Hello Silvaire,
there is nothing wrong with what you say, in fact we can merrily continue on this path but it is a path which eventually leads into a dead end.
Look at the innovation we have had in the last 50 years in the certified market, particularly with the US manufacturers. The honest answer is, apart from the Columbia and Cirrus line there was none. With engines, Rotax is the only real new engine for the very low end which also has found a market in the US.
We still use the same engines we used when the first Bonanza and Mooney came out, also in the experimental market.
To get a new avionic certified for use takes longer than a normal technology cycle, the stuff is outdated the day it hits the street.
Airframes are still made the same way the first ones were made, mostly.
So the only real innovation happens in the home made market, but many of these are only in that market because the manufacturers can´t afford to certify and if they could, the airplanes have evolved past the 1930 style certification rules and therefore can´t be certified.
I don´t like to sound like Trump but I have to say that the GA industry is a PRIME example how American regulation and hassle has driven a whole industry into foreign hands. How America could have let this happen is beyond me. Even Clinton, a Democrat mind, noticed and tried to reverse some of it, without real success as we have discussed before, as the damage was twofold and he only addressed one aspect.
Just compare how technology has evolved in motor cars and how it evolves in airplanes. Would anyone accept a lycoming type engine in a motor car today? Heavens no.
In the old days, it often happened that amateur built designs were then picked up, or at least the ideas were, by the certified market, which today does not exist anymore. Today, the experimental market had most of the innovation, because with the rules they have, they can actually implement them. But even there, development is mostly on airframes, they still use the same engines. They can use avionics which we can´t.
Now, in the US also the problem that experimentals can not cross borders without hassle and now that EASA proposes even that flight hours in them won´t count anymore towards your PPL renewal and all these things do not exist, so I understand that it is the logical way to escape a unreasonable certification regime. But in Europe, we don´t have this possibility and as Peter rightly said, it is increasingly more difficult to use them. Apart from no IFR and so on.
But what I am saying is not attacking the homebuilt scene at all, but I am saying that certification standards destroy innovation and progress in GA and with it, ultimately, GA itself. While I am sceptical towards money pits like Tesla, who will most probably fail in the process, I would have expected that todays new airplanes will have state of the art engines and avionics, which are not considered modern after 20 years of use. Not even only with us, I recently flew a sim of a 777 and they still have the same avionics they had 30 years ago when the 747-400 came out. Airbus have developed a bit, Boeing with the dreamliner as well, but GA avionics, well, why do people use tabletts.
My stand on this is clear: If it´s good enough for the experimental market to fly and be airworthy it is good enough to fly in a certified market too, with possibly some sort of added testing, but not the orgy of jobsworths trying to cover their asses. If this continues like it has, certified GA will die out and we will be restricted to old airframes and old technology. NO industry can survive like this.
I’m not really very concerned about the GA ‘industry’. It exists only to serve what the market demands, and if the entire private aircraft industry eventually transitions to operation under Experimental regulations, I think that will be OK. Changing the certification regulations is not likely a useful approach – regulation is tough to fight once established, and certification will always kill some sizeable fraction of useful activity in any area. Unless there’s a huge market and a benefit to factory automation, operating in relatively unregulated areas may be best long term solution for the buyer and market. Having created it and proved it works just fine, Experimental category is now hard for government to screw up. I’m very glad that Experimental was pushed through 65 years ago, in today’s unpleasantly over managed world it might be impossible even in the US.
Re Engines, no amount of talking about car engines (the chatter on that topic does seem limitless 
) is going to make them any more suitable for the GA market. The most popular homebuilts (RVs) and factory built uncertified LSAs (Cub replicas) use the same engines as certified planes… because that’s what people want to buy. Rotaxes are fine for some buyers too, but they don’t make enough power for most planes. I just spent two months of Saturdays and a ridiculous amount of money (e.g, $200 for one piston ring) doing a top end reseal and inspection on a complex motorcycle engine and the last thing I’d want in a plane is that, or a car type engine. If I never smelled glycol again as long as I live I’d be quite happy. Regardless of certification regime, I think the real world aircraft market agrees.
