallary, but stupid regulations prevent it.
It's annoying how antiquated the engines used on these single engine planes. Continental is selling engines designed in the 60s that are just so inefficient.
Continental sells a range of general aviation engines based on modern Mercedes Benz diesel car engines, initially developed by Thielert as the Centurion. They run on regular Jet-A fuel, and are extremely efficient.
https://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd155.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thielert_Centurion
I think these, combined with biofuel based Jet-A are a good solution to this problem, as electric tech is a long ways from having the range needed.
Maybe someone who knows more could chime in why these haven't already completely replaced the ancient air cooled leaded gas motors? My guess is that they're very expensive...
https://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd155.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thielert_Centurion
I think these, combined with biofuel based Jet-A are a good solution to this problem, as electric tech is a long ways from having the range needed.
Maybe someone who knows more could chime in why these haven't already completely replaced the ancient air cooled leaded gas motors? My guess is that they're very expensive...
I think this is the $100000 conversion alluded to in the article. Not sure what makes it cost that much. Maybe the same thing that seems to have caused GA to stagnate, very small volumes combined with high certification costs.
(There's also a company called Austro engines that makes aero diesel engines, AFAIU even based on the same MB car engines Continental/Thielert uses. I think Austro is a subsidiary or spinoff of Diamond, so that's where you see these engines used.)
(There's also a company called Austro engines that makes aero diesel engines, AFAIU even based on the same MB car engines Continental/Thielert uses. I think Austro is a subsidiary or spinoff of Diamond, so that's where you see these engines used.)
I would guess that whatever makes it cost so much would equally apply to this solution once it is certified and not experimental. The gas V8 will be much less fuel efficient than a small turbo diesel, especially at altitude where the turbo offers huge advantages.
Those Mercedes engines are found in small cars and delivery vans around the world, and are widely available and pretty cheap. For example, the Centurion 3.0 uses a Mercedes-Benz OM642 which is found in Freightliner/Sprinter vans, Jeeps, and tons of other very common cars. You can buy these engines straight from Mercedes for like $8k.
In this case, the author mentions using an aluminum marine GMC V8, but not which one exactly. This is most likely based on the LS V8s, which are fairly expensive motors, and a pretty ancient design (e.g. pushrods).
Those Mercedes engines are found in small cars and delivery vans around the world, and are widely available and pretty cheap. For example, the Centurion 3.0 uses a Mercedes-Benz OM642 which is found in Freightliner/Sprinter vans, Jeeps, and tons of other very common cars. You can buy these engines straight from Mercedes for like $8k.
In this case, the author mentions using an aluminum marine GMC V8, but not which one exactly. This is most likely based on the LS V8s, which are fairly expensive motors, and a pretty ancient design (e.g. pushrods).
> I would guess that whatever makes it cost so much would equally apply to this solution once it is certified and not experimental.
Bingo! Yeah, I was wondering the same while reading the article.
> a pretty ancient design (e.g. pushrods)
Does it matter? The engine is significantly derated vs. the original car engine, so max rpm is going to be much lower, thus no problem with valve float.
Bingo! Yeah, I was wondering the same while reading the article.
> a pretty ancient design (e.g. pushrods)
Does it matter? The engine is significantly derated vs. the original car engine, so max rpm is going to be much lower, thus no problem with valve float.
Modern direct injection diesels still use OHC, even though they run at really low RPM, so valve float can't be the only reason virtually all modern engines use it. I think this is because it allows for larger and better positioned valves, or even more valves (e.g. DOHC/4 valves per cylinder), making the engine breath better. I imagine the advantages of that would be even greater at altitude.
I'm not saying OHC aren't better, they certainly are (in most respects). Just saying that I wouldn't consider pushrods a showstopper either.
(As an aside, when aviation engines started going with 4V designs in the 30'ies, it wasn't only about breathing, but better cooling of the valves was an equally big motivation.)
(As an aside, when aviation engines started going with 4V designs in the 30'ies, it wasn't only about breathing, but better cooling of the valves was an equally big motivation.)
You need to get the whole airframe certified to change the engine. If the airplane hasn't been in production for 40 years+ who will pay for that? Does the engineering data needed to start that process even exist anymore?
Interestingly, I found that the airplane in question here, the Cessna 172 was actually sold with the Thielert / Continental diesel, but ended up cancelling it because they were so much more expensive than the gasoline models that nobody bought them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#Special_versions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#Special_versions
The market for small planes is basically entirely gone; the entire amount is so small that they can't really get through the cost of certification for the amount they sell.
Even the relatively modern SR20 uses a Lycoming engine: https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr20/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_IO-390
Even the relatively modern SR20 uses a Lycoming engine: https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr20/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_IO-390
It's not "gone" as if evaporated; it has been murdered by the certification requirements.
The odds of a random stranger dying from a light aircraft falling on them are trivial, several orders of magnitude less than the odds of their being hit by a car or being killed by inactivity; the pilot is free to refuse to take off, so risk appraisal really is on them; it's time to dump safety bureaucrats into your nearest woodchipper and CHANGE. THE. LAW. if you want ANY interesting activities or skills to survive.
The odds of a random stranger dying from a light aircraft falling on them are trivial, several orders of magnitude less than the odds of their being hit by a car or being killed by inactivity; the pilot is free to refuse to take off, so risk appraisal really is on them; it's time to dump safety bureaucrats into your nearest woodchipper and CHANGE. THE. LAW. if you want ANY interesting activities or skills to survive.
FAA is incentivized to do nothing and sit on its hands. It's a mess. A good quarter of the country is medically barred from ever flying, even solo. The chances of this changing are 0 and it'll get worse.
Insert the "who could have done this" meme with the FAA shooting interest in flying and # of pilots.
Insert the "who could have done this" meme with the FAA shooting interest in flying and # of pilots.
The medical system is really messed up. I would love to eventually get my PPL, but I also highly suspect that I have undiagnosed ADHD, and I don't want to essentially sign away my right to ever get treatment. Fortunately Microsoft Flight Simulator and VATSIM scratch the itch to fly for now, but it still sucks that I'll probably never get to actually do it in real life.
Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, it's just to give you some ideas. AOPA and EAA have resources that can professional advise you.
Note that 'undiagnosed ADHD' holds as much weight as me saying you have bad energies. There are many conditions that masquerade as ADHD to a layperson, including some purely psychological ones (they are no less real, but are very different from a neurodivergent brain and require very different treatment).
If you are otherwise a high functioning adult (can function in society, operate vehicles safely, etc), get your third class medical, which should be no problem. You have to disclose diagnosed conditions. Do a discovery flight and ask for an opinion from the flight instructor. If he thinks you are fit, go start your training and enjoy.
If, one day, you do get diagnosed (with ADHD or some other disqualifying condition) AND require medication, then it's a problem. If you don't need medication (because most if not all ADHD medications are prohibited), don't try to renew your third class medical (because, if you get denied, it's a big problem) and get advice about BasicMed. It has far less requirements; my understanding is, unless there's something strictly prohibited, if a doctor signs you up you are good to go.
You won't be able to fly commercial or faster than 250knots but I suspect you don't care.
Failing all the above, there's light sports aircraft and gliders(no medical requirements, you just need judge yourself to be capable and unlikely to be incapacitated) – although I am not sure you can operate them while taking meds; some professional advice required here.
Disclaimer 2: Obviously the above assumes that whatever you have does not impair you. This is just to get around FAA's antiquated view on mental health while complying with the law. The most important thing is to be safe. If you really can't due to health issues, then don't, even if a doctor says you are fine.
Otherwise, don't give up!
Note that 'undiagnosed ADHD' holds as much weight as me saying you have bad energies. There are many conditions that masquerade as ADHD to a layperson, including some purely psychological ones (they are no less real, but are very different from a neurodivergent brain and require very different treatment).
If you are otherwise a high functioning adult (can function in society, operate vehicles safely, etc), get your third class medical, which should be no problem. You have to disclose diagnosed conditions. Do a discovery flight and ask for an opinion from the flight instructor. If he thinks you are fit, go start your training and enjoy.
If, one day, you do get diagnosed (with ADHD or some other disqualifying condition) AND require medication, then it's a problem. If you don't need medication (because most if not all ADHD medications are prohibited), don't try to renew your third class medical (because, if you get denied, it's a big problem) and get advice about BasicMed. It has far less requirements; my understanding is, unless there's something strictly prohibited, if a doctor signs you up you are good to go.
You won't be able to fly commercial or faster than 250knots but I suspect you don't care.
Failing all the above, there's light sports aircraft and gliders(no medical requirements, you just need judge yourself to be capable and unlikely to be incapacitated) – although I am not sure you can operate them while taking meds; some professional advice required here.
Disclaimer 2: Obviously the above assumes that whatever you have does not impair you. This is just to get around FAA's antiquated view on mental health while complying with the law. The most important thing is to be safe. If you really can't due to health issues, then don't, even if a doctor says you are fine.
Otherwise, don't give up!
You can fly light sport as long as you’ve never had your medical disqualified. So just never get a medical and it’s never a problem.
[deleted]
A good quarter of the country is medically barred from ever flying
Can you explain this further?
Can you explain this further?
Just about everyone who has ever undergone psychiatric care cannot ever get a medical. There is technically a process but it is extremely difficult and expensive.
Some conditions are uniformly disqualifying, for good reasons. But it results in a perverse situation where a regular person can choose to either get mental health care or fly, but not both.
