why was GA bigger (50-80's)?

I go to FlightSafety every year for sim training. That training counts as actual flight time and is signed off by an instructor in my log book.

I wonder how long it will be before you can do all your training from day 1 in the sim using no gas and go immediately to flying 737's for Delta.

 

That's pretty much the way it is. You do all your training in the sim. Get your type rating, then go fly the airplane. Your first flight in the real airplane is a revenue flight. You're just with an instructor pilot for the first xx hours.

 

That's nonsense. You can find Cirruses (Cirri?) for around $100k, and that's a perfectly good cross country machine. Furthermore, I doubt a Cirrus is $300/hour, although of course it all depends on what you include in that hourly figure and how you amortize fixed costs.

 

I believe that we were talking about new airplanes here not used. New airplanes like we are talking about here are indeed near $500k or more.

I don't know if it's going to be $300/hr but when you consider all maintenance (annuals, engine reserve, avionics reserve and any other maintenance that pops up) and then fuel is not cheap. If you are adding in depreciation it's probalby more than $300/hr. Heck with fuel right at $6.00/gallon, you are looking at $120/hr @ 20 gal/hr just for fuel alone. If you added hangar and insurance you probably are at least $300/hr.

 

I don't see why the comparison should be limited to new airplanes. True, in the late 1970s new airplanes were relatively very attractive because of tax breaks. Now, however, those tax breaks are largely gone and used aircraft are attractive because you can get similar transportation for less money.

I remember in the late 1970s when a friend of my brother bought a new Turbo Commander a year after he took delivery of his previous one (also new), because with the tax breaks, the new one was cheaper than the one year old one!

Obviously that's not the case any more.

As for the operating cost, there are many ways to slice and dice that-- in the end you can make it as cheap or as expensive as you want. No different than Ferraris, where you can include depreciation and come up with some absurd per mile costs.

 

It wasn't just the investment tax credit (10% of the new purchase price if the aircraft was to be used in a "business"). While that surely helped my decision to buy a new airplane, the cost in real dollars for new aircraft was alot lower (relative to income levels), which made them a lot more affordable, and that is what spurred production.

The late 70's were a boom time, aircraft were, relative to earnings, inexpensive, and they made a boatload of them, which kept the price down. When the Fed decided to shut down the econonmy in 1980 interest rates shot up, credit got tight, and the economy tanked. At the same time they were stopping the Investment tax credit, cutting back on Veterans Administration flight school money, so there were fewer students, less investment in airplanes and the aviation industry never recovered. Later Slick Willie added in the "luxury tax" and that put the last nail in the coffin for GA.

Because production had been curtailed for a long time, Cirrus was able to step in to meet the demand for new airplanes and this grew and then dropped back to a sustainable level, which is where they are now.

In order to see high production rates again, the manufacturing process is going to have to be advanced so that airframes are less expensive. Otherwise, what you see is what you're going to get for the next 20 years. Right now, there actually lots of expensive cars that, if you could make an airplane for that kind of money (maybe $150k) you could sell a bunch of them again. Until the price comes down new, capable cross country airplanes will still be something that only the seriously wealthy can afford.

 

OK please find me one. My actual experience renting and owning a Cirrus is vastly different.

2004 SR22 cost $200K and eats $250+ per hour unless of course you plan to come out of pocket full MOH cost at TBO

 

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CIRRUS-SR20/2001-CIRRUS-SR20/1223271.htm?

Or, if you don't like that one:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CIRRUS-SR20/2002-CIRRUS-SR20/1191299.htm?

Or this one:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CIRRUS-SR20/2000-CIRRUS-SR20/1226557.htm?

There are lots more on controller.com.

Also, those are asking prices-- I suspect that actual purchase price would be significantly lower.

 

Those are SR20's. Not SR22's. Big difference.

 

I'm sure there is. However, you can't argue that a 140 kt airplane isn't decent transportation-- certainly better than a 1970s 182.

I believe the point I was addressing was that you can't get a decent traveling airplane for less than $500k, and I have to think an SR20 is a decent traveling airplane.

 

yes we can...all day long... 140K is slow in the world of flying... at that pace driving is only a bit slower...driving is better in real time, flexibility and cost...

 

I don't think I have ever flown a 182 that slow, typically they are about 15% faster in general use

 

just checked with Cessna specs, they show a 150K cruise, I keep on thinking in the high 150 range as what we generally got... Cessna's coming off production jigs could be improved upon with a little adjusting and almost zero effort... the first area to work with was the wings, there is a simple adjustment of 3-5 degrees... fine tuning made a great difference

 

My dad was an Eastern Airlines Pilot based in Miami for 25 years. We lived in Sarasota Florida and he would drive almost four hours to work (no direct road across the everglades.) So he bought a 172 and eventually an Apache. The twin might have only flown at 130kts but it shaved 6 hours off of the round trip and he liked having that second engine over the glades. I think he paid about twice what a new car would cost for the 1959 Apache in 1980 and he saved quite a few miles on the Buick by doing so.

Unfortunately, there was another Airline Captain doing the same thing who presumably busted minimums and lined up with the taxiway in SRQ hitting a 727. The list is long of pilots pushing the limits and coming up short. The reality is light airplanes have their uses but if you absolutely have to get there, don't count on flying yourself. "Time to spare, go by air."


