90 in a Warrior? What good is it to soot the engine for saving fuel? Can’t be travel efficient.
Is this one of the points for the coffee grinders – they need hours and don’t want to go somewhere?
For sure most GA flyers will not do any flight longer than their pee endurance, but these people were not in the population under discussion to start with.
The population who flies long distances, or would want to, is limited by their willingness to pee in a bottle while airborne? If flying longer distances in Europe really does require one to be willing to pee while sitting in a plane, maybe in close company with others, I think that will reduce interest to 1% of the pilot population, and less than that of their families 
If that need is growing over time, there’s your explanation as to why interest in making day-long cross country flights in Europe is decreasing. What more explanation do you need?
Also, landing at an airport or two along the way is part of the fun for me as a pilot, and if it’s just one or two stops per day it’s part of the appeal of going places.
120 kts is the figure I often hear used as ‘just fast enough’ for a plane used for traveling. I’ve made long flights in a plane that would only go 83 kts in cruise, but it took a lot of patience and not a lot of wind. I flew 3-1/2 hr legs at up to 10,000 ft on one flight in that plane and wanted to get out of the thing at that point!
Good posts from Winston and MedEwok.
I’m a recent owner, indirectly due to Corona: my then syndicate’s self-imposed Covid restrictions were the final straw. Ownership was a revelation 
I’ve not done anything longer than a day trip in my own plane, but it’s nice to be able to if I wanted to: the aircraft availability is a significant barrier instantly removed. To be honest with young children I can’t really envision anything longer than 1 night away in the near future.
All my longer distance flying was done as an aeroclub member in France, either club trips or on my own. I was lucky to be in a good club and have both free time and money in my early/mid-20s.
I barely know any owners outside EuroGA so can’t judge. A good friend sold his Robin due to age (80+), having gradually reduced his horizons over the last decade or so.
‘Touring’ requires most of these to line up:
Maybe these are less common now?
The population who flies long distances, or would want to, is limited by their willingness to pee in a bottle while airborne? If flying longer distances in Europe really does require one to be willing to pee while sitting in a plane, maybe in close company with others, I think that will reduce interest to 1% of the pilot population, and less than that of their families
In the US, you are flying along, you see a runway, you land on it.
This is practically impossible in Europe. There are plenty where PPR etc is not needed but you never know which ones they are, so you cannot just land “anywhere”.
Some level of instrument qualification or competence
I suspect that may be the biggest thing. The other items listed ought not have changed all that much over the past 20 years. It could well be that the relative demise of the N-reg community may have tipped things over. Ask the biggers cross-Europe flyers here what reg they are on
In the US, you are flying along, you see a runway, you land on it. This is practically impossible in Europe. There are plenty where PPR etc is not needed but you never know which ones they are, so you cannot just land “anywhere”.
I know that, but realistically in answer to your original question, nothing more is needed to repress GA travel around Europe. That plus the airspace mess and associated (artificial) ‘need’ for ground-directed IFR flight is enough to repel 99% of the people who would otherwise put up with the planning uncertainty, e.g. weather related issues.
If you want to attract normal people who want to enjoy themselves in their spare time, flying cannot be an activity solely for those who relish outrageous, artificial and growing challenges introduced by other people and governments. I would have thought that to be self evident.
Silvaire does speak the truth on this topic, of course. Make all airfields open at least from SR to SS and those with lighting open 24/7, no PPR, no requirement for AFIS/Flugleiter to be present during landing etc. and touring would be invigorated by more than any other measure apart from randomly distributing free SR22s to anyone with a PPL
RobertL18C wrote:
Please, yes as flown by flying clubs at 2200 RPM in some delusion that this extends engine life. When flown by the book a well rigged Warrior is good for 120 KTAS.
2200 RPM is even below 55% and definitly outside the book.
also 90 kts is probably on the low side. I never flew a Warrior but a Cherokee 140, Hershey Bar wing and climb prop. That thing did 90 kts at about 65% power.
as for flying by the book, that is not what many clubs and 100$ burger pilots do. And even some folks who fly much faster and better planes don’t care about flight planning too much but simply use their rule of the thumb figures for range and speed. Most of the time, this results in giving away a lot of performance.
I had a quick look at a 1982 Warrior II POH.
120 kts is 75% above 5000 ft at best power and about 6000 ft at best economy. That means 2600 RPM and a fuel flow of 7.7 vs 6.6 GPH.
Most people will fly at either 65% or 55%. And quite a few never go over 5000 ft, which also means they don’t lean as most flight schools claim leaning only above 5k ft. Stupid, but that is what they do.
At 65% and best power, a Warrior will not reach 120 kts, but at 5000 ft about 112 KTS and 102 at 55%. That corresponds to an RPM of 2450 and 2300 respectively.
A Warrior has best speed at about 6000 ft for 75% and at 12500 ft for 65%. Best range is up high with around 500-600 NM (with 45 mins final reserve) which corresponds to 5-6 hours endurance.
That is actually a funny but still impressive figure for a 160 hp plane due to it’s huge tank (for that engine) of 48 USG usable.
But you have a very valid point. Most clubs will give their people a set cruise power which is a one fits all and let them fly like this. that may result in much inferior performance.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Nothing, if they are the right SOPs. That’s why I wrote “airline-style SOPs”.
Of course SOP’s must match the airplane in question but often enough I see people whose SOP’s consist of a rather concise understanding of their airplane. And who use checklists with a lot of stuff they don’t know what it does or which does not even correspond to the actual airframe. If you ask them at what speed they rotate, climb and cruise, you get answers like “When it wants to fly”, “I pull until it beeps and then put the nose down 2 inches” and “Whatever happens with all levers full forward”. I’ve coma across people who have never done a pre-departure briefing in their lives, let alone an arrival brief and study the VAC’s during the circuit on the landing field. They do no flight planning but simply “know” that their plane will last “about 3 hours” before refuelling. In other words, they fly airplanes like they drive cars.
So I am not sure what “airliner-style” SOP’s are, other than that they are intended for multi crew use. That of course is nonsense in most cases, unless you fly a spam can multi crew. But make no mistake, quite a few schools these days do flight data monitoring and similar “airline” stuff and with ADS-B and all that, this will become pretty common place. Also most clubs start using electronic reservation and management systems, where pilots have to enter flight data rather than fill out the airplane log.
As for the operation of the airplane itself, I do indeed expect of rated pilots to know the POH and being able to use it. I expect them to do proper flight planning, to do a proper flight preparation and to be able to know what the performance of their airplane is, what it can do under which regime and how everything inside that airplane works. When I did my last flight check, it was naturally expected that I would do all proper call outs, briefings and checklist work and that I am able to follow the SOP laid out for the type.
IMHO, flying with proper SOP’s makes flying easier, not more difficult. Knowing, rather than guessing and having good knowledge of the airplane is essential.
SOP for SOS – Standard Operating Situation. My only power accident was due to following the take-off procedure I’d been taught in an inappropriate situation.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
IMHO, flying with proper SOP’s makes flying easier, not more difficult. Knowing, rather than guessing and having good knowledge of the airplane is essential.
I think we are in complete agreement.
