Where Have All the EAB Aircraft Gone? [Archive]

FlyingRon

08-20-2019, 11:14 AM

There's never been a large number of SX300's at Oshkosh because there just weren't that many kits made. The existing ones are probably declining by attrition.

Not many planes came to Oshkosh in the late 60's as the show didn't move there until 1970. Still plenty of RVs there and quiet a few Lancairs. Glasair has shifted focus over the years, so you see different things. I think the recent attendance isn't much reduced from the peak 70's era numbers. I think you're seeing however a few things. First, the show isn't as organized as it was back in the day. The homebuilt parking area used to be nicely laid out beyond the brown arch by type. On the other hand, there is HBC now when they used to send the showplane campers south.

The success of people like Vans has probably decreased some of the diversity though.

Ronald Franck

08-20-2019, 11:45 AM

DaleB

08-20-2019, 11:46 AM

It seems that a large majority of people building planes in recent years have been building from a handful of kit manufacturers. I suspect a lot of the "more diverse" EAB airplanes you saw in the 70s are no longer flying. There's a lot of diversity in HBC and HBP, though. There's RV-6, RV-4, RV-7, RV-8, RV-10, RV-12, an odd RV-3 here and there... :)

Kyle Boatright

08-20-2019, 04:40 PM

There are a multitude of reasons, IMO.

First, some of the older homebuilts get put in a corner when the owner/builder ages. S/he plans to change the oil and plugs and fly next month. Every month. Eventually, the work required to bring the airplane back to flight status is too much and the airplane never flies again. This is especially true of low value aircraft where even the owner or estate doesn't see much value in the airplane and it is parted out or scrapped.

Second, some of these aircraft have been intentionally retired either due to being deemed unsafe or too problematic by the owner and therefore not available for resale.

You and I both know local KR's and EZ's which were retired for reasons 1 and 2.

Third, second owners (and third and fourth owners) are not as invested in their aircraft as the builder was. So they are less likely to bring the aircraft to Oshkosh to show off their plane.

Fourth, Volksplanes, KR's, Sonerais, and many other older designs are not particularly good traveling airplanes. They just don't have the room/speed/useful load to make a 500 mile trip to Oshkosh anything but a challenge. Sure, some owners do it anyway, but it is work.

This whole thing is a big investment in time and money and, sometimes, an owner runs out of one or the other, retires the airplane (formally or informally) and moves on.

Bill Berson

08-20-2019, 07:01 PM

2019 had 16,807 operations at Wittman. https://eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/7-30-2019-AirVenture-2019-Facts-and-Figures-for-a-Record-Year
1971 had more than 42,000 operations (from the Oct 1971 Sport Aviation archive)

Airmutt

08-20-2019, 07:24 PM

Not really talking about total operations. There is no doubt that as some guys retire from flying they take their aircraft out of service. Some have been exported, some destroyed by accidents or broken up and others languish in the back of a hangar or in garage. Reported kit sales and FAA registry numbers don’t paint true picture. Have to agree with Kyle that as aircraft change hands the motivation to come to Oshkosh is diminished. Too bad we all lose.

rwanttaja

08-22-2019, 12:02 AM

Things come and go with the times. I think the kit manufactures who now provide ready formed parts and matched hole drilling have enticed would-be builders toward their kits. Performance numbers and completion rates also make their offerings more attractive.
I do miss seeing the potpourri of designs of yesteryear, names like Bower's FlyBaby, Stits SkyCoupe and Playboy, Pazmany PL1, PL2 and PL4, Marquart Charger, Steen Skybolt, Murphy Rebel, Woody's Pusher, Aerosport Quail and Scamp, Chris Tena Mini-Coupe, Smith Miniplane, Tennie Two, MacDonald S-21,.........I'll stop there and others can add to the list.
Well, there's no question the fleet size has decreased. Here's what's happened between 2009 and 2017:

2009

2017

Air Command

56

25

Avid

477

342

Baby/Junior Ace

278

225

Bede BD-4

155

90

Bede BD-5

77

38

Benson Gyro

720

158

Bowers Fly Baby

269

160

Kitfox

994

946

Kolb (EAB)

298

227

Midget Mustang

295

233

Pietenpol

358

319

Pulsar/KIS

153

122

Quickie/Q2/Q200

305

130

Quicksilver EX-AB

345

154

Rand KR-2

349

154

Rutan Long-EZ

492

406

Rutan Varieze

476

272

Sonerai

309

184

Steen Skybolt

305

235

Stolp

505

385

Stolp Starduster

441

337

Thorp T-18

313

257

Vans RV-3

183

152

Vans RV-4

965

958

Volksplane

222

76

Most of this reduction actually happened long ago, and the FAA re-registration effort is finally getting around to cancelling the registrations of aircraft that may not have actually existed for 30 years.

Otherwise, I see homebuilt aviation affected by two factors. The first is the entire General Aviation malaise. There is less interest in private aircraft ownership, and hence less interest in niche aircraft such as homebuilts.

The second is the lack of a wow factor. Back in the 60s and 70s, we were inundated with ground-breaking innovative designs. Canards, simple personal aircraft (Volksplanes/Fly Babies), and some designs that really stood out.

Now it's all RVs.

Mind you, the RVs are good airplanes...they perform well, they have great builder support, and they are attractive.

They just ain't got any "zing."

Pilots select them because they can appreciate the performance contained in the package, but there's nothing about the design of the RV to attract the non-flying public to homebuilding. They'll wander by row and row of RVs since they all are completely conventional, and ooh and ahh at the canards and biplanes.

Ron Wanttaja

BJC

08-22-2019, 05:41 AM

Lots of reasons, as stated in the previous posts.

For me, the primary reasons are:

1) The changing nature of the annual convention and fly-in. Homebuilts were the focus. They were front and center, and flew in the pattern throughout the day, except for the short (compared to current) closure for the airshow. The current version of AirVenture lacks HBA focus and aims to be everything for everyone, including sellers of pillows, pots and pans.

2) In support of 1), and to increase revenues, access to show planes is now open to anyone willing to pay the entry fee. Because of this, I never will have my airplane on the homebuilt flight line. And yes, I have had negative experiences with non-aviation attendees at fly-ins and open houses, even with the airplane continually attended.

3) I thoroughly enjoyed camping, which I did for the first 18 - 20 years of Oshkosh. We met friends, had group meals, our children played together, etc. But now I prefer to stay in an air conditioned room and have my own transportation, so HBC is not interesting to me, even though item 2) is not a concern in HBC.

Note that EAA’s mission statement changed some years ago, from homebuilding to all aspects of sport / general aviation.

I still thoroughly enjoy AirVenture, and encourage anyone interested in aviation to attend.

BJC

FlyingRon

08-22-2019, 06:05 AM

I've been coming to Oshkosh since 1993 (well before they did away with flight line access). I was nervous about them opening it up, too. However, in hosesty, I found plenty of dolts who were "qualified" to get on the flight line (which wasn't all that onerous a task, but did keep the "lawn chair" crowd back).

In addition to the lack of "wow," RonW points out. There's also the fact that LSA has taken away some of the "you can build it cheap" allure that there was for some of the simpler designs. You can go out and buy something that is roughly equivalent to the old Kitfox and get instant gratification with a simpler license and no medical required.

Bill Berson

08-22-2019, 08:39 AM

There was actually a number of older EA-B homebuilts at Airventure 2019. Several SX-300 and several Dyke Delta including the original. Because EAA took the effort to invite them, I think.
Arlington regional fly-in doesn't do that and was almost empty this year. I think Airventure will last somewhat longer, as the other fly-ins gradually die off.

At Air Venture 2019 Burt Rutan bemoaned the fact that nothing new has arrived in past four years. And I notice nothing new or Homebuilt related is on the cover of Sport Aviation anymore. So nothing in the magazine to grow new amateur designers to replace the old ones like Burt. And no incentive to bring new stuff like there was in the ‘70s.

cwilliamrose

08-22-2019, 12:24 PM

A number of friends have expressed that the lack of crowd control will keep them away after bringing their airplanes to Oshkosh in recent years. In the distant past event attendance was limited to EAA members and others with suitable aviation credentials. Now it seems you need to baby sit your airplane in order to protect it from the 'public' -- there's no fun in that.

ssteve1

08-22-2019, 05:45 PM

Young eagles is a great program. I have supported it for years. For a couple of hours of "study" they get a free airplane ride and maybe some stick time. Back up. I said a couple of hours of study.
Now, go to a restaurant, high school basketball/football game, swimming pool, beach or any public area. How many of those kids with their heads down in their cell phones are willing to put it down and invest eighty thousand dollars and three to six years building an airplane? General aviation started dying fifteen years ago. We didn't have the answer then and we don't have the answer now. Neither does Rutan or Vangrunsven.

CHICAGORANDY

08-22-2019, 06:53 PM

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.

Durn few 'shop' classes exist in our schools. Few of the younger ones can troubleshoot and fix anything. That a new aircraft of most any kind, especially an "affordable" LSA, starts at THREE to FIVE times the cost of my 2019 Hyundai SUV is insanity personified. With most everything in aviation priced for the 'yacht and country club' set, is it any wonder that GA is in the state it is in? Sure ancient (30-70yr old)airplanes can be found for lower cost, but the new generation of owners would be unable to maintain them. When a new LSA costs the same or more than an Aston Martin Vantage? Expect to see about as many being sold to about the same demographic.

I 'could' likely qualify to earn a Sport Pilot license, if there were instructors, flight schools and most importantly aircraft available to rent after licensing that were not a two hour drive away. But there really aren't. I've had a true passion for all things aviation my entire life. The current state of affairs is honestly depressing.

Ron Blum

08-22-2019, 06:53 PM

Vans is doing well in their market … much better than any of the certificated OEMs are doing in the small, GA market. Plans airplanes are probably part of the past due to the long hours to build and the CNC machining available to everyone. On that note, kits (like Vans) are doing well because of the new, computerized machining technologies.

Those that are complaining about there being no new homebuilts haven't looked on the south end of the airport and the ultralight runway area where business, activity and flying is booming all the time. The new STOL airplanes are prolific, too! In addition, those people also haven't been in the Innovations area (go figure) where electric airplanes, quads, hexes, octos, etc. are prolific, too.

Maybe the new generation(s) is(are) NOT looking for what the older generations built. Take RC airplanes as a great example. RC was expensive and very time consuming when I was young (and I'm on the less experienced end of the EAA crowd). Today for well under $100 and less than a day or two, anyone can be flying their own RC airplane!

Where's the "Can Do" spirit that Paul installed in all of us?

Ron "stepping off my soap box for a moment" Blum

PS. Paul's only been gone for 6 years, but I miss him dearly.