Done safely though, nothing beats flying yourself even if it isn't cost effective.
Dave
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

a fine tuned 182 RG was a 185-190k airplane, we were pushing into C-210 range. All we did was "screw driver tech"...it started out as a rainy day thing when we were going through the service manual and noticed all the little internal adjustments that could be made...
it was a fly and try thing, after some use the airframe takes a set and needs a little TLC to bring it into better trim...the various components drift from when they were built on a jig... the adjustments made things work together better

 

I was doing cross country air racing in the early and mid 80's. The straight leg and in particular the 182RG was one of the acknowledged "overdogs" because with a bit of tuning and cleanup work you could beat the heck out of the handicaps that were based on "book" airspeeds.

While a lot of airplane "book" speeds are a joke, a properly tuned 182 will run a lot better than Cessna ever claimed it would. Tweaking the wing incidence is just part of it... But I didn't usually see much over 174kts true (6500 ft cruise near gross wt) most of the time in mine (19kts better than book), and I had done some other cleanup. Also that airplane is very sensitive to weight. The more nose up it flies the more those big open gear wells grab the air and slow you down, so if it is light it's a lot faster than the book (which is based on gross weights). That's also why the incidence change really helps it, it changes the airflow over the open gear wells. I don't doubt that at light weights and with some careful tweaking you could get to the speeds you are talking about at low altitides and full power, but you'd also be sitting on the forward trim stop and running near the redline speeds.

Once I posted my experience with the airplane on here and some openly said I had to be kidding, that there was no way you could get that kind of speed from a 182RG, based on ones they had flown........ Good to see that I'm not alone in what I found way back then...

After I quit cross country racing I had calls from other racers around the country wanting to rent my airplane to run some of the more important races...

I always thougth the 182RG was a very underrated airplane compared to the other 200 hp singles. It has more power, better climb rate, more useful load, carries more gas and is actually about as fast a Mooney 201. Not quite as efficient as a 201 but actually a much more useful airplane.

 

cosmetically Cessnas were agricultural, but with a little TLC they could turn some very good numbers... they were a high volume manufacturer and didn't spend time tweaking what they kicked out the door...it was all about price... we turned that into more sales and better service

as I mentioned, we found a lot of speed tweaking, just working within the available adjustments, which is what you found as well. There was a time when I had a 182 RG Turbo out, picking up a bit of a southerly jet when center came on to verify they were tracking the correct aircraft. Every now and then it is possible to hook up with the jet stream and turn in some obscene numbers that blows minds at center especially after they confirm the equipment :=)

 

I went to www.cessna.com for current values...150k and 1129# with full fuel ( if I transcribed correct ) which is in line when I was playing with Cessna product. The 139k speed still seems a bit light... ~ it is what it are ~ things could have improved in that time... anyway between speed, payload, and utility, it's a hard to beat the 182

 

I don't disagree. I spent 6 months flying a new Archer. I flew it all over the place. It's a lot faster than driving. But it's not gonna replace the airlines.

 

The controller only sees what's in front of him. The tag on the target says C182, so he's thinking it should be doing MAYBE 130-140 kts.. But his track is moving pretty good, so he hits the GS button and a BIG number pops up.. He says WTF... Is somebody flying something under somebody else's call sign????? No way a 182 is doing well over 200 knots!

I had the exact same experience... center says - "7Delta Golf, say type aircraft"... Reply... "7Delta Golf is a C182"... Center - "7Delta Golf, I have you at 210kts true and show you climbing??... say type again please.." Reply.. "7DG is a modified C182RG.... and yes, we are climbing out of 10 for 12, with about a 50 knot tailwind in cruise climb"... Center... "ooooh kayyyy...guess that explains it????"

Later in the same trip when Athens GA (my mid trip fuel stop) was socked in...

Center, (in typical controller condecending voice)... "7DG, Athens on site station is reporting ceiling indefinite and under a 1/4 mile visibility, I've just had a King Air declare a miss there, what are your intentions"... (implication is that if a KA with all it's fancy equipment can't get down you, you sir, lowly Cessna are in for big trouble)..

Reply (in upbeat voice)... "Roger, understand Athens unavailable, I have a flight plan on file to 5G9 I'd like to activate that and continue on that as planned"... quiet on the line for a bit.... then Center (somewhat curt now) "7DG I show you departing Venice and want to amend to Toleldo - cannot accept a fight plan that you cannot execute"... Reply... "roger, understand will go to Toledo Suburban as planned with fuel on board"...

Quiet on the line for a few moments as the controller ponders the implications of a C182 going from Venice Florida to Toledo Ohio non-stop....... Center (now he's incredulous).... "7DG......how much darn gas does that thing hold????!!!"...

Reply.. "Roger,,, 88 usable, we've been getting some tailwind and have no problem reaching 5G9" Center.. (now he's resigned)... "sigh... Ok 7DG. cleared to Athens direct, cross Athens VOR at 12 thousand and proceed on course as filed"

And we did. Not only did I get to destination, we shot a missed approach there and landed at the alternate (Tol) and put 77 gallons in after an almost 7 hour trip... Even after the missed approach and landing at the alternate I had more than an hour of reserve. Pretty impressive airplane.