Disingenous marketing of GA being like driving a car

Peter wrote:

I am not convinced that dropping a C172 from 300k (?) to 76k would boost their sales very much. I think GA activity is limited by the population of potential customers, which is itself limited by social factors (much discussed previously).

I am afraid I disagree. I think price elasticity is very high. The price of aircraft being the same or more than a house is a huge disincentive,

JasonC wrote:

I am afraid I disagree. I think price elasticity is very high. The price of aircraft being the same or more than a house is a huge disincentive,

Absolutely. At $ 76k these things would be flying out the door (pun intended)

Ah, things have changed a lot. The POH of my 1959 C175 is a small booklet. No mentioning of emergency procedures whatsoever. Regarding stalls it just states that they are “conventional with flaps up or down”. How to get out of a spin is not part of the POH.

Easy as driving a car? Regarding manipulating the controls of a C172 I agree to a certain extent. On the other hand todays administrative overhead and regulation widens the gap between driving a car and flying. In the end it makes flying a plane less attractive.

I bet you can find a great many more nice, practical aircraft for $50K today than you could find in 1955 for the equivalent sum. At that time, outside relatively impractical fabric covered two seaters and very costly to run ‘30s style cabin aircraft, what you would have had were used Bonanzas, Bellancas, Stinsons, Tri-Pacers and C170s. All of which had their issues for practical service. I’m not sure we don’t have it better overall today, more and better aircaft choices for the same inflation adjusted price. OTOH I’ve never been romantically involved with ‘new’ as a concept… my romantic inclination goes in different directions

outside relatively impractical fabric covered two seaters

Richard Collins cut his teeth in IFR using a tube and fabric PA-20 Pacer, and while a bit short coupled requiring your dancing shoes in a crosswind, I believe the availability of the omni-range (VOR) technology for light GA made these very practical aircraft also suitable for business GA.

Bizarrely the Super Cub and its clones continues in active use (and in production by several manufacturers, even a European one) in the most inhospitable of regions, Alaska – over 1,000 of them still active in AK alone.

Not sure why the beautiful art deco Silvaire did not have as much longevity, I guess fixing bullet holes (or bear mailings) is easier with a fabric aircraft.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Janey-Little-Plane-Big-War/dp/0913337315

I don’t think I’d like to pop out of the clouds over the runway in a Piper Pacer, with a strong gusty cross wind, and then land. But on the other hand the Tri-Pacer came out in 1951-ish and I think one of those would work work pretty well for IFR flying. Tri-Pacers are so ugly they’re cute but they are remarkably practical planes… and infinitely repairable, like a Cub.

The Luscombe Silvaire didn’t last in production because it even through it was the originator of many factory production ideas, it was still stuck together by hand in many respects, as well as being a bit dainty and fragile. The manufacturing technology of Cessna’s Luscombe copy was better in every way.

The way I use my SR22TN is not that far off from the Cessna ad.

When people ask, I tell them “it is my car”, which is pretty much true. I just happen to cover larger distances.

And so far I’ve been lucky with the weather and not encountered any challenges that I wasn’t able to handle with some common sense. The more exiting ones I’ve shared here. :-)

Since several months I am flying back and forth from Barcelona (Sabadell) to more or less the same destinations in southern Germany. People at the airports know me by know and greet me by name. They smile when I arrive at night in the rain. It is pretty much normal and doesn’t feel scary or wrong.

So that ad is not from another world. It is just from another attitude.

Stephan_Schwab wrote:

So that ad is not from another world. It is just from another attitude.

+1

Although there is a bit more to flying than to driving.

They did this, too: