Aviatinon Spending and the Economy

Hows the economy and how's it affect aviation? Spending varies with the economy. EAA gen aviation is discretionary, the decisions to buy a new Garmin panel or new paint job or a new rating or add a T-6 or acro plane is of course based on wants more than need. My Bonanza still flyies pretty much the same, even with long overdue paint and an inst panel that I can actually read. But I'd like to have new, at least the paint. Pilots are more likely to transfer want into action if they or optimistic about income, jobs, even taxes, and we are in a positive trend now, not counting possible negative govt privatization. Even corp and airline spending is related to anticipated growth and needs. A corp may upgrade its jet to the latest and even companies and countries do. Boeing just got a huge Saudi order, think $15 billion over Airbus. And EAA attendance was up this year.

So is the economy and the forecast that good? Recall where we were in the recession 10 years ago, Stocks down maybe 40%, home foreclosures, business defaults and unemployment 10%, 30% for some groups. Now unemployment is 4.7%, stock market to 23,000 and lots of hiring especially for those with computer or other skills. Help wanted signs at many restaurants , hotels etc. Is this normal in history. Yes and even more so. Ken Fisher in USA Today charts largest recoveries. Current one only rates #7, up 21% so far. Biggest of all time was 2nd Clinton in 1996. And it is likely the circumstances more than the man,.2nd Clinton was only 10%, #9 rank. Roosevelt coming out of depression then war was #2 and 3., JFK #4. Another analysts has a measure of optimism at an all time high, maybe looking forward to some tax reform. Apple makes so much they can barely place it!
One caution note, hiring and especially higher wages dont hit all segments. I saw a talk by Bill Gates, and Buffet re competition from lower wage labor abroad, and Gates said that automation would have as big an impact, we are seeing it on car assembly lines. On a postive note, good effects spread, a worked gets recalled or hired and buys a new car or goes on vacation, the car dealer may hire more or the hotel or airline. and on to the next. By the way, Fisher may be a pilot not sure.

These things are always local; one looks at what their own position is and pays attention to those around them. Even if one is in a good financial situation, if they see their friends getting laid off the tendency is to reduce expenditures.

For example, my financial position is pretty solid, regardless of the larger trends of the economy, and so I spend accordingly - but because my income isn't large, I scrimp and save.

The larger problem with aviation spending has little to do with this, though. The truth of the matter is demographics is screwing things up. There are far fewer GA pilots than 30 years ago. With that, economy of scale goes out the window. Prices for all things aviation goes up, as fewer items sold have to make up for the fixed costs of manufacturing and distribution.

However, it comes down to what one wants to do. If aviation is a high priority for a person, they will find a way to pay for it. I took a second job for the sole reason to pay for my pilot training and the cost of the airplane.

All (Pvt, Com, ATP) Pilots

1993 to 2003: 6% decline
2003 to 2013: 14% decline
1993 to 2013: 19% decline
Private Pilots
1993 to 2003: 15% decline
2003 to 2013: 25% decline
1993 to 2013: 36% decline
Source: GAMA 2013 Databook
Private Pilots Represent the Market for Owner Flown Aircraft
US population that are pilots (2013):
All pilots: 0.14%
Private pilots: 0.06%
Driver’s License: 67.1%

This survey gleaned from a website that had completed a study on this subject. In comparing this to similar studies the writing is on the wall

This is interesting data, but not really on topic, the economy has gone up and down over that time, not just one way.. This data shows less pilots, over a long time, but doesn't give economic or other causes. Some of the economic recovery has been since 2013.And type of planes and prices have changed over the years. There may be a lot less Cessna 172s sold now, but there are a lot more Citations. And pilots flying and spending on these Pilatus and Citation, etc spend a lot more money than more basic aviation in the past, and they are not going to be flying these types of planes with just a private pilot license.
I think a couple of things have led to the decline in new pilots. First of all airports are much less lilkely to be located whate most people live. It used to be, when I started in the 70s that many big ariports were right in town. such as Austin Mueller, and Denver Stapleton, and the often had both gen av and flight schools right there. Then came the TCA and it really killed student pilot at that location inside the TCA. That and bigger airline planes have made an airport now often something that is way out of town, like Denver INt or Bush in Houston of to some extent Austin Bergstrrom. and these big airports are all or mostly airline use now, maybe a few corp planes. Great small gen av airports like Houston Andrau and Chicago Meigs are often houses now. And I think the average person thinks of an airplane as a Jet that you just ride on, rather than something you learn to fly. As a boy, I and others had horses in our back yard, in town, not so likely now and I bet there are less riders.