Bill Berson

08-22-2019, 08:40 PM

I was at the south end all week. None of those quad, hex, EVTOL things flew this year or last year. Why is that?

Paul is still here in the EAA archives. He was constantly pushing to make aircraft attainable.

Kyle Boatright

08-22-2019, 08:56 PM

I was at the south end all week. None of those quad, hex, EVTOL things flew this year or last year. Why is that?

I wondered that myself. The Blackfly was there a year ago and had <supposedly> been flying out in California. A year later and they don't have it buzzing around the UL field? I can't understand why they didn't have one flying the UL pattern several times a day. It would have been a sensation.

Bill Berson

08-22-2019, 09:39 PM

I figure the FAA won't give approval without an airworthiness certificate. I don't think the FAA will let them fly at Airventure as FAR 103 ultralights either. They don't exactly comply with FAR 103. (yes, I know the owners claim they do)

Or EAA doesn't let them fly for insurance or whatever reason?

That Japanese ultralight, weight shift, jet powered flying wing that flew late Tuesday had a flight permit of some sort. (I asked the pilot)

Kyle Boatright

08-22-2019, 09:49 PM

... They don't exactly comply with FAR 103. (yes, I know the owners claim they do)

Out of curiosity, why doesn't it comply with 103?

Bill Berson

08-22-2019, 10:36 PM

Out of curiosity, why doesn't it comply with 103?

None of them comply with FAR103.1 (e) (4) "Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed."

planecrazzzy

08-23-2019, 04:50 AM

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...
.

BJC

08-23-2019, 04:53 AM

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 government’s 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 today’s 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

Airmutt

08-23-2019, 06:27 AM

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.

Bill Berson

08-23-2019, 08:13 AM

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)

Ronald Franck

08-23-2019, 11:36 AM

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.

DaleB

08-23-2019, 12:28 PM

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.

rwanttaja

08-23-2019, 12:33 PM

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

rwanttaja

08-23-2019, 12:51 PM

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

CHICAGORANDY

08-23-2019, 02:56 PM

Floatsflyer

08-23-2019, 07:17 PM

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.

Floatsflyer

08-23-2019, 07:31 PM

"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

Bang on. Sky King was either a catalyst or furthered an already love of airplanes and aviation. But you also have to admit that The Honeymooners encouraged space travel--"To the moon Alice."

Ron Blum

08-24-2019, 12:02 AM

So much to say, but can't say it all (darned if I won't try, though ;b...

The real title of this thread should be "Where Have All the Certificated Airplanes Gone?" Thanks for the great data, Ron W! If one looks at percentages, yes, the RVs have lost market share (down from 62% more than Cirrus in 2009 to 35% more in 2017). I would venture to say that the RV-12 would make those numbers much closer. When is the last time a new (clean sheet) certified airplane was designed … the Cirrus in 1998? Mooney failed with its attempt of the M10.

The rules have also changed over the decades. We no longer have to go to Oshkosh or read Sport Aviation to see the latest and greatest. Whatever is new has been on the internet since the day it flew … or before. Instant access. As we become a smaller and smaller world, the numbers considered for mass production are vastly different. 17,000 airplanes a year in the '70s was considered mass production. Now, how many automobiles, computers, phones, etc. are produced daily? Unless a major shift occurs, mass production of airplanes is in the past. In addition, when most of the certificated airplanes were originally designed, labor was very cheap and machining was expensive. Now those values are reversed.

Space X is shooting reusable rockets up. Electric airplanes are being designed (yes, we have a ways to go). Urban Mobility is being planned (yes, we have MUCH longer ways to go). And $BB won't change physics.

I'll take a very educated guess on why many composite and canard airplanes are gone. Composites are not easier, cheaper, faster … and maintenance costs are much higher, too. Canards (and I know I'll get crucified here) are not aerodynamically efficient. If you think those last statements are erroneous, then the King Air would have been out of production decades ago, and the sky would be filled with Starship offspring.

To say that the greatest time in aviation is behind us is a lot like claiming you're the greatest generation. Is this how we inspire our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren? By telling them that they will never be as good as us? My father was part of the greatest generation, surviving a torpedoing and sinking of the troopship "Leopoldville" that he was on (800-900 others didn't make it). To ALL the men and women of the Armed Forces, they have my respect and admiration.

Aviation has always been about saving time and/or expanding our range/capabilities, whether personal (and much, much more likely for business … even in little, GA airplanes). I would venture to say that the newest generation hasn't been exposed to what GA can do for them. I know the younger ones that I have worked with say that aviation is only for the very wealthy and haven't been introduced to small aircraft.

How about we put the next generation(s) on our shoulders and let them reach higher, further and faster than we can even dream about?

rwanttaja

08-24-2019, 12:54 AM

So much to say, but can't say it all (darned if I won't try, though ;b...
Well, I don't disagree with you very much.

I *do* think we're on the verge of a major surge in General Aviation. But the nature of the surge is going to xxxx-off many of the current devotees.

We're going to see the rise of autonomous GA aircraft...personal air transportation that require little or no skill on behalf of the operator. The operator can climb in, set a destination, and the vehicle will fly to that place to discharge the occupants. The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination. The vehicle will do it all.

And if such vehicles DO become available, most of the objections of the (current) non-pilot public will be moot. No need to learn about stall speeds and climb attitudes. The aircraft will handle everything. No talking on the radio or dealing with ATC. The aircraft will coordinate its flight automatically using an ADS-B-like system. No need to learn emergency procedures. The vehicle will sense when problems occur and trigger a BRS.

Mind you, the current pilots will scream bloody murder......

The parallel is with sailing ships. The windjammer sailors ~170 years ago screamed bloody murder when motorized vessels came along. Yet, eventually, it was decided that the Master of a steam ship did not need to understand the care and feeding of a ship propelled by the wind. Today, the vast majority of boatowners have a motor...and sails are used only recreationally, by those who wish to learn and cherish obsolete skills.

Ron Wanttaja

BJC

08-24-2019, 08:57 AM

The parallel is with sailing ships. The windjammer sailors ~170 years ago screamed bloody murder when motorized vessels came along. Yet, eventually, it was decided that the Master of a steam ship did not need to understand the care and feeding of a ship propelled by the wind. Today, the vast majority of boatowners have a motor...and sails are used only recreationally, by those who wish to learn and cherish obsolete skills.

Ron WanttajaSmartly docking a sailboat under sail alone is analogous to greasing a three-pointer in a conventional geared airplane. There are newer, better, more practicable ways, but the satisfaction of that landing or docking makes it worthwhile.

BJC

Ron Blum

08-24-2019, 09:46 AM

I *do* think we're on the verge of a major surge in General Aviation. But the nature of the surge is going to xxxx-off many of the current devotees.

Mind you, the current pilots will scream bloody murder......

Ron Wanttaja

Interestingly, as you hit the nail on the head, the ultimate catch 22 reveals its ugly head for the designer/OEM. We desire to make the transition gently, but the two design philosophies are opposite. As we design smarter airplanes, the pilots get “less smart.” Thinking that a pilot in an emergency will be able to step in on the spur of the moment is not realistic. Similarly, thinking that the same failure rates used today will be acceptable for autonomous flight is equally unrealistic. System safety needs to change entirely to a “graceful degradation” scenario versus the current failure analysis. This is an area I believe is good for both autonomous and pilot in the loop flying.

i hope personal flying never goes away, and I don’t think it will for a long, long time. I can’t imagine an autonomous Indy 500. And, if we got to that point, why race the race, as we could predict the results before hearing those infamous words, “Systems, begin your propulsion devices.”

PS. I’m having to edit my post as the autonomous part of the system keeps adding erroneous characters!

rwanttaja

08-24-2019, 10:31 AM

Interestingly, as you hit the nail on the head, the ultimate catch 22 reveals its ugly head for the designer/OEM. We desire to make the transition gently, but the two design philosophies are opposite. As we design smarter airplanes, the pilots get “less smart.” Thinking that a pilot in an emergency will be able to step in on the spur of the moment is not realistic. Similarly, thinking that the same failure rates used today will be acceptable for autonomous flight is equally unrealistic. System safety needs to change entirely to a “graceful degradation” scenario versus the current failure analysis. This is an area I believe is good for both autonomous and pilot in the loop flying.

There's going to be a transition period, and like most such, there are going to be some real nasty incidents. I suspect the programmer's reaction, at least initially, is "If there's any sort of problem sensed, trigger the BRS."

The biggest problem I see is the integration of GA Mark 2 with traditional General Aviation. I'd assume all these little personal transportation pods will use electronic coordination for traffic control; it's going to be tough for them to see and avoid the random J-3 zipping around without transponder or ADS-B. One of the recent drone-system applications already asked for an exemption from the "see and avoid" regulations (albeit, it was arguing more with the definition of "see" for an electronic device).

i hope personal flying never goes away, and I don’t think it will for a long, long time. I can’t imagine an autonomous Indy 500. And, if we got to that point, why race the race, as we could predict the results before hearing those infamous words, “Systems, begin your propulsion devices.”

You still can't bring your Evinrude on the America's Cup races, so I think Indy will free of autonomy.

PS. I’m having to edit my post as the autonomous part of the system keeps adding erroneous characters!

What do you mean? You haven't mentioned Bill or Floats yet... :-)

Autocorrect is certainly a good indicator of how autonomous systems can mess up. Friend of mine meant to text:

"I'm working late, see you about eight,"

... and the phone actually sent,

"You stupid cow, you're ruining my life."

Ron "I'll be here all week" Wanttaja

turtle

08-24-2019, 11:31 AM

We're going to see the rise of autonomous GA aircraft...personal air transportation that require little or no skill on behalf of the operator. The operator can climb in, set a destination, and the vehicle will fly to that place to discharge the occupants. The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination. The vehicle will do it all.

And if such vehicles DO become available, most of the objections of the (current) non-pilot public will be moot. No need to learn about stall speeds and climb attitudes. The aircraft will handle everything. No talking on the radio or dealing with ATC. The aircraft will coordinate its flight automatically using an ADS-B-like system. No need to learn emergency procedures. The vehicle will sense when problems occur and trigger a BRS.

I'm going to say no, that will never happen. Maybe a small heli-bus, but not personal transportation. The reason? Lawyers.

Design something an idiot can fly, and the manufacturer takes all responsibility for ANY accident or failure. Think of how today aircraft and parts prices are inflated due to certification and insurance costs. Nobody wants to build anything new because of liability, even with someone to blame behind the yoke. Sudden wind gusts in excess of what the small craft can handle? Automatically trigger a BRS deployment over a daycare? Navigation failure causing a mid-air? Design negligence. Nobody to blame but the manufacturer. The amount of money needed to overcome this problem doesn't exist in the personal transportation world.