Some conditions are uniformly disqualifying, for good reasons. But it results in a perverse situation where a regular person can choose to either get mental health care or fly, but not both.
I know reality is sometimes different from official policy, but for the record, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness
For me it's completely moot. I can't even have someone else fly me anymore--I have an (apparently untreatable) eustachian tube dysfunction.
...which is probably for the best given my bearish position on aviation.
https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness
For me it's completely moot. I can't even have someone else fly me anymore--I have an (apparently untreatable) eustachian tube dysfunction.
...which is probably for the best given my bearish position on aviation.
People also choose to lie to the FAA.
Pilots don't suffer from depression, smoke pot, take many types of medication as a child, or have many other issues because if you did - the FAA might pull your medical and you can't fly after that. It can cost tens of thousands to try to get the FAA to let you fly again if a medical gets botched. And that is still an if...
Pilots don't suffer from depression, smoke pot, take many types of medication as a child, or have many other issues
Oh my sweet summer child.
Oh my sweet summer child.
If you’ve basically ever taken an SSRI, or been to a shrink, you auto-fail your medical.
I didn't see that as a black-label warning on the drug information sheet for fluoxetine, or even as being a minor side effect. My shrink didn't mention anything about auto-failing a PPL medical either, but I suspect that was because he was a Freudian.
Getting treated for cancer, for example, effectively bars you from flying. There are lots of medical things like this.
If these things are that bad, those same people shoudn't be driving either. And this is probably true. However, if you applied these same restrictions to driving, people would absolutely go nuts on you.
If these things are that bad, those same people shoudn't be driving either. And this is probably true. However, if you applied these same restrictions to driving, people would absolutely go nuts on you.
No, that is not true. I got treated for cancer two years ago (surgery and radiation), it was contained (not metastatic), I have twice since passed a Class 2 Medical. I talked to my Aeromedical Examiner, I talked with my treating doctors, they talked to each other, it worked out -- so far.
It's not the certification: flying is an expensive hobby, with a huge time commitment. People have moved on to other hobbies and fads.
We see the same with dinghy sailing. It used to be a big scene with hundreds of ordinary people showing up for regattas. It was killed by windsurfing (at least here in Europe) and just people moving on to other things ,not regulation of any sort.
We see the same with dinghy sailing. It used to be a big scene with hundreds of ordinary people showing up for regattas. It was killed by windsurfing (at least here in Europe) and just people moving on to other things ,not regulation of any sort.
> It's not the certification: flying is an expensive hobby, with a huge time commitment.
People have plenty of expensive and time consuming hobbies. All hobbies are at least time-consuming, that's what a hobby is.
All certifications add to the expenses. It's the reason why one can't buy a headset off amazon and have to pay 1k for a used headset. Sure, safety requires certifications but I guess we went overboard. It's also the reason why GA aircraft are expensive to this day, even those build 40 years ago. It's pretty expensive to keep maintaining old tech at low volumes. I'm rooting for Diamond and their car-derived engines (as well as the Experimental aircraft scene).
Note that boats are also notoriously expensive.
There's a very good parallel to your example: gliders. You want to fly cheap (just to fly, not to go places)? Go soaring. Problem is, it's even more location-dependent.
People have plenty of expensive and time consuming hobbies. All hobbies are at least time-consuming, that's what a hobby is.
All certifications add to the expenses. It's the reason why one can't buy a headset off amazon and have to pay 1k for a used headset. Sure, safety requires certifications but I guess we went overboard. It's also the reason why GA aircraft are expensive to this day, even those build 40 years ago. It's pretty expensive to keep maintaining old tech at low volumes. I'm rooting for Diamond and their car-derived engines (as well as the Experimental aircraft scene).
Note that boats are also notoriously expensive.
There's a very good parallel to your example: gliders. You want to fly cheap (just to fly, not to go places)? Go soaring. Problem is, it's even more location-dependent.
That's a circular argument. Recreational flying is an expensive hobby because of the certification barrier. Most of the price is in fuel inefficiencies and expensive maintenance of ancient engine designs. Airframe parts are expensive because they're obscure and certification requirements prevent modern equivalents from being used instead. And so forth.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure the lack of barriers to entry, inconvenient and costly certification, and safety nannying helped windsurfing get ahead there too. That and dinghy clubs inevitably devolve into race clubs that revolve inexorably around the race safety boat, and if you just want to noodle about or explore you're out of luck unless you are geographically lucky or you can afford a yacht. (which is great. But it's an uncommon privilege)
> It's not the certification: flying is an expensive hobby, with a huge time commitment.
Why is this worse than the 80s?
Why is this worse than the 80s?
Probably because it's so expensive! Cheaper and more modern engines and aircraft could totally make for a new wave of aviators.
Right, but that's the problem: with no market, things can't get cheaper because there's no capital to innovate with. That's why General Aviation is in a death spiral (ironically, since "death spiral" is a GA term): fewer people buying planes, companies exit the market and remaining companies have to charge more per-plane to cover fixed costs, GA becomes more expensive, fewer people buy planes, etc.
Why is nobody willing to take a risk to revive this market? If the only thing preventing a revival is cheap planes, couldn't someone get some investor to pay for all the certifications of their modern, fancy, efficient, cost effective plane, and then sell a million of them?
That is essentially how any new industry works. EV's were too bad/impractical/expensive until Tesla decided to take the risk and put down the capital to make them mainstream. Why can't/doesn't someone do the same for GA?
That is essentially how any new industry works. EV's were too bad/impractical/expensive until Tesla decided to take the risk and put down the capital to make them mainstream. Why can't/doesn't someone do the same for GA?
the FAA does not want to see it happen, and they have the power to drag their heels.
Yeah, I would totally get a PPL if it wasn't at minimum $15,000.
SR20 you mean (as you linked, but not written). SR22 uses a Continental https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/sr22/
...which incidentally has a very nasty problem brewing with Continental engines, grounding of all of the manufacturer's fleet running Continental engines that were made in the past few years.
It's actually an aviation crises in the making with 1000's of SR-22s.
It's actually an aviation crises in the making with 1000's of SR-22s.
[deleted]
Any more details on that?
Yep, went with the cheaper one.
Part of the problem is that this V8 engine is a 2x improvement. It's definitely an improvement, but a sub 10x improvement isn't enough to bring on a revolution. The article alludes to investors' lack of appetite for the risk, I suspect a larger improvement would convince them.
Yeah, all the development that IS going on is happening in the very light jet market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_light_jet
But that's a $2m aircraft vs a half-million one.
But that's a $2m aircraft vs a half-million one.
If he actually got this V8 certified and Cessna switched to then it might be dirt cheap to run but the 172 with it preinstalled might be $1M because they will sell so few and have so much engineering & certification cost to amortize.
That's how silly it all is, and why it will stay stuck in Experimental.
That's how silly it all is, and why it will stay stuck in Experimental.
VLJ's are cute, yes. I'm slightly hopeful about small scale turboprops too. Yes, generally turbines don't scale down very well (well, applies to VLJ's to an extent as well), but if they only could make the capital costs of a turbine decent enough, the reliability, power/weight, and cheap and available Jet A-1 would still make such a thing attractive, I think.
There's a couple of companies working in this space:
Turbaero: https://turb.aero/ Turbotech: https://www.turbotech-aero.com/
There's a couple of companies working in this space:
Turbaero: https://turb.aero/ Turbotech: https://www.turbotech-aero.com/
Why is the market smaller than in the 60s? There's more people with money than ever.
The cost compared to the 1960s seems to be much higher. Even for "people with money".
It really isn't though. Yes, the GA fleet is extremely old, but the inflation-adjusted cost of a PPL is pretty much exactly what it was in the 1960s.
Inflation adjusted wages aren't.
Median per capita inflation adjusted income has steadily risen since WW2
https://united-states.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-tr...
It feels like it hasn’t because of real estate and other baseline things that have inflated a lot.
Not really – the upper middle class is smaller even though there’s a lot more billionaires. And billionaires in general aren’t hobby pilots.
I wonder what percentage of billionaires are pilots - probably decently high.
It’s the doctor segment that is probably way down, or holding steady.
It’s the doctor segment that is probably way down, or holding steady.
There's a secondary issue that in a lot of places the sky is a lot more crowded and the airports are very crowded.
I wanted to be a pilot. I took lessons in the 1990s at a small field, relatively uncrowded, relatively low cost. I stopped due to weather/money.
When I tried again after I finished college where I lived things were more expensive and the airspace was so crowded you would run up costs waiting in line to take off, and the whole thing was much more stressful.
It has to be fun, in a busy enough environment it becomes stressful enough fewer people want to fly.
I wanted to be a pilot. I took lessons in the 1990s at a small field, relatively uncrowded, relatively low cost. I stopped due to weather/money.
When I tried again after I finished college where I lived things were more expensive and the airspace was so crowded you would run up costs waiting in line to take off, and the whole thing was much more stressful.
It has to be fun, in a busy enough environment it becomes stressful enough fewer people want to fly.
I learned to fly in Southern California literally under the bravo umbrella - wait time was never significantly bad (maybe $20 of “time”) and I has substantial radio/tower/airspace experience by the time I got my PPL.
The efficiency difference isn't as much as you might think.
