Is the US destroying Rec Aviation

[Guest pelorus32]

I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate so I might as well keep going::devil:

 

I'd like to ask the protagonists of the "US LSA is holding us back" argument to explain two things to me:

 

1. How come we get, from Japan the land of restricted KW (no more than 169kw I think), the WRX which in every evolution is tighter, more supple and performs better and can beat your Fords and Holdens across country any time. Maybe it's because of the power limitation that it just keeps getting better?
    
    
   
2. Why in the land of the free, the land where GA has no such speed or other restrictions, why in that country has it taken decades to make any real progress in the logical development area: a decent diesel aero engine? And why is it that almost all of the sensible developments are being made in Europe? And why is it that TCM's attempt, funded by NASA, has simply slid into oblivion?
    
   

 

I don't think that arbitrary restrictions are the issue here.

 

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

 

Devilishly yours

 

Mike

 

 

[Admin]

Mike

 

In my opinion there will always be the Ferrari, the WRX etc and I know I opened the can of cars as an example, but the motor industry, like all industries, are based on market requirements.

 

As we all know GA is not growing so why spend a lot of R&D in a market that is not greatly influenced simply by the aircraft type that is available - the issues in the GA market are far more reaching then the actual aircraft however, we are seeing development in terms of penetration by some (very little I may add) aircraft manufacturers that are exploring Rotax or Jabiru powered 4 seaters. We are also seeing companies like Tecnam developing a twin.

 

We also know that there is an explosion happening in recreational aviation (recreational differentiation is by means of RA-Aus definition) thus aircraft manufacturers, who will only develop with extensive R&D if there is a financial return, are coming through in the plentiful with different aircraft which is obvious by the extensive array of aircraft from Europe.

 

When I did my Masters Degree in Business I learnt of a matrix developed by the Boston Consulting Group about product management:

 

 

Source: http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_bcgmatrix.html

 

This matrix can be used when considering the GA and Recreational differentiation - GA is a Dog with low growth rate and extreme difficulty in achieving any market share due to the current players like Cessna etc. However, the recreational market specifically LSA is "new" in terms of the age of aviation. With this newness we are now seeing manufacturers vying for market share that currently has no great dominant player.

 

My personal belief is that with Cessna and Cirrus now entering the recreational market they will become the dominant player and with shear brute force they will end up with a market share that will drive other manufacturers out of the recreational market unless they have the opportunity to explore different horizons in the future without any limitations.

 

My humble ramblings :big_grin:

 

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Ian, I do not follow your reasoning that restricting airspeeds to 120 kts is going to “stagnate the low endâ€Â.

 

I have kept out of this thread up to now because I am not really very interested in it. My philosophy is very simple – if I wanted to go somewhere I went to the aero club and hired an Arrow etc where I had reasonable speed, comfort and carrying capacity. If I wanted to just fly then you would find me in a sailplane or ultralight where speed was less critical vis a vis pure enjoyment!

 

But I find your comment interesting Ian because of the philosophy (or apparent attitude) underpinning it. Without climbing back onto my traditional bandwagon it is worth (again) stating a few points.

 

When the ultralight movement (AUF) was deliberately hijacked into the low end of GA and became RAAus, a main drive was the philosophy that “ultralights had to evolve†when in fact they could remain virtually static and, apart from technology advances in materials, had no reason to evolve per se as their purpose was to provide simple and affordable flying to the maximum number of people – many of whom may not otherwise be able to afford to fly at all.

 

But that does not mean that the simple types cannot develop and they certainly will not stagnate because the guys at the upper end are inhibited in airspeed with their already $100k plus machines. There is in fact a wealth of design, development, challenge, enjoyment and satisfaction abundant in the “low end†and always will be without going at a million miles an hour for a megabuck cost.

 

As a case in point – my current aircraft is a Thruster T300 that was built in 1989. In about a years time, and all things being equal, that 18 year old aircraft will be in as new condition (because Thrusters do not have fatigue lives) and developed into something that I am naming the “Thruster Swiftâ€Â.

 

The main stimulus for this is not to make the aircraft faster but to cruise faster and more economically (target is 16 ltrs/hr from a R582 at 70 kts), plus allow the aircraft to meet a more valid training function that will enable ab-initio students to learn cheaply, on a taildragger and low end machine – thus equipping them to be able to progress with the basic skills to fly virtually anything on the basis of a sensible endorsement procedure.

 

When complete the aircraft will have cost $25,000 which will make it an attractive proposition for a flying school, private syndicate, or a single owner. It will have the same room in the cockpit and carrying capacity/comfort as most aircraft eight times its cost.

 

It will also generate around ten Engineering Orders that may be individually or collectively applied to any of the approx 300 Thrusters still flying. This will enhance the pleasure of a great many people very afforably.

