Nice looking plane LeSving 
What has happened is a more or less underground movement has grown up. Experimental in the US and microlight/experimentals in Europe.
I don’t see it as ‘underground’, it’s a market developed solution that works nicely in conjunction with the used aircraft market that supplies a different demand. Perfectly right and legitimate. Undue respect for authority and regulatory process constrains progress.
Used aircraft are great. RVs built by their owners are a different solution if you want what the used market doesn’t supply in volume (practical sport planes), and I wouldn’t argue against the idea that light aircraft built by inexpensive Ukrainian labor is part of another solution. RVs use Philippine labor too.
Dreaming is not so productive 
Silvaire wrote:
I don’t see it as ‘underground’, it’s a market developed solution that works nicely in conjunction with the used aircraft market that supplies a different demand. Perfectly right and legitimate. Undue respect for authority and regulatory process constrains progress.
Agree 100%, just wanted to point out it is a different kind of market that works on the principles of demand and supply and aviation enthusiasm, not on the principles of capital investments. The demand for aircraft is just as large as it ever has been, and the supply is larger than ever (if you are not too picky).
LeSving wrote:
just wanted to point out it is a different kind of market that works on the principles of demand and supply and aviation enthusiasm, not on the principles of capital investments.
Now what should one think of that? Microlight producers work outside the rules of capitalism? They buy parts, machines and employ staff without money? No investments necessary to build an Aeropract?
PS: The best selling microlight is the Flight Design CT which is also made in Ukraine and easily costs 150k€.
the Flight Design CT which is also made in Ukraine and easily costs 150k€.
That’s only because there’s some expensive German marketeer half way the supply chain. Sorry, couldn’t resist, but I must admit things are not that simple. The various CT types perform much higher than the basics like A22 or my own Apollo Fox, so their design and certification must have required more effort thus more investment.
But is there a reliable source to confirm the CT is the best seller? It takes some believing, especially when I see the success of the C42 in Germany (so successful in fact that its own successor, the C52, doesn’t lift off).
We do not necessarily have to divide private flying into classic/certified and Ultralight (German version) or LSA. And then we have a huge kitplane industry too.
Many of today’s UL/LSA have much better performance than a C-150, many kitplanes have much better performance than a 172, and some have better performance than a Cirrus.
Besides the factors Achim mentioned there’s another truth: OUR airplanes, and that includes my Cirrus in most aspects, can be compared with the classic american V8 car from the 60s and 70s. Most of those disappeared but it doesn’t really mean that the car industry is going down.
Of course you can drive a 2.5 ton 400 hp V8 to the grocery store – and hundreds of millions of Americans did just that. For decades. Until they found out you can transport Orange Juice and Pizza in a Toyota Corolla :-)
For 90 percent of all personal flying a UL/LSA is enough – and that’s where the market is today.
If there was a non-certified, safe two seater for €/$ 100.000 with modern avionics and a parachute that could be flown IFR legally … how many planes could Cirrus (Cessna?) sell. A handful maybe, but not enough to stay alive.
Peter wrote:
Old things definitely don’t last for ever, except at a very basic level and only in Arizona. Elsewhere, airframe corrosion will eventually ensure it is scrapped
Well they can last forever at the scale of my lifetime. Auster saw fit to put linseed oil inside of the steel tubework of their aircraft, hence Austers don’t suffer the corrosion at the ass-end that Piper Pacers do. With the fabric coming off every 15 years they get a deep inspection of the kind that metal skinned aircraft rarely see. So long as the wood spars stay good, which is a function largely of the fabric not being allowed to go bad and admit water… (but wood doesn’t have a fatigue life, and there are wooden buildings hundreds of years old).
’AU celebrates her 70th birthday in October.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
That’s only because there’s some expensive German marketeer half way the supply chain
True. Microlight aircraft are getting increasingly more complex and refined, but at the same time also much more expensive. This is caused by demand of course, but I still find it odd that people happily pay €150k and more for a microlight.
achimha wrote:
Now what should one think of that? Microlight producers work outside the rules of capitalism?
I didn’t say that. I said by the principles of supply and demand, not by principles of capital investments. The GA industry for light aircraft have shown it’s an hopeless place to invest. This doesn’t mean it is an hopeless place to make a living and have success. Vans for instance and many others in the US and Europe.
alioth wrote:
Cost of a C172 when it came out in 1956: $8700
Cost of a C172R in 2012: $275KTypical median income in 1956 for one person: $3600
Typical median income in 2012 for an entire household: $56000
What has changed since 1956? In 1971 Nixon closed the Gold Window…There! Somebody had to say it.
In 1956 gold was priced at $35 per ounce. You could buy a C172 for 248 oz of gold
In 2015 gold is priced at approx $1100 per ounce. ie you can now buy a new C172, with all its upgraded spec for (drum roll…) 250 oz of gold. There can be few pieces of consumer technology that have changed as little as a C172 in the last 60 years so I think that is actually quite an important economic comparison.
I passed my PPL last week and I had hoped to make my first contribution to this forum with a few pics of my first post-PPL cross country, but weather and paperwork are keeping me grounded. I could have asked what advice the forumites might have for how to build confidence post PPL, or what plane to buy, or should I bother with an IMC rating (does that even exist anymore?), but no…my first post is about the Gold Standard. My wife would not be surprised!
Have you also considered that the C172 purchase price might be inversely proportional to the stork population?
Obviously there is no connection neither to gold nor storks. The business is a totally different one when building thousands of airplanes a year versus just a hand full. Good old economy of scale. I am pretty sure that Cessna is neither fully committed to continuing SEP production nor treating this as a pure financial decision.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I passed my PPL last week and I had hoped to make my first contribution to this forum with a few pics of my first post-PPL cross country, but weather and paperwork are keeping me grounded. I could have asked what advice the forumites might have for how to build confidence post PPL, or what plane to buy, or should I bother with an IMC rating (does that even exist anymore?), but no…my first post is about the Gold Standard. My wife would not be surprised!
Hehe. Welcome – lot’s of time ahead to ask these other questions.
As for the following, I feel it isn’t as black and white as it’s made out to be:
The crux is indeed that light aviation has not the slightest bit left of sex appeal. I remember when I was a boy, I had a distant relative who flew a Piper Cub from the local aeroclub, and he was a demi-god in my eyes; probably also in my parents’. Today it takes a twin jet to get any envy.
Disagreed. I still find that many small talk partners I discuss flying with get all shining eyes and become day dreamers. Many then open up and tell they’d always wanted to take up flying, but then life got in the way and things worked out differently. Girls get excited about it in different ways. Obviously, it all doesn’t translate into high demand anymore as in the 70ies (for various reasons, some of them mentioned on this thread), but to say that light aviation has lost all of its sex appeal is not accurate, either.
The problem for GA in Europe is Europe, mainly oppressive rules and lack of hangars.
@Silvaire, that is probably not accurate, either. It may be a factor for people who are aviation enthusiasts already. It may be a factor for you personally to choose where you do your flying. But I think regulations and hangar space are hardly a factor with respect to the light demand shrinkage in Europe (and elsewhere). I believe people aren’t sufficiently interested in aviation to even look into these things! People who prefer the latest smart phone over a car do not not fly because of the supply of hangar space or EASA! They don’t even know what EASA is…