We can't even agree on the philosophical problems of autonomous cars. Such as, if someone with a baby suddenly steps out in front of your fast moving car, and the only two options are hit them or swerve head on into a semi, which is the correct action?

CHICAGORANDY

08-24-2019, 11:35 AM

rwanttaja

08-24-2019, 04:17 PM

"if someone with a baby suddenly steps out in front of your fast moving car, and the only two options are hit them or swerve head on into a semi, which is the correct action? "

I won't suggest which is the correct action, but I kinda know what action I'd likely take, and it doesn't involve a semi truck.

But such decision-making logic is being debated *now*, and the moral concepts will be established before autonomous aircraft are developed.

Human beings have a strong self-defense instinct. When there's just a half-second to decide, the human brain is not even going to process the fact that one of the objects is a baby...it's going to take the course of action that leads to the least danger to itself.

I suspect, if a driver hits the baby, they won't even be charged for it...the law doesn't expect them to accept greater personal harm in a split-second decision. I'm sure the prosecutors will be looking at BAC and other factors, but otherwise the law won't touch them.

PERSONAL problems because of it, yes. Because we all think we're heroes who would eat the semi instead. It's just our animal brains aren't wired that way.

Another way to look at it. Your engine quits. What FARs do you violate if you force-land in a school yard instead of a football stadium?

I'm going to say no, that will never happen. Maybe a small heli-bus, but not personal transportation. The reason? Lawyers.

Design something an idiot can fly, and the manufacturer takes all responsibility for ANY accident or failure.

You're missing the key point: There IS no pilot. There are no controls, other than specifying a destination or route. The manufacturer has all responsibility, but ALSO has all authority as far as the conduct of the flight. The machine itself makes all decisions. The owner's destination is within a TFR? No take off. The automatic preflight shows an issue? No take off. Winds or weather are beyond the system's envelope? No take off. Too much weight, or too many people aboard? No take off. Any problem develop in flight? Trigger the BRS.

These are *transportation devices*, not traditional aircraft. There are no controls, other than (possibly) the ability to hit an emergency button, a which point the device acts per its programming (take to nearest hospital, abort flight and return home, etc.).

The one liability risk (other than those related to software bugs) is what's below the vehicle when the BRS is triggered. Obviously, if that damn person with the baby is still crossing the street when the device comes down, you've got a liability issue. However, it may not happen that often, and the BRS logic can be tweaked to reduce the chances of this happening (if time permits, device flies to a known clear area before popping the chute).

And don't forget the attitude of much of aviation regarding Cirrus' BRS: "Oh, the lawyers will have a field day." "The insurance companies will get tired of paying for aircraft when they didn't really have to." And, of course, that hasn't happened.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Blum

08-25-2019, 11:40 AM

These are *transportation devices*, not traditional aircraft. There are no controls, other than (possibly) the ability to hit an emergency button, a which point the device acts per its programming (take to nearest hospital, abort flight and return home, etc.). Ron Wanttaja

First and foremost, Ron W, great article on E-AB fatal accidents in Kitplanes this month. Although it is only 4 pages long, I know the amount of time and effort behind all that research and getting the data into nice, readable charts/graphs. Thank You!!!

Flight paths of autonomous aircraft (UBER goal) will typically not cross with J-3s up through airlines as they will be intercity, roof top to roof top and very low altitude. I'm also not sure that whole aircraft recovery parachutes (BRS is a brand name) is a factor either. The vehicles (proposed to date) are powered lift and will have to proceed through "graceful degradation". Ironically, failure modes of powered lift typically result in a tumbling vehicle … an area where parachutes have limited success.

Although I agree on the liability issue, there is A LOT of money in this field. In addition, there are A LOT of non-US companies, where liability is much less a factor.

On the original topic, I think that there are less and less plans availability. There are more and more assembly kits available. There are many more one-off designs, though, of younger people experimenting on their own (and coming up from the RC world). BTW, I loved the flying car racing forum. It is people like this that will cause the next breakthroughs. We old guys call them crazy, but people that build their own airplanes have been called that since the early 50s. Oh heck, before even Orville and Wilbur.

robert l

08-25-2019, 07:19 PM

So much good information here and so many reasons for this or that, so I'll just put in my 2 cents worth. "Hell, I just want to fly"
Bob

Ron Blum

08-25-2019, 08:24 PM

"Hell, I just want to fly"
Bob

Agree. Thumbs up!

rwanttaja

08-26-2019, 01:03 AM

Flight paths of autonomous aircraft (UBER goal) will typically not cross with J-3s up through airlines as they will be intercity, roof top to roof top and very low altitude. I'm also not sure that whole aircraft recovery parachutes (BRS is a brand name) is a factor either. The vehicles (proposed to date) are powered lift and will have to proceed through "graceful degradation". Ironically, failure modes of powered lift typically result in a tumbling vehicle … an area where parachutes have limited success.

I kind of think we'll see a mix of autonomous air vehicles. Small, short-range Blackfly types, but I think we'll also find, essentially, autonomized Cirrus-class vehicles. On those you might see the rocket parachute systems, but I agree, the rotor-based devices may get something based on planned graceful degradation.

"Whole Aircraft Recovery Parachute"=WARP. Kinda like that, but since the "w" is silent in "whole," let's use an "H" instead=HARP. Seems more fitting... "Had a structural failure, so I grabbed my HARP...." :-)

On the original topic, I think that there are less and less plans availability. There are more and more assembly kits available. There are many more one-off designs, though, of younger people experimenting on their own (and coming up from the RC world). BTW, I loved the flying car racing forum. It is people like this that will cause the next breakthroughs. We old guys call them crazy, but people that build their own airplanes have been called that since the early 50s. Oh heck, before even Orville and Wilbur.
I think much of the young (and even older) hobbyists are getting away from the assembly mode. When I go to the hobby store, I see a few kits but mostly Almost Ready to Fly (ARF) products. And if you want a nice plastic scale model of a P-51 or something, you actually buy a pre-painted 1/72 scale model and snap the wings on.

I heard the original Heathkit sold out when they did a market survey and discovers that, every year, the average age of their customers went up about a year....In other words, no younger people starting.

...great article on E-AB fatal accidents in Kitplanes this month. Although it is only 4 pages long, I know the amount of time and effort behind all that research and getting the data into nice, readable charts/graphs. Thank You!!!

You're welcome, it's good to know someone actually READS them. Gets pretty grim sometimes, spending six hours on the computer tabulating death and destruction in the homebuilt world. Makes me want to show up on the EAA forums and look like an idjit, sometimes....

Ron "Mission Accomplished" Wanttaja

rwanttaja

08-26-2019, 01:10 AM

So much good information here and so many reasons for this or that, so I'll just put in my 2 cents worth. "Hell, I just want to fly"
Bob

Gill Robb Wilson poem I posted a couple of years back....kind of sums it up.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?7964-I-ve-Blessed-My-Wings-a-Thousand-Times-Gill-Robb-Wilson

Ron Wanttaja

ssteve1

08-26-2019, 08:54 AM

In the late 60's, I was just out of high school and starting college. I would sit in the parking lot at Phillip Billard airport in Topeka, Ks. I had a cheap Radio Shack radio and would listen to tower and watch airplanes land and taxi up to the restaurant. It was like a mini Oshkosh. The ramp in front of the restaurant would be full by 11:30 and other traffic would have to park way on up the ramp - sans tie downs. It was great! I didn't have a pilots license. But, what I did have was a dream and my other friends still in bed from last nights party.

Today, you drive past that same restaurant at lunch time on any weekend and you might see one or two aircraft. The restaurant inside is still full, but, it's mostly pilots who now resort to driving in instead of flying in. It's very sad. I don't know if GA will ever come back. I hope so. My old man thinking is:
Today, it's easy to get a college degree. Just go sit in front of a pc and get your degree.
Want to fly? Sit in front of your pc.
Want to socialize? Sit in front of your pc.
Today's world is full of instant gratification.
"Back in My Day", if you wanted to entertain yourself, you got on you bike, rode around town and got a bunch of guys together to meet at the school yard for baseball. Today, you just look down at your phone and click on an app and play Madden Football.
"Back in My Day", if you wanted to fly, you begged, borrowed or stole a bunch of money, took flying lessons and a dreaded check ride. Today, you just click on XPlane. It's so easy and so instantly gratifying.

There will always be an Oshkosh. There will always be lots of airplanes in attendance. There will also be, a bizillion overweight, shabbily dressed, diabetic infested segment of society, sitting in front of their pc with three monitors, playing solitaire. Much like I am doing now.

Airmutt

08-26-2019, 04:59 PM

There is no doubt that societal, political, financial, and technological changes have influenced how we view aviation. I a
was a young teenager before I ever boarded an airliner. As kids we would bike to play on the AD Skyraider gate guard that the Navy left when it abandoned the old Atlanta Naval Air Station. At 15 I begged my parents to let me take that ever so expensive Cessna introduction flight at $20 for my birthday.
I was hooked. I was fascinated by the pure act of flying. That single flight set the course for the rest of my life. It was pure luck that someone had left a copy of SA at the flight school. One of the things that drew me to EAA was Paul P’s passion for aviation and those really cool airplanes called homebuilts.
As time passes the attendance numbers of various types inevitably dwindle. Building takes major commitment, that commitment is not lost on me even if the plane changes hands over time. Wouldn’t be nice if the current owners honored that commitment and shared their planes with us for just one week.

dougbush

08-27-2019, 12:11 AM

The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination.
Arcane? I think that's the easy part.

rwanttaja

08-27-2019, 10:26 AM

The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination. The vehicle will do it all.

Arcane? I think that's the easy part.
My dear sir, if it's so easy, why is failure in these skills the leading cause of aircraft accidents?

The irony is, that if you were to poll the folks who have chimed in on how much they like to fly, they'd all agree that the fun is in exercising those same arcane skills. None of us daydream in meetings thinking about programming our GPSs, none of us watch the evening news blank-eyed, considering the challenges of fuel management, none of us geek out over the joys of ATC communication.

Well... maybe Ron Natalie. :-)

The physical control of a small aircraft is simple to learn, but takes a lifetime to master. My first flight in a Fly Baby was in 1986, and, except for BFRs and an 18-month dalliance with a Stinson, I've been flying one Fly Baby or another for the past 33 years. Why am I not bored to tears by it?

BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T FRICKIN' GOT IT RIGHT!

And that's where the fun is...the challenge of the smooth takeoff, keeping a stable attitude, watching for traffic, and managing to land that hard-mouthed SOB smoothly regardless of the winds, regardless of the runway, regardless of the loading, regardless of my own physical state. One of my landings last Saturday was so bad I almost reached back to manually trigger the ELT. And of COURSE it was in front of a crowd at a fly-in.

