Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Tarheel Pilot]

After reading several threads and post on several aviation related message board, about the decreasing numbers of pilots, and the rising cost of flying, do you believe that general aviation in the United States is dying?

From my own perspective, it really doesn't help that 100LL fuel prices is going up along with Insurance rates. Mogas would be a suitable alternative to the 100LL if it wasn't for the fact that most of them contain ethanol which is harmful to an aircraft engine.

As for the current pilot pool, what we're seeing are the baby boomers hanging up their headsets, there's less people becoming pilots because there's less people in the subsequent generations after the baby boomers.

Which doesn't really bode well for GA, less people equal less revenue for FBOs, flight schools, etc. which means higher rate just to stay afloat.

Is GA dying? Maybe, maybe not, maybe what we're seeing is a paradigm shift in how General Aviation operates in the United States. Only time will tell, but I do know that if the current crops of pilots are willing to be proactive, and reach out to the general public, to educate them on general aviation and to offer flights to get them hook, then maybe everything will be ok.

Thoughts?

 

[Jim Logajan]

do you believe that general aviation in the United States is dying?

No.

.....

 

[Jim Logajan]

My very quick and dirty research yields the following:

• Median salary in 1960 was $5,600.
• A new Cessna 150 in 1960: $6,995.
• Median salary in 2010 was $39,336.

From those statistics, why don't we have any $49,000 two seaters in 2011? To me, that would be a reasonable cost.

So how about a new two seater for $59,995?

http://www.x-airlsa.com/index.php

Or $46,995 and ~250 hours of labor for a new airplane like this:

http://www.skykits.com/Kit_Pricing.html

 

[Jim Logajan]

I don't know of any complex LSA aircraft. Commercial requires complex time.

Definition of LSA airplane precludes any such ever being "complex" because LSA must have only fixed pitch (or ground adjustable) prop and fixed gear.

Otherwise LSA can be used for PP and IR training if airplane is properly equipped since the definition of LSA doesn't preclude night and IR equipment being installed.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Does an amphibian LSA count as having retractable gear? It would still not meet the adjustable pitch prop. (At least I'm not going to stop the engine, get out and adjust it while gliding, get back in a restart.)

John

As far as I can tell by section 61.31, any seaplane with flaps and controllable pitch prop is all that is needed for complex; no need for retractable gear. Ironically, the FAA does now allow the equivalent of retractable gear for amphibian LSA. At least that is my understanding.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I did a silly thing and used Google to see what I would find using the keywords "evektor" "sportster" "rental".

As best I can make out, for places that rent both C-172s and Evektors, the latter are being rented out much cheaper. The Evektor wet rental rates were less than that of their C-172s; generally closer but slightly higher than their C-152s. Here's a quick sampling; I didn't get beyond these:

http://skyventureinc.com/aircraftRental/
http://www.dragonflyaviation.com/Training_Rental_Rates.html
http://www.sunriseaviation.com/prices-purchase.html
http://www.aviationsalesinc.com/aircraft-rental/rental-and-training-fleet-at-aviation-sales.html
http://www.skyraideraviation.com/fleet.htm

There seems little need to argue theoretical pricing and payback when some have already crossed this ground in the real world. (The interesting thing is to see a 30 year old C-152 worth maybe $25k rent for $88/hr and a 6 year old C-172 worth maybe $150k rent for $142/hr. Why is the C-152 so expensive, or the C-172 so cheap, relative to the actual asset costs and fuel burn differences?)

But some people are reporting interesting "outliers" on this forum - particularly on the low end.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Cheapest LSAs that look like normal airplanes are:

- Allegro, as made in Sanford -- same 90k that Luscombe promised. I do not know of any delivered. About 30 Czech-made "2007" models fly around. No suspicious crashes, the flying qualities are said to be improved over the "2000" model, which Mr. Flying Cheese Head called "complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true".

- X-Air -- 60k. This is basically as low as an airplane can go without turning into a complete homebuilt-like. You get a Lexan windshield, etc. The airplane actually exists, they sell about 10 a year. There are enthusiasts that fly them around and love them.

- Cheetah -- 70k, same as X-Air, but I do not know of many

- Aerotrek -- the villain in the SomethingFox scandal, apparently, but that water flowed under that bridge back in the 20th century. 69k like X-Air, but somewhat slicker marketing. Seems like the same quality from the outside and from Dan Johnson videos. Well-proven EuroFox design. Comes in 2 varieties: conventional and tricycle undercarriage.