Car engines today are much more efficient than they were 50-70 years ago, but that's because the difference between maximum power and cruise power for a car ranges from about 5x to 20x. Much of the efficiency gains come from devising ways to deliver short bursts of power from a small engine, such as variable valve lift and turbocharging.
General aviation aircraft cruise at about 75% power. There's much less to be gained by optimizing the engine to run efficiently at 10%, and running a small engine at high RPM and high boost continuously is a recipe for frequent service intervals.
That's ignoring improvements to transmissions, tires, and aerodynamics in cars that aren't relevant to planes. There's certainly room for improvement, but not to the dramatic degree we've seen with cars.
Car engines today are much more efficient than they were 50-70 years ago, but that's because the difference between maximum power and cruise power for a car ranges from about 5x to 20x. Much of the efficiency gains come from devising ways to deliver short bursts of power from a small engine, such as variable valve lift and turbocharging.
General aviation aircraft cruise at about 75% power. There's much less to be gained by optimizing the engine to run efficiently at 10%, and running a small engine at high RPM and high boost continuously is a recipe for frequent service intervals.
That's ignoring improvements to transmissions, tires, and aerodynamics in cars that aren't relevant to planes. There's certainly room for improvement, but not to the dramatic degree we've seen with cars.
> The efficiency difference isn't as much as you might think.
True, the BSFC numbers of these old school aero engines aren't that bad, actually.
> General aviation aircraft cruise at about 75% power. There's much less to be gained by optimizing the engine to run efficiently at 10%
I think the real advantage isn't a small efficiency gain in optimal conditions, but rather that with a modern FADEC there's less pilot workload, with a single lever for selecting the thrust the pilot wants, and the electronics takes care of selecting the optimal parameters (throttle position, amount of fuel, ignition timing etc.) for that thrust setting, taking into account input from a number of sensors (temperatures, pressure, etc.). And all those sensors provide data that can be logged and help with planning maintenance before something goes pear-shaped up in the air.
> running a small engine at high RPM and high boost continuously is a recipe for frequent service intervals.
The Rotax aero engines rev to a max of almost 6000 rpm, cruise is ~5000 rpm, and they have a normal(?) TBO of 2000 hours, including the turbocharged 914. (The turbocharged 915iS has a TBO of 1200 hours, but I suspect it's due to the engine being relatively new, probably the interval will be extended when more experience has been gained?). Of course, these engines are designed for that from the ground up, not saying you could take a random car engine off the street and run it at 5000 rpm for 2000 hours.
True, the BSFC numbers of these old school aero engines aren't that bad, actually.
> General aviation aircraft cruise at about 75% power. There's much less to be gained by optimizing the engine to run efficiently at 10%
I think the real advantage isn't a small efficiency gain in optimal conditions, but rather that with a modern FADEC there's less pilot workload, with a single lever for selecting the thrust the pilot wants, and the electronics takes care of selecting the optimal parameters (throttle position, amount of fuel, ignition timing etc.) for that thrust setting, taking into account input from a number of sensors (temperatures, pressure, etc.). And all those sensors provide data that can be logged and help with planning maintenance before something goes pear-shaped up in the air.
> running a small engine at high RPM and high boost continuously is a recipe for frequent service intervals.
The Rotax aero engines rev to a max of almost 6000 rpm, cruise is ~5000 rpm, and they have a normal(?) TBO of 2000 hours, including the turbocharged 914. (The turbocharged 915iS has a TBO of 1200 hours, but I suspect it's due to the engine being relatively new, probably the interval will be extended when more experience has been gained?). Of course, these engines are designed for that from the ground up, not saying you could take a random car engine off the street and run it at 5000 rpm for 2000 hours.
These engines have parts that are interchangeable with pre-WW2 engines. It's pretty generous to say they were designed in the 1960s.
I think if you want to see 'modern' gasoline powered piston aviation engines, you have to look elsewhere than Lycoming or Continental. ULpower and Rotax make fuel injected aero engines with FADEC. I think Rotax has even certified some of their models.
This is a product of the regulatory process. I am sure Cessna would love to sell new stuff, but it's just not worth it for them or their clients.
The whole small piston-engine plane industry collapsed in 1980s because of excessive liability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio...
If I recall correctly, Cessna was found infinitely liable for every plane manufactured, meaning that each new plane off the assembly line increased their potential overall liability without liability over decades-old planes expiring and decreasing it.
If I recall correctly, Cessna was found infinitely liable for every plane manufactured, meaning that each new plane off the assembly line increased their potential overall liability without liability over decades-old planes expiring and decreasing it.
> If I recall correctly, Cessna was found infinitely liable for every plane manufactured, meaning that each new plane off the assembly line increased their potential overall liability without liability over decades-old planes expiring and decreasing it.
This was a problem in the 90s. And it was fixed! Back when the government still fixed things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio...
This was a problem in the 90s. And it was fixed! Back when the government still fixed things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio...
That's true of US-based manufacturers, but foreign manufacturers thrived during that time (French, etc).
Cessna did sell some new stuff. It all failed.
I think that is one of the reasons why the upcoming electric small planes are such a huge thing - getting rid of not only combustion engines, but very old and inefficient combustion engines. Could be a real game changer.
They are probably not going to take off (pun intended) any time soon. Just fuel reserve requirements alone are about the full range they have.
I suspect hybrids will be developed first. Basically an APU sending power to the main motor + a relatively small battery. The 'APU' can be relatively compact and deliver a lot of power, with less engineering requirements (can place it anywhere, doesn't need to interface with a prop). If it fails you have some emergency battery power. Electric motors are incredibly strong and have very few moving parts, so reliability is higher. They are also light.
Net net, there's some complexity and the combined equipment may be heavier (may! existing powerplants are some heavy beasts) but there's probably advantages.
Certification would be horrendous, I imagine.
I suspect hybrids will be developed first. Basically an APU sending power to the main motor + a relatively small battery. The 'APU' can be relatively compact and deliver a lot of power, with less engineering requirements (can place it anywhere, doesn't need to interface with a prop). If it fails you have some emergency battery power. Electric motors are incredibly strong and have very few moving parts, so reliability is higher. They are also light.
Net net, there's some complexity and the combined equipment may be heavier (may! existing powerplants are some heavy beasts) but there's probably advantages.
Certification would be horrendous, I imagine.
Yeah BEV / Teslamania obscures the fact that what automotive REALLY should have done was hybrids from year 2005+ for virtually every vehicle as the first step. Instead, they are doing the great leap to full electric.
In my vision a compact rotary (that inside-out rotary patent a few years ago looked even more promising) would recharge the battery subsystem. Or maybe a fuel cell.
The same would probably work for GA. Really, hybrids will work regardless of the battery tech for the next couple decades.
In my vision a compact rotary (that inside-out rotary patent a few years ago looked even more promising) would recharge the battery subsystem. Or maybe a fuel cell.
The same would probably work for GA. Really, hybrids will work regardless of the battery tech for the next couple decades.
Yes, considering the first hybrid with the Prius was available as early as 1998, the car industry should have switched to hybrids in the early 2000s. But unfortunately they didn't. Just keeping selling pure combustion engined cars was far too profitable. I think Tesla did indeed play a huge role in pushing full electric cars. Which today is of course the correct technology for most applications as it skips the combustion engine completely.
Hybrid planes would be quite attractive, but of course the certification bareer which might be too large
Hybrid planes would be quite attractive, but of course the certification bareer which might be too large
I thought going directly to BEV was a good plan, but then someone on this site pointed out that if civilization needs to go to BEVs, and there is X supply of battery materials, should we use those in 100kwhr packs for full BEVs, or in 20 kwhr battery packs for PHEVs that will deliver 80-90% of trips electrified?
So you effectively electrify 5x the number of cars...
But, that opportunity has passed, at least we are moving towards electrification.
So you effectively electrify 5x the number of cars...
But, that opportunity has passed, at least we are moving towards electrification.
They'll end up with a fraction of the range/payload of the old planes.
I'd literally fly a bicycle with wings for fifteen minutes at a time if that made [fixed-wing] aviation more affordable. I live in one of the better-off eastern-bloc countries and I make significantly more than most people I know, but getting a PPL would almost certainly ruin me financially at this moment.
I know that paragliding and hang gliding exist, but those are a bit out of my comfort (and safety) zone.
I know that paragliding and hang gliding exist, but those are a bit out of my comfort (and safety) zone.
There are clubs that own small aircraft that you can fly, I've done some time in these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42
Technically it is a microlight but top speed and handling are much closer to a regular GA craft. I absolutely loved it and if my eyesight was better I'd definitely go for a license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42
Technically it is a microlight but top speed and handling are much closer to a regular GA craft. I absolutely loved it and if my eyesight was better I'd definitely go for a license.
There are also actual gliders (aka soaring). These are planes in all but the engine, and are pretty safe.
Buy a Cessna 150 or 152. About the same as your bicycle and about as affordable.
Maybe that's fine if the point is just to go up on a Saturday for fun and land at the same field you took off from.
Yes, of course. But the range (1-2h) might be just enough for a lot of szenarios.
One of the biggest markets for small aviation engines which run on something other than 100LL is small drones — running on JP8, Jet A, or Jet A1 would make military logistics far easier and safer. Even road gas would be a reasonable alternative to 100LL, and both diesel/kerosene and gas are easier to find in the bush. Kerosene/diesel are probably better due to risk of water in the fuel at these places, but diesel engines tend to be heavier than gas.
