What can be done???

[ianwells]

Hi Tagati

 

Go for the drifter. Weightshift aircraft are generaly only for calm, non thermic conditions, otherwise are hard work shifting all the weight, PPGs are great but still limited to low wind days. I have done both of these then got the Drifter. You can pick one approx. 10-12K . Have you been for a flight in one yet? If you are in Townsville try contacting Farri. or if you are passing the whitsundays give me a call.

 

If the wife wont fly with you, take the girlfriend instead.

 

Cheers

 

Ian

 

 

[farri]

Hi Tagati Go for the drifter. Ian

Goodonya Ian!

 

Hi Tagati, If the wife wont fly with you, take the girlfriend instead. Ian

I love it.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.... The reason for the HORSCOT enquiry was the safety record of ultralight aviation........ with manufacturers such as Lightwing, Jabiru, Skyfox et al. coming into being. These are all competent aircraft with varying degrees of capability and safety far removed from a plastic chair suspended under an umbrella powered by a chainsaw engine ....

 

Perhaps it is time for a break-away group to secede from the RAA and go back to the string-and-glad-wrap days. Good luck to you; having done an extensive rebuild on a Thruster and found, to my horror, that it featured componentry that I would not put in a Mirror dinghy, I shan't be joining you ....

 

.... That might break the apparent nexus of having to have minimal aircraft and competent aircraft forced to share one bed.

We're all entitled to have a jaundiced view of course, but I don't think the fatality statistics would support your argument.

 

Certainly some of the earliest ultralights weren't built to last, the vibration from single cylinder engines flogged out bolt holes and loosened rivets after a few hundred hours but in recreational aviation that was usually quite a significant number of years. And whilst you might have been horrified by some of the Thruster componentry I don't recall a single instance of a structural failure of them so I think we can presume that the designing engineer did his job just as well as any of those who worked on the types of aircraft you consider to be 'competent'.

 

In the lead-up to HORSCOTS there were certainly a lot of crashes but only a tiny proportion of them were due to structural failures, the vast majority were due to the people who were flying having a severe lack of knowledge of mechanical flight dynamics due to the lack of compulsory training to fly those types.

 

Whilst I'll happily admit that I haven't done the statistical analysis to support my statement, I'd nonetheless feel quite confident in saying that compulsory training and 'competent' aircraft haven't done a thing to improve the crash, injury and fatality statistics because whereas we once had incompetent pilots flying incompetent aircraft, at least they flew very slowly and therefore crashed slowly so the incident was survivable and the aircraft was often repaired and flown again. Instead we now have ageing and supposedly competent pilots flying aircraft that are in many cases far too 'competent' for them and the kinds of crashes that are so very frequent of late clearly indicate to me that the piloting skills are way behind the performance of the machine. The speed and low drag nature of these slick machines means that small piloting errors often result in crashes and a high proportion of the crashes are fatal.

 

I think we've gone way past 'recreational' flying and well into the territory of 'ego massaging' aviation with old blokes (as I am) getting their belated Walter Mitty moment because they can now afford the slippery ship they always dreamed of back in the days when they had half a chance of keeping up with it's performance level. And of course there is a good proportion of the current 'competent' fleet being used as workhorses on the land and daily transport for professionals, neither of which can be described as recreational use but at least they fly more hours and that currency probably results in a lower crash rate which helps to improve the statistics for weekend flyers.

 

Just my similarly jaundiced 2c worth

 

 

[Oscar]

Yes, I was being a bit cheeky, and of course you are correct - structural failure was probably not a significant cause of early crashes, but lack of proper training and a host of other reasons to do with human factors (in general) was the primary culprit. I doubt there was sufficient competent investigation done to sort out mechanical issues from pilot error in those days, unless it was blindingly obvious. However, AUF certainly pushed hard for an upgrade to the limitations on ultralights so that proper training could be carried out and more sensible operating restrictions so flying in a better safety envelope could be done.

 

My point is more that there are many people who want - and are prepared to pay for - the performance, safety and capability of more expensive machines. These have evolved and become more the 'norm' than some sort of aberration of the whole idea of 'cheap aviation'; I don't believe that the sector has 'lost its way' as some proclaim, but has perhaps developed divergent paths that are ever-widening and the regulations designed to cover the operational envelope for the 'bigger, faster' etc. aircraft are really no longer appropriate to the whole ethos of the 'just flit around having fun' brigade. I think we have passed beyond the point where a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime works.

