What GA needs

wrote in message
ups.com...
As I look at a high-school parking lot, there's so many cars I and
friends in "my day" would not be seen dead in. If this translates to
airplanes, yoots today may not be interested in this kind of
machinery. It's even true for older people, where so many SUVs have
zero styling, and few convertibles or sport models available and sold
in high numbers.

I notice quite a few built-up and re-built cars such as Honda Civic,
Mitsubishi Eclipse's and the like, rather akin to my day of tricked out
Mustangs and Camero's.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com wrote:

"Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
just don't support both without real exotic materials.

Other than that, though...

--

I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
materials, not thermodynamics.

Umm...that's what he said: "...real exotic materials".


It may take a significant investment,
but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is
using the Rotax 914 engine which is a very popular GA engine. A small
turbine may sound far fetched now, but I am sure GPS also sounded far
fetched 20 years ago, but became commonplace after heavy military
investment.

Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.

It's not the physics, it's the COST of those PHYSICS.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
news:BuCdncDCBfMie3jbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...


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

The "New Wave" is much more likely to be diesel, especially given the 100LL
"crisis".

On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

-- dave j

Matt,

I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
"passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
"failed.

BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
greater than in the past. Competition to get into elite universities
is more intense than ever.

The reason I think that's remotely relevant is simply because the
people who are going to learn to fly are, well, the above averages,
and they really do have more pressure on their time than in the past.


My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
dearth of new students.

I am not sure I follow what you mean. That people are more acquisitive
than they used to be? More into "stuff" and less into "experiences?"


You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.

We're in violent agreement.

-- dave j

On Sep 10, 5:29 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message

ups.com...





This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

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

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?

Thanks for jump-starting this discussion again.

Comments, not in any particular order:
1. When I started attending fly-ins, the first impression was the decrepit
state of the airport facilities. Most of the buildings/hangers were built
in the 1930s through 1950s, and many of them look like they haven't been
painted since.

2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
and deserved to be assissinated.

3. I wish LSAs hadn't been prohibited from using turbines, even if a good
one to use isn't available now.

4. I just put up a longwire antenna for my shortwave, I still think being
able to hear news from a long was away is a pretty cool thing; basically,
ZERO kids do. But a subset do find the technical aspects of propogation
interesting. Ham radio and shortware used to be exotic, they aren't
anymore. When long distance phone calls were $5 for 3 minutes, long
distance was exotic, it isn't anymore. Aviation isn't exotic anymore, but
pitching the personal achievement aspect of it will get (some) kids
interested. I'm not sure pitching the "utility" of GA works, anymore the
pitching the utility of a $20,000 bass boat does, while Safeway is having a
seafood sale this week.

5. As for your specific points, I think a small turbine is always going to
cost more that a piston engine, we are there on mileage, composites,
interiors, and pretty close to there on price.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My experience was the same when I took my intro flight. I've been a
huge fan of flight sim for many years before I decided to take an
intro ride. It was a huge let down. A rickety old 152 and a cranky
instructor that cost me a good chunk of money (I was a poor grad
student). My ride never went past the intro ride stage. A few months
later I took another intro ride in a Diamond Aircraft Katana. This was
a whole different beast. Comfy, great view, nice panel. Even though it
cost more than the 152, there was no question about my decision. 12
years later I still haven't stopped flying. I can totally relate to
people not getting 'turned on' by our current fleet.

I do not buy that today's kids are not up to the challenge. They are
better informed and more capable than we were at their age. Most of us
grew up at a time when digital watches were cool, and we were awed by
the performance of the Timex Sinclair computer.

However, I am pleased to see the developments in LSA and all the new
airplanes coming into the market with newer technologies. I am also
pleased to see the efforts being put into developing newer powerplants
and turbines. Although cost is a big factor, I don't think that will
be a show stopper if the developments are truly attractive. People
will find a way to pay for what they find appealing. Very few people
really "need" an SUV, yet people buy them at ten times the price of a
used Geo Metro which would serve them just fine. Very few people
"need" the five bedroom 3 bathroom triple garage homes, but people
line up to buy these things and are willing to go into lifelong debt
for it. The coolness factor can easily overpower the expense factors.
But it is very difficult to convince someone to come up with $100k
plus a few grand a year for a rusty airplane that looks, feels and
really is 20 years old even if it travels at three times the driving
speed.

"Dave J" wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt,

I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
"passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
"failed.

BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
greater than in the past.

I don't how to qualify "good students", but I notice man college people,
even at Ivy League schools, are woefully lacking on any number of subjects.

Competition to get into elite universities
is more intense than ever.

Yet they keep lowering their standards. The VERY elite schools have not
caved in, but we're talking about no more than the top couple percent.

Read some of the tests and surveys and it's shocking and embarrassing how
dumbed down our schools have become over the past 20-30 years. I'm talking
colleges and universities; the elementary and high schools are even worse.

"Dave J" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Air taxi is going (IMO) in the dorection of VLJs. The Cirrus and Columbia's
are not aimed at the entry level market, but they, too, will be within reach
of many pilots once they get a few years depreciation on them.

On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
getting what you wanted...

"John Jones" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

Notice, if you will (can?) that those who ask questions and seek to learn
from those with vast years and hours of ACTUAL flying experience get very
nice treatment.

MX, on the other hand, is a character with severe mental issues, who has
been laughed off numerous other newsgroups. He's nothing more than a vandal
with a keyboard, rather than a can of spray paint.


The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
getting what you wanted...

I'd venture to guess it's advantageous that we don't have such a mental
misfit dashing around in the same skies as the rest of us.

I'd guess that you're just as FOS as he is.