- Also, there was an entry that tried to aim to 65k with a tube-cage airframe with the classic ultralight layout, Sport Hornet. Unfortunately, I have been informed that the company in Oklahoma folded and was liquidated.

So it seems that nobody can go below 60k for tube+fabric LSA and below 110k for a metal, composite, or combo airplane. Allegro is trying, but we'll see.

-- Pete

Actually metal and composite airplanes can be purchased, ready to fly, for under $110k; even under $100k:

- Savannah -- $77k from Skykits Corp; metal; ready to fly: http://www.skykits.com/RTF_Pricing.html

- J-170 -- $90k from Jabiru; composite; ready to fly: http://www.jabirupacific.com/specs/j170sp.htm

- Lightning -- $99k from Arion; composite; ready to fly: http://www.flylightning.net/images/pdf/2011LSABrochurerev3-2-11.pdf

They all look like real airplanes to me; all under $100k (admittedly just barely in the case of the Lightning.)

I'm surprised no one has yet set up shop to build and sell RV-12s in the $90k range (probably have and I have missed the fact.) Would be legal to do that.

(Back in the tube-and-fabric category is the venerable Kitfox, which could be added as another contender:

- Super Sport -- $84k from Kitfox; tube-and-fabric; ready to fly: http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/Kitfox-SLSA.htm )

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thanks, Jim - duly noted. I knew about J-170, but forgot to write down the price.

I honestly hadn't really paid much attention to the J-170 since a J-430/230 experimental has always been closer to what I would want, but I just noticed in the J-170 specs that its fuel consumption of 3.4 gph at 100 kts and a 35 gal fuel tank yields over 33 smpg and an endurance of over 10 hours and range of over 1000 nm! Of course, that leaves only 350 lbs left for people and toothbrushes. Still, no one can complain about having to land too often for fuel!

 

[Jim Logajan]

- Cheetah -- 70k, same as X-Air, but I do not know of many

Just realized I hadn't seen that model before (http://www.mwsportaviation.com/cheetah-xls/specifications-and-price.html ) though it is listed for a very basic plane on that website for between $50k and $64k for an SLSA.

 

[Jim Logajan]

For anyone just entering the market looking to buy new, the "high" $100k+ price for many LSAs is still a lot cheaper than the next rung up the ladder to most 4 seat Part 23 certified airplanes.

Going forward it seems to me that the only two classes of planes that will eventually dominate the U.S. "fleet" of single engine planes are LSAs and EABs. Attrition happens and something has to replace planes that become un-airworthy. It is unlikely that shiny new 172s or its cousins will be able to compete with shiny new LSAs and EABs. Prospects will find themselves adjusting their mission requirements downward.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What is the basis for your contention that the fleet will become un-airworthy?

On what basis do you think any airplane will remain flying forever?

(Even if they didn't submit to wear-and-tear of time, my understanding is that around 1% of the fleet is damaged beyond repair in accidents each year. What aircraft do you think prospective buyers will replace them with?)

 

[Jim Logajan]

Didn't your mama teach you that it's impolite to answer a question with a question?

Isn't that a self-referentially indicted question?

Anyhoo, with regard to the original question of this thread, I came across the following interesting abstract of a report produced in 1991 by the TRB (interesting to compare their predictions with what has transpired in the following 20 years):

"The panel on light general aviation examined the current and future status of light general aviation aircraft, defined as fixed-wing aircraft, powered by single or multiple piston engines and weighing less than 12,500 lbs. The following trends were identified: Fleet size will remain relatively constant. Flying for personal and instructional purposes will continue to increase. Piston-engine aircraft flying for other than personal or instructional purposes will continue to decline. New aircraft designs will enter the fleet primarily through the kit-built industry. The attrition rate for used piston-powered aircraft will increase. There will be increased demand for retrofit of avionics equipment and other aircraft systems. The number of airports open for public use will continue to decline. Small airports will find it increasingly difficult to get federal funding assistance for airport improvements, thus reducing the utility of these airports. The number of hours flown by the piston-powered airplane fleet will grow at the same rate as the GNP. The number of active general aviation pilots will continue to decline, but the average hours flown by the remaining pilots will increase. Federal regulations will require more equipment on light general aviation aircraft, especially if those aircraft operate near large metropolitan areas. Mandatory additional recurrent training for pilots will cause relatively inactive pilots to become completely inactive and those pilots who remain active to become more competent and skilled, improving the general aviation accident rate."