Deltahawk, Thielert, etc are the bigger projects I’ve followed. Getting an actual certified engine is…hard.
Deltahawk, Thielert, etc are the bigger projects I’ve followed. Getting an actual certified engine is…hard.
The updated Predator drone uses a diesel aviation engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_DEL-120
This is what we need to make GA an accessible hobby again.
The FAA and other government regulations mostly serve to inhibit innovation and life improvements and protect entrenched interests. Government regulations need a mechanism equivalent to bankruptcy...
These LS swaps are getting out of hand!
Seriously tho, cool idea. I’m also shocked that leaded gas is still the norm. These LS engines (I’m guessing by the shape of the headers and the hint that it’s an aluminum block) are insanely reliable and I would put my life behind one of those before a lot of other engines. I’ve beat my own into the ground several times now.
Seriously tho, cool idea. I’m also shocked that leaded gas is still the norm. These LS engines (I’m guessing by the shape of the headers and the hint that it’s an aluminum block) are insanely reliable and I would put my life behind one of those before a lot of other engines. I’ve beat my own into the ground several times now.
> "Even the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines that they modify for the boat mission, an engineering process I was more than familiar with."
This is not true at all, unless one is only talking about small inboard boats.
This is not true at all, unless one is only talking about small inboard boats.
90% sure he means "largest manufacturers of marine engines" rather than "manufacturers of the largest marine engines". If I'm right then the largest mfg probably produces smaller engines since there's so many more small boats.
Yeah, seems like all you see anymore for I/O engines is Mercruiser and Volvo, which do indeed use automotive engines. I'm not sure if there are even any other manufacturers left.
I'm less familiar with outboard engines, and I don't know what is more common (I/O or outboards) for recreational boating. In the Great Lakes, I/Os appear to dominate, but I've noticed that videos of boating in Florida and the east coast show a lot of outboards even on the bigger boats.
I'm less familiar with outboard engines, and I don't know what is more common (I/O or outboards) for recreational boating. In the Great Lakes, I/Os appear to dominate, but I've noticed that videos of boating in Florida and the east coast show a lot of outboards even on the bigger boats.
FL, especially in the Gulf, has mostly outboards because it's so damn shallow so it's nice to be able to pull them up when you're really tight. And lots of pontoon boats in the intercoastal.
I think they're referring to gasoline "small" boats, like Mercury Marine type stuff, rather than full-sized ships, which generally use industrial / "stationary" diesel engines. I think the point still stands though, as these larger stationary diesels are usually shared with locomotives, gensets, and the like.
Yes, these engines have other uses. But there is an enormous market of yachts, tugs, etc. smaller than what is considered to be a "ship" and bigger than any automotive engine could power. I argued only with the assertion about "automotive engines". It was true when I was a kid that most engines I was around on commercial boats were special versions of automotive engines. It has not been true in my experience for a couple decades.
Depending on the kind of yacht, might also be considerably smaller than an automotive engine. I'm somewhat superficially familiar with sailboat engines, and the market leaders in that segment are Yanmar and Volvo Penta.
Yanmar, AFAIU, is a big maker of various industrial and agricultural engines, so I guess the Yanmar marine engines are variants of those.
For Volvo Penta, I'm quite sure the bigger ones are marinized variants of Volvo car and truck engines, but for the smaller ones, they might sell them also as gensets or such, not sure.
Beyond Yanmar and Volvo Penta, there's a plethora of engine makers (Beta, Nanni, Westerbeke, etc. etc.), which make marinized versions of Kubota engines, which are AFAIU mostly used for agricultural and industrial equipment (e.g. those ubiquitous small Kubota tractors). These are generally well regarded, and sell for considerably less than Yanmar and Volvo Penta.
Yanmar, AFAIU, is a big maker of various industrial and agricultural engines, so I guess the Yanmar marine engines are variants of those.
For Volvo Penta, I'm quite sure the bigger ones are marinized variants of Volvo car and truck engines, but for the smaller ones, they might sell them also as gensets or such, not sure.
Beyond Yanmar and Volvo Penta, there's a plethora of engine makers (Beta, Nanni, Westerbeke, etc. etc.), which make marinized versions of Kubota engines, which are AFAIU mostly used for agricultural and industrial equipment (e.g. those ubiquitous small Kubota tractors). These are generally well regarded, and sell for considerably less than Yanmar and Volvo Penta.
We love the Kubotas for generators and other small workloads. Nothing else we have would fit in an automobile. The smallest yacht I have worked on had engines with ancestry in locomotives.
As another commenter suggested, I read the assertion about "the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines" as "largest engine" not as "largest manufacturer". Maybe the author intended the latter.
As another commenter suggested, I read the assertion about "the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines" as "largest engine" not as "largest manufacturer". Maybe the author intended the latter.
"Even the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines" means that they use such engines for some purposes, say for the smaller watercraft. It does not mean that they exclusively use automotive designs.
So likely both you and the article author are correct.
So likely both you and the article author are correct.
Most yachts have 35-75hp diesel engines.
You and I are apparently dealing with very different yachts.
The larger boards will use mass produced construction and agriculture engines (I work for John Deere, so while I can't speak for the company I can tell marine engines are important enough of a market that we consider their needs when designing a new engine).
The largest ships get custom built engines.
The largest ships get custom built engines.
I work in the tugboat industry. A quite standard engine there is the EMD 645. That was never a "mass-produced automotive engine" and it is not custom.
Our smallest truckable tug uses John Deere engines. Everything else uses engines that would never fit in any automotive application.
Our smallest truckable tug uses John Deere engines. Everything else uses engines that would never fit in any automotive application.
Most marine engines in that size range are used in either rail, power generating or other stationary applications. The manufacturers aren't idiots. They're gonna get as many sales out of a design as they can.
Regardless, the point is they're not bespoke for your industry.
Regardless, the point is they're not bespoke for your industry.
I am well aware of the other uses of these engines. I argued only with the assertion made about "automotive engines".
> I admit questioning the logic of bolting a V8 to a Cessna during that first takeoff, especially without a parachute.
Why wouldn't he just bring a parachute?
Why wouldn't he just bring a parachute?
I can see how the cost and regulation of museum-piece general aviation planes makes battery powered personal VTOL craft (despite their other shortcomings) attractive.
Impressive! My 1966 Cessna 172G could fly for a bit at $20/hour, but old engine and parts and stuff $65 / hour was more realistic.
Save a dollar a gallon in gas for north of $100,000 in customization.
Is he even saving in gas vs simply paying the $360 for the autogas STC? And privately operated aircraft don't require engine TBOs to be respected. You can go as long as you want over TBO, completely legally. (At least in Canada, and I assume the FAA rules are the same). So, no need for an engine reserve.
Would you put your daughter in an experimental aircraft?
Go to Oshkosh some year. You'll see thousands of daughters flying experimental aircraft.
"Experimental" is a legal designation, not an evaluation of an aircraft's safety.
"Experimental" is a legal designation, not an evaluation of an aircraft's safety.
What the FAA has done to this guy is disgusting, they don't respond to requests and treat him like a little guy despite the impressive engineering here. I'm not a republican but this is a great example of government destroying innovation and progress through bureaucratic nonsense.
My heart wants to agree with you but all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes. It's like the textbook case of when regulations work, and I don't think the FAA has a department of special exceptions. We can wishfor it, but it's not easy to handle someone who wants to do something different.
>must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes
Yes, at least somewhat:
1) The safety record of flying is often cited but that safety record pertains to commercial aircraft, not private aircraft. For hours of travel, private aircraft are significantly more lethal commercial flight and even more than driving [1]
2) The article mentions having to jump through regulatory hoops in the same sentence as literally putting out engine fires. Maybe the two are unrelated but I can see a strong public to regulatory hoops on something that, if done wrong, amounts to a small homemade fuel air bomb with 1,000lb+ of cessna debris added in to the mix if things go wrong.
[1]https://www.wijet.com/private-jet-crash-statistics/#:~:text=....
Yes, at least somewhat:
1) The safety record of flying is often cited but that safety record pertains to commercial aircraft, not private aircraft. For hours of travel, private aircraft are significantly more lethal commercial flight and even more than driving [1]
2) The article mentions having to jump through regulatory hoops in the same sentence as literally putting out engine fires. Maybe the two are unrelated but I can see a strong public to regulatory hoops on something that, if done wrong, amounts to a small homemade fuel air bomb with 1,000lb+ of cessna debris added in to the mix if things go wrong.
[1]https://www.wijet.com/private-jet-crash-statistics/#:~:text=....
a fuel-air bomb is very much more difficult to build than you think it is
it isn't going to happen by accident
right now lots of people are getting exposed to fumes from both leaded gasoline itself and the combustion products from the engines, which probably kills more people than faulty civil aviation engines ever will
it isn't going to happen by accident
right now lots of people are getting exposed to fumes from both leaded gasoline itself and the combustion products from the engines, which probably kills more people than faulty civil aviation engines ever will
Yes sure, it's not literally a military-grade thermobaric explosion. It's a few hundred lbs of fuel strapped to a 1,000lb+ airframe and I don't mind regulations and oversight of such things when people want to propel them through the air.
As for the rest, I agree...? I'm not sure how that was related. I think a dislike for leaded fuel is not incompatible with my comments indicating that some regulatory hoops are reasonable when creating customized aircraft.
As for the rest, I agree...? I'm not sure how that was related. I think a dislike for leaded fuel is not incompatible with my comments indicating that some regulatory hoops are reasonable when creating customized aircraft.
It is not going to explode any more than a car will.
It may catch on fire, though.
It may catch on fire, though.
> I don't mind regulations and oversight of such things
Do you think anyone is arguing against the existence of plane regulations?
Do you think anyone is arguing against the existence of plane regulations?
surely the optimal level of regulation is not zero but in this case probably the status quo (including wrongful death torts, etc.) has killed and brain-damaged more people than zero regulation would have, by halting progress 50 years ago
compare progress in aviation from 01923 to 01973 with progress from 01973 to today. we could have ultra-efficient ornithopters, mass-produced gossamer condors (maybe electric), mars-pathfinder-style airbags, ejection seats in coach class, suborbital commuter rockets to anywhere in the world in 45 minutes, and things we can't even imagine yet or don't know to be feasible
instead we have slight variations on the 50-year-old 747 and the 85-year-old piper cub (still running grossly inefficiently on leaded avgas), dramatic regression in crewed spaceflight capabilities, plus interesting experiments in hang gliders, jetpacks, hoverboards, and more conventional ultralights that have been unable to reach mass adoption
oh and uncrewed quadcopters and stealth bombers because those were unregulated
compare progress in aviation from 01923 to 01973 with progress from 01973 to today. we could have ultra-efficient ornithopters, mass-produced gossamer condors (maybe electric), mars-pathfinder-style airbags, ejection seats in coach class, suborbital commuter rockets to anywhere in the world in 45 minutes, and things we can't even imagine yet or don't know to be feasible
instead we have slight variations on the 50-year-old 747 and the 85-year-old piper cub (still running grossly inefficiently on leaded avgas), dramatic regression in crewed spaceflight capabilities, plus interesting experiments in hang gliders, jetpacks, hoverboards, and more conventional ultralights that have been unable to reach mass adoption
oh and uncrewed quadcopters and stealth bombers because those were unregulated
They are trying to eliminate the leaded gas too though. No idea why they didn't just subsidize new planes that didn't need leaded gas, rather than spend decades looking for substitutes.
The crash/death rate for piston general aviation is staggeringly high and a lot of it has to do with how unreliable ancient systems in the planes are, and task saturation from pilots still expected to manage stuff like fuel mixture settings by hand.
It's almost entirely about protectionism of a massive industry of rebuilding and servicing companies for ancient engines and electromechanical systems, not safety or reliability.
Compare a modern electronic gyro to its electromechanical cousin. The electromechanical version is unreliable, power-hungry, and extremely expensive to service.
The modern electronic equivalent is ultra-reliable, can self-test, needs no servicing or repair, can contain its own battery to self-power in an emergency, and be networked with other devices in the cockpit.
Want to put the electronic version in your plane? Ooooo, sorry, no can do, Mr. Airplane Owner, says the FAA. Can't hurt the profits of an entire industry dedicated to emptying your wallet of thousands of dollars every time your gyro needs to be rebuilt.
A modern fuel-injected, water-cooled airplane engine can run constant self-diagnostics and logging, and provide highly useful, actionable information to both the pilot and mechanic. It's single-lever, increasing reliability and reducing task loading during the most critical phases of flight, and reducing emissions substantially, too. It doesn't have special considerations in terms of flight profiles; air-cooled piston airplane engines require a gentle descent profile or they will be "shock cooled" and undergo high wear or outright seize. There are no issues with carb freeze. Starting is a breeze, instead of a chore. The list goes on.
We should be encouraging the hell out of EFI conversions and EFI engine options...but instead the FAA buries them all under mountains of paperwork and regulations to protect Lycoming and the like.
It's almost entirely about protectionism of a massive industry of rebuilding and servicing companies for ancient engines and electromechanical systems, not safety or reliability.
Compare a modern electronic gyro to its electromechanical cousin. The electromechanical version is unreliable, power-hungry, and extremely expensive to service.
The modern electronic equivalent is ultra-reliable, can self-test, needs no servicing or repair, can contain its own battery to self-power in an emergency, and be networked with other devices in the cockpit.
Want to put the electronic version in your plane? Ooooo, sorry, no can do, Mr. Airplane Owner, says the FAA. Can't hurt the profits of an entire industry dedicated to emptying your wallet of thousands of dollars every time your gyro needs to be rebuilt.
A modern fuel-injected, water-cooled airplane engine can run constant self-diagnostics and logging, and provide highly useful, actionable information to both the pilot and mechanic. It's single-lever, increasing reliability and reducing task loading during the most critical phases of flight, and reducing emissions substantially, too. It doesn't have special considerations in terms of flight profiles; air-cooled piston airplane engines require a gentle descent profile or they will be "shock cooled" and undergo high wear or outright seize. There are no issues with carb freeze. Starting is a breeze, instead of a chore. The list goes on.
We should be encouraging the hell out of EFI conversions and EFI engine options...but instead the FAA buries them all under mountains of paperwork and regulations to protect Lycoming and the like.
What drives me nuts about those auto engines loaded with sensors is that all that info gets hidden behind the "check engine" light in cars, even in modern cars with big LCD displays.
No, I don't want to plug something into an OBD-2 and bluetooth to a phone/laptop. Put the FUCKING INFO ON THE SCREEN. Speaking of protectionism, don't want your customers knowing what is actually wrong with the car...
No, I don't want to plug something into an OBD-2 and bluetooth to a phone/laptop. Put the FUCKING INFO ON THE SCREEN. Speaking of protectionism, don't want your customers knowing what is actually wrong with the car...
Adding insult to injury, the standard OBD2 protocol provides parameters like engine rpm etc., and thus with the usual ELM323 OBD-bluetooth adapters you can get for cheap on aliexpress and the usual bunch of phone apps you don't get to see the error codes, or what the actually mean. Those error codes are manufacturer specific and the manufacturers don't tell the world what they mean, preferring you to go to their brand shop in order to read and decode them.
For VAG (Volkswagen, Audi etc.) there's a software shops can use called VAG-COM that sells officially for a few $thousands, but you can get it very cheap from aliexpress (I'm quite sure it's pirated, so..). I guess something similar exists for other brands too.
For VAG (Volkswagen, Audi etc.) there's a software shops can use called VAG-COM that sells officially for a few $thousands, but you can get it very cheap from aliexpress (I'm quite sure it's pirated, so..). I guess something similar exists for other brands too.
Commercial aviation, sure. General aviation, e.g. a private pilot flying a Cessna 172 as in the article, is about as deadly per-mile as riding a motorcycle: far more dangerous than driving a car the same distance.
> Commercial aviation, sure. General aviation, e.g. a private pilot flying a Cessna 172 as in the article, is about as deadly per-mile as riding a motorcycle: far more dangerous than driving a car the same distance.
Others have touched on the probability thing.
The issue with motorcycles is that a some of it is under your control (driving safely, protective gear, bike maintenance) but there's a lot that isn't: potholes, other drivers, animals and so on.
Flying, almost everything is under the pilot's control. That includes most plane failures. Good preflight and maintenance takes care of most issues. The rest is taken care of by the flight planning – for example, engine failures. You should always have a place to put down the plane at any moment if you lose an engine - and general aviation aircraft land pretty slow.
Newer advancements have made it even safer (see also, whole frame parachutes).
That basically leaves freak accidents; they are a minority. Go spelunk the NTSB database, you'll find most accidents were preventable.
In a nutshell, you are probably going to find the risk is very skewed by complacent or otherwise irresponsible pilots.
Others have touched on the probability thing.
The issue with motorcycles is that a some of it is under your control (driving safely, protective gear, bike maintenance) but there's a lot that isn't: potholes, other drivers, animals and so on.
Flying, almost everything is under the pilot's control. That includes most plane failures. Good preflight and maintenance takes care of most issues. The rest is taken care of by the flight planning – for example, engine failures. You should always have a place to put down the plane at any moment if you lose an engine - and general aviation aircraft land pretty slow.
Newer advancements have made it even safer (see also, whole frame parachutes).
That basically leaves freak accidents; they are a minority. Go spelunk the NTSB database, you'll find most accidents were preventable.
In a nutshell, you are probably going to find the risk is very skewed by complacent or otherwise irresponsible pilots.
This is exactly how it is in the rock climbing community. People still die, including very experienced people. You only need to mess up a rappel weight transfer once, but you have to execute it successfully thousands of times over the course of your life. People cope by saying they're careful and it's the irresponsible people who die. It isn't true. No reasonable safety system can rely on you acting perfectly every time. A low-probability-lethal-failure activity that you many many times can get you eventually, no matter how careful you are.
I don't say all this to disparage GA, or rock climbing. I rock climb and intend to do so well into the future. But saying these sorts of things mean you aren't treating your hobby with the seriousness it deserves imo. It could happen to you; thinking otherwise is self-deception.
I don't say all this to disparage GA, or rock climbing. I rock climb and intend to do so well into the future. But saying these sorts of things mean you aren't treating your hobby with the seriousness it deserves imo. It could happen to you; thinking otherwise is self-deception.
The usage of 'per-mile' stats for aircraft safety irks me a little bit. It's certainly not how I think of safety when I hop on a plane - my internal comparison is more based on time - like, I'm about to spend 30 minutes on a plane, how much safer/less safe is that vs 30 minutes in a car?
