2 ms·

General aviation is expensive certainly and for a select few very wealthy individuals. I call it cheap because there is a way to solve it, but owners of small p

General aviation is expensive certainly and for a select few very wealthy individuals. I call it cheap because there is a way to solve it, but owners of small planes are choosing not to do so (and they're not compelled to do so despite the known externalities of their outdated machinery). Maintaining a beautiful car from the days of the Cold War is also not cheap, but it can be retrofitted to pass emissions tests. If you don't, you can't legally drive it. I don't see why the same doesn't apply to aircraft.

missedthecue 4y ago
I mean, there's being cheap and then there's getting a new aviation engine FAA certified. Those aren't exactly the same thing and Bob the dentist who likes to take his Cessna 172 up on weekends can't simply approve a new engine. This is why buying a new spec Cessna 172 from the factory floor today will still come with the good old Lycoming O-360 engine, introduced in 1955. Cessna sells ~250 172s per year, nowhere near enough to justify new engine approval.
- bdefore 4y ago
  I'm no expert, but I'll express a wish: that modern supply constraints mean Lycoming O-360 engines may be noncompetitive to an engine design conceived today. Perhaps these old engines are suppressing the investment into an invention that turns a 250 person market into a 25,000 one?
tonyarkles 4y ago
The trick is that there’s two tiers of expensive for GA: - People buying, say, a new SR22 for $779,000 - People buying, say, a 1976 Cessna 172 for $72,000 and splitting it with 3 friends Having Cirrus work on, say, regular Mogas by contracting Continental to develop a new engine would be expensive but the buyers aren’t particularly price sensitive and amortized across the typical lifetime of an aviation engine design (the IO-550 in the SR22 was first delivered in 1983) likely wouldn’t hurt much. Trying to come up with an engine swap for the O-320 in that ‘76 172 is a whole other can of worms. Who’s going to even sign off on it? The whole aircraft is 50 years old and designed and certificated for that specific engine. There’s no financial incentive for Cessna to do it, and even if they did, the cost to do the swap would likely significantly exceed the financial capacity of many owners. I absolutely would love to see a financially viable way to get past this! The use of LL fuel in 2022 is tragic. On the other hand, killing off a big chunk of the GA industry and leaving it solely in the purview of the Wealthy and not just dedicated hobbyists… that sucks. For context, my family has an old Piper J3 sitting in a hangar on a farm. It definitely needs an overhaul, but to get it back in the air would likely be a low 5-figure bill; retrofitting a Mogas engine onto it in such a way that it doesn’t need to be categorized as “experimental” would be… prohibitive.
- bdefore 4y ago
  Thanks for this context. I'm not a pilot but I can absolutely relate to the joy such a machine could give. I'd like to ask one thing further: Do you think the existence of these older cheaper planes is holding back the development of upstart companies aiming for a price point that's closer to the Cessna 172 than the SR22? If leaded fuel engines were banned by the FAA today, would that create an opportunity for new entries, maybe with EV/hybrid engines? Or are there fundamentally different manufacturing economics to safely put something like that up in the air at that price point today?
  - marcus0x62 4y ago
    There are already alternative engines in wide use (particularly on ultralights and light-sport aircraft) that can run on regular, unleaded gasoline, like the Rotax 912[0]. The issue, as others have pointed out, is getting these newer engines certified for use on existing, older planes. This would require extensive testing to get a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”) to allow the engine to be installed on a certified aircraft (think anything manufactured, like a Cessna 172 or Piper Cub.) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912
    - bdefore 4y ago
      I wonder if this extensive testing could be funded by a tax on leaded fuel. Seems like this would benefit everyone.
      - marcus0x62 4y ago
        Sure, or the FAA could just go ahead and approve G100UL[0] and save everyone the trouble of an engine swap. 0 - https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100...
      - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
        Except the people who have to pay for an engine swap.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
> a select few very wealthy individuals Whenever I see comments like this I always remember the airplane owner (Cessna 152) I used to know who drove a beat up old Toyota Corolla with the bumper sticker "My Other Car is an Airplane."

missedthecue 4y ago

I mean, there's being cheap and then there's getting a new aviation engine FAA certified. Those aren't exactly the same thing and Bob the dentist who likes to take his Cessna 172 up on weekends can't simply approve a new engine. This is why buying a new spec Cessna 172 from the factory floor today will still come with the good old Lycoming O-360 engine, introduced in 1955. Cessna sells ~250 172s per year, nowhere near enough to justify new engine approval.

bdefore 4y ago
I'm no expert, but I'll express a wish: that modern supply constraints mean Lycoming O-360 engines may be noncompetitive to an engine design conceived today. Perhaps these old engines are suppressing the investment into an invention that turns a 250 person market into a 25,000 one?

tonyarkles 4y ago

The trick is that there’s two tiers of expensive for GA: - People buying, say, a new SR22 for $779,000 - People buying, say, a 1976 Cessna 172 for $72,000 and splitting it with 3 friends Having Cirrus work on, say, regular Mogas by contracting Continental to develop a new engine would be expensive but the buyers aren’t particularly price sensitive and amortized across the typical lifetime of an aviation engine design (the IO-550 in the SR22 was first delivered in 1983) likely wouldn’t hurt much. Trying to come up with an engine swap for the O-320 in that ‘76 172 is a whole other can of worms. Who’s going to even sign off on it? The whole aircraft is 50 years old and designed and certificated for that specific engine. There’s no financial incentive for Cessna to do it, and even if they did, the cost to do the swap would likely significantly exceed the financial capacity of many owners. I absolutely would love to see a financially viable way to get past this! The use of LL fuel in 2022 is tragic. On the other hand, killing off a big chunk of the GA industry and leaving it solely in the purview of the Wealthy and not just dedicated hobbyists… that sucks. For context, my family has an old Piper J3 sitting in a hangar on a farm. It definitely needs an overhaul, but to get it back in the air would likely be a low 5-figure bill; retrofitting a Mogas engine onto it in such a way that it doesn’t need to be categorized as “experimental” would be… prohibitive.

bdefore 4y ago
Thanks for this context. I'm not a pilot but I can absolutely relate to the joy such a machine could give. I'd like to ask one thing further: Do you think the existence of these older cheaper planes is holding back the development of upstart companies aiming for a price point that's closer to the Cessna 172 than the SR22? If leaded fuel engines were banned by the FAA today, would that create an opportunity for new entries, maybe with EV/hybrid engines? Or are there fundamentally different manufacturing economics to safely put something like that up in the air at that price point today?
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  There are already alternative engines in wide use (particularly on ultralights and light-sport aircraft) that can run on regular, unleaded gasoline, like the Rotax 912[0]. The issue, as others have pointed out, is getting these newer engines certified for use on existing, older planes. This would require extensive testing to get a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”) to allow the engine to be installed on a certified aircraft (think anything manufactured, like a Cessna 172 or Piper Cub.) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912
  - bdefore 4y ago
    I wonder if this extensive testing could be funded by a tax on leaded fuel. Seems like this would benefit everyone.
    - marcus0x62 4y ago
      Sure, or the FAA could just go ahead and approve G100UL[0] and save everyone the trouble of an engine swap. 0 - https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100...
    - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      Except the people who have to pay for an engine swap.

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

> a select few very wealthy individuals Whenever I see comments like this I always remember the airplane owner (Cessna 152) I used to know who drove a beat up old Toyota Corolla with the bumper sticker "My Other Car is an Airplane."