Can’t wait until the SR22 gets the 3.0 liter Mercedes-based V6 jet fuel engine (CD-300?) … Maybe by that time I have reached TBO …?
I’ve been on and on about electric propulsion in other forums, so no need to rehash here. What I’d like to see in a new 6 place aircraft would be:
1. Hybrid – so that short hops can be done purely electric, and takeoffs etc can done with excess power and with less noise.
2. Jet A1 – forget Avgas.
3. A lavatory. Should be standard in everything above 4 seats.
4. CAPS system
5. Modern interior/exterior design. A website where I can chose my trim, upholstery and color just like when I buy a car online.
6. Full FIKI. No more crazy half-assed stuff.
7. Pressurized to the hilt. I want a SL cabin at FL280. If the jets can do it, so can we. It’s not rocket science.
8. Looong range. No, I know they think 1000nm is long range. I’m talking 2500nm+. I want to be able to make NY to LA eastbound safely with headwinds direct. I want to be able to go direct St.Johns to Ireland. Now that I have a lav, I don’t want or need to land at unfriendly airports/countries where they tap you dry. Bypass those a**holes.
9. Under $200K to buy.
10. AOA standard.
11. Able to land and takeoff from grass/gravel.
12. Twin for redundancy, but ideally like a fanjet/ducted fan with engines at the back so it looks and feels like a bizjet. That will also keep the noise away from the cabin.
Impossible? A car is a lot more complex than this and has more moving parts – and $200K buys you a lot there. It can be done.
A new design has to take into account the changed environment for GA today and be mission orientated. Equally, it has to be appealing in terms of ramp presence and have a cabin which at least duplicates the comfort of a car.
1. Economy, good speed per horsepower.
2. Jet A1.
3. Proper payload (100 kg per seat @ max fuel)
4. Proper range (1000 NM +)
5. IFR capable with full FIKI.
6. Affordability.
7. Rescue System (Shute)
Most people fly alone or at most with one pax, so a two or three seater should be sufficient for most missions, provided it has sufficient payload to carry the said 2 or 3 people with their baggage.
Economy and JetA1 realistically means Diesel as well as at least 150-170 kts speed. The faster the plane, the less endurance (time) it needs. At that speed, 1000 NM means 7 hours endurance (6 plus 1 reserve) .
I often wondered why Socata had just 86 USG usable, when by moving the end bulkhead along 1 position towards the wingtip they could have had about 100 USG.
The bulkheads all have lightnening holes in them, except obviously the two which form the ends of the fuel tank.
I spoke to them a few years ago and they could not tell me why it wasn’t done.
It might be due to spar stress but I doubt it.
The range would have gone up from 1300nm to 1500nm, for a zero cost.
I believe one Mooney model achieves 2000nm but is that an IO540? With an IO360 and a smaller cabin volume it can be achieved.
3. Proper payload (100 kg per seat @ max fuel)
I disagree – in most cases this implies that the fuel tanks have been made artifically smaller than they could have been. I like having the option to trade of very long range for load carrying capacity. A better criterion would be “Proper Payload (range 900nm with 400kg of people and baggage)”
The rest, I completely agree. I prefer the idea of a 4 seater, but I think I’ve only flown 4-up twice. 3 people is quite common though.
I believe one Mooney model achieves 2000nm but is that an IO540?
The M20R with long range tanks has a book number around 2400nm. At full fuel its pretty much a single-seater though.
@JasonC What would you like so see in change, that you recognize as change? What in your opinion would be an improvement, where you would think of innovation?
@achimha You need not look at improvement among one type. Take for instance the Cessna 177 as a proposed (technical) improvement. Look at the evolution of the C210 / C310 line if you like to stay within a signle aircraft line. Or Take the SR22 as a modern travelling machine in contrast to the BE35 or Cessna 195, that were aimed at the same useage. Buyng a new Cessna 182 is a choice that is not driven by unavailability of modern travelling aircraft or family SUV.
But again: What would you recognise as improvement? What would you make think that there was a substantial innovation?
Why should avionics be excluded? It is substantial part of aviation and of aircraft systems and just as every other field part of aviation development.
I would like cheapness, though I don’t expect it. I’m sure the newer aircraft are great. Their specs are great. People seem to enjoy flying them. The only thing not to like is surely the price tag.
Perhaps some foam extrusions with grooves for you to glue carbon spars then cover with aluminium sheet, thin ply etc. CNC metal fittings. There’s got to be some way of building using modern materials/techniques that doesn’t cost either thousands of hours, or tens of thousands of pounds.
Cheap avionics. I’ve just bought a handheld radio for £220 with inbuilt ILS/VOR. If it were panel mounted it would have cost £1200 for a radio without the VOR function. What makes the panel-mount version so expensive?
I agree with Silvaire about becoming independent of manufacturers – even big names don’t necessarily stick around so I don’t like the idea of even a homebuilt aircraft with a factory-built spar that you can’t fix after an otherwise minor ding.
Perhaps some foam extrusions with grooves for you to glue carbon spars then cover with aluminium sheet, thin ply etc.
The Dragonfly homebuilt of 1980 did that over hot wire cut foam. The covering was fiberglass.
I agree that what people actually want is very cheap flying, without great limitations, but physical reality plus the fuel tax burden doesn’t make that an easy objective. People then lash out at aircraft technology and hope that someday it can make things cheaper.
@JasonC What would you like so see in change, that you recognize as change? What in your opinion would be an improvement, where you would think of innovation?
I guess I don’t think any such change is likely. But some form of change in propulsion or airframes that allowed either a substantial performance boost or meaningfully lower costs. Both would be good but lets be realistic. The sort of change in those areas that is like what GPS/Glass has done to avionics.
And I exclude avionics as that has really just come about due to the consumer technology boom – would never have come just for light GA otherwise.
Peter,
the current series Mooneys have
- Ovation S Standard fuel: 1860 NM, Long Range 2400 NM.
- Acclaim S Standard fuel : 1445 NM, Long Range: 1852 NM
The future M10J is projected to have 900 NM with 42 USG Diesel.
All out of production models can get 36 USG additional tanks. Book ranges (Eco Cruise with 45 min reserve) are:
M20C Standard: 700 NM, Long Range 1263 NM.
M20E Standard: 630 NM, Long Range 1145 NM
M20F Standard: 775 NM, Long Range 1272 NM
M20J Standard: 900 NM, Long Range 1446 NM
M20K Standard: 946 NM, Long Range 1463 NM
Never looked at the Eagle and the TLS Bravo, but what I can find is They both have around 900 NM Standard. The Eagle has a nominal capacity of 75 USG, but actually has 95 USG tanks like the Ovation does, only one is not supposed to use the extra 20 USG, which will give it roughly 300 extra NM.
So actually, the M10J comes pretty close to the efficiency goal, especcially considering it is supposed to run 170 kts. What is still quite remarkable is that the M20J and K with LR tanks have almost the same range as the Ovation with standard tanks.
