Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 131

Thread: Where Have All the EAB Aircraft Gone?

  1. #21
    planecrazzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    When you go Up North , We're just North of that
    Posts
    172
    When I finish my "Wittman Buttercup"... I'll take it to small Fly-ins... They are cheaper and more friendly.

    I drove to O$HCA$H once ... back around 2000.... I don't have any desire to return....(Spam Can City)

    Especially with any of my Planes.
    .
    Just my too sense.

    Gotta Fly...
    .

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by CHICAGORANDY View Post
    I'm 70 and I grew up fixing that which was broken. "Stuff' was manufactured with an eye to repairing it and replacing parts down the road to keep it running. VERY little for the past several decades has been built with that process in mind. Rather things are now meant to be thrown away when they break and a new cheaper one bought to replace it.
    The automobiles being produced today perform better, need much less maintenance, and last much longer that any auto produced when you and I were young. Those improvements are the result of an ever-increasing demand for units, performance, and affordability being met by international competition, many of which have benefitted from their governmentís support.

    One can argue about cost of aircraft verses demand, but the reality is that, with current technology and demand, there is no incentive for efficient mass production of GA aircraft.

    There are options for people who want to build from plans, including minimal cost designs, but the total burden (cost plus hassle) is more than most people are willing to bear. Younger people today are more apt to engage in virtual activities than activities that require physical participation.

    The future will be what todayís youth make it; not what I wish it to be. That is the way it always has been.

    The consultation is that I have lived in the best time in history for an aviation enthusiast.


    BJC

  3. #23
    Airmutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NW. Atlanta GA
    Posts
    201
    I guess there was an era or maybe a generation that just flying for the fun of it was the end goal. Piets, Baby Aces, Fly Babies etc were the path to that goal. And it’s true that most of these types and other EABs can be had for around $8-15k. So the argument that cost of ownership to fly is a bit of a myth. Aah, but the cost of maintaining your flying machine varies wildly by region. I’ve seen hangar rates from $50-450+ a month. If you live in metro Atlanta you’re in the top end of that scale with a multi-year waiting list. If you live in say rural Wisconsin you can be on the lower end of that scale. Insurance cost is just that, not much one can due to effect that except by flight time. Parts and materials are no doubt expensive. Once heard the adage: if it costs a buck for car, it costs ten bucks for a boat and a hundred for an airplane. Yes, you can do you’re own maintenance but if you’re not the builder you’re still stuck with the cost of the conditional. So it’s not necessarily the cost of joining it’s the cost of participating.

    Unfortunately the older designs have no appeal to the aviation newcomers. They are the generation that has grown up with PCs, video games and smart phones. Aviation to many is boarding a jet and getting from A to B as quickly as possible. Why would you want to fly at 80 mph with no glass cockpit or autopilot??? It’s not about flying; it’s about transportation. QB kits today are a matter of assembly not fabrication. It’s a means to an end. Fly with basic VFR instruments, really?? Pilotage, dead reckoning....what? We don’t fly unless there is a glass cockpit, a tablet and/or a GPS in hand and app loaded on the smart phone for back up.

    I think Paul understood and enjoyed the romance of aviation. Flying to Oshkosh should be an adventure not just transportation at ten thousand feet on autopilot. Maybe the romance of a flying has been lost and that’s what many miss the most.
    Dave Shaw
    EAA 67180 Lifetime
    Learn to Build, Build to Fly, Fly for Fun

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,103
    Paul was a professional pilot for the Wisconsin Air Guard flying a variety of aircraft all over the U.S., mostly C-47. He didn't need transportation airplanes. He designed and built one seat sport planes mostly, strictly for fun. The early EAA was dedicated to "home engineering". (not kidding)

  5. #25
    In order to have more EAB aircraft you first need more EAB pilots. I have a suspicion that a lot of Baby Boomer would-be pilots elected to buy a Harley instead. The cost of owning a Harley is a fraction of owning an airplane. The effort of getting a license is much easier and costs nearly nothing. Harley riders get that seat-of-the-pants, wind-in-your-hair thrill and they seem to have a propensity for wearing black and leather, invoking that hard, badass look of the weekend warrior. The wife is more likely to join in, even riding a Harley of her own. Day trips on a Harley take you right to the doorstep of what ever attraction you seek and then you return directly to you home. Their only disadvantage is speed over the ground as compared to a plane, the view of the countryside is restricted to 2D instead of the 3D environment that pilots are immersed in and they are pretty much VFR machines.

