Oops .. looks like i missed those, sorry!
Another view of the reality of GA, 9249 and counting.
That’s really great. If I had a place where I could do it, I’d build an RV-3 … or RV-8
I know of a barn in Ismaning 
The first Bölkow 209 was built in a similar barn in Brunnthal, so there is a local precedent… 
How come you know about a barn in Ismaning? That’s very close from my home ;-)
The 209 must have been built close to where the German Airbus HQ is, right?
I have a friend who rents space from a farmer in Ismaning, you go through the old barn doors, past the tractor collection and eventually find that inside some new interior walls there’s a very clean and tidy area. My friend does car restoration work and stuff like that.
Yes, the Bölkow light aircraft design office was at MBB in Ottobrunn. The prototype 209 was apparently built by the design staff as a quasi-private venture, in a barn or garage or something in rented space just down the road in Brunnthal. The production planes were then manufactured and test flown in Laupheim, between Ulm and the Bodensee, where they make Airbus interiors today, as Diehl Aircabin. Ancient history
Thanks for the GAMA Figures Alexis.
I did the same table for the current year 2015, added Tecnam who I think are quite relevant for Europe.
I then did a projection of the year end figures for 2015 and compared those to the 2014 figures to get a trend for 2015.
If Q4/2015 continues the trend, then most manufacturers will sell less than in 2014 with a decline of around 214 airframes all in all. The only ones who projected have increased sales are:
Maule +15
Mooney +8
Robinson +26
Tecnam +6
All others are at the moment poised for less airframe sales.
Some of the interesting developments:
SEP:
Cirrus continues the trend to sell more SR22 T than the normally aspirated SR22. In projection, the SR20 can keep up to the 2014 figures while SR22 sales would decrease by about 97.
Piper has further lost massively. No Warrior was sold, very few Archers and even less Arrows.
The Malibu airframe also has sold less than before, with projections of around 18 less for the year. Mirage and Meridian are pretty much even out in sales.
Tecnam is predominatly selling LSA’s with 69 airframes so far as opposed to 59 normally certified airplanes. The only one which will increase numbers is the P2002JF (which has reached it’s 2014 figures already).
Cessna still sells the 172 in comparatively respectable figures, quite opposed to the Piper Archer.
The Corvalis continues a downard trend.
Mooney have by now sold a grand total of 8 airplanes since they restarted production, 6 of which are Acclaims and 2 Ovations. That corresponds to what was announced as production capacity for 2015 with 10 airframes. The spread between Ovations and Acclaims mirrors the trend seen with Cirrus that the Turbo variants of travel airplanes sell better than the non Turbo variants.
Finally, Beech have again lost significant numbers with the Bonanza.
The Twins are even more dramatic: Piper have so far sold a grand total of 14, of which 10 are Seminoles. Beech has sold 11 Barons. Tecnam however have sold 19 P2006T’s so far as compared to 21 in 2014 so they actually might see a modest increase. Diamond have sold 35 DA42’s in 2015 so far as opposed to 50 all over in 2014, so they might also end up somewhere equal.
As you said, not a pretty picture overall.
mh wrote:
Coolhand wrote: Probably all the non-certified types meets de facto all the important requirements.Actually, no. And it is a dangerous thinking that they would.
Do you mean that all, or the majority, of the non-EASA certified airplanes are by definition unsafe? Reality denies that statement.
I insist on the fact that not showing compliance to a specification does not mean that the design is not compliant with. And also on the fact that the whole CS-23 is not absolutely needed to make and aircraft safe. Probably there are several non-EASA types that are not compliant with big portions of the CS, but this does noy reduce safety, as demonstrated by accident statistics. We could get into the CS-23, discussing it point by point, but it would be as long as boring for almost everyone.
In second place, not being compliant with CS-23 or CS-VLA does not mean noy being compliant with any norm or specification. Microlights have their own airworthiness spec in each country, as also have LSA, experimental, etc
In third place, a lot of microlights have their own EASA certified ‘version’, which usually is identical to the non-EASA ‘version’ e.g. Tecnam
And to finish, let me put a clear example of the certification process acting actually as a safety reduction feature. The wheel brakes of the Tecnam aircrafts are really crap. Have a little effectivity, they’re prone to overheating and brake pads crystalization, and brake disc deformation. There have been already several incidents and accidents for this casue. So some years ago I substituted the brake system in my Tecnam by another one from Beringer that is really good and well engineered. It was installed in one shift and clearly improved the safety of the airplane.
This would have been impossible to do in a EASA type (or at least sooo expensive and time consuming to forget about it). Just an example.
And we could talk also about EASA continued airworthiness system…
GA is in decline because there are fewer pilots. The peak of aviation was also the peak of baby boomers after WWII reaching an age when they could both fly and afford an aircraft. Aircraft will always be expensive because they are hand-made.
Flyer59 18-Nov-15 11:15 #75
If there is one thing I have not encountered in GA, it’s snobbery.
That is my experience, too. I have also never experienced envy.
I’ve flown in the US, UK, Russia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, etc. etc & never experienced snobbery. Really, just the reverse. One of the most attractive things about GA and clubs is how likable and interesting people are.