But you know...I'm having one heck of a good time.

But you see, that's where the split lies, when we start talking about autonomous aircraft. Most of the participants here are pilots because it's fun. But the majority of the world treats aviation like I do cars: The vehicle's job is to haul my rear end to places I want to go.

General Aviation is hurting; I'm hoping the rise in autonomous air vehicles will bring a flood of new people into aviation, even if their interest is in mere transportation.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Blum

08-28-2019, 12:01 AM

But you see, that's where the split lies, when we start talking about autonomous aircraft. Most of the participants here are pilots because it's fun. But the majority of the world treats aviation like I do cars: The vehicle's job is to haul my rear end to places I want to go.

General Aviation is hurting; I'm hoping the rise in autonomous air vehicles will bring a flood of new people into aviation, even if their interest is in mere transportation.

Ron Wanttaja

I think (and hope) that both will exist for many, many years to come. Although I utilize my automobile for transportation (mainly), I do enjoy looking at custom cars both in shows and driving down the road.

As for the earlier statement about baby versus semi, this is why I think everyday, true, full-autonomous flights will happen before automobiles. Aircraft don't have to deal with babies or tractor trailers :) Now if Tesla would just hurry up and get the lawsuit minutia out of the way, we could design some great airplanes.

Ron "The world doesn't run on Dunkin" Blum

FlyingRon

08-28-2019, 06:08 AM

and managing to land that hard-mouthed SOB smoothly
They say that planes take after their owners :)

rwanttaja

08-28-2019, 08:55 AM

They say that planes take after their owners :)

Lemme see... my Fly Baby is old, creaky, drags its tail, and there's stuff oozing out of the cowling staining its belly.

Ron "It's like a self-portrait" Wanttaja

DBurr

08-30-2019, 10:23 PM

"
if someone with a baby suddenly steps out in front of your fast moving car, and the only two options are hit them or swerve head on into a semi, which is the correct action? "

Is that the same baby my flight instructor kept seeing on the runway while I was trying to land? It's still around? I guess I bounced over it.

DBurr

08-30-2019, 10:58 PM

Well, I don't disagree with you very much.

I *do* think we're on the verge of a major surge in General Aviation. But the nature of the surge is going to xxxx-off many of the current devotees.

We're going to see the rise of autonomous GA aircraft...personal air transportation that require little or no skill on behalf of the operator. The operator can climb in, set a destination, and the vehicle will fly to that place to discharge the occupants. The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination. The vehicle will do it all.

And if such vehicles DO become available, most of the objections of the (current) non-pilot public will be moot. No need to learn about stall speeds and climb attitudes. The aircraft will handle everything. No talking on the radio or dealing with ATC. The aircraft will coordinate its flight automatically using an ADS-B-like system. No need to learn emergency procedures. The vehicle will sense when problems occur and trigger a BRS.

Mind you, the current pilots will scream bloody murder......

The parallel is with sailing ships. The windjammer sailors ~170 years ago screamed bloody murder when motorized vessels came along. Yet, eventually, it was decided that the Master of a steam ship did not need to understand the care and feeding of a ship propelled by the wind. Today, the vast majority of boatowners have a motor...and sails are used only recreationally, by those who wish to learn and cherish obsolete skills.

Ron Wanttaja

I feel like a Luddite for disagreeing with you Ron, but I just don't see this happening. It's not that the technology isn't there; the problem is that the efficiency isn't there. It's the old flying car problem, and it doesn't get much better by putting four propellers on it and an automated control system. Yes, the crowd that is currently commuting in helicopters might get a BlackFly instead, but its still going to be more expensive than just driving on four wheels unless science can bend the laws of physics sufficiently to repeal gravity. Lifting four modern humans off the ground, moving them X number of miles--probably in an urban environment--and depositing them back down takes a lot more energy than just putting those same four folks in a car, gas or electric, and wheeling them there. GA isn't that much more difficult than driving; it's just far less efficient in people/mile-gallon than an airliner. In a contest of convenience versus cost, cost (aka efficiency) usually wins in the end.

Now I DO believe we're going to see a huge increase in automated drone traffic soon, as Amazon and everybody else seems to want to get into the last-mile package delivery service by air. I'm skeptical that in the long run these will be any more efficient (in units of successful package delivery / dollar) than a UPS truck, but I guess we'll find out. I'm not willing to bet against Amazon yet, but BlackFly, I'll believe it when I see it.

Airmutt

08-31-2019, 06:48 AM

rwanttaja

08-31-2019, 08:20 AM

Too much blind faith put into “trusted” technology. We bought a newly constructed home just over a month ago. Our address is not in the GPS database (yet). Those who try to GPS their way to our place end up about 70 miles in the wrong place despite telling folks follow my directions not the GPS.
I bought a new car last year, the first in over ten years. It has all the modern bells and whistles...onboard radar tied to the cruise control to hold a given distance from the car in front, optical sensors to warn you if the car leaves its lane (or automatically keep in there, if you wish), automatic emergency braking.

And, of course, the lane-monitor whines if the lines on the road get too faint, the lane keeper has a bad habit of subtly turning off or following the lines of the wrong exits, the "pending crash" sensor pops the brakes momentarily if a car comes around the curve in the opposite direction in a particular spot on a nearby road, and hates, absolutely hates, the automatic door that lets me out of the airport.

My wife's new car has all of that, plus all-aspect sensors to warn if objects get too close. This means putting the car in the garage brings a medley of flashing displays and beeping.

Then again, the automatic nav systems on some cars seem to work well enough that the "drivers" feel confident enough to take naps (and, of course, have suffered enough failures of their own).

I'm not saying the automated airplanes are going to hit the market next year, or even next decade. But they's a'coming.

Ron "Guide us, Landru" Wanttaja

Bill Berson

08-31-2019, 09:14 AM

Also not that thrilled that EAA put one in the museum, just don’t think it’s earned a place yet.

My thought also.

robert l

08-31-2019, 09:15 AM

Too much blind faith put into “trusted” technology. We bought a newly constructed home just over a month ago. Our address is not in the GPS database (yet). Those who try to GPS their way to our place end up about 70 miles in the wrong place despite telling folks follow my directions not the GPS.
Agree the air vehicle technology isn’t there yet either. I talked to the Blackfly folks last year and there were a lot of questions they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer regarding performance and failure modes. IMO they were kind of flying under the radar under the guise of being a Part 103 craft (which they could only meet by claiming to be water capable).
Didn’t make it to AV so admittedly kinda out of touch with their progress. Also not that thrilled that EAA put one in the museum, just don’t think it’s earned a place yet.

Speaking of the GPS, I really like using it, I wonder how I managed to travel all over the country working construction with just my road atlas. I got my first GPS in 2009 and used it until I got a smart phone 4 years ago. It led me to places I didn't want to go, it said my destination was on the left, when it was actually on the right and it took me through neighborhoods when it could have taken me on a much easier and quicker route. When I first got my GPS I was in St. Louis, Mo. I didn't realize I needed to actually look at it occasionally and would end up in the wrong lane in traffic and it would have to re-route me several times. So much so, it just locked down and I had to pull over, turn it off and wait. When I turned it back on, it started speaking German ! WTH ! I still keep a current road atlas in my truck. OH, and I ain't afraid to stop and ask for directions ! Technology ! If I didn't need electricity to watch TV, I'd just watch it by candle light.
Bob

Airmutt

08-31-2019, 10:41 AM

Speaking of ghosts in the machine.....
Once worked a flight test program where the customer defined most of the avionics including the FMS and autopilot. While demonstrating an lefthand orbiting rendezvous intercept the ship turned right to enter the pattern. Which proves if you turn right long enough eventually you’ve turned left! Nobody believed it until I played back the data. Never could get it to repeat.

DaleB

08-31-2019, 07:44 PM

I bought a new car last year, the first in over ten years.

8<...

I'm not saying the automated airplanes are going to hit the market next year, or even next decade. But they's a'coming.

My wife's 2017 Volvo has a radar cruise control and lane departure warnings. Actually, they turn out to be "Hey, dummy, remember to use your turn signals" warnings, but I digress. Her vehicle is absolutely wonderful. It's not self-driving, but I can engage the cruise control in town and let it do nearly all the throttle and brake work. The only thing I don't like is that it tends to leave way to much gap when departing from a stop light. It's really quite good.

A few months ago, I gave in to temporary insanity and bought a 2007 Mercedes S600. If you've never driven a twin turbocharged V12 that develops over 600 lb-ft of torque... and will gently warm or cool and massage your back and the backs of your passengers as you approach the sound barrier... well, you need to. Anyway, it has a much earlier radar cruise control. Also pretty good, for being ten years older, but you can definitely tell the difference. The Mercedes will occasionally try to panic-stop when it sees something that confuses it, and things like blind spot sensors, lane departure warning, lane following, automatic self parking, etc. didn't come along for a few more years.

My long awaited point is, where there's demand, there's technological advancement. Right now that demand is heaviest in the automotive arena... check out the new Dominos autonomous delivery vehicles. Some of that development brainpower and money is shifting and we're going to see a few decades of crazy advances in flight as well, starting with automating things like delivery, inspections, etc. to reduce the need for expensive butts in expensive seats. It's the economic driver. Where there's money to be made developing autonomous flying machines, it will happen. Where there's no money to be made, nothing much will happen.

Ron Blum

08-31-2019, 08:25 PM

As an aero engineer, airplane automation is much, much easier than automobiles. There are currently $BB in getting flying cars going. As mentioned, though, physics won't change no matter how many $$$ are thrown at the problem. It is possible that a tilt wing, tilt rotor or tilt pod will make a go of it ... on one or both of the coasts where the population density is high (NY to DC, LA to SFO, etc.). Those vehicles can get in and out of small places yet have speed to get somewhere. Time is money. Similar to business jets, these will be business tools, saving corporate money. I know it sounds absurd, but CEO salaries (agree or not) are VERY, VERY high. The cost of a flight is relatively cheap.

If nothing else happens, replacing piston engines will be a huge improvement and a possible reason for a total replacement of the current flying fleet ... more likely both will exist for a long time.

Ron "More than My Two Cents" Blum

rwanttaja

08-31-2019, 08:36 PM

I talked to the Blackfly folks last year and there were a lot of questions they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer regarding performance and failure modes. IMO they were kind of flying under the radar under the guise of being a Part 103 craft (which they could only meet by claiming to be water capable).
Didn’t make it to AV so admittedly kinda out of touch with their progress. Also not that thrilled that EAA put one in the museum, just don’t think it’s earned a place yet.
Hmmmm....how does an aircraft earn a place in a museum?