The distance comparison also doesn't make sense because it's not like you could drive across the ocean even if you tried.
I guess it makes sense in terms of aggregate safety for a population for transport planning, but on an individual level it just doesn't communicate what I want to know.
Edit: for an analogy - imagine if someone invented faster than light space travel, but 25% of passengers don't survive the trip. The deaths per 100 miles statistic would be amazing compared to both car and air travel, but would you sign up for a ticket?
The distance comparison also doesn't make sense because it's not like you could drive across the ocean even if you tried.
I guess it makes sense in terms of aggregate safety for a population for transport planning, but on an individual level it just doesn't communicate what I want to know.
Edit: for an analogy - imagine if someone invented faster than light space travel, but 25% of passengers don't survive the trip. The deaths per 100 miles statistic would be amazing compared to both car and air travel, but would you sign up for a ticket?
The distance comparison does make sense, because the point of getting on a plane/car is to travel. People don't say "I'm going to drive for 30 mins", they say "I'm going to drive from Los Angeles to NYC". Comparing how dangerous that is on a plane requires comparing by distance, not time.
I would guess the majority of time in general aviation is not for the purpose of travel. It's a hobby.
If you're assuming it is a hobby then comparing it to car/motorcycle usage for travel is useless/invalid.
Yes, exactly.
A lot of it is to give pilots the experience they need to qualify to fly commercial airliners, also.
Agreed.. Though it's an often used metric: fatalities per billion kilometers (f/bnkm).
Someone told me that risk per unit distance was higher when walking than riding a motorcycle, which I thought sounded like it could be possible. Sadly it seems its not true [1].
Interesting how f/bnkm is so low for driving vs walking though.
[1]: https://www.normalizecycling.com/risk-in-cycling/units-of-ri...
Someone told me that risk per unit distance was higher when walking than riding a motorcycle, which I thought sounded like it could be possible. Sadly it seems its not true [1].
Interesting how f/bnkm is so low for driving vs walking though.
[1]: https://www.normalizecycling.com/risk-in-cycling/units-of-ri...
Eh, not really. Distance travelled !== quality of destination.
I can travel X minutes on a plane for Y cost to one set of destinations, or I can travel A minutes in a car for B cost to a different set of destinations. The actual distance between my current location and my destination means nothing to me, although the potential destinations do, which certainly are more varied with plane travel.
But I live in a pretty nice place, so travelling locally is pretty good too.
I can travel X minutes on a plane for Y cost to one set of destinations, or I can travel A minutes in a car for B cost to a different set of destinations. The actual distance between my current location and my destination means nothing to me, although the potential destinations do, which certainly are more varied with plane travel.
But I live in a pretty nice place, so travelling locally is pretty good too.
We're comparing safety, not "quality of destination".
If you were to travel from point A to point B, and wanted to know whether driving or flying was safer, then the correct metric to look at is the "per distance" one.
If you were to travel from point A to point B, and wanted to know whether driving or flying was safer, then the correct metric to look at is the "per distance" one.
Yeah but most travel isn't to a fixed, "necessary" destination. About the only place like that for me is work, and I certainly can't fly there.
Or to put it another way - comparing two different modes of travel to one specific destination doesn't make much sense when the destination is partially fungible. I want to know what the safest way to get to (any sufficiently nice place) is, not to (one specific nice place).
Or to put it another way - comparing two different modes of travel to one specific destination doesn't make much sense when the destination is partially fungible. I want to know what the safest way to get to (any sufficiently nice place) is, not to (one specific nice place).
The point is, being a hobby pilot is extremely dangerous.
Being a lazy hobby pilot is dangerous. The majority of GA crashes are pretty basic pilot error/"gotta-get-there-itis".
Motorcycles are the same way, actually. An overwhelming amount of fatal motorcycle accidents involve alcohol at night, usually in combination with not wearing proper gear.
Motorcycles are the same way, actually. An overwhelming amount of fatal motorcycle accidents involve alcohol at night, usually in combination with not wearing proper gear.
Bikers frequently get killed by other forms of traffic (at least as a major contributing factor), pilots typically kill themselves (usually unintentionally, of course), with rare exceptions.
Getting killed by running into a semi because you were weaving in and out of traffic at 90 mph and ran a red light is not really the traffic’s fault.
Is it?
In US General Aviation, there were 332 deaths in 19,454,467 flight hours in the year 2020.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20211117.as...
In US General Aviation, there were 332 deaths in 19,454,467 flight hours in the year 2020.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20211117.as...
Assuming all hours were flown at Cessna 172 cruise speed of 140mph, that gives about 2e7 * 140 = 2.8e9, divided by 332 gives about 8.4 million miles per fatality.
Compared to 85 million miles travelled per fatality on the roads in general, and about 4 million miles travelled per fatality on motorcycles.
2X better than motorcycles, 10X worse than road fatalities in general.
And that's being quite generous about the mileage.
Compared to 85 million miles travelled per fatality on the roads in general, and about 4 million miles travelled per fatality on motorcycles.
2X better than motorcycles, 10X worse than road fatalities in general.
And that's being quite generous about the mileage.
I don't think miles travelled per fatality is a useful point of comparison for general aviation. This puts it about on par with pedestrian deaths per mile travelled, and I don't think most people would call walking "extremely dangerous."
>Is it?
Yes, it is.
Very similar to how dangerous motorcycle riding is. Work out approx. hours of operation from miles driven (say avg. 30-50mph) and from there use annual fatalities. [1] Given that, death-per-hour for 332 deaths/19M in flight hours is roughly comparable to the 6000 deaths seen in motorcycle accidents. Much higher than automobiles, much higher than commercial flight.
[1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc...
Yes, it is.
Very similar to how dangerous motorcycle riding is. Work out approx. hours of operation from miles driven (say avg. 30-50mph) and from there use annual fatalities. [1] Given that, death-per-hour for 332 deaths/19M in flight hours is roughly comparable to the 6000 deaths seen in motorcycle accidents. Much higher than automobiles, much higher than commercial flight.
[1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc...
Ok, so per hour it is comparable to motorcycles. But consider also that the average private pilot only flies 100-150 hours per year.
I don't disagree that it is more dangerous than automobiles or commercial flight. But I wouldn't characterize it as "extremely dangerous." Nor would I characterize motorcycles as such.
I don't disagree that it is more dangerous than automobiles or commercial flight. But I wouldn't characterize it as "extremely dangerous." Nor would I characterize motorcycles as such.
I guess we disagree on motorcycle danger then. I consider motorcycles to be extremely dangerous (mostly to their drivers). A friend of mine died about 1.5 years ago on one. I'd had two other people (not as close) in my life die in motorcycle accidents so I used to cringe inside every time he told me he was going riding over the weekend, though I would just wish him well & to be safe. Riding made him happy, was a stress reliever for him. And as far as that goes there are probably worse habits like smoking & drinking to excess, but that doesn't make any of them non-dangerous.
Google says "motorcycles are usually ridden for around 3,000 miles per year on average" so that's less than a hundred hours. Another result says the median is 1000 and 90th percentile is around 5000.
Neither one is "extremely" dangerous but it's a far cry from "all these strict regulations make it extremely safe" like with commercial flight.
Neither one is "extremely" dangerous but it's a far cry from "all these strict regulations make it extremely safe" like with commercial flight.
Have you even looked into the history of aviation and why we have the FAA? Thes homebrew airplanes were falling out of the sky all over the place. A lot of people were dying.
> all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes
Many of them do, but that certainly doesn't mean all of them do.
It's really hard to see how using decades old engine designs with leaded gas is necessary to prevent crashes, or how updating a proven airframe to newer engine designs that have a lot of operating time in cars needs to be an extremely onerous process to avoid crashes.
Many of them do, but that certainly doesn't mean all of them do.
It's really hard to see how using decades old engine designs with leaded gas is necessary to prevent crashes, or how updating a proven airframe to newer engine designs that have a lot of operating time in cars needs to be an extremely onerous process to avoid crashes.
Cars and planes have significantly different impacts on the engine.
https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-...
> Car engines are designed to provide quick bursts of relatively high power output for acceleration, and then only modest power output for steady-state cruising. It’s unusual for an auto engine to operate anywhere near its redline rpm or max-rated power output. Airplanes, on the other hand, usually take off and climb near 100 percent power output, followed by steady-state cruise often at 75 percent power. Aircraft engines are designed to sustain this punishment reliably over a typical 2,000-hour service life. Try running your car’s engine at or near redline rpm all the time and see what happens. Of course, we don’t know what will happen, and in an airplane we can’t pull over to the side of the road when it does.
https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-...
> Car engines are designed to provide quick bursts of relatively high power output for acceleration, and then only modest power output for steady-state cruising. It’s unusual for an auto engine to operate anywhere near its redline rpm or max-rated power output. Airplanes, on the other hand, usually take off and climb near 100 percent power output, followed by steady-state cruise often at 75 percent power. Aircraft engines are designed to sustain this punishment reliably over a typical 2,000-hour service life. Try running your car’s engine at or near redline rpm all the time and see what happens. Of course, we don’t know what will happen, and in an airplane we can’t pull over to the side of the road when it does.
The story suggests they used a marine engine, which in turn is an automotive engine modified to run under marine conditions, which among other things includes "run at full load for hours" or "run at partial load for hours".
Typically, of course, you're not seeing a lot of elevation changes in a marine application, but with modern fuel injection that's probably not such a big deal.
Typically, of course, you're not seeing a lot of elevation changes in a marine application, but with modern fuel injection that's probably not such a big deal.
So de-rate and conservatively tune the engine to a peak HP that can be sustained indefinitely. This is SOP when putting automotive engines in industrial uses. Just because you don't know of it doesn't mean it's not dirt common and well practiced in industry.
2000hr equates to, generously, like really generously, a 150-200k service life. It really drives me up the wall to see you acting like this is a big number when in any other context you'd be happy to pop in and tell us about how your you're so smart because you bought a Toyota and it's guaranteed to make it that far.
2000hr equates to, generously, like really generously, a 150-200k service life. It really drives me up the wall to see you acting like this is a big number when in any other context you'd be happy to pop in and tell us about how your you're so smart because you bought a Toyota and it's guaranteed to make it that far.
> So de-rate and conservatively tune the engine to a peak HP that can be sustained indefinitely. This is SOP when putting automotive engines in industrial uses.
Those industrial uses don't crash into a random person's house if they fail, and "conservatively tune" means you've changed the engine's behavior. The FAA likes you to demonstrate safety when you change safety-critical things.
> 2000hr equates to, generously, a 150-200k service life.
At a much higher cruising RPM, which is the entire point of the article.
Those industrial uses don't crash into a random person's house if they fail, and "conservatively tune" means you've changed the engine's behavior. The FAA likes you to demonstrate safety when you change safety-critical things.
> 2000hr equates to, generously, a 150-200k service life.
At a much higher cruising RPM, which is the entire point of the article.
> Those industrial uses don't crash into a random person's house if they fail,
It is highly unlikely to crash into a random person’s home due to engine failure. Planes don’t drop out of the sky like stones when their engines fail. You can still fly them and pick a spot to attempt emergency landing or controlled crash.
For comparison, cars crash into people’s homes all the time, but i don’t believe it is ever a result of car engine failure. No reason to expect plane engine failures to cause these.
It is highly unlikely to crash into a random person’s home due to engine failure. Planes don’t drop out of the sky like stones when their engines fail. You can still fly them and pick a spot to attempt emergency landing or controlled crash.
For comparison, cars crash into people’s homes all the time, but i don’t believe it is ever a result of car engine failure. No reason to expect plane engine failures to cause these.
Considerable amount of plane crashes, including deadly ones, involve engine failure - often due to things that aren't present at all in automotive (or marine or industrial) use.
Sure, but this doesn’t mean that private pilots need or want FAA to “helpfully” force them to use older tech.
The argument I responded to was about negative externalities of potentially less safe new levels plane engines for third parties. I claim that these are negligible, because the risk of the worse engines is entirely internalized among the plane occupants: with less safe engines, more people will die, but these will almost certainly be plane occupants, not third parties. Third parties do die in plane crashes sometimes, but this is either caused by pilot error, or technical failure causing the plane to be uncontrollable, not failure of the engine. On piston GA planes, control is entirely independent of the engine.
The argument I responded to was about negative externalities of potentially less safe new levels plane engines for third parties. I claim that these are negligible, because the risk of the worse engines is entirely internalized among the plane occupants: with less safe engines, more people will die, but these will almost certainly be plane occupants, not third parties. Third parties do die in plane crashes sometimes, but this is either caused by pilot error, or technical failure causing the plane to be uncontrollable, not failure of the engine. On piston GA planes, control is entirely independent of the engine.
Ability to safely bring down a plane does depend on availability of engine power, however, as lack of it can greatly cut off possible options not to mention engine can fail in such a way that you won't be able to recover before stalling.
FAA doesn't force them to use older tech, anyway. It's just that a lot of smaller planes coast on grandfathering of older engines. Believe me, a lot of CAAs would simply love it if they could force removal of carburator-based engines outside of museum planes, because carburators are one of the core causes for engine-related crashes in GA, and requiring injection based systems would reduce a whole subcategory of accidents.
Thing is, FAA and other CAA are only requiring that you do follow through sometimes ornerous but generally sane testing requirements if you want to bring a new design. This causes considerable up front issues for new designs, but there's a reason why there's much less complaint about it than one would imagine - the ornerous rules are for when you want full certification for the plane, not any of the lower classes. TFA author was trying for full certification, so that the resulting plane would be fully usable without special allowances for flight training for PPL(A), not any of the lower-category licenses. For just flying once you have a license, the requirements are less steep. [1]
[1] My father is currently rebuilding a crashed Cessna 152, question of how deeply tested the engine will be (and thus whether the resulting type certificate would allow PPL(A) training) were discussed a lot
FAA doesn't force them to use older tech, anyway. It's just that a lot of smaller planes coast on grandfathering of older engines. Believe me, a lot of CAAs would simply love it if they could force removal of carburator-based engines outside of museum planes, because carburators are one of the core causes for engine-related crashes in GA, and requiring injection based systems would reduce a whole subcategory of accidents.
Thing is, FAA and other CAA are only requiring that you do follow through sometimes ornerous but generally sane testing requirements if you want to bring a new design. This causes considerable up front issues for new designs, but there's a reason why there's much less complaint about it than one would imagine - the ornerous rules are for when you want full certification for the plane, not any of the lower classes. TFA author was trying for full certification, so that the resulting plane would be fully usable without special allowances for flight training for PPL(A), not any of the lower-category licenses. For just flying once you have a license, the requirements are less steep. [1]
[1] My father is currently rebuilding a crashed Cessna 152, question of how deeply tested the engine will be (and thus whether the resulting type certificate would allow PPL(A) training) were discussed a lot
But that’s the entire point: the planes are using those museum piece engines purely because these are certified, and certifying new engines is an extremely hard, close to impossible proposition from business perspective. Sure, there is a way to work around the overly onerous (the mere fact that almost no new piston engines are getting certified is a clear proof that the requirements are excessive), but what would be great is if we simply could innovate in GA like we can in cars or boats or electric scooters.
Car engines, scooters, or marine engines don't have a tendency to kill user if they fail for any reason.
Also, the real reason there's almost no new piston engines is that there's no real demand. Especially since you need to certify the plane with the engine as well. Thus we face mostly incremental changes, because any single development won't bring enough demand to justify the changes. Meanwhile there's not enough money in the market to actually try banning the old engines unless you want to cripple a whole sector.
Also, the real reason there's almost no new piston engines is that there's no real demand. Especially since you need to certify the plane with the engine as well. Thus we face mostly incremental changes, because any single development won't bring enough demand to justify the changes. Meanwhile there's not enough money in the market to actually try banning the old engines unless you want to cripple a whole sector.
> At a much higher cruising RPM, which is the entire point of the article.
Looking at their demo videos, they seem to be running the engine at something like 3000 RPM, which is not that far from cruising RPM on a car.
Looking at their demo videos, they seem to be running the engine at something like 3000 RPM, which is not that far from cruising RPM on a car.
This is often achieve by simply derating the engine. You redefine redline to be 75% of what the engine was designed to produce. Then your takeoff becomes 75% power and cruise is more like 56%.
the 24 hours of Le Mans, and tens of thousands of runabout marine applications with automotive engines disagree with you. The real question is would you prefer a 1950s Lycoming engine with a mechanical fueling system, or a modern car engine that has been proven in millions of vehicles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans says "Racing teams must balance the demands of speed with the cars' ability to run for 24 hours without mechanical failure", which implies a slightly shorter lifespan than you'd want in a plane.
As if running an engine for 24 hours was good enough for a plane!
And le Mans is not an oval track: engines don't run at 100% all the time.
And how many le Mans cars break down during the race?
And le Mans is not an oval track: engines don't run at 100% all the time.
And how many le Mans cars break down during the race?
Hence why they used a marine engine.
Its a little more complex than that. Vehicles (cars, trucks) can rely on the engine power being transferred to a high friction surface (the road) with help from gravity with immediate effect. Where as boats and aircraft are transferring engine power to a low friction medium (air and water) where gravity is important for aircraft otherwise you die when you hit the ground unless you can auto rotate in a helicopter or glide in a plane, but where gravity is not so important in the scheme of things, if those extreme risk situations are catered for.
I bet they could have got the costs down more if they had used a Toroidal Propeller.
Here (already cued for you) https://youtu.be/s_J1OYcCPms?t=23 the footage shows less vortices generated with the Toroidal propeller seen in the top half of the frame of the two boat propeller underwater.
Its these vortices in water which generate cavitation on a traditional style propeller, which leave little pits on the surface of the propeller eventually leading to its replacement as its surface contributes to more friction and thus less fuel economy.
If the friction from the pitted surface is ignored, then it can lead to parts of a blade becoming more like swiss cheese with holes that results in parts of the blade breaking off.
Wind Turbines could generate more electricity if they used toroidal blades, but currently the engineering skill does not exists to scale these blades up in size, and have the ability to "detune" a blade in gale force/storm force winds to minimise damage to the generators and the unit itself.
However the use of these wind turbines also means, the state have a stealth population control mechanism as these wind turbine blades can also be altered to generate plenty of infrasound which can be used to make large parts of the population in the vicinity feel anxious, something that's documented in the Disney sound engineering labs in the 40's/50's when the sound engineers inadvertently made themselves all feel very ill for a few days. Ergo you will probably see less people striking in future!
I bet they could have got the costs down more if they had used a Toroidal Propeller.
