Your opinion on what or who is responsible for keeping GA in the twilight zone????

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

When I joined the RAF the first aircraft I ever worked on was a Hawker Hunter, 50s technology, they were an amazing bit of technology then, and by comparison to any GA aircraft today, the airframe technology is still light years ahead of anything I have seen so far, and believe me I have been up close and personal with a large percentage of the aircraft flying today, military and civilian , NO!!! I am not suggesting that we blast around at 500kts, I am just trying to point out, that if you compare the hawker hunter to a modern jet fighter, such as the JSF, F-22 or even a F-18, no real comparison can be made, other than they are all fighter aircraft, the JSF, F-22 etc, are conceptually, structurally and aerodynamically in a completely different league!!!
Now compare any 2 - 6 place GA aircraft produced by any of the main manufactures in the 50s to, any GA aircraft produced today!!! What you find is, SAME AIRFAME PROGRESS ZERO!!!!!! SAME ENGINE PROGRESS ZERO!!!!!SAME AERODYNAMICS PROGRESS ZERO!!!!SAME “IT DON”T WORK” SYSTEMS, heaters and a/c ???? in your dreams!!, doors and windows that you would not put on even the most rudimentary of cars, brake systems that are for the most part ineffective, and an ergonomic nightmare to operate!! none of them have any form of anti-skid system, hell!!! even my motor bike has an ABS coupled interactive brake system, it came standard on the bike 7 YEARS AGO!!!, car and motorcycle manufacturers started fitting anti-skid brake systems in the late 70s, is it just too much trouble for aircraft manufacturers, ??? They are more than lightly thinking, “ Brakes are the least of the pilot’s worries !! they will just be happy to make the runway! hell! They will ground loop to stop if they have to” and as you well know frequently do!!. ZERO PROGRESS!!!!
So just what is going on ????, backyard enthusiasts are able to design and build all sorts of exotic aerodynamically efficient aircraft, ( mostly Tupperware, but never the less AIRCRAFT ) whilst the so called experts dwell in the twilight zone of the 50s ??????

A composite calamity has fallen on the light aircraft industry, composite’s sound great and when utilised in appropriate areas are great, but be careful where you use them, when you get down and dirty with composites they can spring some catastrophic surprises on you, not the least of them being total failure under normal flight loadings, with no prior indication !, ie cracks, staining, bulging, this could due to any number of gremlins such as, thermal cycling, delaminating due to faulty lay-up or stress, chemical contamination, impact damage, UV damage, the list go’s on and on.
Composites have there roll to play in general aviation, and do it very well, but they are totally unsuited to structural applications such as wing spars and stressed skin areas, I can hear the howls of abuse from the Tupperware fan’s, but over 40 year’s of hands on experience tells me, if you can’t inspect it and tell me if it has sustained internal damage, and you can’t determine if the structural integrity has been compromised, due to whatever ??? Why on earth would I trust my life to it ???? Fix that problem, and I will fight you for the first flight, Tupperware or not !, but till then, no thank you, give me an all aluminium airframe, if there is a problem 99 times out of 100 it will let me know well before parts start to fail.

Even Boeing admit that there is no way to inspect many of the composite structural areas of there new Dream, I hope it does not turn into there nightmare, it has a passing resemblance to the De Havilland Comet 1, the aircraft that almost totally destroyed the British airline industry.

Not only have the major manufacturers not made any progress with 2 -6 place aircraft design, they have actually compounded the problem by integrating composite technology into there 50s designs, in an attempt to speed up the manufacturing process and reduce costs, when all they have really done is considerably reduce the expected airframe life, but they sell it to us as some great leap forward in technology that we should be in awe of, they didn’t even develop the technology, they left the expensive part to the taxpayers, then lifted what they wanted when the bugs were worked out.

Yes flying is inherently dangerous, it’s the nature of the beast, and there will never be a 100% safe aircraft, SNAFU’s are an unavoidable part of the game, but there is no valid reason for GA pilots to risk there lives and the life of others, whilst flying aircraft that when all is said and done, have no place in the 21st century, most are under powered, have lethal stall characteristics, and the glide ratio of a house brick, mainly due to aerodynamics or the lack of aerodynamics to be more accurate, as for the power plants in use today, they are very expensive to maintain, highly inefficient by any standard, and for various reasons are prone to lose some or all power at the drop of a hat. ie, mag drop, plug fouling, carb ice, hot and high, to name a few every day problems that would be totally eliminated just by installing a modern power plant, so why take totally unnecessary risks, as I have already observed flying is inherently dangerous, even if your aircraft is 100% serviceable, why add unnecessary risk to the equation????, Nostalgia is not worth dying for.

There is no technical reason for this situation, we have the technology to produce low cost, slow landing (40kts or less) stall free (gentle mush at worst) all metal aircraft (no nasty surprises), capable of cruising @ 200kts + ( 2000 mile range) reliable 200hp fuel efficient aircraft engines are available that have less than half the parts count, and cost no more than the 1940s designs in use today, NO MAGNETO’S REQUIRED!!! + they will even run on bio fuel, if that’s what blows your hair back.

So enjoy the old old birds, and the new old birds, I do, but do it solo, that is unless your passenger really really!!! knows what they are getting into, a honest short history of the true design vintage of the aircraft and engine, should be more than sufficient to keep most thinking beings on terra-firma (the more firma, the less terror) funny how nostalgia doesn’t have much currency with sane (non-pilot) people.

So what’s your opinion on what or who is responsible for keeping GA in the twilight zone???? Nostalgia ??? Apathy ??? Greed ??? Incompetence ???

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

So what’s your opinion on what or who is responsible for keeping GA in the twilight zone????

You have patently thought long and hard about this, but I regret you wind up with a wildly amiss premise.

There's plenty of progress in the general aviation world and the pace is accelerating

Meanwhile, there are many of us for whom the romance of flight and tube and fabric aircraft are synonymous, and equally who do not accept your premise that they constitute death traps.

Moggy

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

I must have missed that !

There's plenty of progress in the general aviation world and the pace is accelerating

do not accept your premise that they constitute death traps.

Moggy

I am obviously missing something, so if you would please help me out by elaborating on any of these advances that you refer to, I often hear the manufacturers refer to what I presume are the very advances you speak off, that would be the advances I have no real world information on.
Please help me out.

What constitutes a death trap ??? In 1968 I purchased a Kawasaki 500 Mach3 a 2 stroke fire spiting awesomely fast bit of kit for its day, wrung its neck for a few years and moved on, in 1984 I purchased a GPZ900r much better than the Mach 3, it had 4 stroke 4 cyl 4 carb engine, adjustable anti-dive suspension, adjustable preload, electronic ignition, better brakes lights and controls, and some trick safety’s on gearbox and stands, hyper fast for its day, wrung its neck for over 500,000km (3 new engines) and moved on, in 2002 I purchased a Honda VFR800 F1 now the only real resembleance between 2002 F1 the 1968 Mach 3 and the 1984 900r is the fact that they are all motorcycles, in technology they are poles apart,
Would I ride a 1968 Mach3 on a daily basis,??? don’t be silly!! IT’S A DEATH TRAP! spongy brakes, heavy clutch, sticky gearbox, nonexistent suspension, freaky power band, crap lights, etc etc etc.
Would I ride the 1984 900r??? NO!!! same story great bike, bike of the year 4 years running, absolutely state of the art in its day, less of a death trap but never the less by today’s standards DEATH TRAP IT IS!, not even close to the technology of the 2002 F1 with its, fuel injection, coupled differential brake system, totally adjustable suspension, ergonomic controls, powerful lights, etc etc etc, the 2002 machinery requires 20% of the maintenance and is 100% more reliable, will out brake, out manoeuvre and out accelerate any machine manufactured in the 1960s, and do it safely and effortlessly, that’s not much fun says you!! Well if it is white knuckle fun you want, if you really want to push the envelop as you do, too hell with safety!!, the other side of 240km/hr and 2 Geee turns, are only a flick of the wrist and 6 seconds away, go for your life after all it is yours.(no pillions allowed outside the envelop) that’s not your life to risk !!! OUTSIDE the ENVELOPE = DEATH TRAP!!! what do you call it ? ;)

Just because you have some love affair going with the pre Columbian art that you persist in calling aeroplanes, does not mean that you have a licence to expose anyone else to the obvious risks that you choose it ignore, and it does not mean that the rest of us have to step into the twilight zone with you, examples like the one above, of how fast technology is moving can be seen in all industries, including commercial and military aviation, just try to find any technology based product, other than GA aircraft that is using the same technology today as they were in 1960. Good luck.

I look forward to reading about advances you speak off. I cant imagine how I missed them!,:confused:

PS
I notice that you don’t dispute any of the shortcomings of GA aircraft that I pointed out, or the history, its only the premise rubs you up the wrong way, if these aircraft are as good as you say they are, it will be easy to shoot me down, show me the error of my ways, let the tech data speak for itself.
If your total argument is based on some romance of flight delusion based more in folklore than fact, it is very doubtful you have anything constructive to offer any discussion involving aviation in the 21st century. I hope you prove me wrong, you could be a mine of innovative ideas.:rolleyes:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

it is very doubtful you have anything constructive to offer any discussion involving aviation in the 21st century.

I suspect you are right.

:)

Moggy

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

You've been 'ad there Rob ;)

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

There seem to be several "new technology" SELs out there...with composites and glass cockpits. Still recip engines though.

At the recent EAA event in Oskhosh, five new single engine VLJs were shown.
They'll have everything you seek, composites, new avionics AND jet engines that can burn diesel. (UPDATE & CORRECTION: One has s Tri-Star like "S" top fuselage-mounted fuselage intake, the Piper Jet has a DC-10 arrangement, two have He-162-like podded engines on top of the rear fuselage and "V" talis; one..the Diamond jet; has wing root intakes feeding a fuselage mounted powerplant).