Should museums contain only Cessna 172s, Piper Warriors, and Bonanzas? Or should they include the dead-ends in aviation design as well? The Aero Commander Larks, the Baumann Brigadiers. Aren't they as telling as the successful planes?

I like P-51s, but wouldn't go out of my way to visit a museum just because it had an ordinary Mustang. But I might for a museum with a Bell XP-77, or a P-75 in its original configuration.

Assuming the videos weren't faked, the Black Fly is just as deserving of being in a museum as a lot of aircraft. However, I think it would have had a stronger claim on the EAA museum if it had flown in public, at AirVenture last year....

Ron Wanttaja

Airmutt

09-01-2019, 07:41 AM

Well for starters we’re in the EAA, the spirit of sport aviation. By definition that would be homebuilts, vintage/classic, warbirds, ultralights, & rotorcraft. So yes, maybe a truly unique or special aircraft of one of the types you mentioned if it fits the classic era definition just might make it. EAA does do grand champion classics, right?
The BD-5A/B was unique design for its time but ultimately a unmitigated marketing disaster. Don’t see museums rushing to have a BD-5 on display.
To my point, the design is in DT&E. The vast majority have not seen it fly, don’t know the conditions the video was made, and it’s not even in production. Based on that then the Icon A5 should be on display. Guess EAA is just trying to prove that they’re hip and woke to the “drone” generation.

FlyingRon

09-01-2019, 10:34 AM

I wouldn't call it a "marketing disaster." It was a unqualified disaster. The real issue was not having engines available and the ensuing Bede bankruptcy. The design had significant aerodynamic issues as well (some of these have been addressed somewhat by third parties). Typical Jim Bede strategy, take a lot of money from customers and then never deliver what they were sold.

Kyle Boatright

09-01-2019, 12:05 PM

Typical Jim Bede strategy, take a lot of money from customers and then never deliver what they were sold.

Typical? I know Bede failed on some subsequent designs (the -10, -12, and -14) but I don't think customers took the hit on those.

rwanttaja

09-01-2019, 12:19 PM

I believe the did on the 12 and 14. IIRC, there were some games played with the "escrow" payments customers made.

Ron Wanttaja

FlyingRon

09-01-2019, 02:34 PM

Not only those who made BD-12/14 deposits, but also those stupid enough to sign up to be a dealer for him.

Airmutt

09-01-2019, 03:59 PM

Jim Bede should have been the chief engineer of R&D and not allowed near the front office. He was a smart guy but sometimes his ideas were just too far ahead of the manufacturing technology or he simply moved on to something new never finishing a project. It’s kinda amazing that the 5 still has a small but faithful following.

FlyingRon

09-02-2019, 08:58 AM

Except while some of the ideas were spiffy, they still needed someone other than Jim to fix defects in the design.

I liken it to when my in laws used to work for Hugo Gernsback. He'd come up with lots of spiffy inventions. Many were ahead of their time, a lot were never going to be practical. The only difference, is his were never intended to get off paper and the thirty cents you spent for your copy of the magazine was all he asked from you.

Airmutt

09-02-2019, 11:35 AM

Floatsflyer

09-02-2019, 01:58 PM

Aah, the dark side of the EAB world; no design, performance or delivery guarantees. Ya pay your money and take your chances whether you’re buying a roll of plans or a kit. There have been a lot of folks to show up at Oshkosh with the next great plane only to fail. Meaning a lot of people got stung over the years; Bede just did it in bigger numbers.

Bede and all the other EAB and Certified fraudsters that litter the failed GA graveyard, in total, don't come close by comparison to the Eclipse VLJ, the greatest financial failure in the history of GA. Over $1.3 Billion up in smoke and thousands who lost huge amounts of money.

And, as you say, people still show up at Osh every year begging to give lots of their money as deposits to complete strangers to hold a place for the next great flying machine that will never be delivered or certainly not delivered at the original dog and pony show price.

DaleB

09-02-2019, 06:28 PM

Bede and all the other EAB and Certified fraudsters that litter the failed GA graveyard, in total, don't come close by comparison to the Eclipse VLJ, the greatest financial failure in the history of GA. Over $1.3 Billion up in smoke and thousands who lost huge amounts of money.
I spoke at length with an Eclipse owner once. Pretty cool little plane, but the stories he told about getting spares, replacement parts, repairs made.... it beggared belief. It's like the business model was based upon, "We'll find people who have a lot of money, and take ALL OF IT from them". That's not really an uncommon business model, but it really doesn't scale well and rarely survives very long.

Airmutt

09-03-2019, 05:19 AM

The real money in the aircraft industry is not in the sale of airframes but in the logistics support. When I go to AV I just walk past all those big dollar displays. I’m glad that those manufacturers are willing to pay the big bucks for their displays but to me it’s just fodder for the general public. I guess someone thinks that all the nice and shiny business jets, turbo props and insanely expensive aircraft impress the general public.
The development and manufacturing startup costs for aircraft are just astronomical. Look at the delays and failures in the past decade or so. And it’s not limited to GA, the MHI RJ has been an engineering and financial train wreck. Without investors willing to go the long run GA development is pretty much DOA.

FlyingRon

09-03-2019, 07:27 AM

Yeah, and I can tell you who they were marketing to. When our company sold, I'd often be in the CEO's office answering questions. He was all hot to trot on an Eclipse.

martymayes

09-03-2019, 08:31 AM

the MHI RJ has been an engineering and financial train wreck.

They managed to round up enough cash to buy the CRJ line of aircraft from Bombardier only to shut down production of those aircraft. That seems like a lot of money just to eliminate competition.

Ron Blum

09-03-2019, 11:04 AM

GA development is pretty much DOA.

I think that GA is far, far from DOA. In fact I would say that there is more activity and money in GA now than for the past several decades (with the exception of the $1.4B that Eclipse squandered … some people got rich from that deal, too). Where I think we are failing is in the management of programs and the inability to tell the truth (nail on the head for Eclipse). Everyone knows that the UBER scenario is VERY, VERY power/energy intensive, but nobody is telling the emperor he has no clothes on! Moving from piston engines with tons of expensive moving parts and pieces to electric motors with one moving part (and are mass produced for the world) would be a huge advancement in the GA world.

Ron "Not afraid of the Truth" Blum

PS. ALL the money in GA is made on parts, service and financing. Little to none is made on the OEM sale of the aircraft.

Airmutt

09-03-2019, 03:52 PM

Electric aircraft, yeh right!!
The average electric car can’t get beyond 200 miles. So Ron as you said let’s be upfront; while it’s an admirable goal unless there are some major technological breakthroughs it ain’t happening. OK there is some sub-scale proof of concept types out there but a viable multi passenger craft?????

rwanttaja

09-03-2019, 04:16 PM

200 miles in a car is ~3 hours range...that wouldn't be bad, for an electric airplane.

Ron Wanttaja

ssteve1

09-03-2019, 06:02 PM

Right now, after a three hour (480 mile) flight, I can gas and go in ten to fifteen minutes for another 480 mile flight. How long to charge and go (without damaging batteries) for the same three hour (seriously?) flight AND for xxx miles in an electric airplane???

I know, electrics is the future. Just not my future.

Airmutt

09-03-2019, 07:07 PM

My thoughts exactly. A full charge for car can be up to 8 hours. There’s gonna operational effects too.

Ron Blum

09-03-2019, 08:33 PM

I know, electrics is the future. Just not my future.

ssssssteve: When did you pick up the sstutter?

Please take a moment to think out of the box just a little. Are electrics ready for prime time today as a drop in replacement for 120-year-old, developed, technology (remember the first engine to fly was 12Hp and 200 lbs.)? No. BUT electrics can offer so much to aircraft design which is a much bigger advancement than the turbine engine. Four prime examples are lighter weight (just the motor vs engine), no airframe vibration (gliders last a lot longer than powered airplanes), one physical motor can actually be 2 or 3 independent (co-located) motors and reliability is orders of magnitude higher than pistons. I'm not touching the environmental issues because that's all politics.

Your philosophy would also end any hope of a single engine jet (not naming names). A turboprop will out perform them … be larger, less expensive and more fuel efficient, too.

Ron "Just sayin'" Blum

PS. "Hybrid" in airplanes is nothing like automobiles. Regenerative power is for people that have forgotten physics. Hybrid in airplanes is just a temporary way to get enough power for the current state of power storage/generation.

rwanttaja

09-03-2019, 10:25 PM

I believe Tesla has a system that allows owner to quickly recharge and resume a cross-country flight...err, drive.

It may not be directly applicable today, but with development time a workable system can probably be deployed.

About 40 years ago, I was an Air Force shavetail operating early warning satellites. Those who might remember their history will recall that WWIII never broke out. This meant a lot of overnight shifts with nothing to do but wait for the satellite to break or the Soviets to launch a test missile.

I ended up reading a lot of Science Fiction. Especially some of Robert Heinlein's young adult books. Really liked one of them, but it had one aspect that I felt was completely unrealistic. "That would require a huge infrastructure to support. No one would EVER develop or fund such a thing."

The technology? The main character carried a telephone with him, that let him call anywhere in the world whenever he wanted.

So you rarely see me these days, claiming that some technology will never mature.

Ron "Space Cadet" Wanttaja

dougbush

09-03-2019, 10:50 PM

The operators will not have to learn the arcane skills necessary for control of elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle to reach a destination.

Arcane? I think that's the easy part.

My dear sir, if it's so easy, why is failure in these skills the leading cause of aircraft accidents?
Interesting question. I don't know why there are many loss-of-control accidents blamed on the pilots, despite having previously proven their skills to a CFI and DPE. I suppose one might review the reports of some accidents in this category to seek an explanation.

The irony is, that if you were to poll the folks who have chimed in on how much they like to fly, they'd all agree that the fun is in exercising those same arcane skills. None of us daydream in meetings thinking about programming our GPSs, none of us watch the evening news blank-eyed, considering the challenges of fuel management, none of us geek out over the joys of ATC communication.
I fly our T210 for transportation, never for fun, not that there's anything wrong with flying for fun. While flying it, I feel more like a flight engineer/meteorologist/navigator than a pilot. My challenge is to make trips (that are too long to drive and too short to ride an airliner) with family safely, and without anyone having an unpleasant experience, economically. It requires a lot of weather study and flight/trip planning, never the slightest forethought on how to manipulate the controls.

The physical control of a small aircraft is simple to learn, but takes a lifetime to master. My first flight in a Fly Baby was in 1986, and, except for BFRs and an 18-month dalliance with a Stinson, I've been flying one Fly Baby or another for the past 33 years. Why am I not bored to tears by it?

BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T FRICKIN' GOT IT RIGHT!
Oh! Well, maybe it just seems easy to me because the T210's CG is forward of the main gear, which have fairly large tires and spring steel legs with a long travel, its nosegear has an oleo strut and is steerable through bungees, its wings have washout such that they stall progressively from root to tip, and its nose never blocks my view of the runway.

I can imagine how a Fly Baby would be a challenge, not because the pilot had not mastered the controls, but just because it is an unstable vehicle on the runway, subject to invisible gusts. It would be like pushing a garden cart at 50mph.

And that's where the fun is...the challenge of the smooth takeoff, keeping a stable attitude, watching for traffic, and managing to land that hard-mouthed SOB smoothly regardless of the winds, regardless of the runway, regardless of the loading, regardless of my own physical state.
We all appreciate a graceful landing!

But you see, that's where the split lies, when we start talking about autonomous aircraft. Most of the participants here are pilots because it's fun. But the majority of the world treats aviation like I do cars: The vehicle's job is to haul my rear end to places I want to go.

General Aviation is hurting; I'm hoping the rise in autonomous air vehicles will bring a flood of new people into aviation, even if their interest is in mere transportation.
GA is hurting because we don't treat it as mere transportation. When more people want to drive places, we expect the government to condemn property and build more and wider roads. But we are destroying airports in the most popular destinations and whenever we build a new one, it is way out in the boonies. For GA to thrive, we need to ask for airports to be built where we want to fly from and to. And we need to solve the problem of ground transportation at the destination. If GA were only sport, how could we justify the need of any particular airport infrastructure or airspace?

Ron Blum

09-03-2019, 11:02 PM

My previous reply didn't post! So I'll try again. :)

Y'all need to get out of the box. We are EAA with the "Can Do" attitude.

The first flying aircraft engine was 12 Hp and 200 lbs. in 1903. Is the current state of electrics such that we have a drop in replacement for 120+ years of development of the piston engine? No, BUT the advantages of electric motors are greater than the jet/turbine engine was to aviation back in the 1940s. Please consider: 1) no vibration (gliders last a lot longer than powered airplanes); 2) lighter weight (motor vs engine … not talking energy storage); 3) one moving part; 4)multiple motors per one physical motor; 5)TBOs longer than the airplane structure itself; etc. just to name a few advantages. I'm not going to touch the environment stuff as it is all politics.

"Hybrid" in airplanes and automobiles are completely different. Those that compare have forgotten physics. "Hybrid" in airplanes is a temporary/interim solution to the energy storage issue for electrics. Fuel cells can get us there, but they are very expensive at this time. Something will come along. There's LOTS of $$$ going into this area.

Ron "Just Sayin'" Blum

Ron Blum

09-03-2019, 11:17 PM

Interesting question. I don't know why there are many loss-of-control accidents blamed on the pilots, despite having previously proven their skills to a CFI and DPE. I suppose one might review the reports of some accidents in this category to seek an explanation.

Great statement, dougbush! This is one reason why I believe that training is NOT the answer to LOC. I can't believe that any one of these accidents was caused by the pilot KNOWINGLY stalling (or spiraling) the airplane into the ground INTENTIONALLY. I believe that their mind was just elsewhere during those moments.

ssteve1

09-04-2019, 04:23 AM

"ssssssteve: When did you pick up the sstutter?"

Mr. Blum,
As I said, electrics (is) are the future, just not mine.
Also, thanks for noting my double post. I have deleted one of those which obviously offended your sensibilities.

L16 Pilot

09-04-2019, 06:54 AM

We have an electric aircraft at our little strip. Gull 2000 sort of like a Challenger. I think about 35 hp electric. When he leaves you know he'll be back at the airport in about 20 minutes (10 minute reserve). By the way he flew Skyraiders in 'Nam and F111's in Desert Storm. Must be quite a change.

Bill Berson

09-04-2019, 07:01 AM

Brditschka flew the first electric with nicads around 1970 for a few minutes. Batteries now are about twice as good but still limited.

CHICAGORANDY

09-04-2019, 07:05 AM

Batteries? We don't need no stinklin' batteries - where's my Mr Fusion, Doc Emmett Brown?

Ron Blum

09-04-2019, 10:24 AM

ssteve1: My stutter comment was an attempt to be funny, but I am an enginerd. I apologize.

On the original topic, I think that innovative products/airplanes are not all at Oshkosh because worldwide communication is so much better. Today we know real time what is happening throughout the world. In the past we all went to Oshkosh to see the latest and greatest because that's where it was. The first time I saw a Harrier was at Oshkosh. Holy crap! An airplane that could go fast AND hover. Today I would watch the YouTube video the day it was posted … and then think it was fake ;b...

Times have changed, but I enjoy learning every day, including that my other post that I thought didn't post did post (just in a different location/order than I thought it would).

Ron Blum

09-04-2019, 10:26 AM

Brditschka flew the first electric with nicads around 1970 for a few minutes. Batteries now are about twice as good but still limited.

Is this the one that used a washing machine electric motor?

Bill Berson

09-04-2019, 02:01 PM

Is this the one that used a washing machine electric motor?

13hp Bosch motor. Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brditschka_HB-3
Article in Sport Aviation archive also.

Floatsflyer

09-04-2019, 02:08 PM

I believe Tesla has a system that allows owner to quickly recharge and resume a cross-country flight...err, drive.

It may not be directly applicable today, but with development time a workable system can probably be deployed.

So you rarely see me these days, claiming that some technology will never mature.

Ron "Space Cadet" Wanttaja

When the following events occur, I'll become a convert to 100% electric plug-in vehicles and buy one. Until then, I'll remain a skeptic:

-When they can eliminate range anxiety and travel for at least 600KMS(372 mi)between charging.
-When fully charged takes no more time than it takes to currently fill up the tank with fuel at the gas station.
-When a fully formed charging infrastructure exists in North America to support electrics in a manner that is as ubiquitous as gas stations for internal combustion engines.
-When the MSRP is drastically reduced(I believe this will happen when the above 3 things become commonplace and hence more electrics are bought by the masses).

DaleB

09-04-2019, 02:32 PM

That's not called being a skeptic. That's called "not being an early adopter". Were it not for people being willing to be those early adopters, none of it would come to pass. And, while we're not there yet, it's amazing how far the state of the art and infrastructure support for all-electric vehicles have come.

One interesting thing I see is that electric charging stations don't require the extensive specialized infrastructure (underground storage tanks, fire suppression, etc.) that a gas station does... just a few square feet of space, a credit card reader, and some heavier electric cabling than you'd normally find in a parking lot. That means there's an opportunity to put charging stations in places where gas stations simply can't go - like parking garages, hotel parking lots, etc. I can see the day coming when there are more electric charging plugs than there are gas pumps.

Not that I'm going to buy a plug-in car any time soon. I'm a telecommuter, so I just don't drive in town much. If I were driving a few dozen miles a day, it would make sense. When I do drive, it's often round trips that exceed 200-300 miles, and believe it or not it's pretty hilly here in our part of the Great Plains. The current generation of electrics just aren't a good choice for me. My neighbor drives his Tesla daily... it's a viable choice for him. I'd just love to know what his electricity cost per mile driven is, and how it compares to the gasoline I buy.

Airmutt

09-04-2019, 08:43 PM

It’s not just the price per mile I think you need to amortize the cost too. The base cost of a model S is like $71k. Then add another $10k for the extended battery and we haven’t even talked options. Just the cost of the extended battery buys the average car about 100,000 miles using $2.50 per gal and 25m/gal just to make the math easy. Assume that a new vehicle runs about $40k ya get an additional $31k for fuel which buys another 310,000 miles. For the same price I get a new car and 410,000 miles and you haven’t talked options for your Tesla.
Electrics = unicorns and rainbows.

DaleB

09-04-2019, 09:29 PM

You do know there are plug-in electric cars other than the Tesla S, right? Tesla sells two models in the under-50K range, including the extended range battery. A Nissan Leaf S Plus with the larger battery lists at $36K. BMW's i3 lists for around $44K on up.

Yes, an all electric car is probably going to cost you more than an equivalently sized and equipped gasoline powered car. If you're not driving long distances in it -- like most people don't -- you get to skip all the gas station stops and oil changes. Nothing is perfect, and any developing tech like this will be more expensive for early adopters. That's just how it is, but a lot of people are willing to pay a little extra.

johnharry

09-05-2019, 04:49 AM

Yeah, I'm also gonna interested to know where all the crafts.!

Airmutt

09-05-2019, 07:01 AM

Thanks Dale you made my point. Electric vehicles are a niche market and don’t meet the needs the transportation needs of the nation. You are absolutely right about the cost of emerging technologies; the cost always goes down, personal electronics are a great example.
I do hope that electric power plant technology exceeds but until someone develops a unit for aviation that provides the equivalent performance to say a 172 or Archer I’m not buying in. In today’s world the cost of R&D, DT&E, certification, and manufacturing startup represent SIGNIFICANT investments. There just aren’t that many companies that have the assets, motivation and commitment to go from point A to B. Who knows what the certification requirements for these units and their airframes will be in the future; that’s just added risk. Those costs will get passed thru sales. General aviation sales is a very low volume business Strap in, things are gonna get pricey.

rwanttaja

09-05-2019, 08:36 AM

When the following events occur, I'll become a convert to 100% electric plug-in vehicles and buy one. Until then, I'll remain a skeptic:

And ~125 years ago, my great-great uncle Einar said, "Automobiles will never replace horses until they can go all the way across country on the free grass they graze at the side of the trail, and breed free replacements for themselves on the way. Oh, and their emissions have to be good for my roses, too....."

Ron "That Uncle Einar" Wanttaja

FlyingRon

09-05-2019, 08:40 AM

I told Orville and I told Wilbur, now I'm telling you...

Floatsflyer

09-05-2019, 09:09 AM

And ~125 years ago, my great-great uncle Einar said, "Automobiles will never replace horses until they can go all the way across country on the free grass they graze at the side of the trail, and breed free replacements for themselves on the way. Oh, and their emissions have to be good for my roses, too....."

Ron "That Uncle Einar" Wanttaja

You left out much of the story. Uncle Einar bought the first car dealership in Oxnard, California and made a fortune. Ten years later he sold the business and invested the substantial proceeds in a thoroughbred breeding and racing enterprise. He became a very well known and respected owner of champion race horses.

Ya see, he always loved horses and was the first to coin the phrase, "You can close the barn door after the horse has left."

Airmutt

09-05-2019, 09:39 AM

Mike Kitslaar

09-05-2019, 10:00 AM

Kind of strayed a bit off topic here don't you think??