I learned to fly at age 39-40 in the late 1970's. The local FBO had half a dozen rentals 150. 152, 172, etc. and you had to schedule ahead of time if you wanted one. I think they have probably one or two 172's now and I doubt scheduling is a problem. Regarding the overall economy we seem to be doing OK in our area however I noticed the price of gas just went way up again which is a more or less fixed cost that anyone who travels to work and cuts into the loose change anyone might have for other uses (flying for example). One thing which might be slightly off topic but still adds into the picture is the move in some states towards legalizing some drugs yet many businesses require mandatory drug testing. Every business I've been involved with has drug testing. Not a problem for me but there are some who whine about not being able to get a good job because they can't pass the pre employment drug test or lose the job because they can't leave the stuff alone.

The only drug that I know that is legal here is pot and it has been for a few years as in over half states. There are a number of dispensaries about town, and statewide, and it brings in a LOT of taxes. One doesn't notice any real change, its just like when someone opened a cigar bar once, if you didnt go in it didnt affect you. I asked our largest employer and they don't do drug testing unless there was an accident. You are not supposed to use in public or I guess while working, people probably do it at night like youd have a glass of wine. It just doesn't seem to cause any problem, but like many places the police weren't really looking for pot even before it was legal. Good thing is we don't seem to have an heroin problem. They do enforce DUIs, and we have a lot of bars. My big drug is ADVIL, like a lot of those of us who have ski raced, glad its legal, the old struts get a bit stiff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

The only drug that I know that is legal here is pot and it has been for a few years as in over half states. There are a number of dispensaries about town, and statewide, and it brings in a LOT of taxes. One doesn't notice any real change, its just like when someone opened a cigar bar once, if you didnt go in it didnt affect you. I asked our largest employer and they don't do drug testing unless there was an accident. You are not supposed to use in public or I guess while working, people probably do it at night like youd have a glass of wine. It just doesn't seem to cause any problem, but like many places the police weren't really looking for pot even before it was legal. Good thing is we don't seem to have an heroin problem. They do enforce DUIs, and we have a lot of bars. My big drug is ADVIL, like a lot of those of us who have ski raced, glad its legal, the old struts get a bit stiff!

---

As a resident of the other state that approved recreational pot at the same time as Colorado, I can back Bill up on this: It didn't result in much visible change. Those who would drive stoned before pot was legal still drive stoned, and, since public use is still illegal, you don't see folks using it very often. The biggest change is the billboards advertising pot shops....that's kind of a shocker, considering how long use was a sub-rosa sort of thing. Also a shocker to drive down some streets and see 3-4 pot shops for every McDonalds.

I remember, years ago, a reporter for Flying magazine asking the FAA how long should a pilot wait to fly, after imbibing pot.

The answer: "Until you get out of the penitentiary."

Ron "Did you ever look at your hand?" Wanttaja

But it still gets down to almost any business with moving equipment does pre employment and drug testing. Example: I hold a commercial license (CDL) along with a school bus endorsement in addition to my pilots license. I was random drug tested maybe 2-3 times each year (walk in the door to go to work and they hand you a bottle/fill 'er up). If I failed the test it was no job.....period. They don't want a pothead (or drunk) hauling a bunch of kids around any more than they want me hauling freight or flying under the influence. Also I seem to remember I had to attest to the fact I hadn't used illegal drugs when I applied or my last pilots renewal and (no matter what the states say) pot is still a schedule one drug.

Bill, the number of pilots is directly related to how much is spent on aviation, and on prices.

Right now most common used GA aircraft are seriously over priced, to be honest, and the only reason the price point has remained high is an artificially low supply in the market. Pilots are letting their planes rot in hangars rather than have to "give them up for a song." I know of five aircraft off the top of my head that haven't been started, let alone flown, for over ten years. Why those pilots throw money down a hole in hangar rent rather than cut their losses and dump it is beyond me. I guess they're waiting for the estate lawyer to make that decision for them.

The most common excuse for the lack of GA pilots taking to the sky is AVGAS pricing, but that can't really be it. Let's look at the number of pilots versus gas prices:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...TG_NUS_DPG&f=M

Average AVGAS per gallon didn't hit over two bucks a gallon until March of 2005, but the decline was well underway before then.

Indeed, in January of 1983, the average price for 100LL was $1.30 a gallon - the price of 100LL in January of 2002? $1.12.

Factoring inflation, the price of AVGAS didn't overtake it's normal pricing until 2008.

So what changed? The cohort of pilots aged out, and there wasn't any young guys to replace them. Heck, look around your airport and in your EAA chapter. How many people hanging around under the age of 50? Not many.

I have been out of aviation strictly because of the economy. For the last 5-7 years my industry (gas and oil) has been in the dumper, at many points I was glad to survive the layoffs. Buying an airplane came WAY down the list of providing for my family and paying bills. The industry is turning and a certain amount of stability has returned. My family survived and I feel confident enough that I have a kit on order. I am a 30 year employee ( first a a contract employee and recently being hired on) of the same company and have been down this road too many times watching the cycle of good and bad. I have probably oversimplified what you are all discussing, but I am not that smart..... Lol
Rick

L16, where do you live? Attitudes toward M J vary a lot from different states, but of course if you are talking about flying or even more so driving a school bus, then no drugs should be used including some over the counter ones that can affect you and no alcohol in eight hours or in the system.
For normal activities, its not so critical, I dont use it but like most people may drive after a beer for lunch.

Wisconsin: where we already have proposals to legalize MJ. I see no useful purpose for another mind altering drug and as far as tax revenue goes I would rather pay more taxes than having this stuff available. But more to the point, the economy and jobs: if a person cannot pass a "required" drug test he/she won't be able to hold some jobs. Also, contrary to what some folks dispute it is a 'gateway drug' in many cases and you are supposed to state if you used any drugs (or DWI) when you apply to renew your pilots license.

Mike, if you take a look at so many assembly lines, not just auto, there is automation where there used to be more labor people, like the high wage union jobs that used to be in Detroit on the assembly lines, and certainly compare it to the ultra modern production like Honda, Boeing etc even at Harley Davidson. Think of machine made printed circuit boards vs hand soldering all the connections for tvs computers, avionics,appliances . My examples may not be the best or most up to date. And you may dislike Buffet or Gates and call them names that you feel are derogatory, but really, if you want to talk about making money and our economy, who would you want to listen to, someone who was not successful? If for marketing Sam Walton would be a "rightist" authority., or the Whole Foods ceos. etc. Ive seen the Ford/Jaguar auto paint system in the same factory where Spitfires were built. Gates and Buffet dont need to open any factories offshore, or really any more money. Gates gave an informed opinion with automation only one part of the discussion that I recalled. But hey, if you dont like them and therefore dont respect what he said, then you can find someone who is right wing and a business failure to follow.And the largest value company in the history of the world, Apple certainly didn't make all those millions of items by hand labor.

L16, If you dislike mj dont use it, but I think you are off on some facts. I just phoned the FAA med experts re the renewal form. If does not ask if you have ever "used any drugs" or alcohol, it asks if youve been arrested or convicted or suspended for drugs or alcohol, a much different matter. And there are states like Colorado with a thriving economy with legal mj just as there are without it. Its probably healthier for you than cheese curds!

If that's the case I stand corrected but I remember a question on drugs and alcohol when I recently completed my "basic med" so your "FAA" answer is most likely correct. I don't eat cheese curds either which is why I'm still in pretty good shape considering my advanced age.

Neither Gates nor Buffet in the discussion that I heard ever said anything like "shipping the same job to somebody who will do it cheaper being equivalent to automaton". Those are your words, and since they didnt say them, but you attribute "mixed message" to them, its reasonable to see that's your bias towards them. Did you even heard the talk on tv that I refer to, or you just suppose that is what they must have said? And my friends usually call me Bill, but for us Mr. Greenwood is it.We've never met either ,but dont think that would change like or dislike.
Mr. Mike, I did take a look at your expert book from 1946, could not make much sense of it nor see it apply to the 2017 economy, and I never heard of him in business school. My topic was the economy now and affect on aviation. Not sure what yours is but not what I m interested in .