One of the new jets promises to sell for "less than $1 million" the Piper is expected to sell for $2.2 million.
Now do you see why people like Moggy and myself don't see anything wrong with an ancient fabric covered recip?:D

BTW: I can get a Brand new, improved 100hp J-3 equipped for the new U.S. sport pilot requirements for $120,000. What a deal.
Or I could buy a perfect vintage J-3 for +/- $40,000 and pay off my mortage or spend the extra on more airplanes.

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

There seem to be several "new technology" SELs out there...with composites and glass cockpits. Still recip engines though.

At the recent EAA event in Oskhosh, a couple new SE VLJs were unveiled.
They'll have everything you seek, composites, new avionics AND jet engines that can burn diesel.

What seams to be the problem lads???, you are all flying around in your bug smasher’s MTOW 2500lb or so, and when I ask you to point out any progress made in this area of aviation, you point to perceived advances in VLJ aviation !!!!!! Which as it happens is not doing much better than bug smashers,
VERY LIGHT JETS are a contradiction in terms, the average VLJ has a MTOW of over 8000lb, (10,000lb MTOW = VLJ) OK the Eclipse 500 comes in at 5650lb MTOW, still more than twice the weight of your bug smasher, and I am 100% certain that none of you will be happy with a 2000ft + take off, or coming over the fence @ 90kts+ for a 1500ft rollout, not to mention the $1,000,000 + price tag, also most of these aircraft such as, Adam A700, Eclipse 500, Cessna Mustang, Piper jet, Honda jet, have still to see the light of day, Piper has been threatening to bring out a jet since the 70s, time will tell.
As for advances made by any of these VLJs ZERO PROGRESS !!!!!, apart from compromising the airframe integrity by the use of suspect composite technology, I can see no meaningful advances,
Take a look at the specifications of the LEAR LJ23 which you could buy in 1964, empty weight 6151lb, yes it does have a MTOW of 15.000lb !!!!!, so what would happen if modern light weight materials and engines were used in the construction of a LEAR LJ23 today ? I will tell you, you would end up with a VLJ, that would probably fly rings round the alleged cutting edge technology aircraft that MIGHT!!!! be manufactured sometime in the future. So just where exactly are these advances that you are all convinced are taking place ????? , I still don’t see any.:confused:
PS
Where did any of you get the idea that I consider composites to be the holy grail of aircraft construction ???, I thought I made my opinion of composites very clear when I started this thread, and my opinion has not changed.:)

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 40

Everyones entitled to their opinion.

In your motorbike analogy it could be said that making fast bikes at all is not a step forward in technology and safety. A fast bike in the wrong hands is a death trap no matter how modern the gizmos. It could also be said that by employing modern 'safety' toys you actually tempt riders to overcook things and trust technology to save them resulting in a step backwards. I suppose we could make bikes with a low top speed thus improving safety but who would buy one? Your original bike despite its ancient technology is perfectly safe provided it is ridden sympathetically and in accordance with traffic and road conditions at the time.

I fly a Yak52 which although built in 1983 uses much technology dating back decades. It is tried and tested technology which has been de-bugged over a long time and I feel a darn more safe in that than a more modern Cessna or Piper.

If advancing technology is so great why are we still suffering death and injury? We should have designed it out of daily life by now!

Member for

20 years 3 months

Posts: 1,452

Yes flying is inherently dangerous, it’s the nature of the beast, and there will never be a 100% safe aircraft, SNAFU’s are an unavoidable part of the game, but there is no valid reason for GA pilots to risk there lives and the life of others, whilst flying aircraft that when all is said and done, have no place in the 21st century, most are under powered, have lethal stall characteristics, and the glide ratio of a house brick, mainly due to aerodynamics or the lack of aerodynamics to be more accurate,

Regardless of the technology, modern or otherwise, if a pilot flies outside the limits of the aircraft, it will bite. As for your comment about lethal stall characteristics, I'm currently flying a 1973 PA-28, which has relatively benign stall characteristics when handled properly. Don't tar every aircraft, regardless of age with the same brush. Yes, I have no doubt there are some dog/difficult to manage designs out there with the points you raise, but then the PIC will (should?) be aware of the peculiarities of said aircraft and handle it accordingly; surely said PIC will have been cleared on it by an approved type examiner/instructor, who will have pointed the characteristics out? "Old and Bold pilots" springs to mind.

As Moggy says, "there are many of us for whom the romance of flight and tube and fabric aircraft are synonymous, and equally who do not accept your premise that they constitute death traps" - my ambition is to learn to fly Austers eventually - and IMHO your comments while no doubt sincerely held are somewhat narrow minded. The vast majority of GA pilots learned on the "death traps" you describe and I'm sure Messrs Piper, Cessna and Beech et al would be very interested to see that you consider their tried and tested designs as such (as indeed would my CFI, I suspect).

I make these comments as PPL student and hence am relatively inexperienced and open to be told I am wrong.

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

Everyones entitled to their opinion.

In your motorbike analogy it could be said that making fast bikes:mad:

employing modern 'safety' toys you actually tempt riders to overcook things and trust technology to save them resulting in a step backwards.:rolleyes:

Your original bike despite its ancient technology is perfectly safe provided it is ridden sympathetically and in accordance with traffic and road conditions at the time.:eek:

I fly a Yak52

The motorbike analogy has nothing to do with making faster bikes !!!!!!!

The 1984 GPZ900r delivered 156mph and 110hp off the showroom floor, the 2002 F1 delivers 140mph and 108hp, so its not speed that is driving the technology, in fact a few years ago all motorcycle manufactures agreed to limit there bikes to 186mph, a speed that most super bikes have been capable of for 15 years or more, now they are more than capable of 240mph + (dream on bug smashers ) so its not about speed !! and it hasn’t been for quite some time, 15 years at least ????? So why are the manufactures still spending billions on R&D ????? could it be that unlike the major GA aircraft manufacturers they recognise the fact that the machinery they are producing IS INHERANTLY DANGEROUS !!!??? And any improvement that they can make to the handling and reliability, will assist the rider in his efforts to stay alive whilst completing the task in hand, such as: cattle mustering, Police patrol / high speed pursuit, Search and Rescue over all kinds of terrane, Para medics, postal worker, and millions of people who by necessity use this product when at work or to commute to work each day . TOYS YOU SAY !!!! Are you serious???
You have very little concept of reality if you think your statement, “Your original bike despite its ancient technology is perfectly safe provided it is ridden sympathetically and in accordance with traffic and road conditions at the time.” is valid, in your dreams!!
It does not matter how sympathetically, skilfully or carefully you ride an antique the unavoidable fact is, any motorcycle manufactured today will, under any conditions, at any speed, out brake ! Out manoeuvrer ! Out accelerate ! Any from last century 1999 included!!, therefore they give the rider a much better chance of surviving the every day INHERANT DANGERS !! that as the manufactures know, go with the territory.

As for your belief that riders will “overcook things and trust technology to save them resulting in a step backwards“.
That’s what the Darwin Awards are for, there will always be idiots and apparently otherwise intelligent beings, who for reasons known best unto themselves push the envelop in the most predictably deadly way, well at least we get the benefit of them eliminating themselves from the gean pool, no more of them coming , I am happy with that so I can see no reason to slow down R&D to save a few suicidal stuntmen, they will be successful in there quest R&D or not, remember the old barrel over the falls trick? just what advance in technology gave the first idiot to do that the idea he would survive?? THE INVENTION OF THE BARREL ??????

With respect for the recently deceased, it’s a sad day for all, god rest, I will reserve my comments on the YAK 52 for another day.

Happy landings.;)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,606

If you can buy a cheap, well-made mass-market aeroplane made by someone with enormous backing and balls who is patient enough to get it certified for each market area, yet have a design that can be readily thrown away in 10 years time for something better without a big depreciation hit, THEN you may achieve your goal.

As it happens certification is a pain. Regulation is and can be a pain. Engine choices are limited. Volume numbers are limited as are pilot numbers (but this is a bit self-perpetuating). Unit costs are high so as to limit numbers to the affluent or committed builder.

Very much an uphill struggle!

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 40

Quote "could it be that unlike the major GA aircraft manufacturers they recognise the fact that the machinery they are producing IS INHERANTLY DANGEROUS !!!???"

I think that Mr Cessna and Mr Piper were very aware of the dangers of their products when they both shut down their single engine production lines several years back in fear of the American liability laws.

No company can admit their product is dangerous then sell it to the general publc.

...and why is technology not moving forward in the genral aviation world?.....as has been said elsewhere there is no money in it!!!

I see the other thread this character got involved in ended up being locked. Why the aggresive stance?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

I think it's just the true messianic zeal of the 'prophet without honour'.

What I fail to understand is why, in his eagerness to develop a new style of aircraft, he feels the need to 'diss' all the existing technologies in such an exaggerated fashion. It weakens his case, rather than strengthening it.

If you look through the accident statistics it's the Mk1 Human that needs redesigning more urgently than the aircraft.

Moggy

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

Algorithm21

Your arrogance is beyond belief, I have met people like you before and it isn't a nice experience.

As for your arguements, well, whilst I can see the "concept of what you are trying to say I am afraid your arguements do not hold water.
The reason being is that you have missed one vital common denominator in all this, and that is the person with the money.

none of them have any form of anti-skid system, hell!!! even my motor bike has an ABS coupled interactive brake system

Now why do you think GA aircraft do not have anti skid systems? I'd let you answer but I'll tell you why.
If a GA aircraft has it installed this means extra weight, and coupled with everything else you say should be in a GA aircraft this means more weight, so can you enlighten us as to the point of having a nice shiny aircraft with all the kit installed with Piper or whoever advertising it saying "Brand new aircraft for sale, a massive 4,000lb MAUW, but unfortunately if you carry 1 adult and full fuel tanks you'll be overweight"
Who's going to buy an aircraft like this? and don't tell me it doesn't make a difference because it does, even the fleet I fly have varying load carrying capabilities beause of the RADIOS that's installed, the 2 kitted out for IFR weigh more than 140lbs compared to the others. This equates to a small adult.
People buy new aircraft that actually do a job for them, i.e. they want to carry loads to go touring, not some useless safe (according to you) spam can that can't carry anyone.