  6. #26
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    567
    Plus, a Harley doesn't require an investment of several thousand dollars to get a license to ride it -- and they can be ridden in the rain and poor visibility. I know, I've done it many times. Potty and meal stops are non-events; you just pull off the road, walk around a little to stretch out your legs, and drain and fill whatever needs drained and/or filled.

    Posting from a position of ignorance regarding any group of people, though, is never a good idea. The leather and other clothing worn by motorcyclists is functional, not decorative (and certainly not limited to Harley riders). Go out and try riding all day at highway speeds with wind, bugs, and the occasional bird or rock beating the cr*p out of you, and you'll learn to appreciate the chaps, vest, and gloves. I can vividly remember the impact of that robin that hit my leg at 75 MPH... and I'm glad I was wearing leather later that week when the grouse hit us. The "do-rag" wicks away sweat and keeps you from getting a bad case of "helmet hair", even when you have short hair like me. How odd that I've never heard a motorcyclist speaking in disparaging terms about pilots, but some pilots seem to delight in making dismissive and denigrating comments about motorcyclists.

    Just sold our Ultra Classic this past spring, but we put quite a few miles on it over the 14 or 15 years we were riding. I even rode it to the airport more than a few times.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. Building a Fisher Celebrity.

  7. #27
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Blum View Post
    Vans is doing well in their market … much better than any of the certificated OEMs are doing in the small, GA market.
    Ummm, well. Not really the case, unless you closely define "small GA market".

    If you look at the FAA registry, it includes the model year for the aircraft. In my January 2019 database, there were 295 2017-model Cirruses, vs. 240 Vans aircraft of ALL models. 41 of them were RV-12 light sports. There were only 72 2017 Cessna 172s.

    Annual "Production Rates" for individual RV models runs in the 3-5 dozens, not the hundreds (looking just at the US-registered examples). There are lots of RV models, of course, so that does build the numbers a bit more.

    Here's a stab at extracting the number of new RVs added to the US registry over the past eight years. It is effected by the FAA re-registration process, but I've tried to compensate for that.
    2010
    2011
    2012
    2013
    2014
    2015
    2016
    2017
    RV-6
    18
    10
    -20
    -17
    -29
    -1
    16
    11
    RV-7 Rate
    84
    72
    72
    56
    45
    44
    53
    54
    RV-8 Rate
    49
    43
    36
    49
    23
    36
    44
    39
    RV-9 Rate
    39
    47
    30
    33
    25
    29
    19
    22
    RV-10 Rate
    37
    39
    24
    19
    33
    34
    31
    21

    As I said, the above table has compensation for the de-registration process. This table shows the net RV fleet size for individual models, with the net fleet size each year for Cirrus. The number for each table is extracted from that year's registration database; model year isn't used.
    2009
    2010
    2011
    2012
    2013
    2014
    2015
    2016
    2017
    Vans RV-3
    211
    210
    205
    196
    174
    172
    175
    176
    169
    Vans RV-4
    1126
    1128
    1118
    1118
    1066
    1063
    1065
    1072
    1063
    Vans RV-6
    1999
    2012
    2006
    2002
    1962
    1965
    1964
    1985
    1972
    Vans RV-7
    901
    977
    1040
    1122
    1173
    1229
    1277
    1325
    1375
    Vans RV-8
    1036
    1084
    1123
    1165
    1204
    1233
    1272
    1319
    1342
    Vans RV-9
    464
    501
    543
    577
    603
    635
    667
    687
    706
    Vans RV-10
    238
    273
    310
    331
    353
    389
    423
    453
    473
    Total RVs (ex. RV-12)
    5975
    6185
    6345
    6511
    6535
    6686
    6843
    7017
    7100
    Cirrus (All Models)
    3698
    3808
    3917
    4047
    4148
    4319
    4536
    4794
    5258

    I don't include the RV-12 in here because many are SLSA or ELSA. Later RV models aren't here, either, but there are yet low numbers for them.

    In any case, there ARE more RVs in the US registry than Cirruses...but the RV series dates back to the 1970s, and the Cirrus just in the past 20 years or less.

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 08-23-2019 at 12:36 PM.

  8. #28
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,417
    I've posted before how the Interstate Highway system was a major blow to GA. That and current low-cost airfares.

    As an example, My old Stinson 108 could fly from Seattle to Portland in an hour and fifteen minutes. Back in the "bad old days" of two-lane roads that went through the center of every town on the way, the trip might have taken six or more hours by car. Now, of course, with an Interstate connecting the two, it's a ~2.5 hour trip. Still twice what the Stinson would have done, but we don't have to transship luggage from car to airplane to car again, and can just leave for Portland as soon as the car is loaded and the wife has one last potty break. With the Stinson, it was a fifteen-minute drive to the airport, fifteen minutes for loading and preflight, and, basically the same at the end...with the downside being that we didn't have a car in Portland.

    Sure, the airplane would win hands-down vs. the car, going from Seattle to Los Angeles. But I can pick up a pair of cheap airline tickets for not much more than gas would have cost for the Stinson. And not have to face the maintenance costs for the Stinson, or pay for extra days in a hotel if the weather turns bad.

    So it's hard for GA to compete, economically.

    In addition, aviation an an allure through the 1970s. We had the barnstormers, the WWII pilots, and the heroes of TV series such as "Sky King" and "Mannix."

    But now, aviation isn't special anymore. One brand of airliner is even called an "Airbus." Most people view flying as basic transportation, no romance to it, no real reason to get involved other than plunk the Mastercard down for tickets to Florida. "Sky King" may have encouraged a generation to become airplane pilots, but "The Honeymooners" sure didn't result in a surge of kids wanting to be bus drivers.....

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 08-23-2019 at 04:45 PM.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    597
    I ride a 'noble' 1986 Kawasaki Voyager XII full dresser motorcycle. I am also an ATGATT rider - All The Gear, All The Time. That means I NEVER even back the bike out of the garage without wearing boots, long heavy duty pants, ballistic or leather jacket, gloves and a full face helmet. Been hit by a car once, and have a $60K left leg to prove it (no, the driver who struck me didn't have ANY insurance) and I'm alive to type this post now BECAUSE I was wearing all that gear.

    But yes, there are also 'posers' who log zero miles and stand about wearing fancy -or 'mean looking' - duds. lol

    My '86 'flying machine' cost me $1500 to purchase on the used market, and I get to 'fly' it down the byways of America at 45 miles per gallon of regular gas, about $300 a year in insurance, $100 in State and City tags and I keep it in my home garage for free.

    But YES INDEED, I wish I were a pilot too.
    "Don't believe everything you see or read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by CHICAGORANDY View Post
    I ride a 'noble' 1986 Kawasaki Voyager XII full dresser motorcycle. I am also an ATGATT rider - All The Gear, All The Time. That means I NEVER even back the bike out of the garage without wearing boots, long heavy duty pants, ballistic or leather jacket, gloves and a full face helmet. Been hit by a car once, and have a $60K left leg to prove it (no, the driver who struck me didn't have ANY insurance) and I'm alive to type this post now BECAUSE I was wearing all that gear
    Randy, glad to hear you're not one of those crazy, sypllitic-minded bikers who I see driving down I-41 without helmets. This is what I see every year during my Oshkosh week and I'm gob smacked that these bikers have no concern for their own well being and safety. Obviously, Wisconsin has no mandatory helmet laws. Once again proving that common sense is not common!

    You probably know I'm Canadian, every province in the nation has helmet laws. And one more thing concerning you being hit by a driver without insurance. If your accident had happened here you would not be out of pocket for any medical bills. Every province in Canada requires drivers to carry at least liability insurance as mandatory. If one cannot show proof of such carriage, they will be denied yearly car license renewal stickers. You cannot buy a car here legally without proof of insurance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •