achimha wrote:
I doubt there is any producer of certified GA aircraft that would ever sell anything off the factory line to you so you should acknowledge that there must be other segments as well for there to be a market for new technologies. Or maybe they should all live from military tax money?
US military money was the way Thielert achieved relative reliability.
I think development of new GA technologies outside of those supported by the military won’t in future involve much in the way of ‘certified GA aircraft coming down a factory production line’. Experimental Amateur Built has been the source for useful GA innovation for 40 years, stuff that actually works and is widely marketed, and I think that will continue. Europe has not adapted to that concept.
achimha wrote:
Now if you go one step further and also acknowledge that the assumed condition “where either auto fuel or Avgas is available” is not universally true, we would be almost in agreement!
I don’t think there are any potential GA markets that lack widely available unleaded auto fuel.
Silvaire wrote:
I don’t think there are any potential GA markets that lack widely available unleaded auto fuel.
While I have more Avgas in dozens of places around my homebase than I can ever fill in my tanks, my airplane actually allows me to travel at 160KTAS for 6h plus reserve. That is 960NM. It really doesn’t matter in which direction I fly those 960NM, there will always be an AVGAS issue. The “traffic pattern + occasional $100 burger run” might be a large part of the current GA scene (and intersect even more with the experimental amateur built) but it’s not the only one.
Silvaire wrote:
Experimental Amateur Built has been the source for useful GA innovation for 40 years, stuff that actually works and is widely marketed, and I think that will continue. Europe has not adapted to that concept.
99% (or more?) US GA pilots will never leave the US of A in their aircraft. I would assume that about 90% of German aircraft owners do leave their country at some point using their aircraft (even if it’s “just” Austria). This is when certification and ICAO become very important. The amateur regimes are a national thing without universal recognition. There is tremendous value in having an aircraft registered in the UK, a PPL/IR from Germany and being able to fly to e.g. Africa like it was home. Same rules, everything directly recognized.
The trend you describes is a segregation of the GA market. Amateur built is one aspect, driving license medicals another. It promotes the trend to no longer have a uniform ICAO compliant system where everything from a C150 to an A380 is part of the same system, sharing the same skies, operating on the same rules.
achimha wrote:
While I have more Avgas in dozens of places around my home base than I can ever fill in my tanks, my airplane actually allows me to travel at 160 KTAS for 6h plus reserve. That is 960NM.
That’s a normal cross country capability and something like an RV can get there faster, burning auto fuel if necessary, even if it had to stop along the way. An RV-7 has approximately 20% shorter range but can do that speed at 55% power and 8000 ft.
achimha wrote:
The amateur regimes are a national thing without universal recognition.
That’s a problem that needs to be solved within the EU, creating a GA market in a geographic area comparable in size to the US. I think that’s more important than any particular GA technology, because development of ICAO-compliant certified planes and equipment shows no sign of coming back into vogue.
achimha wrote:
The trend you describes is a segregation of the GA market.
In the US it’s not a segregation so much as it’s a replacement of certified light GA by E-AB. I fly a certified aircraft only because my maintenance situation is very little different than E-AB, and because I like having two less expensive certified planes instead of one RV like ‘everybody else’
I suppose the other pressing question is weather they have finally got this engine sorted for GA. If that’s the case then there will be a market.
@Silvaire
While I admire the sleek lines and speed of a RV7 you wouldn’t want to spend six hours in one (admitted the trip may only take you five plus fuel stop ;) nor would you be able to use it for anything outside VFR. Your quoted 8,000 ft wouldn’t even get you across the alps comfortably. A RV would also be limit you regarding luggage unless you travel the 960NM with only your toothbrush and your American Express card.
The experimental and light sport planes leave a lot to be desired for “serious flying” or touring starting with my 6’6" size and my transportation requirements. Experimental will never be an option for my family and Light Sport with limited speed and weight can’t even get myself solo to the Mediterranean.
Yes, I want electronic ignition and at the right price point I would want a diesel or any JetA burner but like Achim I can’t find the innovation in my aircraft market segment.