 

These Engineering Orders will include: a considerable amount of individual drag reduction devices; a fully enclosed cockpit with doors, map pockets etc; consequent ventilation system (as fully enclosed Thrusters get damn hot in the summer); 5 stage flapperons including reflex (for STOL and improved cruise): Re-worked airframe geometry to tame the Thruster’s rather daunting landing characteristics; Aerodynamic elevator trim; Aerodynamic rudder trim; wheel brakes; and the Design MTOW will be increased to 450kg.

 

In basic trainer terms the only systems the aircraft will not have is retracting undercarriage and variable pitch prop. But that is not bad for a simple ultralight at that price, that virtually anyone can maintain and repair at home is it?

 

No Ian, I do not think the low end will stagnate – it is in fact being very active and innovative right across the country. I do not see that changing because people cannot go faster than 120 kts. But I do agree with you – at that end of the spectrum any restriction can inhibit development, but in itself can be a stimulus for improved efficiency!

 

But that area does not really concern me and what I do. Nor a couple of thousand other members who quietly get on with what they are doing and have huge enjoyment doing so at a price they are able to afford.

 

Tony

 

 

[facthunter]

Market dominance

 

Ian, can't agree with your last para. at all.

 

The reasons for the decline of GA. are many not the least of which is the liability and litigation situation in the USA. ( They are lousy with lawyers ).

 

How can Cessna and/ or Cirrus use brute force to dominate a market? IF they do penetrate the Recreational market, it will be on the basis of value for money and performance. over which they have to be assessed against all other offerings.

 

Another reason for GA. decline is that roads have improved , weather has not. Cars are comfortable, quiet, airconditioned ,have the capacity to stow and carry a fair amount of gear & motels are everywhere. There are a lot of other fun things to do other than fly aeroplanes these days and we have to compete with them.

 

Cost .We winge about GA costs. When I started . one weeks Pay bought me less than 2 hours flying (solo) . Today it's probably 3 times that figure.(ie. 1/3rd the cost).

 

I don't believe that a personal aeroplane is a serious mode of transport that can be justified as such. Lets face it we do it because we like flying. Unless you can fly day or night in all weather you are better going regular airlines because you will get stuck places (as you well know ). You all know the saying If you're not in a hurry take your plane, If you have to meet a deadline ,take the car However, I do agree with your point that the US.,being a big market, will influence design by putting limits on certain parameters, but the world outside of America is relatively much bigger than it used to be . Hopefully we don't have to follow all their rules here.

 

(unless it suits US not the US. eh!) Grist for the mill...Nev...

 

 

[Admin]

Completely agree with you Tony, as always which is why I said and with passion that "We must always remember how we started and that there is a major place for the low end aircraft".

 

Whilst there are different aircraft, different people, different needs and different wants, I feel that we need not limit those different aircraft, different people etc. There is always the desire of some to enjoy the entire range of options. I myself whilst flying the high performance CT also get the same amount of enjoyment out of my Gazelle and have in recent days wanted to expand that enjoyment into a Thruster and Trike. I further feel that there is no other form of aviation that is affordable to the average person that offers the diversity and choice as does in the recreational arena.

 

But having said that I will use the example of the introduction of technology in materials of Carbon Fibre. As we develop faster aircraft that place more demands on the structural integrity of an aircraft we find ourselves seeking future technologies that will support the development of a faster and lighter aircraft. This is where fibreglass made way for carbon fibre and kevlar. Now these materials can be used in aircraft like the Thruster to assist in their R&D. Another example is a revolutionary new exhaust system that has been developed for the Rotax to make an aircraft fly faster with more horsepower. Again we will possibly see this development that was driven by speed filter down to aircraft like the Thruster.

 

If we take out the drive in the development of faster and lighter aircraft, are we not limiting the possible technologies that may become available that will filter down to the Thruster end of the market?

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Yup Ian! Good response and (as usual) I am in agreement with you.

 

Interesting you mention the new exhaust system. I know nothing about the new Rotax system but I have just had a radical new exhaust system built for me that I will be hanging onto a BMW R100 motor that itself is currently hanging on a Thruster T500. Considerable improved efficiency and increased horsepower as a result - just another of my little projects.

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Appears a "bad bottle of plonk" is not a Aust wide saying. Where I grew up in the NT, (long time ago) it meant you were being a bit negative about things.

 

Re this LSA issue - Australia has had dramatic Ultralight developments in the last twenty years, even though the US has far more restrictive UL reg's.

 

HPD

 

 

[Admin]

Nev, another person who's views I respect!

 

The brute force of Cessna is already evident with their release into the LSA market of their SkyCatcher. They have already commenced lobbying the US authorities to up the 600kg LSA limit a few kg to better suit their LSA entrant.

