3 ms·

The reality is that personal aviation doesn’t make sense because the range of an cheap aircraft just isn’t very high so you’re not gonna fly from New York to Ca

The reality is that personal aviation doesn’t make sense because the range of an cheap aircraft just isn’t very high so you’re not gonna fly from New York to California on an aircraft under $1 million dollars brand new and you’re certainly not gonna fly internationally. How can you spend so much money and so much time getting your pilots license for a plane that only will get you 500 or 600 miles effectively. Most people who can afford a six figure aircraft wanna fly much longer distances than they are able to fly.

hollerith 1y ago
The main way that personal aviation contributes to the economy is by giving inexperienced pilots the experience they need to qualify to work for the airlines.
ufmace 1y ago
Wouldn't they just land, refuel, and take off again a few times if they wanted to fly cross-country, similar to what they'd do in a car?
- andoando 1y ago
  You can but its very slow and very expensive. Even at full speed in a straight line, 2000 mile trip in a C172 would take 14.5 hours, and that's without refueling. Fuel would cost you ~$920. In a twin prop like a Piper Seneca it would take about 9 hours, and ~$1700 of fuel. There's also the issue of weather which small aircraft are much more subject to.
  - dontTREATonme 1y ago
    Wow, private flying really is for the rich. $1700 to fly cross country and it’s still 3 hours longer than flying commercial.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > private flying really is for the rich. $1700 to fly cross country and it’s still 3 hours longer than flying commercial You don’t fly New York to San Francisco. You fly Cupertino to Driggs with three friends. The point is connectivity between unconnected points; similar to why we drive private cars. Also, the article’s entire point is flying is unnecessarily expensive in the birthplace of aviation.
    - bloggie 1y ago
      It will take much longer than that, you have to prep the airplane, do planning, refuel and inspect, pee, eat, and everything depends on the weather, is it too hot, too windy, poor visibility, what is the expected weather enroute and at the destination 4 hours from now, are there route restrictions. Still worth it usually.
    - andoando 1y ago
      Yes but on the other hand you can take a trip from LA To Mammoth Lakes with a few friends and get there in a few hours and less cost than driving. Or fly to Vegas in half the time as driving or fly to Catalina Island which you cant go to any other way than ferry
    - ufmace 1y ago
      Not sure if meant seriously or sarcastically. But it seems like a pretty reasonable option to me. Yeah, commercial air travel is super cheap and fast these days, especially for very far destinations. But it has its headaches and downsides too, and plenty of people choose to drive for various reasons even if it's slower and more expensive. If you have the skills and equipment, it might well be worth the $900-$1700 or whatever. You're also potentially taking 3 other people, and luggage, and avoiding the costs and headaches of big commercial airports and airlines, plus TSA etc.
      - andoando 1y ago
        A ticket to NY is like $200. Even for 3 people its fairly cheap. Spending over $1700 (thats just fuel, add probably $900 for the oil/maintainence, $100 for landing/tiedown fees, $200 for a hotel...) for the luxury of not spending few hours in an airport would certainly be rich
fnord77 1y ago
Read the article. The reality is the FAA choked innovation in this industry.
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I read it. I think we need planes with more range in the United States before personal aviation could become popular. I think that's the limiting factor not the 20 hour flying requirement vs the 40 hour flying requirement, Light Sport Aircraft.
base698 1y ago
I routinely flew that far in a plane I spent $100k on. You can land and refuel and a plane that 155+ kts can get quite far in two hops with 3 hour legs. The weather and other maintenance inconveniences is more the issue.

hollerith 1y ago

The main way that personal aviation contributes to the economy is by giving inexperienced pilots the experience they need to qualify to work for the airlines.

ufmace 1y ago

Wouldn't they just land, refuel, and take off again a few times if they wanted to fly cross-country, similar to what they'd do in a car?

andoando 1y ago
You can but its very slow and very expensive. Even at full speed in a straight line, 2000 mile trip in a C172 would take 14.5 hours, and that's without refueling. Fuel would cost you ~$920. In a twin prop like a Piper Seneca it would take about 9 hours, and ~$1700 of fuel. There's also the issue of weather which small aircraft are much more subject to.
- dontTREATonme 1y ago
  Wow, private flying really is for the rich. $1700 to fly cross country and it’s still 3 hours longer than flying commercial.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > private flying really is for the rich. $1700 to fly cross country and it’s still 3 hours longer than flying commercial You don’t fly New York to San Francisco. You fly Cupertino to Driggs with three friends. The point is connectivity between unconnected points; similar to why we drive private cars. Also, the article’s entire point is flying is unnecessarily expensive in the birthplace of aviation.
  - bloggie 1y ago
    It will take much longer than that, you have to prep the airplane, do planning, refuel and inspect, pee, eat, and everything depends on the weather, is it too hot, too windy, poor visibility, what is the expected weather enroute and at the destination 4 hours from now, are there route restrictions. Still worth it usually.
  - andoando 1y ago
    Yes but on the other hand you can take a trip from LA To Mammoth Lakes with a few friends and get there in a few hours and less cost than driving. Or fly to Vegas in half the time as driving or fly to Catalina Island which you cant go to any other way than ferry
  - ufmace 1y ago
    Not sure if meant seriously or sarcastically. But it seems like a pretty reasonable option to me. Yeah, commercial air travel is super cheap and fast these days, especially for very far destinations. But it has its headaches and downsides too, and plenty of people choose to drive for various reasons even if it's slower and more expensive. If you have the skills and equipment, it might well be worth the $900-$1700 or whatever. You're also potentially taking 3 other people, and luggage, and avoiding the costs and headaches of big commercial airports and airlines, plus TSA etc.
    - andoando 1y ago
      A ticket to NY is like $200. Even for 3 people its fairly cheap. Spending over $1700 (thats just fuel, add probably $900 for the oil/maintainence, $100 for landing/tiedown fees, $200 for a hotel...) for the luxury of not spending few hours in an airport would certainly be rich

fnord77 1y ago

Read the article. The reality is the FAA choked innovation in this industry.

daft_pink 1y ago
I read it. I think we need planes with more range in the United States before personal aviation could become popular. I think that's the limiting factor not the 20 hour flying requirement vs the 40 hour flying requirement, Light Sport Aircraft.

base698 1y ago

I routinely flew that far in a plane I spent $100k on. You can land and refuel and a plane that 155+ kts can get quite far in two hops with 3 hour legs. The weather and other maintenance inconveniences is more the issue.