Airmutt

09-05-2019, 10:31 AM

Oh we took a left turn onto the dirt road along time ago.

DaleB

09-05-2019, 12:28 PM

Probably no charging stations on it either. :)

robert l

09-05-2019, 12:39 PM

Yup, 125 years ago inventors and manufacturers were not burdened with the mountains of regs and requirements that exist today. For example, I worked a program where DCMA rep prohibited soldering strain gage leads as he considered it a fire hazard in a hangar that was equipped with a deluge system. The acquisition cost for laying in the gages subsequently increased by about eight fold. And that’s just one small example.
Bet Uncle Einar wasn’t told that he had to do an emissions environmental impact study either.

I hate to keep this going but I'm going to anyway. Just 20 years ago you were expected to go into a confined space and weld stainless steel or torch off the coal ash collector plates, which contained arsenic, all without a respirator. The excuse was, we didn't know, but now days, you better have all your poop in one sock ! It's a plus for the guys working in the field, but at the same time, add a lot of extra time to get the job done or the project completed. Be safe, be smart, live long and prosper.
I'm going to do it too.
Bob (I don't know why I said that last part) Crawford

Bill Berson

09-05-2019, 04:19 PM

The first practical electric car was almost exactly 125 years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

Ron Blum

09-05-2019, 07:57 PM

Yup, 125 years ago inventors and manufacturers were not burdened with the mountains of regs and requirements that exist today.

Although I see your point, I also have to take a minor exception to it. We have the EAB category where we can do just about anything we want. Plus, Orville and Wilbur didn't build the first Flyer for production. In addition it is our labor costs that have skyrocketed (people costs). DER's are $200/hour and Engineers are $60-$100/hour and their whole goal is to extend the program as long as possible. Yes, it's very expensive to certify an airplane. BUT, I also think that we (as OEM's) do A LOT more than the FAA requires. Nothing says we can't certify the way we did back in the 40s.

The new ASTM standards will reduce costs too. We are working very hard on that end of the equation.

Blue on Top,
Ron

PS. Good friend has a Tesla. Puts 25,000 miles/year on it … including the annual trip to Oshkosh (from Wichita, KS). The car tells him where the charging stations are and how long he will have to wait to be charged … little more than the time to take a restroom/food break.

Kyle Boatright

09-05-2019, 09:11 PM

Nothing says we can't certify the way we did back in the 40s.

I thought it was the job/intent/reality of Part 23 that certification is much more involved today?

Ron Blum

09-05-2019, 10:38 PM

I thought it was the job/intent/reality of Part 23 that certification is much more involved today?

The intent of the “new” part 23 (now almost 2 years old) is to make certification easier. We (as OEMs) need to fight back on doing anything more than the regulations specifically call out. Good airplanes were certified using cockpit data. With today’s panel and GPS data, that is more than we had before, AND it’s in a form that is easily manipulated by programs like Excel.

I meant to say this earlier, but the FAA will not give one a proposed way that they may do something in the future. You must apply and force a decision/resolution. The FAA is currently begging for people to do this. They can’t think of everything anyone could come up with (to make the regulations totally complete). Just do it!

Bill Berson

09-06-2019, 09:03 AM

Why would any sane business person get involved at all with a certification process that requires arbitrary permission?
The internet doesn't require permission to start a business so it works. I read a book about Internet business titled "Without their Permission" https://www.amazon.com/s?k=without+their+permission&i=stripbooks&crid=18FTHAU8NWYNX&sprefix=Without+their%2Caps%2C302&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13

I have watched these attempts to save private aviation from over regulation for 50 years.
Nothing works.

dapug

09-06-2019, 01:03 PM

Summary, and my thoughts.

I read this entire thread up to this point. Interesting stuff.

"Where have all the EAB aircraft gone?" was targeted at planes physically at EAA AirVenture, but quickly led to analyzing where are they in general?, and why is there no pilot interest in general? Conflating all of that, here is what I found if I were to summarize this entire discussion up to this point (including adding my own points):

Why should I own/fly/build an EAB?

Speed to destination
Joy of flying (pure recreation)
Joy of building (if that is your thing)

What gets in my way, detracts, or causes disinterest?

Time

RC ARF example - people just want instant gratification
LSA instant gratification (why build? Just buy)
People simply do not have time in 2000-2019 like they did in 1940-1999 (we are over worked, busy trying to get ahead, inflation and economic pressures keep tightening, etc)
"Quick Builds" still are not quick enough! Depressing stories of 14+ years to build X project, RV, Variez, etc. Not cool.

Money

Some argue this isn't an issue, can get in a plane for $8k to $15k
Others argue it definitely is an issue - if you are not retired! Not a dime available for anything but family, etc.
Pilot certification being a huge barrier of time and money that simply is scarce today
Ongoing costs (not just purchase, but maintenance, especially when not the builder)

Inconvenience

No car at destination
Limited payload compared to loading up the car
Fueling up with mogas is annoying (FBO simply way behind the times and uninterested in alternative fuels beyond 100LL, including electric charge stations)

Buzz Kill

2nd owner/builder not as interested as the original builder - low motivation, sentiment
Nothing new (all the Vans RVs… good planes, but yaaaawn, boring, seen it)
Regulation of Pilot (easier to fly a UL, or get Sport Pilot rating than Private Pilot)
Lies/unkept promises (planes/kits paid for, not delivered, pours “ice” on builders willing to get started)

Manufacturer Low Demand

Cost of manufacturing (great ideas can’t get funded, very expensive to even get into kit making)
Tied to the lack of new pilots problem (catch 22 here?)

Not a lot of pros outweighing the cons here. In my particular case, my #1 (and literally ONLY) reason for not building/flying is MONEY. So I can relate to that. I'm not retired! It really sucks sitting on the sidelines trying to get into planes and flying whilst I'm in the middle of a career with a family. And BTW, I make 6 figs, so getting a better job shouldn't be the issue, but my expenses are vast (I literally was saving for an inexpensive plane, and all that money just went into a new engine and transmission for my family vehicle, yay. Rinse and repeat). My private pilot cert has gathered dust for decades, literally decades, and my interest in flying has NOT.

Now, forget about my story, and let's look at what is happening in GA. This list we have collectively drummed up on this thread is pretty close, but there are other reasons - can probably go a lot deeper into regulations being a blocker, etc. But despite these issues, I recently crunched some data from FAA and I found that the number of aircraft registrations is GROWING, with certified planes outpacing experimental registrations by a LARGE margin (like 6 to 1). But... Experimental registrations IS growing, is not on a decline at all. I just wonder then if what this means is that it's boring. I mean, several of you commented about AirVenture having "nothing new", as in new DESIGNS and innovations, but that doesn't mean we dont have growth with the existing designs (Vans RV... lookin at you :) )

dapug

09-06-2019, 01:25 PM

Several of you mentioned Blackfly (https://www.opener.aero/). Why isn't it Part 103? Why didn't it fly at AirVenture 2019? Why is it in the daggum museum???

Blackfly perspective:

It doesn't meet FAR Part 103 because 1) it's too heavy at 313 lbs empty weight, and because it doesn't meet the powered off stall requirement (falls like a brick?).

Yes indeed, why didn't it fly at AirVenture? If I were head of that company, I'd have made darned sure to prepare what it takes to make that happen. 2019 FAIL award, IMO.

And given that it did NOT fly, it is a complete disgrace and a kick in the kahonies to all aviation innovators IMO, that EAA took it on as a "historic" addition to the museum. What the actual .... ??? So wait, what, now I can create something that is cool IN THEORY, not provide any proven results, and it becomes a piece of history? Like that is some sort of accomplishment? Gads. The shame.

HISTORIC
This is currently the only thing historic about Blackfly: You can fly this non-UL without a pilot certificate. Apparently. Given that they do NOT make Part 103, and given that it is expressly designed/marketed to NOT require a pilots license, I immediately chalked this up as hype, my BS meter went to 11, and I put it into the "I'll believe it when I see it" bucket. BUT... then we read that (so they claim) the FAA will allow the "non-pilot" to take the Private Pilot Written Exam and be on their way. WHAT THE? Yeah, I've never seen a case where you can take a written test and the FAA gives you the thumbs up in the cockpit.

It's still in my "Believe it when I see it" bucket, due to non-flight, non-delivery. But I love the fact that industry is clearly pushing the bounds here.

DaleB

09-06-2019, 02:16 PM

This is currently the only thing historic about Blackfly: You can fly this non-UL without a pilot certificate. Apparently. Given that they do NOT make Part 103, and given that it is expressly designed/marketed to NOT require a pilots license, I immediately chalked this up as hype, my BS meter went to 11, and I put it into the "I'll believe it when I see it" bucket. BUT... then we read that (so they claim) the FAA will allow the "non-pilot" to take the Private Pilot Written Exam and be on their way. WHAT THE? Yeah, I've never seen a case where you can take a written test and the FAA gives you the thumbs up in the cockpit.

It's still in my "Believe it when I see it" bucket, due to non-flight, non-delivery. But I love the fact that industry is clearly pushing the bounds here.

Well, they claim "BlackFly is an amphibious ultralight vehicle. This subcategory has an increased weight allowance." I haven't checked that. When they talk about a short-range UL for "the price of an SUV" (Are we talking low end Escape, or a BMW X7?? Or a Lambo Urus?) I'm not even really interested. Best of luck to 'em, though. They indicate that passing the written exam is their own requirement -- assuming that some day they actually offer them for sale, of course. The web site says "2019", and that's quickly running out.

Bill Berson

09-06-2019, 02:42 PM

dapug,
The BlackFly could easily comply with FAR 103 if the wings were somewhat larger and some unpowered controls surfaces were fitted so that it could comply with the unpowered minimum stall speed.

Where did you read about this FAA Private Pilot Exam for ultralight evtol privileges?

dapug

09-06-2019, 02:49 PM

Well, they claim "BlackFly is an amphibious ultralight vehicle. This subcategory has an increased weight allowance." ... They indicate that passing the written exam is their own requirement

Ok, if they are really trying to fly under Part 103 and the private pilot exam is THEIR doing (not FAA), then I revoke my "historic" claim completely. This makes their story even worse. Those aspects of UL are unregulated, and as such I don't need to do anything but hand them money. AND I would also be able to modify it any which way I want, it not being certified.

Agreed, the mystery price is likely to be high, like Cadillac/BMW SUV high.

I'm not interested because it's range is a joke for a commuter which is their entire target. Pathetic at 25 miles. Bearing in mind as well, under Part 103 means rural, not city (congested), and rural commutes are much longer distances. And where are rural people commuting to? The city. No can do with UL. This is an expensive toy.

dapug

09-06-2019, 02:54 PM

Where did you read about this FAA Private Pilot Exam for ultralight evtol privileges?

Many articles published on Opener/Blackfly mention this, but now that I re-read it... it doesn't say FAA requires it, it says the company requires it. The two are quite different!

https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/evtols-urban-mobility/opener-donates-blackfly-to-eaa-museum/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/opener-blackfly-flying-car/
https://medium.com/@AnthroPunk/a-blackfly-personal-aircraft-buzzing-you-to-work-its-a-long-road-er-long-blue-sky-ahead-23e94321c635

Floatsflyer

09-06-2019, 04:01 PM

The BlackFly could easily comply with FAR 103 if the wings were somewhat larger and some unpowered controls surfaces were fitted so that it could comply with the unpowered minimum stall speed

Ya right, and if my uncle had breasts he'd be my aunt!

Airmutt

09-06-2019, 04:09 PM

Well I’m certainly impress with your summary. But I am a bit confused about your comment about Pt 103 stall speed. The listed speed is a maximum speed. There are ultralight gyros and helos. They don’t have a stall speed. So I believe the Blackfly would fall under that. I am curious if the FAA will ever make them demo a water landing and takeoff. Maybe the fat UL guys should strap a floatie on and declare themselves amphibious.

Getting back the original question. I think bringing your newly finished craft is kinda like a right of passage. Once and done. Now with said there is a segment of builders that do continue to return. Some are trying to keep up interest in the design (and that’s very admirable) others because they are coming for the event for their own reasons. Based on the concessions thread it’s definitely not for the cuisine!!!!

Not sure that I understand why when an EAB changes hands its “showability” gets diminished. That certainly doesn’t happen in the muscle or collector car world. I do think that EAA could do more to encourage folks to bring their ships to AirVenture. There are type club fly gatherings, the KRs are meeting in Mount Vernon IL this month. Even though I missed AV I bet you could count the number of KRs on one hand. Again why is that? Last year was the 50th anniversary of the Volksplane. Although published in Sport Aviation not a single plane showed up. Not even any of the closer guys. Hmmm.

The old guard membership is aging out of aviation. Some of the older designs are the legacy that built EAA and are still a good basic and economic means to ownership yet are virtually unknown to new members. Not only do they look unique the old tube and fabric designs have that unique oil, fuel and dope smell. Love the smell of a gas in the morning.

Ron Blum

09-06-2019, 09:30 PM

Enjoyed your summary. My glass is more half full.

If you're serious about getting flight time, buy a used, certified airplane - less problems, no build time and orders of magnitude less expensive.

DaleB

09-07-2019, 06:49 PM

Enjoyed your summary. My glass is more half full.

If you're serious about getting flight time, buy a used, certified airplane - less problems, no build time and orders of magnitude less expensive.

I would say, if you're really serious, buy a used Experimental. Fewer problems (if you choose carefully), and a whole lot less expensive to own and operate than most factory built airplanes.

Of course I'm taking about a specific subset of EAB here... there are some pretty scary experimentals out there, but then there are some pretty scary factory built planes too.

Frank Giger

09-08-2019, 08:30 AM

Thank you, everyone, for helping make a very interesting and well thought out thread!

A few observations:

First, I find it somewhat amusing that we're talking about electric airplanes with autonomous flight, considering that the most popular means of creating sparks for aircraft engines are magnetos (two, because just one and a single spark plug for each cylinder isn't reliable enough) and the standard method of achieving fuel/air mixture is a carburetor.

Yes, yes, I know that it's effectiveness over efficiency, but one would think that both systems would have been relegated to nostalgia about thirty years ago.

Second, the affordability question is a bit like the Interstate answer; we're spending money in ways we didn't before that cut into disposable income. One just didn't have a cable bill, an Internet bill, or cell phone bills - all of which are pretty much mandatory today. Yes, there was a phone bill, but so long as one didn't call long distance (!) it was dirt cheap. The baseline cost of living has gone up with the services we now consider critical for living.

Third, the romance has gone out of flying to the general public. Then again, most of the more pedestrian pleasures of the past have been dismissed - the slow Sunday drive just to see the sights just doesn't happen, for example. Who wants to canoe down a lazy stream when one can zip along on a jet ski? Airplanes are great big things one complains about having to wait to get on with bad food (if there is any) and not worthy of dressing any better for than a three o'clock morning run to WalMart. Airbus was quite accurate in gauging the public's perceptions in naming the company.

Small, personal aircraft in the General Public's view are only mentioned when there is a crash, and when they are portrayed in popular media almost always have problems. Even in shows where the intent is to display the positives, the negatives always get the spotlight (Flying Wild Alaska, Airplane Repo) at some point.

So where does that leave us? I've said it before, but I think General Aviation is regressing back to the 1930's, where one was either very wealthy and buying cutting edge stuff off of the shelf or turning a wrench and doing it themselves. Except a lot of that wrench turning (and rivet making) has become pretty darned expensive with the demands for ease of building and a sense (and record) of safe, proven design.

The problem is that today's generations* aren't keen on wrench turning. The narrative of computer design, automation, and component replacement versus repair has overwhelmed them. Most young people today can't drive a manual transmission - thinking they would change their own oil on their cars is asking too much of them. Yes, this is an unfair generalization, and there are loads of young folks who can roll up their sleeves and fix things, but in the main (especially with urbanization) it holds true.

To think that they'd accept a bunch of papers with plans on them and start to cope tubing with goal of building a flying machine is simply asking too much of them. The blame lays with us for giving them everything we never had at the expense of our knowledge and experience of what we had.

There is sunshine, though. In dealing with young people I'm finding that they're open to learning and while with a different approach, not adverse to adventure. I was talking to a 20-something the other day who asked what the point was to having an airplane that doesn't really go anywhere (having been taught that airplanes are just transportation), and I asked if they ever water skied. Yes, they had. "Did you go anywhere?" And a light bulb moment. When I told them that my pilot ticket cost me less than six grand and the aircraft less than fifteen, suddenly aviation didn't seem so outrageous.

* Stutter implied.

Bill Berson

09-08-2019, 11:44 AM

The local chapter does a bunch of Young Eagles rides. But there doesn't seem to be any introduction to step two after the ride.
The goal should be affordable aircraft ownership by whatever method, not to just be a commercial pilot or even a private pilot. Who would want a drivers license but no car?
The Light Sport rule is rarely mentioned. But even a student pilot certificate is enough for a single seat aircraft or two seater flown solo. Don't need a six grand "ticket" to start. I restored a $1200 Aeronca Chief with my brother at age 19, I think. Flew it for years with only a student certificate.

dapug

09-08-2019, 12:16 PM

Frank, great post.

The problem is that today's generations* aren't keen on wrench turning. The narrative of computer design, automation, and component replacement versus repair has overwhelmed them. Most young people today can't drive a manual transmission - thinking they would change their own oil on their cars is asking too much of them. Yes, this is an unfair generalization, and there are loads of young folks who can roll up their sleeves and fix things, but in the main (especially with urbanization) it holds true.

Component replacement vs repair is stupid. We live in a "newest, latest model" world, despite the newest or latest being insignificantly different than the prior most of the time. Our landfills are full of things that could have easily be fixed rather than tossed, and our bank accounts (or lack thereof) reflect the ongoing needless outpouring of money too, chasing all this. Bad economically, bad environmentally, but good for capitalist greed. I say that, and I am a capitalist. But dang, people take this way too far.

That said... there is a point at which modular design and replace vs repair DOES make more sense. And it goes back to TIME. I can pay for a new transmission for my vehicle and cost me far less in time and money (if time is money) than it would be for me to bust out all the tools and do it myself, despite knowing how. We live in a very time starved society today. It's the most frustrating thing IMO. And I wont go into why I think this is happening, because it's borderline conspiracy theory kooky, but suffice it to say, it's due to our dollar not going anywhere near as far as it used to. This is because of corrupt banking and politicians, and citizens are nonethewiser. I'll leave it at that.

To think that they'd accept a bunch of papers with plans on them and start to cope tubing with goal of building a flying machine is simply asking too much of them. The blame lays with us for giving them everything we never had at the expense of our knowledge and experience of what we had.

I'm a huge fan of computer design, automation, and work ethic. Nothing wrong with getting computers to do things for you, but you better know the skill regardless. When I bought my first 3D printer, my kids wanted to print out a Fidget Spinner (fad at the time). So I said fine, design your own, don't just download a design. I sat them down to learn CAD for the first time. By the time they stuck a bearing in and spun their spinner, it was 100% their own making. THAT is appreciation for ones own work. And I did the same thing when working on some RC plane stuff with them - all their own CAD work. Now one of my boys is gearing up and excited about building his first airplane and fly before he's 16. We haven't decided yet if from a kit, or from plans. Either way is fine with me.

Though society has gone south in terms of peoples interest in wrench turning, I do not think it is obsolete. I think it's more about proper parenting. Want a PBJ sandwich? Go make one. I'll show you how, but I ain't just gonna keep doing it for you.

Airmutt

09-08-2019, 12:21 PM

Perhaps it is wrong to make assumptions based on EAB aircraft attendance. Paid attendance implies interest is still strong. Access to other sports such as watercraft, motorcycles, auto sports etc certainly compete and in many cases are far more accessible. Times change; not necessarily in ways we like.

dapug

09-08-2019, 12:52 PM

The local chapter does a bunch of Young Eagles rides. But doesn't seem to be any introduction to step two after the ride.
The goal should be affordable aircraft ownership by whatever method, not to just be a commercial pilot or even a private pilot. Who would want a drivers license but no car?

GREAT point! After I got my Private Pilot cert. (at a young age), ownership never occurred to me, perceived as completely out of reach, and no plan on how to achieve such was ever suggested. The focus is all on commercial jobs, which is not what I wanted.

Ron Blum

09-08-2019, 01:59 PM

A couple more great points have been made! YE definitely needs a next step. Personally, I think that the YE age range goes way too low. Younger ones are there for the free ride, and that is it. No intention of further aviation. Maybe 12 and older? One can solo a glider at 14. I also think that EAA should push sailplane ratings, too … much, much cheaper … especially in a club.

Parenting is another big one. My 3 siblings and I had access to (almost) anything we wanted to do (on our, earned money). I golfed (I was an aeronut from very, very early, but no EAA/airplanes in our smaller town. That was limited to books and an Uncle an hour away). Had to ride my bike to the golf course and pay for it myself … one quickly learned that an annual membership was a good deal :) I'm an EAA Lifer for the same reason.

We also need to give the younger generations more credit AND ENCOURAGEMENT! Most of them are very surprised when they find out this old man (me) knows about Arduino and Raspberry Pi.

Ron "My (eventual) retirement relies on the next generation" Blum