 

May I pose the question - Is Cessna likely to have a better chance in achieving this then say Evektor (Sportstar fame) or say Jabiru?

 

 

[Admin]

Tony, to digress here are some pictures of a 912:

 

Exhaust system

 

A 4 in 1exhaust system with muffler.

 

It was conceived and manufactured by a French craftsman whose main activity is the manufacture of exhaust systems for the Formula 1, that can be understood as a synonim of quality.

 

 

 

It's a case of great quality work guarantee of an excellent reliability in time.

 

In the case of performance, this kind of connection sized up taking in account the engine's regimen eliminates the counter-pressures at the exit, liberating the engine and providing a optimum propulsive performance.

 

The utilization of a muffler under the capot permits to limit considerably the sound emissions without penalizing the aerodynamics. It's an absortion pot.

 

 

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hmmm! Thanks Ian. Not sure if that is working on the same principle as the Llewellyn design they have made an example of for me for the BMW.

 

Certainly there is an extraction/pressure reduction major element to it and test reports give a huge reduction in noise emission. Which is good because the R100 with straight through pipes currently barks like an extremely angry junkyard dog!

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest browng]

I am in agreement with those who see unrestricted development as a threat to the basic concept of 'recreational' aviation. Bluntly, RAAus pilots do not have the training to aviate/navigate/communicate at 150 knots, its all very well when everything is going well, but suddenly the GPS packs up and you are getting lost, at 150knots, and the next thing you know you are filling the windscreen of QF123. If we demand operational parameters similar to a pilot with a higher standard of training and a medical requirement, we are in danger of making ourselves redundant. As a dual rated pilot with experience on high performance types, I am aware of the significant difference in cockpit workload and operational accuracy required, as I am sure are many others here. I am very happy to see two different systems and two different objectives, and the objective of Recreational aviation that I would not like to see changed is simplicity and low cost. If you want to fly a high performance type get a PPL. Just my opionion ok, and now I will wait for the brickbats........;)

 

 

[facthunter]

Lobbying.

 

Ian, Granted ,that they would have more chance than Evector. We are talking of an arbitrary limit , (Like a speed limit) which ,if they (Cessna) are successful in raising will not just apply to them, it will be available to all who choose to take advantage of it. I'm sure Jabiru,(with the 230) would be pretty happy with more weight available. This outcome would INCREASE safety, (reduce the number of overloaded aircraft, enable them to be built a bit stronger etc).

 

When you do your sums , to build a 2-place aircraft, you generally end up with the empty weight being around 55% of the AUW, if you are lucky. Do the calculation in reverse by adding the weight of 2 real people, 100 litres of fuel ,tiedowns & hammer & and your overnight clobber. This sum is to be 45% of the all up weight. This is with an aeroplane that is pretty marginal for undercarriage strength, has very restrictive flap extension speeds. and often bordering on what I would call structurally flimsy.

 

I don't want to stifle innovation. I personally think that LSA is too restrictive. (has the same maintenance & modification limitations as GA), but getting back to my previous point, This is a result of the litigious situation in the USA. which caused the almost complete cessation of manufacture of small aircraft in the USA, some years back.

 

Another point to consider, I have seen wedgetailled eagles embedded in the leading edge of Cessna & Beechcraft A/C right to the mainspar. My wife had a spouse of a friend who died as a result of a bird through the windscreen of an ultralight. When you get a bit of speed up these things become lethal missiles. I narrowly missed one at 8500 feet some time ago. (GA not RAAus) Keep a good eye out .. Nev....

 

 

[Admin]

Just my opionion ok, and now I will wait for the brickbats........;)

- thanks Browng and I know exactly what you mean as when I started in the CT flying in the circuit everything was happening so darn quick - no room for error - I didn't know whether I was Arthur or Martha until the instructor said to me "Ian, you don't have to fly that fast if you don't want to, just pull the throttle back". My circuits were very slow at 70 to 80kts (and only using 7-8 litres an hour) but out of the circuit cruising a distance I was flying along at 130kts.

I would just like to add that these are my personal views only and not those of being admin - I do try to keep them separate. Also, to understand my views I am personally driven by the desire to be able to go to many different far away places in the shortest period of time whilst enjoying my hassle free flying that the recreational arena allows me - I am sure you can understand that I simply just don't have any spare time any more - this is my only driver - please forgive me but sometimes I just get passionate about something :big_grin:

 

 

 

[Guest browng]

But having said that I will use the example of the introduction of technology in materials of Carbon Fibre. As we develop faster aircraft that place more demands on the structural integrity of an aircraft we find ourselves seeking future technologies that will support the development of a faster and lighter aircraft.

Ok, if I'm going to go all controversial on you I may as well go the whole hog!