Here (already cued for you) https://youtu.be/s_J1OYcCPms?t=23 the footage shows less vortices generated with the Toroidal propeller seen in the top half of the frame of the two boat propeller underwater.
Its these vortices in water which generate cavitation on a traditional style propeller, which leave little pits on the surface of the propeller eventually leading to its replacement as its surface contributes to more friction and thus less fuel economy.
If the friction from the pitted surface is ignored, then it can lead to parts of a blade becoming more like swiss cheese with holes that results in parts of the blade breaking off.
Wind Turbines could generate more electricity if they used toroidal blades, but currently the engineering skill does not exists to scale these blades up in size, and have the ability to "detune" a blade in gale force/storm force winds to minimise damage to the generators and the unit itself.
However the use of these wind turbines also means, the state have a stealth population control mechanism as these wind turbine blades can also be altered to generate plenty of infrasound which can be used to make large parts of the population in the vicinity feel anxious, something that's documented in the Disney sound engineering labs in the 40's/50's when the sound engineers inadvertently made themselves all feel very ill for a few days. Ergo you will probably see less people striking in future!
The problem is that regulations are often a knee-jerk reaction without consideration to the second order effects.
When a crash happens, add a rule to prevent it from happening again.
Eventually however you have so many onerous rules that it becomes incredibly expensive to design a new aircraft engine and thus are suck with decades old tech that lacks modern innovation and safety features.
It's very rare to do a pass over regulations to try to simplify them. From a regulatory POV, there is little glory in that and lots of risk.
When a crash happens, add a rule to prevent it from happening again.
Eventually however you have so many onerous rules that it becomes incredibly expensive to design a new aircraft engine and thus are suck with decades old tech that lacks modern innovation and safety features.
It's very rare to do a pass over regulations to try to simplify them. From a regulatory POV, there is little glory in that and lots of risk.
Exactly. This is similar to medical context, where it is found that decreasing regulations typically improves safety, both because it is easier to innovate and bring better products to market, but also because it increases liability of manufacturers: in a highly regulated market, they can say “sure, our device have caused you harm, but it operated exactly as FDA (or FAA) required, so take it up with them”.
See https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/fd... for example.
FAA overall has done a lot of good for the safety of the flyers (and I respect it much more than other regulatory agencies tasked with protecting us). The problem is that very often there is a trade off between safety and other things, and regulatory framework prohibits the people it is meant to serve from deciding on their own where exactly they want to be in terms of this trade off. For example, if motorcycles were invented today, they would almost certainly be banned as way too unsafe to operate. That would suck, because I love riding motorcycles.
See https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/fd... for example.
FAA overall has done a lot of good for the safety of the flyers (and I respect it much more than other regulatory agencies tasked with protecting us). The problem is that very often there is a trade off between safety and other things, and regulatory framework prohibits the people it is meant to serve from deciding on their own where exactly they want to be in terms of this trade off. For example, if motorcycles were invented today, they would almost certainly be banned as way too unsafe to operate. That would suck, because I love riding motorcycles.
Almost all of the innovation that's going on in light, piston airplanes today is happening in the experimental category. I've got newer, better, and safer avionics, sensors, lighting, and engine systems in the E/A-B category airplane I built in my garage than I would on a 1970's Cessna. The richness of inputs I have in the cabin, including a big moving map GPS, ADS-B traffic, satellite weather, carbon monoxide detection, a vast array of engine monitoring signals, AOA, and so on provide so much more in terms of safety and situational awareness. Pilots in the USA are truly lucky that we have this option.
Ha! Classic Theory of Constraints: most constraints come from rules that used to accomodate for some limitations. Most of those limitations are long gone, but we’ve come to not question the rules; we mistake them with reality.
I had an engine failure the other day. Fortunately I managed to land safely. Turns out that the problem had been brewing for a while. A modern engine design would have told me about the failure before it happened. The 1970's engine design did not. Nor did the retrofitted modern engine monitor that was certified and bought at great expense.
The current certification regime makes aircraft more dangerous by preventing modern technology from reaching or replacing the current fleet.
The current certification regime makes aircraft more dangerous by preventing modern technology from reaching or replacing the current fleet.
GA is extremely dangerous, piloting runs through part of my family and single-engine aircraft are for the post-midlife/retirement crisis that many pilots go through. It also is their deathbed.
One family member was at breakfast that morning with several other pilots, all of whom had private aircraft except him (he is a voracious pilot, though). Every single one of them apparently had some extremely harrowing stories about engine failure, etc. Every one of them.
It's not a game, and the FAA is really sleeping on the private sector as far as I understand. Its dying under bureaucracy.
To respond to the parent comment as well -- I don't think this is a 'Republican', 'Democrat', or even a 'Libertarian' issue. All three of those parties have weaknesses that tend to screw over this kind of organization -- the first two with extremely bloated processes, and the second with perhaps far-too-little regulation.
This is the kind of org that just needs good leadership with integrity and funding that focuses on getting the little guys up and out there, as well as promoting development and having _very strict_ best practices for safety. It's a very hard blend to do right, I think. Sorta a combination of reducing bloat and inferred/accidental corruption, etc, I think.
(not to get terribly political, I do not like politics at all personally. Just talking through the technical points of the matter as much as I can. Much love! <3 <3 <3 <3 :)))))) :D :D :)))))) )
One family member was at breakfast that morning with several other pilots, all of whom had private aircraft except him (he is a voracious pilot, though). Every single one of them apparently had some extremely harrowing stories about engine failure, etc. Every one of them.
It's not a game, and the FAA is really sleeping on the private sector as far as I understand. Its dying under bureaucracy.
To respond to the parent comment as well -- I don't think this is a 'Republican', 'Democrat', or even a 'Libertarian' issue. All three of those parties have weaknesses that tend to screw over this kind of organization -- the first two with extremely bloated processes, and the second with perhaps far-too-little regulation.
This is the kind of org that just needs good leadership with integrity and funding that focuses on getting the little guys up and out there, as well as promoting development and having _very strict_ best practices for safety. It's a very hard blend to do right, I think. Sorta a combination of reducing bloat and inferred/accidental corruption, etc, I think.
(not to get terribly political, I do not like politics at all personally. Just talking through the technical points of the matter as much as I can. Much love! <3 <3 <3 <3 :)))))) :D :D :)))))) )
Mechanical engine failure is not a major factor in GA fatalities, mind you running out of gas is a big chunk of engine failure accidents.
Weather exceeding pilot and/or airframe capability is the big killer. That includes black hole takeoffs where failure to use the instruments kills quickly.
There's a bunch of fatal loss of control accidents where the pilot stall/spins out of a low level turn to the runway - which can happen when the engine quits on takeoff. With urban development crowding runways, you might just have to land on a roof.
I have been fortunate in not needing to use such airports. Flying gliders I don't always make it back. I keep landable areas in reach. In one case a dark cloud over the hills blocked my way back and I had to retreat 30 km to an airport.
Weather exceeding pilot and/or airframe capability is the big killer. That includes black hole takeoffs where failure to use the instruments kills quickly.
There's a bunch of fatal loss of control accidents where the pilot stall/spins out of a low level turn to the runway - which can happen when the engine quits on takeoff. With urban development crowding runways, you might just have to land on a roof.
I have been fortunate in not needing to use such airports. Flying gliders I don't always make it back. I keep landable areas in reach. In one case a dark cloud over the hills blocked my way back and I had to retreat 30 km to an airport.
>
My heart wants to agree with you but all those regulations must have something to do with how few people die in airplane crashes.
Very few people die in large commercial aviation crashes, but the hobbyist pilot space is a graveyard. ~400 deaths/year in the US, ~13 deaths/100M miles traveled. Meanwhile, commercial aviation is closer to 0.002 deaths/100M miles traveled.
Incidentally, the FAA rules around general aviation are a lot more relaxed than they are around commercial aviation. As a landlubber who occasionally spends a week geeking out about planes, but would never own one, their rules don't really seem to be ridiculous.
Very few people die in large commercial aviation crashes, but the hobbyist pilot space is a graveyard. ~400 deaths/year in the US, ~13 deaths/100M miles traveled. Meanwhile, commercial aviation is closer to 0.002 deaths/100M miles traveled.
Incidentally, the FAA rules around general aviation are a lot more relaxed than they are around commercial aviation. As a landlubber who occasionally spends a week geeking out about planes, but would never own one, their rules don't really seem to be ridiculous.
So, about the same as motorcycles, with probably much less danger to the general public.
I'd say most of these deaths (for both motorcycles and GA) can be attributed to poor judgement outside the scope of FAA regulations or road rules.
I'd say most of these deaths (for both motorcycles and GA) can be attributed to poor judgement outside the scope of FAA regulations or road rules.
There would be fewer crashes if FAA allowed us to fly modern planes instead of those relics from 60's
You are demonstrating a lot of status-quo bias
Obligatory link to why the FAA maybe should have a couple of special exceptions.
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2011/06/16/revitalizing-th...
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2011/06/16/revitalizing-th...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
(I'm not saying Trent Palmer is trying to run around any regulations, just that his videos are cool, and seem like a good entry point into experimental bushplanes)
I'd also encourage anyone here to check out Mike Patey: https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos
His current videos are about a really interesting and unique pool he is building at his house, but most of his stuff is about even cooler and even more unique airplanes he builds. He's an incredible engineer/hacker.