I still think that General Aviation, due to the waning interest in it, is going to revert back to the way it was in the early days.

There will be the wealthy with fancy airplanes, replacing Art Deco and polished metal for composites and whiz bang electronics.

There will be guys building planes in their garages, spreading the cost over time, and making antennas...or nursing very old Certified planes.

I think the middle ground of the average Joe buying a C172 to fly on the weekends, as in the 1970's, is over.

Unless....dormant airplanes start coming out of hangars and into the market in numbers enough to lower the prices, and there's a decent marking effort by AOPA and EAA to attract new pilots, highlighting the new affordability. My Magic 8 ball says "outcome not likely."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Unless....dormant airplanes start coming out of hangars and into the market in numbers enough to lower the prices, and there's a decent marking effort by AOPA and EAA to attract new pilots, highlighting the new affordability. My Magic 8 ball says "outcome not likely."

---

Frank, I don't think even lowered prices will do much. When I started airplane shopping several years back, before reason and sanity set in (or departed, I'm not quite sure which) and I decided to build, I found a lot of airplanes I could afford to buy. Didn't do so well finding one I could afford to own. I don't think it's really so much the purchase price that scares people off, it's the breathtaking cost per hour of flying for gas, repairs and maintenance for those 40-70 year old airplanes most people could afford to buy.

Recent economic reports are lower airliner sales, I don't understand that , but its what I read, and higher housing figures like starts. The most recent appointee to the Federal Reserve Board yesterday said economic conditions warrant slowly higher interest rates. That's a major change from a few years back when rates were really low to stimulate the economy.

I have to say that the last couple of weeks my sleepy - read deserted - airport has seen a lot of folks pulling their airplanes out of hangars. At one point last week there were six - SIX - aircraft active (in some way or another) at the same time.

Frank, for a "deserted" airport, how did it manage to get such a long and pristine looking runway?

Oh, NASCAR keeps up the paving for the big money charter jets that come in twice a year. They also cut the grass around the field at the exact same schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Oh, NASCAR keeps up the paving for the big money charter jets that come in twice a year. They also cut the grass around the field at the exact same schedule.

---

Good for you, that's a major perk. Surprised the runway isn't an oval. 😊😉🛫

40 years ago we were making >15,000 airplanes a year; now we make 600. 40 years ago labor was cheap and machining was expensive. Today machining is relatively inexpensive and labor is VERY expense. Our airplanes are still designed for the old days. If you think a Cirrus is modern, you might want to check a calendar to see what decade you’re in. The youth today can afford a lot, but they’re not interested in my father’s or grandfather’s airplane. Nor am I. Would you be flying out of your armchair to get to the car dealer to buy a brand new $40K 1975 Chevy “Impala”?

I began flying in earnest back in 1968. I purchased a C-140 in 1969 which I flew all over the West Coast for a year before selling to fullfill my military obligation. After returning from Vietnam I bought a C-120 while stationed at Ft. Lewis.

I think I'm correct in my observation over nearly five decades that not only has the cost increased beyond the reach of the average wage earner, but also a severe decrease in interest and enthusiasm for flight and aircraft ownership has caused a steady decline in GA. The cost relation of my first Cessna was $1850 while my house in Dublin was $28000 with a 13% mortgage interest. With a $400000 mortgage today, that 15-1 ratio would be the equivalent of a $26666 airplane. Indeed, you can still buy a 70 year old C-120-40 for that price but it takes a certain enthusiast to make that purchase.

At my airport we have two busy jump centers and the traffic of young jumpers is a steady parade in front of my hangar which displays an RV4 and a sweet little Pitts S1S. In three years I have yet to experience one of these 20-30 year olds stop by and inquire about these homebuilts. I would welcome a visit but their interest is not there.

Cheers, Hans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saber25

... but their interest is not there. Cheers, Hans

---

I whole-heartedly agree with you. There is no interest from the younger generations. They see airplanes as an expensive luxury toy. In reality new airplanes were rarely luxury toys ... including today. Used airplanes may fit that category for some people. Small airplanes (including business jets) were and are business tools, hence the Cessna 180/185/190/195s being nicknamed "Businessliners". A mid-size business jet may be $20M, but that resource saves the company more than that in executive time (payroll). On the smaller side, doctors, real estate personnel, oilmen, etc. can expand their operations areas with an airplane.) Most of the small Cessnas fly supplies in Alaska. More than my 2 cents worth :)

There are some interesting parallels to be made there.