 

I think progress is overrated anyway, and driven more by the desire to separate you from your $110,000 than any real technical progress. Yes there is room for innovation, but innovation does not necessarily mean progress. I note from a table posted in another thread that the second biggest selling LSA in the USA (Legend Cub) is a replica of a 1930's design, and a look at the specs below for the leading US LSA as compared to my Jodel, a 1948 design, does not exactly show stunning progress, 2knots and 14kg of load, and the load is a function of it being fitted with an 0-200, put a Rotax in it and it will be almost identical in useful load.

 

JodelD11

 

Empty........... 340kg

 

MTOW............ 630kg

 

Useful.......... 290kg

 

Cruise ..........110kt (@75% power)

 

(Figures from my Operating Manual)

 

CT-SW

 

Empty........... 294.kg

 

MTOW............ 598.7kg

 

Useful.......... 304kg

 

Cruise ..........112kt (@75% power)

 

(figures from Flight Design Website)

 

Ok, the devil made me say it.......

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Personal Goals

 

[snip]I would just like to add that these are my personal views only and not those of being admin - I do try to keep them separate. Also, to understand my views I am personally driven by the desire to be able to go to many different far away places in the shortest period of time whilst enjoying my hassle free flying that the recreational arena allows me - I am sure you can understand that I simply just don't have any spare time any more - this is my only driver - please forgive me but sometimes I just get passionate about something :big_grin:

 

Ian,

 

cutting through the other issues, this to me is the crux of the matter.

 

Tony describes what makes him happy; you describe above what makes you happy.

 

If I had to describe my optimum it is different again: I'm happy at anywhere from 105-120 knots cruise. But I want to optimise the load carrying capacity of the aircraft. I therefore want lighter, stronger structures...never mind more speed.

 

Just on the subject of GA being a stagnant market...I don't know that that is true. Ask the engine manufacturers and the spare parts guys. whilst not many new a/c are being built in small GA (lots in large GA) the maintenance requirements lead to a thriving business for the likes of the engine guys. Why no innovation in diesels in the US? There is no shortage of demand.

 

My bottom line is that it's hard for the manufacturers. You cannot be all things to all men/women. That means that you have to shoot for a compromise of some sort. You have to be able to stick out in some way or other though. If I say "CT" people think of speed. If I say "Tecnam" people think of workmanlike..."Airborne" = rag and tube.

 

Am I going to buy a trike? No. Am I going to buy a CT? No. Am I going to buy a Foxbat? No. They are all good a/c just not for me. But there are aircraft out there that suit me. It's a broad world and I don't think that there is any lack of innovation and development. But I also think we need to remember that we have been improving on Orville and Wilbur for over 100 years. Many of the major hurdles have been resolved, now innovation is more incremental.

 

Yet there have been major innovations. Burt Rutan's designs were innovative and fast. Why didn't they dominate? Maybe they were tough to fly. Maybe they were hard on pilots. So whilst we can breach some barriers unless we do so in an integrated way the appeal will be limited.

 

The Commodore and the Falcon are really an example of mass-market-appeal. Nothing outstanding in any case, but a good enough integrated package to have wide appeal. As a manufacturer that's really the holy grail a great way to dilute R&D costs. The Jabiru is our Commodore. Nothing special but keenly priced and good enough. Selling very well. Go into one of our "parking lots" and count the Jabirus as a proportion of the total. They're like Commodores.

 

Are we going to see a carbon fibre high speed retract Jab? Not if Jabiru have any sense.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Admin]

Browng - the CT figures are for the US version that has been downgraded due to their limitation - the other figures are for the "other" countries that say 240kmh for 75% cruise which is 129.58kts.

 

The CT in the US is limited with flaps and propeller design - cruise flaps are only -6deg here they are -12deg and the prop is detuned to limit the speed - this is a perfect example of aircraft design being detuned to suit the US market. Although I will mention that there are some CT owners in the US that have figured out how to change their flap settings (it is electronic) and change their props - but I didn't say that ;)

 

 

[Guest browng]

Browng - the CT figures are for the US version that has been downgraded due to their limitation - the other figures are for the "other" countries that say 240kmh for 75% cruise which is 129.58kts.

Point taken, but even so, 20knots for well over $100,000 or (in my case) 110knots for $23k is a no brainer. Also my Jodel is full Night VFR, has an over-strength spar and a wide track undercarriage for the roughest of strips, is stressed for aerobatics (but not approved for aeros in Oz), will approach at 40knots at MTOW giving it outstanding short field performance, and can also be simply repaired by the owner with basic hand tools. As an overall package for the typical RAAus pilot it would seem pretty much ideal. The real innovation in the CT is the lower empty weight and not much more in my opinion.....duck :black_eye: