What really "killed" General Aviation

[Ron Blum]

Dana: I agree with what you have said. Basically, it depends on the mission ... and that changes with where you live in the country. For us in Kansas, a hybrid car makes little sense. We are rarely in heavy traffic (stopped on an interstate in gridlock), and our trips are typically longer than 40 miles. On the other hand on the east coast, an air vehicle to go between the downtowns of NYC, Boston, DC, Arlington, etc would be a huge time-saver. And, as the saying goes, "Time is money". Air vehicles sell because they save time and/or expand geometric coverage. Speed (or time) is the #1 comparison. One can't buy time; we can only reallocate what we do with what we are given.

I am so glad you said what you did about hybrid airplanes not making sense. They don't. Airplane engines run at full power the vast majority of time (even piston singles' 75% power at altitude is full power). That condition is the most efficient that an engine can run. Boost for takeoff does make sense in some cases as this thread has pointed out earlier.

Here's one to ponder. If cars in major metropolitan areas really moved, would texting be so much of a problem?

[Bill Greenwood]

Stan, have you ever actually built an airplane? If so, how fast did it go?
Have you ever been to the Reno races and seen what if takes to go 475 mph with a prop plane?
Have you ever flown a prop plane at anywhere near 400 mph?

No law against having big dreams, though.

[Frank Giger]

A more likely scenario is a population connected electronically where the individual need of owning a vehicle for personal travel cannot be economically or environmentally practical.

Until one gets hungry, which tends to happen from time to time. Downloading groceries via the web isn't an option for the foreseeable future.

Hi Ron, the optimum cruise altitude for longer distances is FL250. The optimum flight path would be an arc depending on the distance traveled.

Now the flying car is pressurized and has an oxygen system. Gonna be loads of passed out people arriving at their destination if we're relying on them not to drill a hole in the roof to put in an antenna or a football banner or just because they're people, and people do dumb stuff like that all the time to their personal vehicles.

It's a dark future where personal vehicles are illegal inside a city and all personal movement that can't be done on foot is controlled by the government's nexgen navigation systems.

[Stan]

Yes, the P-51.

[Stan]

Hi Frank, it is not a flying car and stupidity is a self correcting process. In the future personal vehicles will be impractical in a high density area where mass transit is much more efficient and convenient.
When the auto is obsolete describe the vehicle that you think will replace it.
Thanks, Stan

[Ron Blum]

If you're looking for a good example of metropolitan congestion, look at London City. Within the biggest circle, air vehicles are not allowed, and being able to get a biz jet into London City airport is a multi-billion dollar deal. Within a smaller circle, personal cars are not allowed (taxis and busses still run). Within the smallest circle, it is down to walking and bicycling. Maybe if we didn't design city centers so tightly knit ... or complain when they last 100s of years. (I'm joking BTW).

[Joe LaMantia]

Guys,

We're beating up Stan and he's not going to give in, I for one hope he is successful. Most of us grew up on the "Jetsons" and don't forget Luke Skywalker's "Speeder", pretty neat concepts. When we talk about the future the subject is somewhat open-ended. Just when will the auto leave the scene and be replaced by something else? The future is difficult to define, are we talking about a few decades or centuries or something in-between? At some point aviation will become obsolete, remember the "transporter" in Star Trek? My point is simple, we've seen a lot of changes and technology seems to be moving at an ever faster pace, but we can only see a small distance into the future the rest is fun speculation! There are always obstacles to overcome, I think Stan has the kind of attitude that is needed to push through and actually create something new and that is what a lot of EAA homebuilders do everyday.

Good Luck Stan!

Joe

[Ron Blum]

We're beating up Stan and he's not going to give in ...

Stan has the kind of attitude that is needed to push through and actually create something new ...

And I hope that he never does! It is people like him that invent tomorrow. I also give him credit for saying that he was listening and making sure that his product met our critiques. Stan, if you're still out there, go for it! One of the sayings that I like best is, "If you haven't failed, you're not trying hard enough!"

[Frank Giger]

Precisely!

The critiques offered aren't for discouragement, but for consideration. Playing Devil's Advocate for one's self is difficult, as one tends to think solutions with only first or second order effects; we need others to talk through other potential problems.

Hi Frank, it is not a flying car and stupidity is a self correcting process.

As I wrote elsewhere, from a marketing prospective it's a flying car - much in the same way the automobile was billed as a horseless carriage.

However, stupidity is NOT a self correcting process, especially when it comes to personal transportation. Kill all the stupid people you care to and the species will just produce more to replace them. People still drive drunk, operate cars clearly unsuitable for the road, drive too fast, etc. Hell, people manage to get lost using a GPS on their dash.

In the future personal vehicles will be impractical in a high density area where mass transit is much more efficient and convenient.

Writing from an American perspective, we really don't have a lot of high density areas outside of a belt in the Northeast and again out West. We like urban sprawl! Los Angeles, for example, has gridlock issues not because of a lack of public transportation but because the population has spread out to keep density down.

Living inside a major city's core isn't highly valued; with a very few exceptions it's viewed as undesireable - and a measure of success is living outside of it in the suburbs.

Not to say your concept isn't in practice right now with some success. When we lived in Georgia my wife would drive to a train station and ride it into the heart of the city and back out again. Both ends were amiable to her needs (train station was close to the house and the end station was less than a block from her work, and they were safe with the trains having reliable schedules that were frequent.

London, IIRC, has a toll for all cars entering the city, discouraging personal commuting. They're not outlawed; behavior is modified via taxation.

So there's application for your idea, if it's not universal.

When the auto is obsolete describe the vehicle that you think will replace it.

The automobile. What sort of drivetrain and how it's powered is another topic, but I don't think we'll ever get rid of a terrestrial personal conveyance. The reason we use four wheels on two axels and side-by-side seating configurations is because it just works best - something they worked out back shortly after discovering the wheel in prehistory.

Freedom of movement is a right people seldom think about until it's taken away - and then they get very, very cranky. Torches and pitchforks kind of cranky. The constraints of public transportation, at least here in the USA, is one of the reasons it rarely pays for itself and is underused. If one were to make it mandatory - and illegalize personal transportation - the politicians that put that law in place would be out of office so quickly their replacements wouldn't dare try to repeat their mistake.

If the law wasn't deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, that is.

Coming back to the original topic of the thread, it was the convenience and speed of the automobile that rendered most of GA obsolete as personal transportation, as when the infrastructure matured to support it the automobile became the best solution.

[Joe LaMantia]

Excellent Job Frank!

We shifted from mass transportation to the auto because the economics of the shift made a lot of sense. The future is not clear regarding the auto, will we move to a new fuel that is cheap and plentiful to produce with some minor modifications to the distribution system or will we be forced by economics to shift from personnel transportation to a mass system? As you've pointed out there are lots of "politics" surrounding change, and nothing much happens quickly.

Joe