 

 

[Powerin]

“No way would I go up in that …... thing”.

This is a very good point and one I have made before. What type of aircraft we fly is often not only a personal choice, but something that significant others in our lives need to be comfortable with as well.

 

 

[farri]

Whilst I'll happily admit that I haven't done the statistical analysis to support my statement, I'd nonetheless feel quite confident in saying that compulsory training and 'competent' aircraft haven't done a thing to improve the crash, injury and fatality .Just my similarly jaundiced 2c worth [ATTACH=full]26953[/ATTACH]

Yes! I agree and I say! "you can be confident in your statement!"

 

I did 1.3 hrs solo yesterday in my rag and tube Drifter, that doesn`t look like a "Real Aircraft!"......I`ve just got back from taking up, Frances, my wife, and a lady who`s husband I taught to fly, when I was instructing. Our lady friend would never fly with her husband because of the fear of flying in this type of aircraft. ( Her husband has since passed away from cancer ).Tomorrow I will be taking her flying again.

 

In 30 years of flying these aircraft that don`t look like " real aeroplanes", firstly in my scratch build Chinook copy,then instructing in my Drifter, I have never so much as received a scratch! Of the hundreds ( lost count long ago ) that I`ve introduced to recreational aviation, not a single person ever received a scratched.

 

Now I`m about to do something realy dangerous! I`m taking my wife and our lasdy friend for a tour in our car up to the Atherton Tablelands.

 

Frank.

 

 

[M61A1]

Now I`m about to do something realy dangerous! I`m taking my wife and our lasdy friend for a tour in our car up to the Atherton Tablelands.

Frank.

Yes, taking your wife and your lady friend, could be very dangerous, don't take both at the same time.

 

 

[arielle]

http://www.raa.asn.au/market/ad.php?id=3804

 

Doesn't suit where I'm at with my flying right now, but if the choice was between flying this Sportsman and not flying at all, I know what I'd have! Point is, the (relative) basics are still available if you look for them and if you haven't the price of a ratty old tinnie to spend on your flying, you should possibly be looking for a cheaper hobby.

 

 

[turboplanner]

All good philosophy here, but:

 

(a) A percentage of people want to fly 100 kt aircraft - their safety or otherwise isn't relevent to this discussion, they are a separate group.

 

(b) Since we've taken them out of the equation, saying things like one size fits all doesn't work is not relevent.

 

If there is anything in the current regulations which prevents people flying Drifters, Thrusters or similar let's focus on that.

 

© Discussing the accident rate back in history has, I think, been reasonably fleshed out, and the pilot training regime addressed.

 

(d) That leaves structural failures, and if we look at more current fatalities, my memory seems to bring up pilot error, whether pushing the aircraft to the point where it broke up in flight, or flying in the dark, or having an airstrip with no EFATO splay etc. And more importantly, not seeming to feature in the numbers of crashes you might expect.

 

So I wonder if that is an issue other than the perception from family members, which will curtail your ambitions instantly.

 

Nearly every motor sport has had to address its cost in recent years, where the top end product consumes dollars at the rate people have the capacity to pay, and quite a few have a huge capacity to pay, which creates a volume market which squeezes the family/wage earner participants.

 

Examples are:

 

In the 1970's when you could probably buy a good trail bike for $700.00, I was out in the bush and came across the Australian (may even have been World) champion practising on his $16,000 hand built bike.

 

Yesterday I went to a tractor pull, and they seemed to have a handle on it:

 

There were top end hand built machines with 450 cu in engines putting out several thousands horsepower, costing squillions.

 

There were also classes for standard rebuilt tractors costing under $5000.00

 

For the kids there were ride on lawn tractors, with engines where the owners had obviously studied how to port, change compression, timing/tune exhausts, and they were as good to watch as the top enders.

 

RAA has not addressed entry level operations as far as I can see, and currently aren't broadcasting any interest, so it will be up to members to band together and the frist stage is to talk about the grass roots machines which will work within the current regulations, then perhaps organise three or four decentralised fly ins around Australia.

 

Someone here wrote a nice post about the experience he had owning an Ultralight, Frank has also often talked about the excitement of just flying around his patch, and I've followed Tomos stories about the fun of flying his single seater and towing it halfway around Australia, so I don't accept the sob stories about it all being in the post and spoiled by CASA etc.

 

If there are current impediments, let's hear them, and see if someone can overcome them.

 

 

[DrZoos]

there may be lots of new keen to learn wannabe pilots who can only afford $50.00 to $80.00 an hour or whatever. The question is this "Is that demand there or is it just nostalgia from those who long for days gone by".

It sounds rough, but these days unless you have a mate to lend you an aircraft and pay the petrol the days of prices like this are gone. Start adding the costs and you soon see why it costs so much. Even on a cheap plane with minimum maint

 

My costs ignoring depreciation except for engine replacement. Based on 200 hours pa.

 

Engine $13 hr

 

Maint & Parts at least $12 hr if nothing breaks down and every service is straight forward

 

Insurance $15 hr

 

Hanger $8 hr

 

Fuel $34 hr

 

Total minimum cost $82 hour

 

Sorry but people wanting aircraft at $50 - $80 per hour when they dont own the plane are dreaming. And even owners will find it tough to come in under $80 hour. Especially if they are honest about the true costs.

 

Some with hangers and no insurance might do better...

 

 

[ave8rr]

In the UK (and Europe too I think) flying schools are allowed to use kit aircraft. The kits have to be constructed and inspected to fairly stringent rules. But surely this would help to bring costs down somewhat.

Same in NZ.

 

 

[farri]

If there is anything in the current regulations which prevents people flying Drifters, Thrusters or similar let's focus on that.

I`m not aware of any regulation that prevents suitably qualified pilots from flying Drifters,Thrusters or similar,within the guidelines of the RA-Aus ops manual.

 

If there are current impediments, let's hear them, and see if someone can overcome them.

One of the impediments I see, is that no certified aircraft such as the Drifter and Thruster are being produced in Australia. This means,the only certified aircraft that can be used for training are those that are currently being used. These are now fairly old aircraft and at some point they will need to be replaced. Without certified or CASA approved aircraft to follow on from the ones currently being used, it`s only a matter of time before training will end... No training! No pilots.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Back to the OP's question - How can the cost of recreational aviation be be made more affordable to more people ?

 

There are three basic types of costs associated with aircraft ownership and operation for the private recreational owner -

 

1. Purchase price of the new aircraft
    
    
   
2. Fixed costs of ownership i.e. Association membership/fees, Hangarage, Insurance, Annual inspections, Replacement of time-lifed components, BFR/medical etc
    
    
   
3. Running costs i.e. Fuel, Servicing and Maintenance, Replacement of hours-lifed components, Repairs of accidental damage.
    
    
   

 

 

Initial purchase price

 

I think it has to be accepted that there's no such thing, anymore, as a 1980s price for any sort of two seat plane. Not just factory built planes, it's also quite impossible to homebuild a similar one yourself for anywhere near that 1980s price. For one thing we've got 30yrs worth of inflation to factor in and for another thing we've got to add in the 'incidental' costs of paying in many different ways for public liability risks. Not just the insurance but the burden of the costs of the Regulatory aspects that have come about in the ever increasingly litigious environment that has taken place in the last 30yrs.

 

Here's a working example. I bought the first Certified Drifter that Austflight sold. It had a DCSI Rotax 503 and was wire braced. My logbook shows that I took delivery on 4th September 1987 and I paid $13,200 for it. (EDIT - I think that price is right, although the figure of $18,000 also teases my memory)

 

Most folk on the forum here are aware that Rob and Sara Thomson bought the whole Certified Drifter project from Jim Fenton and moved the factory to Dalby. Production of the aircraft has effectively stalled since then. Rob's word on the matter is the difficulty he has found in getting suitable labour since the developing gasfields to the West of Dalby attracted all the local labour-force away from the area. Additionally I have frequently read, on this site and others, of the shock and horror that people express that a new Drifter now costs around $45,000 +GST and with a 2T engine!

 

A quick cost breakdown of the major Drifter components, all quite conservative and excl GST -

 

R582 engine with exhaust, radiators etc - $11,000

 

Airscrew - $1200

 

Fuselage tube - $1000

 

Pod - $750

 

Pedals - $100

 

Control stick assys - $800

 

Control cables, bellcranks, sheaves, pushrods, rod ends etc - $1200

 

Basic Instruments, lights, switches, pitot assy etc - $600

 

Seats mouldings - $300

 

Seats upholstery - $200

 

Throttle & choke levers/cables, assys - $200

 

Fuel tank - $300

 

Wing, fin, HS, elevators, rudder, ailerons skins - $3000

 

A frame - bent, sleeved etc - $400

 

CRMO tubing for keel (sleeved) - $200

 

Rear A frame or upright/wire brace etc - $200

 

Wing spar tubing, front and rear, triple sleeved - $1000

 

Wing compression spars and tips - $400

 

Compression spar CNCd fittings, s/s formed and tumbled rigging fittings - $300

 

Drag/anti drag cables and fittings, tested - $300

 

CRMO Gear legs, 0.120" tubing with similar thk sleeves, heat treated - $450

 

Main wheels and tyres with brakes - $360

 

CNC cut, formed and tumbled s/s hinge components with pins for ailerons, elevators, rudder - $120

 

Rigging wires and kingpost - or struts, tested - $800

 

Tailwheel assy - $140

 

Main gear compound bracket - $100

 

Main gear and flying wire pan-strap, machined for gear penetration - $200

 

Pan-strap channel section doublers (2) - $40

 

Fuselage side and rear pans, CNC cut, folded etc - $400

 

Assorted bolts - $200

 

Assorted rivets - $200

 

Engine mount incl isolation mounts - $300

 

Wing battens w/- moulded tips etc (approx 32) - $400

 

Fin, rudder, HS (2), Elevator (2) - $600

 

Paint - prep, etch, prime, topcoat - $600

 

Labour to cut, drill, weld, deburr, assemble - say 500hrs at $30 - $15,000

 

There are still plenty of small components not accounted for, and no VHF radio, and the total is - $43,360. The prices I put there are estimations but wouldn't be too far out. And you'll notice there's not a lot left out of the $45,000 asking price for the business/premises owner's profit so it probably demonstrates why Rob isn't beating a path to any potential buyers' doors when he's well aware that most of them are of the opinion that Drifters aren't worth that much.

 

So if that sets any kind of a bench-mark then we probably need to accept that a new factory built 2 seater starts at a minimum of $45K (add the GST to all price-points) and that's for an open machine, enclosed will typically cost a fair bit more. We also need to keep in mind what it is that drives the price of a new aircraft, and quite simply it's 80% speed related and 20% comfort related. What that means is that the lowest cost end of the range of possible aircraft will be slow and uncomfortable, and the top of the range will be fast and comfortable. Keep in mind that comfort is relative, some folks are happiest in an open machine, even in Tassie in winter ...

 

Given the percentages of the cost drivers, and since comfort costs relatively so much less than speed, it's worth noting that you can have a slow and very comfortable machine for the same money as an only slightly faster and still uncomfortable machine, and here's an example for that -

 

One of the last planes that Wayne Fisher custom built to order for a client was one of his Fisher Super Drifters. It had the same comfort as the standard drifter but was fitted with the R912 engine and large fuel tanks to go a bit faster, climb a little bit better and go a bit further. The price? $63,250. That's almost the price of a baseline Jabiru and a lot less comfortable, but the client wasn't after a Jabiru of course.

 

That's the basics of the cost to purchase new - if you want it cheaper you've got to accept less speed, and frankly the slower aircraft owners have more fun anyway, and therefore slow is most in keeping with the majority of non-specialist recreational flying.

 

The example of the factory vs the Fisher Drifter also demonstrates, to an extent, why the costs are so much higher for going faster - the main difference between them is the 912 engine instead of the 582, 4T instead of 2T. And it's not just the engine that has to change and therefore add to the cost, the engine mount is substantially more expensive and so is the extra strength of the rear upright, the extra sleeving in the aft part of the boom tube and so it goes on.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that the TBO cost of the 582 made it much more expensive than the 912 but that isn't quite right, you don't have to buy a new 582 every 300hrs, you can have it rebuilt to new spec by Rotax Rick in the States for about $3500. That's if it's used for flying training, if not most people run them quite happily to about 450hrs between builds. A 2T uses more fuel though, so the running costs are higher but many people would prefer to pay a bit more per hour than have a 50% higher initial purchase price for the whole plane.

 

So, in short, less cost means less speed and less speed requires less power so you can use a much cheaper engine. And it's interesting that the climb rate of the 582 Drifter is only very marginally less than the 912 due to the extra weight of the engine, the law of diminishing returns is starting to kick in and the bigger engine really needs a bigger wing.

