Peter wrote:
The biggest challenge I find is finding interesting trips. Last year’s big one was the pinnacle of my flying – largely due to the stunning scenery at the far end, which thankfully I got on video. This will be hard to beat. I can see a lot of people give up because they have “done it all” and there is too much else going on in their life.
I heartily recommend trying some tailwheel action, preferably in a vintage type.
Before I bought into the PA17 at Enstone I was very focused on going places in the TB10. A combination of factors (limited a/c performance, no full IR, time, money) meant that the trips were few and far between as well as not being that all adventurous in the grand scheme of things. I never thought that I would do any A to A flying because it just didn’t interest me and I live a hour’s drive from the TB10. It seemed like a waste of time to go flying without making at least a day of it and landing away from base somewhere.
With the PA17 I pretty much fell in love with flying all over again. It is a 10 minute drive from home, the cost is such that I don’t have to even think about it, and I can go flying on a whim. Like yesterday, a beautiful day, it was just really nice to go up and see the world from a couple of thousand feet. Just tootle around and look at the world, enjoying being aloft. I particularly like flying at the very start and very end of daylight. I think the aeroplane fits the mission: no systems, no checklists, just swing the prop, strap in and go. If the TB10 were based at Enstone I don’t think I’d pop up for the hell of it as often as I do in the PA17.
You must try it. It’s an entirely different kind of flying and I didn’t think I’d like it, but I love it.
Graham wrote:
I heartily recommend trying some tailwheel action, preferably in a vintage type.Before I bought into the PA17 at Enstone I was very focused on going places in the TB10. A combination of factors (limited a/c performance, no full IR, time, money) meant that the trips were few and far between as well as not being that all adventurous in the grand scheme of things.
A good friend pointed out to me yesterday that the advantage of his ‘new’ (1953) Cessna 180 is that it does both jobs reasonably well. He can go places pretty fast and also throttle back to 100 mph and cruise around looking at the scenery, landing at short fields for lunch and so on. Obviously the fuel burn is not 5 gph like a Vagabond, but its surprisingly low if you fly slowly.
Silvaire wrote:
A good friend pointed out to me yesterday that the advantage of his ‘new’ (1953) Cessna 180 is that it does both jobs reasonably well. He can go places pretty fast and also throttle back to 100 mph and cruise around looking at the scenery, landing at short fields for lunch and so on
172driver wrote:
My most memorable trips were in Africa, Australia and the US.
This is worth reading, it describes a trip that they made in Africa and Europe in1954 with their 1953 Cessna 180
The no systems vintage puddlejumper can also make international hops. Here it is at beautiful Birr home base of WilliamF of this parish, it then went to a farm strip a few kilometres from Dublin International. The aircraft next to it is a very capable Aeronca Sedan, also a good example of vintage tailwheel, but with an electric system and some IFR kit.
RobertL18C wrote:
The aircraft next to it is a very capable Aeronca Sedan, also a good example of vintage tailwheel, but with an electric system and some IFR kit.
That weather looks super-VFR tough, I think there is a limit on happiness from compromises, one would get a nice four seat IFR tourer for long trips and a vintage for local fun in sunny days, then easily decide to fly from 30h/year to 120h/year without feeling sad in the middle 
A friend of mine bought a very expensive TMG (e.g. S10-VT) that way a half-way compromise between pure gliders and touring two seaters, he end up having to fly it miserably for 3 years before selling it, now he is a happy man owning a Wilga and sharing a single seat Discus glider 
@Ibra: What was the problem of the S10-VT? It is one of the top TMG airplanes out there, including the S12, with a far better glide ratio as many pure gliders.
Snoopy wrote:
My feeling is that there are many more ga accidents compared to the level of activity as there are car accidents compared to the amount of driving.I do believe that too, no questioning about that.
But does make that GA really dangerous? I don’t see car driving as dangerous in my part of Europe, as long as you drive with common sense. As @Peter said, car drivers don’t have to worry much, even if you’re a bad driver, many will still get away with it. If you’re a bad pilot, you will sooner or later kill yourself. For me, this seems to be one of the major reasons why GA is more ‘dangerous’ as car driving. GA-accidents caused only by technical issues are (luckily) quite rare compared to accidents caused by pilot error. Furthermore, flying itself does not expose you to a lot of failures from other people. An air traffic controller could make a mistake, a mechanic could make a fatal mistake during maintenance, or a pilot from behind could crash into your airplane without knowing it, but those risks are minimal compared to the plenty of (careless) road users out there.
It’s unfortunate when people drop out of hobbies, there are many many things that add up to take away from the simple joy of flying. Everyone will have a breakover point where the fun of flying becomes not worth the effort.
Once you start heading in that direction, it’ll be easy to talk yourself out of it. And without drive to get out it’s a slippery slope.
It seems as if the tide is pushing one way at the moment. But for me getting up, going flying, meeting up with similar enthusiasts is just tremendous.
However when my aircraft was trapped and I was unable to fly for 9 months or so, and I did miss going flying a great deal, the longer I went without flying I found other things taking up my time.
Frans wrote:
I do believe that too, no questioning about that. But does make that GA really dangerous? I don’t see car driving as dangerous in my part of Europe, as long as you drive with common sense
Driving to most of us is second nature. I don’t drive huge distances but since 1980 without any noteworthy incident and I don’t really have to “think” what I am doing driving. If my memory and math is right, I’ve got about 500k km on my clock, which is quite a bit but not anywhere spectacular. On the road, I am also very aware that you can be as good a driver as any, but primarily your survival depends on the other drivers. And here, unfortunately, I see a massive degradation in driving skills and will to drive reasonably in the recent years. Part of that comes from the fact that with the mix of cultures in our country we see more crashes that were and are commonplace elsewhere as the driving styles are imported with the people. My own “recipe” to dealing with that is to make darn sure everyone is buckled (not easy with a 3 year old) and driving a reasonably large and crash proof car.
Flying is very different. Most PPL’s I know have problems reaching the mandatory currency minima. Consequently they are rusty every time they get on the airplane. Yet, if one were to set a higher minimal currency standard, GA would collapse. I recall that in the opinion of some people I know a minimum to stay comfortably current would be at least a one hour flight a week which translates into 4 hours per month, 50 hours roughly per year. Very few have that, primarily because they have neither the time nor the money to do that. If, as some accident investigators suggest, there should be a massive increase of minimum flight currency per calendar year or simply the renewal by time be abolished and bi-annual skill checks be mandated, I am sure that it would lead to a lot of people packing up. Yet, the same system works well in the US, where the bi-annual flight review is a proven skill checker. Maybe that is worth thinking of.
Add to that, most airplanes also fly less than 100 hours a year, which is a technical problem. We’ve had an average of about 60 hours per year which means we get away with the annual 100 hour check. Financially that is affordable (just) but 100 hours would be better. So tech issues come up which would not if the airplane was used more often.
Other than what I may have sounded like, I am not afraid of flying per se and while airborne I enjoy myself massively. I take joy and pride flying exact, having finally a plane which performs like I want and has the equipment which makes that fun. What bugs me is that with my usual tendency to overanalyze things (which should be obvious from some of my posts here) certain accidents and events hit home worse than others and the sheer number in recent years of people I knew and trusted to be good pilots have paid the ultimate price for their or profession. I suppose all we can do is to be careful and migate risks by knowledge and currency.
Frans wrote:
What was the problem of the S10-VT? It is one of the top TMG airplanes out there, including the S12, with a far better glide ratio as many pure gliders.
I think for him it was the useful load/space when going to places for more than 1 day and the need for a long tarmac (or very very good grass) but yes for gliding and cheap touring it was very fine