but there is no valid reason for GA pilots to risk there lives and the life of others

But there is a valid reason, and that reason is that he wants to fly, what happened to free will? what happened to a democratic society? what happened to freedom of rights? nobody is forcing anyone to go flying, so to me it's perfectly valid, who are you to try to force your views onto people?
Oh, and it's their, not there :)

most are under powered, have lethal stall characteristics, and the glide ratio of a house brick, mainly due to aerodynamics or the lack of aerodynamics to be more accurate, as for the power plants in use today, they are very expensive to maintain, highly inefficient by any standard, and for various reasons are prone to lose some or all power at the drop of a hat. ie, mag drop, plug fouling, carb ice, hot and high

I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of tosh I have heard in a long time, thank you for making my day :D
Most are underpowered? sorry but that's the nature of the normally asperated aero engine, but are underpowered for what exactly? most engines do exactly what it says on the tin, that's why JAR OPS applies factors to take off & landing performances. Just what is deemed to be powerful enough? what is your benchmark? do you want all GA aircraft fitted with turbo powered engines that can lift them off a long, wet grass strip within 200 metres? if you do see my comments above r.e. weight & cost.
Lethal stall characteristics? I haven't flown one yet with lethal stall characteristics, why? because most GA aircraft are inherantly stable, you have to force them to stall, the ones I fly have root spoilers to MAKE them stall.
What's wrong with having the glide ratio of a brick? are you one of these gung ho pilots that thinks he doesn't have to practice emergencies? if you are used to how it glides there is NO reason why you cannot get it into a field should the engine give up the ghost, it's the technique used, not the glide ratio that's important.
Some or all power at the drop of a hat? even with a mag drop I will lose 100rpm, plug fouling? it just runs rough, normally due to mis-handling, carb ice? again mis handling or lack of quality training can cause the engine to stop with carb ice, and I have yet to see this, 99% of the time the engine will cough, and if you are trained properly that is enough to recognise the problem. Hot & High? sorry but this is funny, hot and high affects EVERY aircraft, period, it doesn't matter if it's a motor glider with a lawnmower engine or a 747-400 with 4 x RB211 Turbofans. If you can't see this then take a trip to Johannesborg and watch the 747s try and lift off their 15,000ft runway.

Take a look at the specifications of the LEAR LJ23 which you could buy in 1964, empty weight 6151lb, yes it does have a MTOW of 15.000lb !!!!!, so what would happen if modern light weight materials and engines were used in the construction of a LEAR LJ23 today ? I will tell you, you would end up with a VLJ, that would probably fly rings round the alleged cutting edge technology aircraft

But surely you are against such materials being used? you'd rather have them built out of aluminium, please try not to contradict yourself.

I also want to see evidence that you can build a 200hp aircraft that can cruise 2,000 miles at MAUW? at best a 200hp single will cruise at around 140kts TAS, I make that 14hrs endurance in still wind conditions.

The bottom line is that whilst you are getting your points across, and some of your points are valid you are still forgetting the fact that all this comes at a cost, you say it can be produced at a fraction of the cost of what is being produced now and that is fine, but can you see messers Piper & Cessna etc passing those savings on? no, nor can I.
Also if you had a more indepth knowledge of the state of the airline industry right now in regards to recruitment you will then see that the flight schools simply do not have the money to invest in new aircraft, coupled with the fluidness of instructors, the lack of students coming through the system, the rising fuel costs (AU$3.50 per ltr) means that it is hard times for the schools.
As for private owners it is only those who are super rich that can afford to buy brand new and afford to operate these aircraft, sadly, they are out of reach for the vast majority of people.

Next thing is the aircraft themselves, I fly around in aircraft dating from the 1970s to the 1990s (well I did, it's my last day as an instructor today), and I fly these in the knowledge that our eninerring department are one of the best in the business, they have their 50hr checks, their 150hr checks and their Star Annuals, they also have a new engine after 2300hrs flying, we have strict rules on the amount of oil you have to carry (over and above what the POH states). Also I know the structural integrety of the airframes are checked constantly, can this be said about a privately owned aircraft? not for me to answer.
So with all this in mind the only thing that scares the hell out of me are 2 things, 1 is a midair collision, and the other is structural failure, it is these 2 that will kill me, and the structural failure part has been covered, so that leaves a mid-air.
All other emergenies I feel I can deal with and live, engine fire, cabin fire, brake failure, engine failure you name it, why am I confident? because I teach my students all these nearly every day.
Also Algorithm you are forgetting another factor, and that is the human factor, NOTHING is fail safe, not even your so called super planes that you want built, as long as there is human intervention there will be tragedies, and that is a fact. The safer you make the plane the more complacent the human becomes, GPS over map springs to mind, it's the same analogy, that's ok but if the chips are down who's going to navigate?