In 1969, a C-120 or C-140 was probably considered a nice little airplane. In much the same way, a Honda or Kaw 400 would have been a perfectly fine motorcycle and a 2500 square foot house was a big, fancy place suitable for a family of 7 or 8.

Today -- 2500 square feet is just slightly more than "cozy", a "real" motorcycle does 180 in third gear (or weighs in at half a ton, depending on your criteria), and a little Cessna like that is something most adults could barely wedge themselves into. Airplanes within the financial means of most people are not really viable for transportation, and something with utility - like a 182 or Cirrus - is prohibitively expensive to own and operate. People get into my RV-12, which is more-or-less reasonably cheap to own and operate by today's standards, and it scares the hell out of most of them. They've been in SUVs and airliners their entire lives.

The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors, not the reason for its decrease.

Through WWII, only the major roads were paved. Driving any distance meant hours on dusty (or muddy) dirt roads; doing it in the summer in many areas meant a hot, sticky, dusty trip. Often the way was rough, too, since dirt roads tend to get potholed and washboarded. There were few "expressways"; most major roads went right through every town on the way, which meant you ended up repeatedly slowing and stopping for traffic lights/stop signs.

In these circumstances, even a J-3 looked good. You could drive 200 miles in the heat and dust in six or seven hours... or fly in the smooth, cool air above it for three. Something like a Stinson? Pure luxury. Most airports were turf, and that was fine for the old taildraggers of the day.

Then, in the 1950s, came the Interstate Highway System. It was intended as a high-speed transportation corridor for the military in time of war. No more dust, no more stopping. No more rough, washboard roads. You could maintain a speed close to what that J-3 could manage, and do it even if the weather was less than clement. True, you couldn't necessarily go direct to your destination. But the whole point about major metropolises is that MANY people live there...so the good roads were there for a lot of people.

When I was a kid, we'd drive ~200 miles from home to the farm where my Dad grew up. The interstate made a tremendous difference...until we got to the point where we had to turn off I-94 and head north for 40 miles on a county road. Today, most of those roads are paved, too.

At the same time, cars got better. The smoother roads meant a better ride, and car manufacturers could tweak the suspensions to get a pretty smooth trip on the new roads. By the late '60s, air conditioning was getting less and less of a luxury accessories. By the late '60s, air conditioning was even standard on one brand of cars. Cruise control made long trips even easier.

At this point, it was getting harder for General Aviation to compete. The Cessna 172s of the era were a bit faster than the old J-3, but many of the advantages of air travel were fading. The trip to my Dad's old homestead was three hours by car, vs. ~1:30 for the Cessna, and you didn't waste time loading the car THEN transferring it to the Skyhawk. There weren't any hard-surface runways near Wing, North Dakota. Dad's Pontiac could plunge ahead in just about any weather. Sure, there were dirt portions of the trip, but you could roll the windows up and crank on the AC. The door-to-door times were MUCH more equivalent, and if you bought something large, you could just strap it on the roof to get it home.

There were faster light airplane available. But the prices went up pretty steeply, and unless the distances were really far, they weren't that big of an advantage.

Now...add THAT to the revolution in commercial air travel in the 1970s. It used to be that there were relatively few flights, and the air fares were pretty steep. There are lots of arguments against the deregulation that caused such a big change, but the fact is that flights got cheaper and easier to catch. A round-trip ticket from Los Angeles to New York City was about $170 in 1960; you can find it for ~$300 today. That's, basically, only doubled over a period where the median income increased by a factor of ten.

It used to be that you could market the upscale GA aircraft to the business traveler. Now, though, the infrastructure is there to whisk the businesswoman hundreds or thousands of miles for really not that much money.

