Doesn’t get any more truthful by repeating it…
Well, denial of facts does no good. The truth can never be repeated too often 
Peter,
a lot of people are packing up as it is due to the huge fuel costs and of course due to the generally hugely overpriced cost of GA. However, it would comparatively hit only a segment within piston GA, mainly high performance and turbo engine equipped airplanes.
If UL91 were the only readily available fuel after a ban like that in the US (not likely to happen in Europe, but the environmental lobby in the US is really after this and if the US cave in, then that is where solutions will be developed) then I reckon there would be a number of effects:
1. A large part of piston GA can use UL91 without any problem, (Continental would very quickly replicate Lycomings blanket certification) so they would carry on as before.
2. A lot more effort would be put into certifying current engines for the use of Mogas particularly in Europe.
3. Those engines which are not certified today to use UL91 would either get a very fast certification or be replaced by products which can.
4. If still there was a sufficient demand UL100 would come to the market a tad faster than it would now.
5. Diesel would become much more viable than now, even with initial high modification costs. I’d reckon Lycoming would bring their military Diesel to civil specs pdq if they can see a viable market. And there would be.
Who would be hurt would be the high performance and turbo crowd and those with engines not certifyable. Within small GA they are a minority within a minority, albeit one with usually more means than many of the low performance group. There are however indications that a lot of the non-turbo engines which are now not certified could be or can with relatively minor modifications. Some manufacturers have been dragging their feet, they would have to deliver, fast.
The diesel engine makers are currently screwing very specific market segments (FTOs, mainly) for every penny they can make drop out of their business-model spreadsheets
Interesting. Who are you referring to? It was like this after the Thielert bancruptcy by the administrator, but that time is over. And by now there are Austroengine as well as SMA who never did this in the first place. Centurion/Thielert is now part of TCM Continental.
unless they can drop the retrofit cost from say 80k to say 20k (the overhaul cost of a Lyco, say) the business will just mostly die.
Certainly the initial confidence people had in it died with the bancruptcy, which had nothing to do with the product but with the business model of Thielert. I’d say however you are right that the prices have to fall massively in order to form a proper incentive. I would not think they have to quarter, mostly you pay more than 20k for a Lyco Overhaul anyhow, but they would be well advised to bring it down to maybe half of what it is today. Quite a lot of cost can be recovered via fuel prices quick enough.
If nothing is done, we will see another development. Small GA will sooner or later succumb to the high gas prices. Those who are able to shell out for high performance planes also have money for fuel, those who fly €20 k spamcans are the ones who can’t afford todays fuel prices anymore and desperately need relief. That is why many of them change over to Mogas whenever they can. I also learnt recently of a colleague of mine who bought a Thielert equipped PA28 in France, he raves about it. Got it for a song, upgraded the engine when the original one ran out and now has a 5 gph airplane with 110 kts true and 8 hours range for a very low price.
I meant retrofit diesels. Too expensive.
A lot of people are giving up flying due to cost, but there will always be lots of people giving up flying due to cost. Wherever you set the cost of any human activity, there will always be people who will be in there right on the edge. I don’t see the long term decline in GA as caused primarily by costs. Try adjusting them for inflation over the years. I think it is caused by a general lack of value. In the USA there is much more value to be extracted from GA – for all the reasons already written many times.
Also if you are new to ownership then the cost has probably halved over the last 5 years.
That perception is wrong…
The average private pilot needs a low cost and low maintenance airplane to be able to do the flying they want, not airplanes costing more than a house…
Aviation today is way too expensive and it is mostly so due to the elitist image it has as well as the perception that pilots are all money bags who have unlimited funds…
Very true. I will also add to this that the wrong perceptions are kept up by the GA community themselves and to some extent still by the aviation authorities, not necessarily by the general public. Rather surprisingly it is the AA’s that in the last few years has corrected their perception towards a more correct, positive and constructive, direction, not the GA community. The GA community has tons to learn from the ultralight communities and from the experimental communities, and also glider communities.
Young people are not attracted to tales of flying Cirruses across Europe, tales that includes having to use thousands of € for lead infested fuel. First, a Cirrus is totally unobtainable for them, and second, the environmental ignorance discusses them. On the other hand, young people are extremely attracted to tales of walking up to a mountain peak with some friends and spreading paraglider wings on the way down, even (or particularly) if that tale involves flying half way across the globe in an airliner to some exotic place. It’s about perception – the second tale is obtainable for most young Europeans in their 20s. The first tale is the same old tale about ignorant old and rich men. The story may amuse them, but triggers no sparks like the second one.
The are other perceptions as well. Today I can get a Cirrus for 500 thousand € or whatever it costs and cruise across Europe at 150 knots using ancient technology requiring TEL. Or I can within two years time build myself a RV-10 for 100 thousand € and cruise across Europe at 150 knots with a Lycoming with an experimental FADEC requiring only mogas. For me, a Cirrus is unobtainable, and RV-10 is not. Or I can also get myself a used ultralight at 10 thousand € and cruise across Europe at 100 knots using only a tiny fraction of the fuel a Cirrus/RV-10 would use.
As a young boy or girl, who is most likely to get flying, or get an aircraft themselves? The one who never have seen a small aircraft other than from the inside of a window in a B737 at the airport and being told that such small aircrafts are toys for the super-rich. Or the ones who has grown up with a crazy neighbor with aircraft in his garage, aircraft costing less than the (old) car, aircraft they have had the opportunity to be passengers in, and getting to know at least parts of the flying community. Even if they do not get into flying themselves, their perception of private aviation will be very different, and they will communicate that perception to others.