Now stop being so arrogant, you sound like one of these domineering captains on board an aircraft that crashes because he was too ignorant to listen to his first officer. Obviously of the old military style ilk :rolleyes:

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 40

Quote "What I fail to understand is why, in his eagerness to develop a new style of aircraft, he feels the need to 'diss' all the existing technologies in such an exaggerated fashion. It weakens his case, rather than strengthening it."

The whole debate got off on the wrong foot because of it. The responses were defending old technology rather than answering the question. A classic case of diplomatic failure, perhaps it is due to spending too much time in the outback.:rolleyes:

Back to the question.....

Old technology was as good as we could get it at the time and if handled within its limitations is still perfectly safe. Yes GA is slow at moving forwards partly because of the dominence certain engine and airframe manufacturers have historically had. Newcomers such as Cirrus are starting to break the mold and innovations are coming forward quite rapidly in this century when compared to the 1960's, 70's and 80's. But as many have rsponded here there are problems with cost, weight, and customer demand. The customer demand probably being the biggest hold up IMHO. Many people fly for fun and are quite happy with minimal technology, others prefer aviation nostalgia and fly the 'oldies', many just want to fly something commonplace like a Cessna and there is nothing wrong in that.

But how big is the potential market for high price glass cockpit Cirrus or high performance Columbia?

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

Regardless of the technology, modern or otherwise, if a pilot flies outside the limits of the aircraft, it will bite.;)

relatively benign stall characteristics:eek:

are somewhat narrow minded.:confused:

I'm sure Messrs Piper, Cessna and Beech et al would be very interested :diablo: :

if a pilot flies outside the limits of the aircraft, it will bite.)
Go to the top of the class, you are 100% right! So the logical course of action would be, if you don’t want to be bitten, and I am assuming you don’t, (no prise if your dead) you would seek to fly aircraft that provide you the widest margin for error, to safely complete the task in hand, and if GA aircraft development had kept pace with most other technology based industries, you would have a myriad of aircraft to chose from, each with its roll to play, consider this ! if Igor Sikorsky and his mates had been as arrogant as there fixed wing counterparts, and just downed tools after there first creation struggled into the air, can you imagine what the daily death toll in the helicopter industry would be, have a look at the technology available to civilian chopper pilots, it makes 90% of GA aircraft look exactly what they are, ANTIQUE !!!!!

(Don't tar every aircraft)
Yes you are right, I was being a bit over the top, there are lots of aircraft that have as you say “relatively benign stall characteristics“, the operative word being relatively, relative to what ?????? Relative to an aircraft that will flick into a incipient spin and kill you in an instant or what ????
My point is, 21st century aerodynamics completely eliminate the stall as you know it, a properly designed aircraft will not allow the pilot to accidentally stall, the aircraft will mush as the minimum flying speed is approached then maintain minimum flying speed until the pilot intervenes, no computers, slats or fancy trick gizmos, just sensibly applied basic 21st century aerodynamics, now that’s benign.

“somewhat narrow minded”
I am the one trying to drag GA screaming and kicking into the 21st Century, your ambition as stated, is to return to the comfort of what should be a bygone age.
Its your life to do as you will, just remember if you insist in flying these things do it solo!!! Your non pilot mates actually think that GA aircraft are state of the art technology, a view unfortunately also held by some pilots, so be honest with them before you take totally unnecessary risks with there life’s, you will find that when confronted with the true design history of the aircraft and engine they are about to trust there life to, lots will say thankyou, BUT!!! No thankyou, its there life not yours so be honest, not optimistic.

As for me incurring the ire of the major GA manufactures, bring it on!!! There is nothing I would love more than to see them try to publicly justify there attitude to pilot safety.
But don’t hold your breath waiting, they will remain camped in the back of there unused design office until I disappear, the last thing they want is to get involved in a public debate, they know there is a better safer way.

Having said all of the above, I learned to fly in these contraptions, and enjoyed every second of it and still do, even after 2 engine failures, one 15 seconds after takeoff on a short bush strip !!! scratch one bug smasher a broken leg and the usual cuts and bruises, but if treated with more than a little respect it is possible to fly them in relative safety, there’s that word relative again.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

So the logical course of action would be, if you don’t want to be bitten, and I am assuming you don’t, (no prise if your dead) you would seek to fly aircraft that provide you the widest margin for error, to safely complete the task in hand

If it could deliver that whilst still being nimble and responsive, yes. But if this is bought at the price of it handling like a barge - no thank you.

Quick notes:

1) No GA aircraft that I can call to mind will "flick into a incipient spin" at the stall.

2) Incipient spins have never killed anybody.

Moggy

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

[QUOTE=Deano;1163372]Algorithm21

Your arrogance is beyond belief, I have met people like you before and it isn't a nice experience.

Your arrogance is beyond belief” DEANO
Well at least this part of the plan is working, I have tried the softly softly approach for years, letters to manufacturers, talks to engineers & pilots, 100s of e-mails all to no avail, so lets see what happens when I rock the boat ?? when was the last time anyone got you thinking ??

“the person with the money“ DEANO
Its got nothing to do with money, building an aircraft with a 21st century aerodynamic design does not cost any more than building a 1940 design, and just think if these aircraft are built, you get to buy one el-cheapo in a few years.
If money was the problem there would not be 10 + VLJ aircraft under development as we speak.

‘coupled with everything else you say should be in a GA aircraft this means more weight, so can you enlighten us” DEANO
Anti-skid units come in all shapes and sizes, but due to the very rudimentary design of GA aircraft brake systems, it is not possible to retrofit any of the computer based lightweight units without a total redesign of the system, so the easiest fix is fit a maxaret anti-skid unit to each brake unit, the device fits on the end of the existing brake lines runs on the rim of the existing wheel, and has a flex line the connects it to the brake unit, no extra wiring or brake line required, this device is already approved for use on aircraft and will add 3lb to the aircraft weight.
By everything else I take it you mean, a more modern engine!! in case you haven’t noticed modern aircraft engines are a lot lighter than the 1940 VW design, so no extra weight there, 21st century aerodynamics don’t weight any more than 1940s so no extra weight there!! You will get a much higher lift to drag ratio with modern aerodynamic, so even if extra weight was involved, which it is not, the aircraft would be in better shape to handle it.

“But there is a valid reason, and that reason is that he wants to fly” DEANO
Please read what I have say in my posts before you abuse me, as I have pointed out at least 3 times in this thread, if you want to fly ? do it !!! Go for your life, FLY!!!, I do just as often as I can in almost anything that will fly, but you will not see me carrying anyone who does not totally understand, exactly what they have just strapped to there ass, and they sign a waver which they HAVE READ AND ITS HONEST, then and only then will I risk there life, If you don’t believe you are taking a substantial risk every time you leave the ground, you should not be flying.
So fly fly FLY if you want you will get no objection from me.

“But surely you are against such materials being used? you'd rather have them built out of aluminium, please try not to contradict yourself” DEANO
Picky Picky, (1) as you just pointed out IFR radio and navigation gear is heavy, fortunately avionics development has progressed beyond the twilight zone, I will let you guess how many lb could be saved by ditching the entire 1960s collection.
(2) Two engines designed in 1957, replace with modern lighter engines.
(3) most of the cabin trim used in the 60s was fibreglass, aluminium and wood, replace with composites.
(4) Replace all NON-STRUCTURAL panels with composites, ie floor panels, roof lining, engine cowls, wing fairings, u/c doors, etc etc etc.
Do you want me to go on or does that answer you question?
By the way, if you take more time to read my posts, rather than howl abuse, you will see that, I only have an objection to composite materials when they are used in structural applications, for reasons I have clearly stated, if you really are serious and you think you know something about aircraft engineering, do me the courtesy of at least reading what I have to say before you start to abuse me. ( who did you say was being arrogant ? )

“I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of tosh I have heard in a long time, thank you” “sorry but that's the nature of the normally asperated aero engine, DEANO
Yes your right !!! so why persist the with technology,? Nostalgia ??? When for the same money you can fit a Fuel efficient aviation certified 200hp diesel engine, which has less than half the parts count, vastly lower servicing cost, does not require mags, or plugs to foul, and of course there is the fact that they come standard turbocharged and supercharged, “Hot & High? do you still think its funny ??? if you do you know very little about aircraft engines and the effect of temperature and altitude ( 747s are normally aspirated ).
Any further discussion on 1940s normally aspirated engines is academic.
As for your question “ Just what is deemed to be powerful enough” ?? I don’t ask for much just what it says on the can will do me fine, but I would like it all the time ! not only when the weather is right or I am at sea level or when the carb heat is off, or the mags play up!! is that to much to ask for??

“I also want to see evidence that you can build a 200hp aircraft that can cruise 2,000 miles at MAUW? at best a 200hp single will cruise at around 140kts TAS, I make that 14hrs endurance in still wind conditions.” DEANO
The evidence you require is sitting not 10 feet from me, you are welcome to come and have a look anytime, I will require you to sign a non disclosure agreement other than that feel free.
What more can I say ? I think I have addressed most of your questions if not I am sure you will let me know.
By the way people who live in glass houses should not throw stones
THERE are 10 + spelling mistakes in your post, THERE may be more THERE if I take a close look, but THERE is not much point to that, is THERE ???after all this is a discussion on aviation not English grammar, so THERE!!!!!! (sorry I just could not resist that) :D

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

If you can buy a cheap, well-made mass-market aeroplane made by someone with enormous backing and balls.

As it happens certification is a pain.!

Now your talking!! Positive thinking that’s what we need!! , get enough like minded people to put there minds to solving this debacle and we will succeed, despite the best efforts of the luddites to keep us in the twilight zone.
You mention a mass-market aircraft, an idea which I think has a lot of potential, there is no reason why aircraft should not be sold like cars. ie you offer a standard 4 place fuselage and option it just like a car, the purchaser would have a choice of 150hp-200hp- 300hp engines, and 140sqft- 180sqft -220sqft wing area, then budget options such as leather trim or plastic, IFR - VFR, etc etc etc, and if we want to keep the price down have the fuselage and wings built in China. JUST A THOUGHT what do you think.