So there it was. The improvements in cars and roads reduced the private utility of small aircraft, while the rise of commercial air travel lured away the business traveler. Lower demand for small aircraft meant fewer were built...and the prices, naturally went higher, and the investment money for improvements in the breed were harder to find. Couple that with the financial crises of the 70s and 80s, and the gas shortages over the same period, and it's not surprising the bottom dropped out of the GA market. And, basically, has stayed out.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors,... <snip>...And, basically, has stayed out.

Ron Wanttaja

---

This follows the same logic I posted on another forum years ago. Clearly a brilliant synopsis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors ,,, it's not surprising the bottom dropped out of the GA market. And, basically, has stayed out. Ron Wanttaja

---

If everything is so bleak (and has been for 40 years), why are you (and others on this forum) still involved? Personally, I for one, would like to see it improved. There is still a niche range for small general aviation airplanes (too many to list). The interstates may have a speed limit of 75mph, but in any metro area it's more like 35-40mph when you (and millions of others) want to travel. A great example of this is LA to Las Vegas with straight line interstate between the two and frequent airline flights, too.

To borrow a little from Ken Blanchard, "Our cheese has moved." Unless we go in search of new cheese, we will perish. Aviation today is UAVs, drones, quadcopters, etc. Why aren't we capitalizing on these technologies? Everything that is currently being accomplished by these vehicles can also be safely accomplished by manned vehicles, too. .. and more efficiently.

Yes, sorry, I am on my soapbox ... but I am trying to "light a fire", inspire, etc.

I am a long time EAAer and even worked directly for Paul P. to start my working aviation career. My dad took a swim near Cherbourg, France due to a German submarine torpedoing and sinking the troop ship he was on. But WWII, Korean and Vietnam era aviation doesn't excite me (I do appreciate all who fought and perished for our freedoms).

We need to do something today to make our industry great and relevant again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Blum

If everything is so bleak (and has been for 40 years), why are you (and others on this forum) still involved?

---

Primary land transportation system for thousands of years was the horse. Either ridden by itself, or hitched to a mechanism that allowed it to pull thousands of pounds of wagon and material.

A bit over a hundred years ago, the horse became obsolete. The internal combustion engine turned out to be a far superior basis for human transport.

So...did horses disappear? Are they viewable only in zoos?

Of course not. They became recreational rides; people don't ride them/hitch them to wagons for serious transportation, but they do it just for the fun of it.

Hmmmm... "recreational rides". Remind you of any Experimental Aircraft Associations you know of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Blum

To borrow a little from Ken Blanchard, "Our cheese has moved." Unless we go in search of new cheese, we will perish. Aviation today is UAVs, drones, quadcopters, etc. Why aren't we capitalizing on these technologies? Everything that is currently being accomplished by these vehicles can also be safely accomplished by manned vehicles, too. .. and more efficiently.

---

Ohhh, my old soapbox about how General Aviation needs to evolve. Lemme brush some Duz flakes off the top before I step up and repeat what I've been saying on various forums for years.

Why doesn't the average citizen like General Aviation? There are probably two major reasons:

1. It's dangerous, and
2. It requires learning an esoteric skill many people are afraid of.

(#3 is that it's expensive, but that's a market thing. Make it popular again, and prices will go down.)

The key thing is that #1 and #2 are related. Take a simple, classic airplane like the Cessna 172. About 72% of the accidents are due to pilot error. 60% are plain mistakes at the controls (pilot miscontrol), and the other 12% are judgement problems (running out of fuel, VFR into IMC, etc.).

Oddly enough, the blame can be laid at one simple, low cost component: The 1/8" aviation control cable.

114 years after the Wright brothers, we're STILL controlling the airplanes the same way they did: By physical manipulation of aircraft surfaces to make the plane move in the direction the pilot thinks he wants. It's idiotic. We have self-driving cars, now...why not self-flying airplanes? Sever the damn control cables and put a computer to work. Why force an airplane operator to know how to fly coordinated turns, and achieve a target airspeed and glide angle, and manage their fuel, and fiddle with the mixture and carb heat, and a myriad other things that have NOTHING TO DO with the desire to travel from point A to point B? A computer could do that far better.

Give the operator a control screen for them to tell the plane where to go, and let the plane go there. Give the owner a little tiller if you want, to let them drive the plane on the ground. But once they tell the plane to fly, it should be able to find the active runway, take off, and head to the destination. Geeze, we're all putting ADS-B systems on our planes, so traffic avoidance is simplified.

