aart wrote:
750 mill? Educate me please.
Wikipedia says 745. Of course when some people say “Europe”, they don’t really mean Europe. They mean the EU, or continental Europe, or western Europe, or Europe except Russia and Turkey or whatnot.
In this case LeSving really did mean “Europe”. Whether that’s relevant to the discussion is another matter.
After checking inflation-adjusted prices from the 60s-70s, it seems that prices new weren’t that far off what we have today (i.e. $200k 2024 dollars for a brand new 2-seater). I might be wrong on numbers (and inflation calculations can be shaky), but it would suggest that the sudden drop in manufacturing has much more to do with demand than supply / certification costs. Maybe it’s just the effect of crude prices since 73 ?
Europe has a population of 750 mill, the USA has 330 million. 1180 million.
750 mill? Educate me please.
And protected by old, angry men
Less of the bitterness please.
Nothing is free anyway in this business. The savings mainly come from
Pretending otherwise is just doing a disfavour to newcomers.
Anyway, from an owner perspective, an UL is completely unregulated, an LSA is not. That’s the main difference.
FAA provides for LSAs to be converted to experimental category E-LSAs for that reason, the only category of factory built aircraft for which this is true without significant operating limitations. It’s a good way to go if an UL-type aircraft is what you want, to e.g. fly without a medical. Given that I had no problems in that regard with 3rd Class or Basic Med, paying less for more performance with a standard category plane was my N-register choice. If I wanted still more performance, but at a higher cost, I’d buy an RV and join the crowd.
MOSAIC is about to shake things up in the US, exactly how will depend on the final form of the regulation. I’m hoping they raise the maximum stall speed so that I don’t have to hassle with BasicMed or any other medical certification in the future. That would remove the only potential issue in flying my factory built certified plane for the ‘rest of time’. Otherwise an RV-9 or similar looks increasingly attractive as a way to get speed and freedom combined.
hazek wrote:
The change must come from a system that is notoriously inflexible
And protected by old, angry men who cannot stomach a change that involves others getting privileges “for free” while they had to work hard for them. But there are loopholes.
The obvious one is experimental homebuilt aircraft. The other one is national registered aircraft. As long as no EASA certificate exists on the type (EASA protection scheme), any aircraft can fly on a national register. This usually means experimental register (for practical reasons), but not necessarily so if the factory exists.
Silvaire wrote:
I had previously considered finding a depreciated Tecnam 2002 for something like €55K,
They are sold for €70-80 today, mid 2000 approximately. US LSA is more like CS-LSA than UL. A typical European manufacturer, take Pipistrel, makes 3 different Alphatrainers for instance. One US LSA, one CS-LSA and one UL. They look the same, they smell the same, the same sound, same MTOW. Still, they are different (according to Pipistrel). What exactly is different, I don’t know. I expect nothing at all from a structural point of view, but try to make Pipistrel admit that so you can change the MTOW (ask me how I know 
). Anyway, from an owner perspective, an UL is completely unregulated, an LSA is not. That’s the main difference.
I also have to mention the Savannah. It has a on a copper plate on the aircraft it say ASTM 560 kg or 600 (depending on year). The stamp also say UL2: 450 kg. The manual even say that even though the aircraft can be loaded more than 450 kg, it’s not allowed to fly it that way if your country has a lower limit It made it dead simple to increase MTOW though, with the new 600 kg regulations ICP only operate with ASTM. If it is ASTM, it’s also according to the German UL2 spec (there are two versions, before and after 2019 when 600 kg appeared), which works everywhere. Almost everywhere. It does not work in France or UK, which have quirky limitations, weight mostly.
LeSving wrote:
If we want this “class” of aircraft around also in the future, not just 30-40-50 year old relics, drastic measures must be done with the whole certification regime.
I agree 100%. But talking about it here wont bring much. The change must come from a system that is notoriously inflexible. So we’re kinda screwed. I don’t see how this can be overcome. In the states at least AOPA is representative the whole country so any lobbying they do can be much more effective than here in Europe, each AOPA installment trying something on their own, if at all. Who else is out there lobbying and pushing for this? The established manufacturers don’t want change because it will mess with their profit. Any potential newcomers don’t have money or time for that. Do we have any other organisations? Could they even do something if we did?
I agree @Silvaire if I lived in the USA I would have kept an old twin (loads of choice at low prices) and kept my MEP and instrument rating.
Sadly in Europe that doesn’t add up not only running costs but medical high priced airports because of handling fees. Avgas at the cheaper non handling airports is becoming rarer. But perhaps even worse is the need to get an STC or similar for nearly every change you.want to make.
Peter wrote:
I predict a continued decline overall, but it will be much less (and may continue as a net growth) in the lower cost activities: UL and to a smaller extent homebuilt.
Someone has to produce aircraft, and someone has to purchase them. That’s the main problem. Right now there are produced around 1500 certified aircraft each year. Let’s say all these aircraft are sold in Europe and the US. Lets also assume these aircraft are used privately exclusively, no commercial or flight school use. Europe has a population of 750 mill, the USA has 330 million. 1180 million.
This becomes 1.3 aircraft per million citizen each year, at most (the real number in Europe is probably more like 1/3 of that). In the 60s and 70s it used to be more than 10x this quantity. Clearly this is not enough for any sort of growth. People around the world produce more homebuilt aircraft each year. Not to mention ULs sold in Europe each year.
There is no way to increase sales of certified aircraft with the current regime. They are too expensive, and the prices are not going down. If we want this “class” of aircraft around also in the future, not just 30-40-50 year old relics, drastic measures must be done with the whole certification regime. Reducing manufacturing cost, is not nearly half of what is needed. If you are in a position to get a brand new Diamond or Cirrus and can afford to pay the running costs, the problem is solved of course. The problem is, that’s literally one in a million, more like one in 2 millions. It doesn’t help GA in any sort of way.