As for certification ??? its an international aircraft with no real home, so to get the thing off the ground, complete the initial certification in the most convenient country, you will be stunned and amazed how much time and money can be saved.;)

Thanks for your input BlueRobin is nice to talk to someone who is at least willing to consider the possibility of there being a better way. Thanks again.:)

On we struggle !!!!

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 22

If it could deliver that whilst still being nimble and responsive, yes. But if this is bought at the price of it handling like a barge - no thank you.

Quick notes:

1) No GA aircraft that I can call to mind will "flick into a incipient spin" at the stall.

2) Incipient spins have never killed anybody.

Moggy

If it handled like a barge do you really think I would be interested?, the object of the game is to enhance the experience of flight, whilst providing the widest margin for error, for example a well designed aircraft will retain full lateral and longitudinal control at minimum flying speed ( mush stall condition )
just how many 200kt barges have you flown ????.

We just cant agree can we ??? Picky picky was it a spin ? Was it only a stall? I cant see that it matters what the technical name is. it killed this lady anyway.

I point to the following because I was there to see it, and clean up the aftermath.
LATE 1980s C172 VH-DBL on final approach to Jandakot airport (below 500ft) was asked to do a 360 deg orbit to avoid traffic landing on cross runway.
180 deg into the orbit the aircraft was seen to suddenly roll to a almost inverted attitude & impacted terrane seconds later. Ask the young lady who was flying if it was a incipient spin or just a spin, or was it just a vicious stall, maybe it was the hand of god, pity you cant ask her, she’s dead!! aircraft that stall are dangerous why is that so hard to understand ???
Now if you want to try this for yourself safely, just take a 172 up to 5000ft, ease back the throttle to idle, apply 10 deg flap ,hold the altitude, as the speed drops hold her level with the rudder, now she will drop a wing and you will use the standard stall recovery technique, no problem, now check how much height was lost in the recovery manoeuvrer and what your new compass heading is??, now tell me if you would like to try that again at say 500ft.!!!!
half a rotation on the way to the ground is close enough to a spin for me, if you want to get really technical and nit pick about the exact name for the manoeuvrer that the aircraft was in the process of completing before it killed the pilot, I must ask does it really matter??? it was the result of a stall, and that says it all.
YES YES YES I know the pilot & air traffic were probably in the wrong to some extent, but the fact is if the aircraft could not stall in the first place, the pilot would be alive today.

Look Moggy I am not on a crusade to rid the world of old aircraft, I love old aircraft, do you think I have spent the past 40 years maintaining, flying, and building them because I hate them???, I am trying to point out that its time for the next generation aircraft, that doesn’t mean scrap all the old ones!!! At no point have I even hinted that old aircraft should be scraped, but NOTHING LASTS FOREVER!! now if you can tell me how I can get my message over without pointing to the shortcomings of the existing aircraft ? It would be a great help.

Please stop nit picking, next you will be picking me up on my spelling like DEANO, personal abuse seams to be the order of the day in this blog, I really am trying to have a serious discussion on the future of GA, the past does not really interest me, its written in stone and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter it, but I can at least try to ensure that my kids have safer aircraft to fly, I KNOW !!,I KNOW !!! There’s no such thing as a safe aircraft, I SAID SAFER , my eldest will be solo next month, so please if you have nothing constructive to offer the future of GA, go talk to your mates, I don’t have the time to waste on idle warbird chatter. I am on a mission.

The offer I gave Deano to come to my workshop and see just what a modern aerodynamics are capable off stands for you too, you never know it may change the way you look at flying, what have you go to lose. ???:)

Member for

16 years 11 months

Posts: 24


As for certification ??? its an international aircraft with no real home, so to get the thing off the ground, complete the initial certification in the most convenient country, you will be stunned and amazed how much time and money can be saved.;)

Yeah, but some of the less enlightened aviation authorities, such as the CAA, FAA, DGAC, EASA, etc. may not take your type certificate issued by the aviation authorities of Swaziland or Bhutan very seriously.

"Its got nothing to do with money"

Its got everything to do with money. Development costs money, certification costs money. New things are mostly being done by new, small companies. Establishing enough credibility so enough people are prepared to plop down a substantial amount of money, comfortable that companies such as those will still be there 10 years down the line to support their plane is very difficult and takes a lot of money.

There is interest in new technology - witness glass cockpits, diesel engines, composite aircraft such Cirruseses, Diamonds, etc. However, with anything new you take a risk of uncertainty. With something as expensive as a plane, that risk in terms of reliability, parts availability, resale value, etc appears to be large enough that lots of people will prefer to go with a known quantity, i.e. a Piper or Cessna. As long as that situation exists those types of manufacturers don't really have much reason to do anything particularly groundbreaking.

Things such as anti-lock brakes you mention will need certifying, servicing, training of mechanics, etc. All this, and no doubt a lot else, combines to make this just too expensive for what is already an expensive activity which has a much more limited market than the automotive or motorcycle market you've referred to once or twice.