3 ms·

Overall I don't think the FAA or insurers are keen on increasing the number of high-performance GA aircraft out there. The step licensing between ultralight -

by paulmd 4y ago

Overall I don't think the FAA or insurers are keen on increasing the number of high-performance GA aircraft out there. The step licensing between ultralight - light sport - GA - complex aircraft really is designed around "the less power, the less likely you are to get yourself into trouble". The overall wisdom of this is a little questionable and crass of course, since there are also accidents that perhaps could have been recovered with more power.

bombcar 4y ago
GA to complex (and high-performance, they're technically separate) is actually a pretty small leap; you just need a flight instructor to sign off that you've done the needful; there's no actual FAA exam. It's hard to find a high performance that isn't complex and vice versa, of course. Moving to a twin is a separate exam. A big part of all those is the price of running the bigger plane/larger engine. You could have a plane with constant-speed prop and fixed landing gear and it wouldn't be complex (unless it was a seaplane).
azalemeth 4y ago
At least in (my experience of) Europe, the main objection to more powerful engines is the proportionate increase in running costs. The trend lighter, more fuel efficient GA has been entirely driven by cost-per-hour, and longer term maintenance costs. I used to do a lot of gliding and the most powerful aircraft routinely flown was a Piper Pawnee (175 kW / 235 hp engine, in contrast to say c. 120 kW / 160 hp for a Cessna 172), used as a glider aerotow – and even then most of the time we had [electric] winch launches. The pawnee once memorably broke a cylinder head while on tow out and had a sufficient power reserve to both get the glider to a safe altitude and fly the rest of the circuit without issue. At the rest of the field, all of the GA aircraft were highly fuel optimised and mostly run by "normal people" worried about the cost per hour more than anything else. Even the aerobatic aircraft – CAP 10s – had less powerful engines than that Pawnee. I didn't see a super- or turbocharger, and the only people flying twins at nearby airfields were entirely doing it for the point of [commercial] pilot training.
- p_l 4y ago
  I remember dealing with aerotow, and there was definitely a feeling that Yak-12 that we had (with 260hp) was much better towing than 100-odd hp Morane Rallye.
- paulmd 4y ago
  > I used to do a lot of gliding and the most powerful aircraft routinely flown was a Piper Pawnee (175 kW / 235 hp engine, in contrast to say c. 120 kW / 160 hp for a Cessna 172), used as a glider aerotow – and even then most of the time we had [electric] winch launches. Yeah I mean that's a good encapsulation of what I'm saying: the working aircraft have more power, but the cheap ones are mopeds in comparison. I guess maybe it is mostly the fuel economy though but it generally seems like moonies and other high-performance aircraft probably have much higher insurance/etc. It's cheap to insure your honda accord, you're not going to get yourself in trouble with 1.8L. The FAA is probably happier too. Diesel could reduce the costs a lot, the DA42 (twin) burns 8 gal/hr, around the same as a C-172, and loiters at 3.2 GPH. Runs on Jet A too (diesel can run on kerosene). I generally think having more modern more advanced aircraft in general could help, the GA fleet is obsolescent and there's no money to replace anything, it's just 70s era engine designs and airframes because that's when the world stopped turning (apart from like, aviation schools and military).

by paulmd 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

GA to complex (and high-performance, they're technically separate) is actually a pretty small leap; you just need a flight instructor to sign off that you've done the needful; there's no actual FAA exam. It's hard to find a high performance that isn't complex and vice versa, of course. Moving to a twin is a separate exam. A big part of all those is the price of running the bigger plane/larger engine. You could have a plane with constant-speed prop and fixed landing gear and it wouldn't be complex (unless it was a seaplane).

azalemeth 4y ago

At least in (my experience of) Europe, the main objection to more powerful engines is the proportionate increase in running costs. The trend lighter, more fuel efficient GA has been entirely driven by cost-per-hour, and longer term maintenance costs. I used to do a lot of gliding and the most powerful aircraft routinely flown was a Piper Pawnee (175 kW / 235 hp engine, in contrast to say c. 120 kW / 160 hp for a Cessna 172), used as a glider aerotow – and even then most of the time we had [electric] winch launches. The pawnee once memorably broke a cylinder head while on tow out and had a sufficient power reserve to both get the glider to a safe altitude and fly the rest of the circuit without issue. At the rest of the field, all of the GA aircraft were highly fuel optimised and mostly run by "normal people" worried about the cost per hour more than anything else. Even the aerobatic aircraft – CAP 10s – had less powerful engines than that Pawnee. I didn't see a super- or turbocharger, and the only people flying twins at nearby airfields were entirely doing it for the point of [commercial] pilot training.

p_l 4y ago
I remember dealing with aerotow, and there was definitely a feeling that Yak-12 that we had (with 260hp) was much better towing than 100-odd hp Morane Rallye.
paulmd 4y ago
> I used to do a lot of gliding and the most powerful aircraft routinely flown was a Piper Pawnee (175 kW / 235 hp engine, in contrast to say c. 120 kW / 160 hp for a Cessna 172), used as a glider aerotow – and even then most of the time we had [electric] winch launches. Yeah I mean that's a good encapsulation of what I'm saying: the working aircraft have more power, but the cheap ones are mopeds in comparison. I guess maybe it is mostly the fuel economy though but it generally seems like moonies and other high-performance aircraft probably have much higher insurance/etc. It's cheap to insure your honda accord, you're not going to get yourself in trouble with 1.8L. The FAA is probably happier too. Diesel could reduce the costs a lot, the DA42 (twin) burns 8 gal/hr, around the same as a C-172, and loiters at 3.2 GPH. Runs on Jet A too (diesel can run on kerosene). I generally think having more modern more advanced aircraft in general could help, the GA fleet is obsolescent and there's no money to replace anything, it's just 70s era engine designs and airframes because that's when the world stopped turning (apart from like, aviation schools and military).