@Bathman
The REALLY pressing question for me, the answer for which they haven’t disclosed yet: what 182 is now actually supported? The MVP50 installation doesn’t seem to comply with G1000 fleet or does it? Can you disable G1000 motor management?
mrfacts wrote:
While I admire the sleek lines and speed of a RV7 you wouldn’t want to spend six hours in one (admitted the trip may only take you five plus fuel stop ;) nor would you be able to use it for anything outside VFR. Your quoted 8,000 ft wouldn’t even get you across the alps comfortably.
The EU operational restrictions (e.g. VFR only) are what I described above as needing to be solved and I don’t get the “6 hrs” comment. I think a side-by-side seating RV can be as comfortable as anything else, not that I’d choose to sit in any plane for 6 hrs given any other option. Regardless, I’m surrounded by people who fly RVs all over the place, including (recently) a trip to airports at all four corners of the continental US, IFR and aerobatics along the way both included. Autopilots are becoming common. Climb rate is 2000 fpm and the ceiling of a 200 HP RV-7 is 25,500 feet, although limited by regulation to 18,000 ft when VFR in the US (in any plane). At 6’6" I’d recommend a RV-14, you’d probably fit – I’m very tall from the waist up and have had no problems in RVs.
mrfacts wrote:
A RV would also be limit you regarding luggage unless you travel the 960NM with only your toothbrush and your American Express card.
I think this much baggage space (RV-7 shown below) is enough for most people. Obviously the four seater RV would have more room for people and bags of you needed it, but statistically most people choose performance over room for four.
You are correct – I haven’t seen one that I fit in comfortably. I guess one could be built to accomodate for size but that gets me back to “experimental” – I don’t trust myself to build one reliably, wouldn’t load my family in one and wouldn’t be able to fly legal IR in Europe with one.
When you get up to 25,500 with your experimental airframe and your experimental engine don’t forget to take O2 further reducing your creature comforts. That is built in to the Cessna..
I have a feeling if we go down this experimental vs. factory certified discussion Peter will branch us to a new thread..
I admit there are thousands in Van’s airforce – a lot of them will have given my arguments a lot of thought and still bought one. It won’t serve to lament that I want state-of-the-art factory-certified. That is just not available this side of a million dollars any more.
It would be better if people started new threads. Just go to desired the forum section and there is a link:
With me creating new threads when something goes way off topic (but remains valuable), we get a lot of disjointed threads all over the place. It would be much better if someone just started a new thread on a new topic. A bit off topic is fine but when a thread goes way off topic, people just leave the site because it is not worth reading.
I think what it boils down to is that unless the engine can be used in an experimental or microlight (within a reasonable budget), we might as well forget all about it. It’s irrelevant for 99% of private GA. The current line of diesels are irrelevant, and that is the bottom line. The reason is cost of purchase.
Lycoming is good because it is simple and does the job just fine. It’s a known quantity with known costs. For experimental aircraft it is as good as can be, not because of Lycoming in particular, but due the the “clones” (Superior, Titan etc). Then we have Rotax, who produces better working engines than anyone else, and sells more engines than all others combined (a fact that Silvaire pretends and hopes isn’t true 
), and ULPower who has carved themselves a niche for those who want modern tech in a traditional package. (Several other minor producers as well).
What is Europe anyway? I know Norway, Scandinavia and here the situation is:
The only place where a super over prized diesel will fit, is in the “Loads of money” category. And there we have the DA-42
LeSving wrote:
Then we have Rotax, who produces better working engines than anyone else, and sells more engines than all others combined (a fact that Silvaire pretends and hopes isn’t true)
Well, obviously they’d have to produce a lot because after a while the existing ones have to thrown away. Actually, while I’ve never been a fan of Rotax’s fiddly engineering (initially on motorcycles) I don’t have much against them except that my long experience with Bing CV carbs leads me to think they aren’t right for an aircraft engine. Also the two stroke style crankshaft isn’t what I’d choose on a rational basis, but it worked for them.
I’d choose a Rotax 912 with two more cylinders (150 HP) over a turbo-diesel but I’d choose an O-360 over either.