From: http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=364515

Between 1991 and 2008, fixed wing piston fleet size dropped from 173k to 163k: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_13.html

Kit-built fleet has gone up per the above BTS reference.

I believe accident rate has nudged down just a small bit in those 20 years.

Really not sure about how they did on the rest of their predictions - look mostly correct to me. Though light sport certification would seem to contradict their expectations in the last sentence.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Normally market forces would work this out, but government over-regulation and airplane chasing parasitic lawyers have us in a death spiral.

I'm all for bashing government over-regulation, but FAA regulations are not terribly onerous, insurance can be made a non-factor, and lawsuits not a big factor in setting costs for experimental homebuilts and LSAs. Yet such aircraft are still not "cheap". Consider:

When you take into account only the kit or raw material costs for an RV-10 or Sportsman 2+2, while they are much cheaper than the comparable C-182 (nice comparison table: http://www.painttheweb.com/painttheweb/RV-10/Stats.aspx) the average income person will still consider them as very expensive planes. Likewise, the kit or raw material costs for a Kitfox Super Sport 7 or Jabiru 430 , while much cheaper than the (roughly!) comparable C-172, are still pushing the budget envelope for many people even if they value their labor at $0.

 

[Jim Logajan]

FYI, the situation today in the G.A. fleet and pilot population includes the following:

• The average age of all registered airplanes is ~39 years.
• The average age of all registered single engine piston airplanes having 1 to 3 seats is an astounding ~48 years. (I wonder how much these average ages will decline once the FAA "cleans up" its registration database.)
• The average of all registered single engine piston airplanes having 4 seats is "just" ~38 years.
• The average single engine piston airplane consumes ~13.3 gph of 100LL.
• The average Light Sport aircraft consumes ~5.0 gph of 100LL.
• In 1993 the average age of a student pilot was ~33.7 - but in 2010 that number had declined to ~31.4.
• In December 2010, the 20 to 24 year age group had the most students. with 30,631 out of the total of 119,119 students.
• On the other hand, in 1993 the average age of a private pilot was ~42.7 but by 2010 the average had climbed to ~47.6.

These and many more interesting stats not cited came from here: http://www.gama.aero/media-center/i...ics/statistical-databook-and-industry-outlook

 

[Jim Logajan]

Use all you want the earth will make more.

That concept is quite old (I recall reading about it several decades ago, due to Thomas Gold's writings) but even with the experiment described, it is still a minority view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

 

[Jim Logajan]

I have said before and still think if someone could come up with an electric 2 seat trainer with replaceable cells that would run 2 hours plus reserve you could save GA. Oh and keep it to about 60K all in with a couple of battery packs.

If you make the cost of entry cheap people will upgrade as they go.

Here's a one seat true electric ultralight trike that costs between $15k and $20k (depending on size of battery) with between 1 and 2 hours of endurance that can be purchased today:

http://www.electraflyer.com/trike.php

 

[Jim Logajan]

I think it needs to be a "plane" for the average person to be interested. It could be simple with parts that are pull over fabric covered I suppose but it has to feel stable and substantial and if at all possible should have an all airplane chute not because it needs it but whether real or imagined people feel safer that way.

Naturally that is tougher to do; there appears to be a Wikipedia page devoted to known electric aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

 

[Jim Logajan]

A quad copter that you can also drive on the road would save aviation, IMO. This would also make airports obsolete, which would save more money too. While Moller is a money sink for many, his skycar 400 would be a true game changer. The ability to take off in one's drive way, fly direct and land where you want would be simply amazing. If you could build that for sub $125K (the cost of a BMW M5) it would change the face of transportation today.

If you have a VTOL vehicle that can fly direct between points, why would you need powered wheels on it? (Other than for pushing it into a hangar or garage; small castors would do the trick for such cases.)

Also, a web search using the keywords "VTOL" "aircraft" seems to suggest that a fair number of people have ideas for building such vehicles - many appear to be unfunded or underfunded.