10-20 years ago, people were talking about spending 5 digits on an aftermarket turbo, TKS, etc.
Today they talk mostly about glass cockpits.
Is this because people fly a lot less, or fly fewer longer trips, but lots of people still have lots of money and have to spend it on something? It is the nature of most hobbies that you feel a constant urge to buy the latest “kit” 
Peter wrote:
10-20 years ago, people were talking about spending 5 digits on an aftermarket turbo, TKS, etc.
Well, today lots of those after market kits are no longer available. I’ve been looking for some for my Mooney only to find that either have the makers gone out of business or have introduced restrictions to their STC’s which make them impossible to get. In the Mooney world:
- Monroy tanks (most desirable) are no longer available outside the US and within the US can only be installed in one particular shop.
- Rajay Turbos are to my knowledge no longer availabe as an upgrade to normally aspirated Mooneys.
- “201” Style windscreen kits e.t.c. are either not available or only with huge delays.
- There is a up to 12 month waiting time for a new prop. So many who wish to upgrade from 2 to 3 blade will just stop thinking about it.
Peter wrote:
Today they talk mostly about glass cockpits.
Glass is readily available and comparatively inexpensive. It also provides a lot of information people have always wanted but could not get, such as TAS, Inflight Winds, SVT and so on. I really think that such instruments, within reason, increase the quality of the experience of flying. While I only have the minimum variant (of the time) in the form of an Aspen, I would not want to miss it anymore.
Add to it, Glass is often cheaper (partly massively) than conventional instruments. When I upgraded in 2014, I was offered a complete revised King HSI system for a very competitive price (about half of the Aspen) but installation cost would have been double of that of the Aspen with a lot less utility. So clearly I went for the latter.
Peter wrote:
Is this because people fly a lot less, or fly fewer longer trips, but lots of people still have lots of money and have to spend it on something?
With most hobbies it is observable that people wish to upgrade and better what they have. Lots of people also are reluctant to upgrade to “better” airframes because the one they own is a known value and any upgrade to another 2nd hand plane has inherent risks and in many cases there won’t be one available just as you want it. So upgrading what you have is the natural way to go, at least for me.
Clearly some go overboard, but to get a really nice traveller equipped your way does hold quite a lot of satisfaction.
Vast subject
The trend towards glass cockpit has just followed in unison with the rest of the electronic world, as in tablets, computers, and gadgets. The same wave also brought prices down, making the stuff more accessible.
A move to glass has, as demonstrated in fighters and airliners design first, many advantages over steam driven gages. Amongst others, concentrated scanning, ability to display a plethora of informations, reduced panel weight, and reliability.
The rest of the flying hardware, e.g. the cell as in fuselage/wings, and the engine, have mostly stayed behind, different factors involved here.
And finally, the wide use of electronic gaming has produced a generation of young pilots with a natural affinity towards glass.
I wouldn’t call glass cockpits an “eye candy” – to the opposite: The usability and safety enhancement of a good glass cockpit is much higher than that of a turbo (for most missions) to TKS. This is especially true for those pilots who fly single hand IFR.
In addition there seems to be much more money in the market: Although many were talking about it, the number of people who really spent 5 digits on turbo or TKS retrofits has been extremely small compared to this who actually do move to glass.
On aircraft side ‘utility vs investment’ is very concave function, there is no limit to the joy that people get from pouring millions of dollars into their panel to be able ‘to ask Alexa’
In the other hand, the best investment you put in SEP is Avgas, it has a very convex utility function !
Although many were talking about it, the number of people who really spent 5 digits on turbo or TKS retrofits has been extremely small compared to this who actually do move to glass.
I think this is because of avionics AML STCs, whereas the “performance-oriented” non-avionics STCs are mostly produced in the US and have generally been limited to N-regs, and few installers want to get involved with the hassle of producing an EASA Major Alteration paperwork package.
Monroy tanks (most desirable) are no longer available outside the US and within the US can only be installed in one particular shop.
I doubt that is actually the case because any A&P/IA can conformance-check and sign off a 337 for such an STC, which can be installed by any A&P, or A&P-supervised mechanic. But, the reality is that it is prob99 like TKS, where the one “agency” (at EDNY) doesn’t want the work, and doing it “yourself” to a good standard requires a competent mechanic, of which there are very few. My full-TKS installation has transformed the aircraft, but was beyond the competence of most maintenance shops.
Ibra wrote:
In the other hand, the best investment you put in SEP is Avgas, it has a very convex utility function !
@lbra so so true, although I am planning to upgrade my audio panel on the Warrior, not essential but will improve my enjoyment of flying. I still can’t justify replacing my trusty KLN94 with a GNX375 (which would simplify my panel even further).
On audio panel am planning a Garmin GMA345, is this the preferred solution? Am only running one COM so the audio panel is purely for improved intercom, blue tooth and USB charging port (I already have one from the old 1970’s de rigeur cigarette lighter.
I wondered if what Peter is getting at is a change in the mission profile for GA? As a long term and frequent long distance VFR tourer, I’ve been nowhere for several years (well, OK, Scotland) and I’m not sure this year is going to be much different, especially given that my regular itinerary involves squeezing through the gap between Belarus and Karliningrad in Lithuania. Call me chicken…
So maybe the perceived need to invest money in expensive assets has drifted away from actual in-flight performance (hardly needed for the $100 burger run) toward attractive panel upgrades? For me, VFR, I have all the upgrade I need from a couple of Ipads.
RobertL18C wrote:
On audio panel am planning a Garmin GMA345, is this the preferred solution?
I suggest you look at the Trig TMA45 audio panel. My club looked at it for an avionics retrofit last year. In the end we did decide on the GMA345, but only because the installer was more familiar with Garmin products. The TMA45 appears to be easier to use.
Peter wrote:
10-20 years ago, people were talking about spending 5 digits on an aftermarket turbo, TKS, etc.
Aftermarket TKS, as you know, is almost mission impossible. Even spare parts for TKS are hard to get.
Any airframe produced after let’s say 2007 or 2008 is practically impossible to upgrade with anything. Everything is integrated, any piece you touch requires STC that nobody is interested in investing to, so you even can’t upgrade the avionics. Usually you can change the interior, buy shades and such stuff. Avionics upgrade and investing to glass cockpit are reserved for older airframes.