 

Gotta wind this up, I'll continue it later.

 

 

[turboplanner]

My point is for entry level flying locally, climb performance and cruise speed are not issues, so you can go way down the power scale, to a lower cost level.

 

There may well be a few who want to go the way you are talking but they are in a different category and we should rule out low cost flying just because they have other ambitions.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't think costs are the major issue with the decline of GA/RA flying, its more about the lifestyle.

 

A mate of mine, getting on a bit, late 30's, salary in the 120-150K range, loves cars, interested in flying, old man flies, just split from g/f, no kids. Talked to me about flying, got the books, went for an intro flight. The perfect candidate to get into flying right?

 

Decided to go kite surfing with plans to then eventually go paragliding.

 

 

[Powerin]

I think the Belites I mentioned earlier start at US$8,500 plus engine.....US$3500 for a 28hp Hirth. So reasonably cheap flying is still possible.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I think the Belites I mentioned earlier start at US$8,500 plus engine.....US$3500 for a 28hp Hirth. So reasonably cheap flying is still possible.

Quite right Powerin, single seat flying will always be considerably less costly than a two seater because you can use small engines that are plentiful and cheap. Not only does the small engine cost so much less but the airframe can be much lighter since it doesn't have to carry so much weight and it doesn't have to resolve so much power. Even so, single seaters with tiny engines still become exponentially more expensive as you go faster because you need to use exotic materials and manufacturing methods to get the weight right down, and the airframe very smooth to reduce drag.

 

In my previous post I was concentrating on the two seater aspect since it would appear that most people want a two seater even if they often fly alone. It provides the chance to take spouse, friends and family for a flip and also to introduce others to flying. And most importantly, when flying alone the second seat provides space to carry extra fuel and baggage which makes the aircraft far more useful. So, as I see it, in answering the "What can be done" we need to be looking at what can be done to make a two seater less costly than they are at present, and to get reasonable comfort and performance for the least cost.

 

I've been through a lot of this exercise fairly recently with a thread called "Cheap Two Seater Anyone", so I've already discovered a lot of the cost drivers of two seaters when compared with single seaters, and I've also worked through all the various construction methods on another site, and ran polls to determine which kind of construction the majority of people would favour if all or part of the assembly was to be homebuilt from a kit.

 

Having run all the costings, both for materials and for CNC parts manufacture, for the biplane I devised as part of Cheap Two Seater, I was somewhat surprised at the end of the exercise to discover that the parts count was higher than most other methods and the amount of CNC machining made it an expensive kit proposition. The main advantages were that the materials were all commercial grade and the whole thing was pop-riveted and bolted together so almost anyone could assemble it easily enough from a box of supplied parts and sub-assemblies.

 

The Cheap Two Seater was also designed to reduce the costs and complications of ownership by being quick folding to a size that can be trailered or stored in a 20ft/6m shipping container to avoid hangarage costs. What I saw as the least complicated, lightest and strongest way to achieve that and also have side by side seating was to make it a biplane with a high mounted engine. Whilst folks were very generous in their comments it was clear that the whole concept didn't set anyone on fire with enthusiasm and I assume that the 'difference' of a biplane and high mounted engine were the major factors which lost people. After all the majority of people want the conventional layouts. Another factor, perhaps, was the limited performance offered by the configuration due to its high drag both from being biplane and also the frontal area due to being side by side seating.

 

From what was learned from that exercise, and the polls on the other site, there are some facets that are worth retaining for a different design which is also aimed at lower initial cost and lower ongoing costs of ownership -

 

There is a definite cost benefit in using commercial grade materials, albeit with a weight and associated performance penalty but at the speeds we are talking about those penalties can be kept fairly low. From the polls the gusseted/pop riveted aluminium tube, fabric covered was by far the most favoured homebuilder's method because just about anyone can do it accurately with only basic tools. So those two aspects of the Cheap Two Seater probably have to remain, then we have to address the performance and configuration issues while still retaining trailerability, two seats, smaller/cheaper engine (i.e. not a 100hp 4T) and an enclosed cabin.

 

There is a big weight/structure, and therefore cost, saving if the seating is tandem rather than side-by-side (SBS) so it's worth giving long and hard thought to just how important SBS seating really is. If you mainly fly alone but want to take a pax sometimes then taking advantage of the tandem cost reduction is a good way to go. There is also a really big advantage of tandem seating that is often neglected and that is that both people have excellent visibility out of both sides of the aircraft and that is also why tandem is favoured for any ground-related flying such as photography or station work. And when flying alone it's easier to turn an empty rear seat into a baggage compartment by removing the stick, than it is to turn the right seat into one.

 

Looking at the performance aspects you only have to compare the Thruster Gemini with the Drifter or the Piper Pacer with the Cub, the tandem arrangement with its much narrower fuselage and consequently much less severe pressure recovery aft fuselage curvature wins hands down. The Pacer flies slow, the Cub flies slow and relatively fast as well, the Genini and the Drifter compare with each other similarly.

 

A tandem monoplane is always going to be a fair bit harder and more time consuming to fold than the Cheap biplane unless very sophisticated and probably expensive methods are used, but it needn't be too bad. The important thing is that it should be able to be accomplished by one person without too much effort and in windy conditions if necessary.

 

If we are to accept a slower plane than we'd really prefer to have then we need to satisfy ourselves with some other aspect of that plane that is just as appealing as the speed would have been. Of the types that I've flown there's no doubt that I've had the most fun in aircraft that could go where others couldn't. They allowed me to get onto isolated beaches, to untouched fishing spots, onto mountain tops and deep into remote valleys. For any of that a helicopter is best but since we're talking 'more affordable' we really need to look at what can be done for STOL ability without unduly affecting the nice cruise speed of our narrow tandem machine.

 

There's a small plane that was recently brought to my attention that a fella in USA built using some of the parts of an early Piper Cub. After his rebuild and modifications it's still a (close) tandem two seater and it won the STOL championships at Valdez (Alaska) last year. Some of the competitors there had spent half a million on their plane modifications and much to their embarrassment Frank came along and blitzed them with a budget toy. It's the yellow 'Lil Cub' at 1:00 min in the video and in the pics below. It has some pretty clever aspects to the design but there's nothing difficult about it. And Frank Knapp, who built and owns it, reckons it's more fun than anything else he's ever flown. He doesn't ordinarily use it for competitions, it's his local explorer the rest of the time.

 

 

 

 

I think something along those lines - tandem, commercial grade aly tube, gusseted/pop riveted, Rotax 582, Hirth 3203 or MZ202 engine, fixed slats, large flaps, fold back wings - could probably be built and operated quite economically.

 

What do you all think of the concept?

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

LOL - need it a teensy weensy bit faster, and with space/cap for spare fuel etc............................and before you know it the price will be up there with the others.

 

A tandem seater is OK because it addresses the training requirement, but beyond that I think that to keep the engine cost and structural cost you would need slow speed and short range.

 

People have already fallen into the trap once of trying to create a budget touring aircraft, and as we now know, the first engine failure/rebuild usually marks the end of their flying days.

 

Having said that I'm aware of the yearning for minimum dollars with maximum image/performance, and I've seen that fail in other sports in spite of a lot of mentoring and organization, so I'm not saying the solution is easy by any means.

 

HITC, I saw your two seater about midway between what I'm thinking of now, and a Jab class, and in fact taking all things into consideration that may still be the base level unit.

 

It would pay to talk to a few manufacturing people about your design. Typical truck build time is 20 hours, but that's assembling sub assemblies. Some of the sub assemblies which make up sub assemblies can contain 30 parts and require two or three stage pressing, but assembly times are way down on what you might think because the build is in jigs, sometimes using multiple air spanners, riveters etc. Have a good look at your lawnmower parts list for just a few hundred retail (and retailers are using close to a 100% markup. I wouldn'y write your idea off by any means.

 

 

[farri]

http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com.au/QUICKSILVER/Home.html

 

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The question is! How can the cost of recreational aviation be be made more affordable to more people ?

This thread is starting to sink without a trace - 69 posts, 1943 views compared with 806 posts, 8149 views for Illegal Immigrants ?????

 

It could be there is no interest in flying these machines, because it seems to me that several low cost solutions have been found in the posts to date, and I think we have established there are no impediments to training in, and flying them.

 

The problem may be a marketing one.

 

One of the early lessons in Sales Training is "Sell the sizzle, not the steak", and what we have seen overwhelmingly on forums is negative comments about the current state of the industry, particularly that furphy about how plastic fantastics are killing it, and potential customers quickly pick up on negativity and go cold or spend their money on something else.

 

Another selling lesson is that if someone really wants something, they will somehow find the money to buy it. Have a look at the motorcycles thread and see just how much money many of these guys have put together to buy such a string of bikes.

 

You have to have an appropriate message for your target market to set it on fire though.

 

Many years ago a soft drink company decided to market a drink direct to children, so they got the taste right with surveys, called it "Smile" and came up with a yellow bumper sticker with a cartoon smile on it. Bumper stickers were the in thing, and they got great coverage - you'd see them on cars everywhere. But the product bombed in the marketplace.

 

With expensive tooling and stock on the line, I presume what happened next was that they did some marketing research to find the optimum positioning statement.

 

The product was relaunched with television ads of a tough guy beside a fast flowing river throwing a can down his throat and then crushing it. That was the image the 8 year olds identified with. The product was Solo, and they've sold millions ever since.

 

Based on those marketing facts, I think more stories like the ones Frank and Tomo tell may be the best way to reignite this product.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Aviation is a dead industry, I'd get over it.

 

 

[M61A1]

Even in 2000, I had a Drifter on crosshire at a flying school, and because the instructor preferred to be in a cabin, he tended to push students towards the Gazelle. I think perhaps a lot of it may come from whichever aircraft their first flight was in.

 

I took a guy for a short flight yesterday, late afternoon, perfect conditions, he never stopped raving about it. He was also very surprised to hear that he could buy a good Drifter for under 20k. Maybe another convert.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Aviation is a dead industry, I'd get over it.

No more posts then??

 

Alan.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Aviation is always going to have a price barrier, like all motor sports. As much as that has disadvantages in numbers it also has advantages in that it keeps much of the riff raff out. Yes the cost is high but its not ridiculous.

 

We go skiing every year and what i love about it is the shit bags are not there. You can leave a $1500 pair of skis unattended for hours on end and not have to worry. I for one welcome the fact that aviation is naturally selective. Make it too dear and it kills the enjoyment and the sport. Make it to cheap and it becomes dangerous and full of ferals.

 

Im not for a moment saying people who have no money are all feral or vice versa. Some of my poorest friends are the nicest people. But the laws of economics do ensure that those that can earn an income, or save and invest to a level that allows them to fly, does somewhat provide a barrier to entry that does eliminate queit a few ferals that would otherwise cause us all to have a lot more regulation and cost then we currently have.

 

So yes it is a problem, but it also has some benefits.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Aviation is always going to have a price barrier, like all motor sports. As much as that has disadvantages in numbers it also has advantages in that it keeps much of the riff raff out. Yes the cost is high but its not ridiculous.We go skiing every year and what i love about it is the **** bags are not there. You can leave a $1500 pair of skis unattended for hours on end and not have to worry. I for one welcome the fact that aviation is naturally selective. Make it too dear and it kills the enjoyment and the sport. Make it to cheap and it becomes dangerous and full of ferals.

 

Im not for a moment saying people who have no money are all feral or vice versa. Some of my poorest friends are the nicest people. But the laws of economics do ensure that those that can earn an income, or save and invest to a level that allows them to fly, does somewhat provide a barrier to entry that does eliminate queit a few ferals that would otherwise cause us all to have a lot more regulation and cost then we currently have.

 

So yes it is a problem, but it also has some benefits.

I can't wait to read the responses to this one Zoo! You have one hell of a wide vocabulary - morons, idiots, fools, ****bags, ferals, riff raff ... and you've only just started flying!

 

Perhaps your poorest friends are the nicest people, as you say. But contrary to your elitist opinion that they are likely to "otherwise cause us all to have a lot more regulation and cost then we currently have", when I was teaching 'them poor folks' to fly they were the ones who showed the greatest respect for the regulations and who worked hardest to get their flying and their procedures 'just so'. Conversely, the silver spoon "privileged" brigade that you favour were the biggest rule breakers and know-it-alls I had the misfortune to have to spend time with.

 

The thing is that as soon as aviation and perceived 'entitlement' come together you've got a much bigger problem than the riff raff will ever present.

 

It's also worth noting that some of the bigger contributions to the development of aviation came from those you'd rather not mix with.

 

Oh - and the worst thieves that I've come across have more wealth than they know what to do with.