Recreational flying or GA is not as common in Norway as in the US for instance. Boating is exceptionally popular though, and we have a saying that goes “the sea is for everyone”. In that saying lies the perception, or truth or whatever you like to call it, that it doesn’t matter who you are or what boat you have. At sea we are all in “the same boat” so to speak. It is the same with flying, and this is something that is understood in North America in particular, Oshkosh, EAA. Nevertheless, there are always individuals or groups of people that somehow think they are “better” than others, people who like to define what “real” GA is for instance, what “real” aircraft looks like, simply because they perceive themselves of having “more right” to do so. They even like to define what kind of fuel “real” aircraft shall use. That their definition of “real” always fits exactly their particular way of flying, their particular aircraft and their wallet is just a boring fact.
The ultralight communities and experimental communities have very little of these negative and destructive elements and thoughts, the traditional GA community is more or less built around it. The reason for this is mainly the draconian rules from the AA’s that GA had to live under, there has been no space for sound culture of variety, experimentation and individual choices. Having a business as a single person or a small group, building an industry around it producing aircraft products for GA, has been virtually impossible. Within the experimental community in the US and the ultralight communities in Europe, a whole new industry has grown. Production of everything from glass cockpits to modern multifuel engines with FADEC to a myriad of different aircraft, lots of them are ultra advanced carbon fiber crafts. In the mean time the traditional GA is flying around in Cessnas and filling lead based fuel, exactly as they did 50 years ago, pounding themselves on the chest saying “we” are the only ones flying “real” airplanes. Luckily the AA’s is changing this, slowly but still, the new direction is the right one.
The simple truth is should the (traditional) GA suddenly disappear overnight, private aviation would thrive like never before through ultralight and experimental aviation. In the US there are more new registered single engine piston aircraft in the experimental category (including ELSA) than certified aircraft now. I have no numbers for Europe, but I would guess that newly registered ultralights since long has passed newly registered certified. It wouldn’t surprise me if newly registered LSA and LSA/ultralight based ELA1 airplanes has already passed traditional GA.
Ga is disappearing? No, GA is changing. GA has to change, it has to modernize to stay alive, it has to adapt to the rest of the society. It also has to adapt to a more self sustainable “the air is for everyone” philosophy and everything that includes regarding individual choices and a sustainable small scale industry. As far as I can see, TEL is not a part of this, UL91 is definitely a part of this.
Nevertheless, there are always individuals or groups of people that somehow think they are “better” than others, people who like to define what “real” GA is for instance, what “real” aircraft looks like, simply because they perceive themselves of having “more right” to do so. They even like to define what kind of fuel “real” aircraft shall use. That their definition of “real” always fits exactly their particular way of flying, their particular aircraft and their wallet is just a boring fact.
Are you not doing the same thing???
OK, let me get this straight.
Today I can get a Cirrus for 500 thousand € or whatever it costs and cruise across Europe at 150 knots using ancient technology requiring TEL. Or I can within two years time build myself a RV-10 for 100 thousand € and cruise across Europe at 150 knots with a Lycoming with an experimental FADEC requiring only mogas. For me, a Cirrus is unobtainable, and RV-10 is not
You have €100k for an RV-10.
That’s rather nice. I hope you have your own business, too, because if you just have a normal job, PROB99 your boss (unless he is incompetent) will be an “ignorant old and rich man” and will have enough to buy the SR22 for €500k. You probably won’t like that very much.
GA exists at all these different levels, just fine. You should accept that rather than deriding those who have a bit more money than you have.
should the (traditional) GA suddenly disappear overnight, private aviation would thrive like never before through ultralight and experimental aviation
Why do you have to trash a large piece of GA in order to fly your €100k machine?
Note also that most of the 100LL-only population is worth €100k or less. There are very few piston aircraft worth €500k. Even a new SR22 will be falling in value rapidly.
Finally, I am curious about this
Or I can within two years time build myself a RV-10 for 100 thousand € and cruise across Europe at 150 knots with a Lycoming with an experimental FADEC requiring only mogas
An RV-10 doesn’t have an ICAO CofA so how will you “cruise across Europe”? I am genuinely interested in knowing, because if you can educate me I will go out and buy this
Oh, BTW, I want to know how to do that under IFR (instrument flight rules), because Europe does have the occasional issue with wx (weather).
Are you not doing the same thing???
How I am doing that?
How I am doing that?
You ought to read your own posts, LeSving. They are really quite divisive. Comments like “same old tale about ignorant old and rich men”. It so happens that these “ignorant old and rich men” are supporting a lot of the infrastructure which you are making use of.
An RV-10 doesn’t have an ICAO CofA so how will you “cruise across Europe”?
VFR, I should think… or on a registry that allows IFR on experimentals – hadn’t I heard rumours of Sweden allowing this?
Yes – probably been written here
I don’t believe it until I see it. If you could import a US Experimental and fly it IFR in Europe, it would be utterly incredible.
VFR, yes.
But you are still a non-ICAO-CofA aircraft so while you can fly all over the world, you still need, theoretically, a permit from each country overflown or visited. There are some automatic concessions but very very few non-CofA aircraft fly internationally, even within Europe.