Put a CAPS onboard, and let the computer activate it if it detects a safety issue. Give the occupants a big red handle, too, so they can pop the chute if they're scared. Winds too strong to land? Let the computer fly the plane over to an area safe for a CAPS descent, and activate it at the right time.

IFR conditions? Ain't gonna scare the computer. Running out of gas? The computer won't let you. No more stalling, no more spinning, no more undershooting, no more forgetting to lower the landing gear.

That's not flying, you say? That's not being a pilot?

Well, yes, that's true. But remember, we're not talking recreation, here. We're talking what aviation was originally designed to do...provide aerial transportation. Get human error out of the loop, and you'll eliminate a ton of accidents. The increased safety will get more interest, as will the ability to fly above the traffic.

Nothing prevents hard-case guys from continuing to manually fly their Fly Babies, Nieuports, and RVs.... just like thousands of citizens spend their leisure going out the saddle up ol' Dobbin for a quick canter through the park.

Ron "Come on, Concorde!" Wanttaja

I completely agree with you (Ron W. #1). We could even make your Fly Baby the prototype. Let's find a US investor and do this! Seriously!

Ron "I'm (all but financially) capable of making this happen" Blum

The Flybaby won the EAA design contest partly to promote folding wings. I would rather trailer it to Oshkosh with my air conditioned car on I -90 at 75-80 mph than fly it in the turbulence that would kill me after 4 hours.
Flying for useful transportation has only worked for me about 3 times in 43 years of recreational aircraft ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

I would rather trailer it [my Fly Baby] to Oshkosh with my air conditioned car on I -90 at 75-80 mph than fly it in the turbulence that would kill me after 4 hours.

---

Yes! Exactly! The "Fly Baby" (although a great airplane ... I have many friends that love theirs) is not designed for long distance transportation It would however make for great recreational transportation in an area like Wichita, where you could fly it to 5, 6, 7 airports on a weekend day to check out what everyone else is doing (including giving you free burgers just for flying in). You couldn't do that in a car.

I also have a friend with an Air Bike. He has flown it from Derby, KS (just south of Wichita) to Oshkosh at least a couple times. When I mention that it would be less expensive to fly a C182, he laughs and tells me his hourly fuel burn rate. But, he's not looking at the number of hours it takes him to get there ... the C182 is more economical (especially if there is any wind ... and we are in Kansas).

As Charlie Johnson (former Cessna COO and CEO, at Bye Aerospace now, I believe) used to say, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've already got." Exactly.

We have to do something different. Our cheese has moved. Let's go find it!

(Thinking out loud ... in an online forum). Would you guys be interested in an Oshkosh forum on this topic if I put one together?

Thanks,
Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

The Flybaby won the EAA design contest partly to promote folding wings. I would rather trailer it to Oshkosh with my air conditioned car on I -90 at 75-80 mph than fly it in the turbulence that would kill me after 4 hours.

---

For the 20th anniversary of the Fly Baby's win, Pete Bowers offered to let Chapter 26 use N500F as a club airplane if they restored it. Chapter members flew it to Oshkosh in 1982 for the 20th, and in 1987 for the 25th anniversary. Four chapter members did the flying...one there, one back, for each trip.

None of those guys who flew the airplane on those trips flew it again, other than one or two minor flights. That ~1300 mile flight, in an open cockpit sitting on the most brutal aircraft seat ever designed, cured them of interest in the airplane.

Been flying one Fly Baby or the other for thirty years now, and *I* wouldn't want to take that trip...even with the (slightly) more comfortable seat in my plane.

It's something to consider when designing future personal air transportation. Folks have a much higher standard of comfort now, when it comes to transportation. Wasn't much to compare between auto and aircraft comfort in 1920, but the bar is much, much higher now. This, of course, reduces available payload and makes it tougher to produce a viable machine.
https://history.denverlibrary.org/si...dm_63062_0.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Blum,
I always like new forums. Let me know if want help with a forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

Ron Blum,
I always like new forums. Let me know if want help with a forum.

---

(with an email address) I’ll throw a PowerPoint by you early in the new year. You have me thinking ... and excited! Thanks!

new employment figures are out and positive, job growth goes back, I think 4 years of positive figures