And to answer the question, what would it take to move to a non-CofA type, for me personally it would be this:
Reasonable size: 4 seats
Reasonable payload: 3 up with full tanks
Reasonable range: ~600 nm
Reasonable performance: 110 kts or more
Reasonable service ceiling: 12,000
IFR certified in Europe
Comfortable
Option to install modern avionics (full glass)
Autopilot
Looks good (it has to look good)
Must not be powered either by diesel or pure battery electics
Good safety record (and something that had a good few years as a production machine, where all ‘niggles’ are now fixed
Funnily enough what I am describing is what I look for anyhow, and is actually what I own right now. However, if the IFR certified in Europe bit was met, nothing would stop me trading in the PA28 for a more modern non-CofA machine.
If I wanted other niceties like de-icing, service ceilning of 20,000 +, turbo props, 6 seaters, airliner style avionins, 1200nm range, I dont think I’d look the non CofA market as that type of mission profile I dont think could be met by what right now would be a ‘young’ non-CofA machine.
Reasonable size: 4 seats
Reasonable payload: 3 up with full tanks
Reasonable range: ~600 nm
Reasonable performance: 110 kts or more
Reasonable service ceiling: 12,000
IFR certified in Europe
Comfortable
Option to install modern avionics (full glass)
Autopilot
Looks good (it has to look good)
Must not be powered either by diesel or pure battery electics
Good safety record (and something that had a good few years as a production machine, where all ‘niggles’ are now fixed
That is a fairly standard CofA machine 
If you take out the 3/4 seats and IFR, and perhaps also take out the “comfortable” bit 
you are looking at a number of non CofA types with well above average money spent on them.
And that is why many people will buy CofA machines even if non CofA types could do IFR.
And that is why many people will buy CofA machines even if non CofA types could do IFR.
I think most people mainly buy CofA machines because they don’t have the skill and time and space to build and maintain their own non-CofA one… even if those came at half the price (which they don’t).
True. Most owners have little idea about and are hardly involved in the aircraft’s maintenance. One can’t blame them at all. Applies to cars as well. Most people who can afford an aircraft value their leisure time too high to get involved with aircraft mechanics. Most don’t even have enough time to fly it 70 or 100 hours a year.
And now ‘spam can’ is used to describe just your ‘average’ CofA type airplane, particuarly those used at the lower end used by flying school.
I always smile when I hear it used that way, as it is in Europe. The phrase was actually coined by those who preferred older planes over relatively soulless new planes… Its surely a stupid term, regardless of correct or incorrect usage – all kinds of planes have their place and the C172s and Cherokees of the world more than most of them.
Most people who can afford an aircraft value their leisure time too high to get involved with aircraft mechanics.
Absolutely untrue in the US.
Absolutely untrue in the US.
Very sorry, Silvaire, but this is (by its very name) not a US forum. Making your word irrelevant here, though it may well be true. Yes, it might open up a few eyes. There’s many differences between USA and most European countries, as I understand.
Indeed I am in the heart of Europe, and do own and fly my own plane, and do perform repair and maintenance myself – but then under the “microlight” statute – on a CofA I never could, and thus could never afford to fly.
The market for GA aircraft is largely driven by the US market. This is particularly true for ‘non C of A’ aircraft that would attract European pilots who are currently flying certified aircraft for personal transport under both IFR and VFR . What the European buyer for that type of aircraft would choose from is typically (although not entirely) a subset of what is currently selling in the US now for that function, based on US preferences. So its a central issue.
I think most people driving the world’s market for GA transportation aircraft, Certified and Experimental, are not averse to being involved with maintenance of their aircraft.
on a CofA I never could
Why not?
My Husquarna lawn mower is about the same level of mechanical complexity as my TB20. The main difference is how you treat prop strikes
I agree that most owners simply don’t want to get involved (and I am sure that’s true in the USA also, expressed as % of total) but what really stops many mechanically able people from doing it is the typical airfield politics where working in a hangar is prohibited through practices designed to support local maintenance companies. Some of what goes on is utterly anal; for example I know an avionics chap who has a workshop joining onto a hangar, with a door in between, yet he is barred from working on the plane of a customer who is hangared in that hangar! And the hangar is not owned by any maintenance company. I guess they do that because the based companies kick up a fuss with the airport management, because the ideal time for avionics work is during normal maintenance, and if this chap was able to do it at other times, the aircraft owners would not need to use the based companies…
As a consequence there is a heavy correlation between owners of homebuilts and owners based on farm strips and other informal locations where stuff can be done away from prying eyes. Those I speak to say how refreshing it is to get away from the airport politics. (OTOH you get other trouble at strips e.g. many/most don’t allow syndicates, and most don’t allow high perf CofA types).
But that also puts a limit on the growth of the homebuilt market. If you force homebuilts to be done by a company, the majority of the cost saving disappears (on “performance” types, anyway, such as e.g. the RV whose power and fuel systems are very similar to a CofA type).
I agree that most owners simply don’t want to get involved (and I am sure that’s true in the USA also, expressed as % of total)
Peter you should come west for a visit sometime (the invite is there ) and have a look at rows and rows of hangars with enthusiastic owners who, like you, are the primary caretaker of their aircraft, regardless of who built it. I think the reason it isn’t so in Europe is, as you have accurately pointed out from time to time, the lack of working space.
In Europe a similar situation exists in classic car scene, where people spending 10X the price of a new car are equally involved in maintenance… because they have the working space.
In Europe there barely exists such a thing as a GA transportation aircraft, as has been repeated here several times.
And the only way to operate a CofA IFR plane here is by working hard in a well-paid activity, most likely self employed, so that the maintenance staff’s hourly cost will be lower than one’s own hourly income. Those even richer won’t even think of doing anything at all with their own hands. Cheezz Silvaire, I thought you knew Europe well enough.
In the USA, there was, and remains though in decline, a class of citizens well enough to do to afford their own PA28 or C172 or AA5. There is such a class in most European countries too, but it is too small. Then again regulations in Europe are more strict, as has also been said many times over. So there are less people who would do their own maintenance, and there is less maintenance for them to do.
In Europe one is either very rich, or well to do but then very busy, or one flies a club spam can (haha) or one tinkers about a microlight or experimental.
And no, the issue is not in availability of working space, or at least not everywhere in Europe (though it might well be in the UK); the main issue is over regulation. You have yourself described several jobs you did on your planes that one is not allowed to perform on a European registered CofA craft.
