What GA needs

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

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

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

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

On Sep 12, 12:40 am, James Sleeman wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



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

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

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

I think I would, actually. When I fly, it will likely be under light-
sport rules since all I anticipate really wanting to do is drill some
plane-shaped holes in the sky and take in the view.

My concern is for the next generation of rental aircraft. The cheap
LSA and ultralights that you cited all seem to be flying under the
experimental rules, which I believe don't allow an aircraft to be
rented or used for any commercial purpose including instruction for
hire. (If I've misread the FARs, please correct me as IANAP) There
doesn't seem to be anything coming along to replace the Cessna 150 on
the flight school and rental lineup, and that's what worries me.

-JTD

Jeff Dougherty wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:40 am, James Sleeman wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



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

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

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

I think I would, actually. When I fly, it will likely be under light-
sport rules since all I anticipate really wanting to do is drill some
plane-shaped holes in the sky and take in the view.

My concern is for the next generation of rental aircraft. The cheap
LSA and ultralights that you cited all seem to be flying under the
experimental rules, which I believe don't allow an aircraft to be
rented or used for any commercial purpose including instruction for
hire. (If I've misread the FARs, please correct me as IANAP) There
doesn't seem to be anything coming along to replace the Cessna 150 on
the flight school and rental lineup, and that's what worries me.

-JTD

You are half right. the S-LSA aircraft can be rented indeed Cessna
themselves have just started taking orders on the 162 Skycatcher.

Also, for at least a while the E-LSA (the ******* children of Experimental
and S-LSA) can be rented.

Check out sportpilot.org for more info.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

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


Rotary engine - Poor boys turbine. Greatly reduce the moving part count, for
weight, cost and reliability, and keep some of the fuel efficiency.

Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.

Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to flywheels
(propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some kind of
dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a tremendous
deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.

Maxwell wrote:

Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.


Oh you kids. When I got my PP-SEL back in 79 nobody at the airport wore
headsets. Of course we are all deaf today. But I don't see headsets as a
negative. Kids grow up wearing bike helmets and iPod ear buds. They are used
to wearing stuff on their heads.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:

Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.


Oh you kids. When I got my PP-SEL back in 79 nobody at the airport wore
headsets. Of course we are all deaf today. But I don't see headsets as a
negative. Kids grow up wearing bike helmets and iPod ear buds. They are
used to wearing stuff on their heads.


I hear ya, I soloed in 71, and got my PP in 72. So spent a lot of years
flying without them too. If fact, if I could still rent aircraft with decent
overhead speakers, I probably still wouldn't use them. But it seems most
rental aircraft have the speakers blown out from renters wearing ear plugs,
and cranking up the volume.

But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration to a
lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is becoming more
demanding of creature comforts every day.

Maxwell wrote:


But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration
to a lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is
becoming more demanding of creature comforts every day.

No Sh!t, how do you think Bose gets away with selling $1000 headsets.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:


But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration
to a lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is
becoming more demanding of creature comforts every day.

No Sh!t, how do you think Bose gets away with selling $1000 headsets.


But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets. And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
community over helmets.

I really believe most pilots today, are pilots because they love to fly. And
most would continue to fly even if they had to wear a space suit. But we
will never know how much noise, vibration and inconvenience has handicapped
aviation's ability to compete with other pursuits, until we have eliminated
them.

"Some Other Guy" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to
flywheels (propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some
kind of dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a
tremendous deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.

Reliability? Wouldn't it just be adding another potential point of
failure?


Well I suppose it could, but certainly wouldn't have to be a given.
Torsional vibration devices in other vehicles don't seem to be common causes
of wear or failure. But the amount of vibration they can eliminate, could
very be helpful in reducing fatigue in other systems. It might even be
useful in reducing weight of things like the prop itself.

"Some Other Guy" wrote
Maxwell wrote:
Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to
flywheels (propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some
kind of dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a
tremendous deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.

Reliability? Wouldn't it just be adding another potential point of
failure?

Plus the big killer of airplanes and "improvements" - WEIGHT !

A vibration isolator/dampener would have to be extreeeeemly robust, to
handle the torque pulses, and would weigh a significant amount.

A properly indexed and balanced prop is not going to be worse than a prop
isolated from the engine, either.

There are some devices that bolt on the backplate of the spinner, (as I
recall) but I don't remember the name. They work by letting some weight in
a viscous fluid find the right place to settle and balance the system out,
automatically. I do recall that people that have used them rave about them.
Anyone?
--
Jim in NC