If you’ve ever tried to sell a permit/homebuilt aircraft it would bring a tear to a glass eye. I’ve never met so many experts who are all mad keen then disappear into the sunset. Compared to selling our 182 where guys comes, likes, pays and heads off happy.
Some guys are serial builders. Some of these are also active pilots. One guy has built, and sold after a year or so flying, two RVs. He’s just finishing a Cub rebuild.
Some builders find they’ve built the wrong plane – build, then get licence, and find their homebuilds is too much a hotship for them.
I’d never even have a nightmare of building a plane. I now have shares in two factory-built LAA Permit aircraft, one of which still has factory support. 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
and now that EASA proposes even that flight hours in them won´t count anymore towards your PPL renewal and all these things do not exist,
What? Are you referring to some regulatory musings by EASA that happened 10? years ago? (I remember this was one topic, but it has been settled for ages). If not, please explain with real references because this is new to me.
Peter wrote:
It’s a pity some of Europe seems to be tightening the rules.
It’s more a specification of the rules and a generalization towards a more standard regulations like those that have been adopted for experimental aircraft elsewhere in Europe for decades already, and in accordance with EASA. Beside, this is exclusively for France, and is mostly about abolishing all the bi-lateral agreements that France had, and that nobody understood anyway. Experimental/homebuilt aircraft are defined by EASA. They may include everything from simple aircraft like a homebuilt Fly Baby to immensely complex hot rods like a genuine F-104 Star fighter. They do NOT include microlights, even if some of them may be homebuilt. The “tightening” is exclusively about foreign experimental/homebuilt aircraft staying permanently in France. EASA does not open up for that, and never did. According to EASA, the local authority is the responsible authority for airworthiness for all these aircraft staying permanently in a country, period. This may sound weird for a simple Kitfox or a Europa, but not so weird for a F-104. This is no tightening, only a specification of what the EASA regulations say. EASA could have made it’s own experimental/homebuilt category, but EASA has no interest in this whatsoever, being way too commercially inflicted (making regulations just for safety and unification – are you nuts?) The other part of the “tightening” is a specification that every homebuilt/experimental aircraft in Europe may enter France airspace without prior notice, and stay there for the time allowed.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If this continues like it has, certified GA will die out and we will be restricted to old airframes and old technology. NO industry can survive like this.
You cannot have it both ways. Certified GA is already restricted to old aircraft and old technology. Yes, there are some Cirruses here and there. Yes there are some DA-42s here and there also, but that niche is much smaller than even the experimental/homebuilt niche. For most part certified GA is aircraft from the 60s and 70s. More like a classic american car club. And the aircraft, as the pilots, are getting older each day. The certified GA industry has had it’s last nail in the coffin for a long time already.
I agree with Silvaire on this. Any industry exist exclusively to serve the market demands. But – look at Aero Friedrichshafen. Obviously there is an industry, and it is serving the market demands just perfectly. Soon we will have 600 kg MTOW for microlight. Just a few days ago, June 12 this year, the EU parliament voted for this. Only pure formalities left now. Then we can have Cubs and this R7 from Vashon (for some reason this aircraft keeps growing on me) flying as microlights. This will not exactly increase the demands for the certified GA industry, but will boost the non certified to even new levels.
LeSving wrote:
boost the non certified to even new levels.
Which clearly is an indication that the certification system is bancrupt and with it the whole system of general aviation.
If it is no longer possible to economically certify airplanes for general use and GA has to rely on non-certified airplanes then the whole concept is led into a scenario straight out of Kafka. In which case it may be the better solution of abolishing certification altogether for airplanes below 2 tons or so, but then the usability of non-certified planes has to be changed, at least in Europe. IFR and commercial use needs to become possible.
Otherwise there won’t be any flight training industry in the near future nor any new airplane with IFR.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Just compare how technology has evolved in motor cars and how it evolves in airplanes. Would anyone accept a lycoming type engine in a motor car today? Heavens no.
Cars are VASTLY more burdened with certification than aircraft, and certification regimes that are vastly different in different countries.
Certification is a bit of a red herring. While it has plenty of faults, even if the need for certification were abolished it wouldn’t result in some sort of GA renaissance, due to extremely low volumes and the things LeSving has already mentioned.
The reason why car companies can do all this innovation and (e.g.) Lycoming can’t, is that a car manufacturer will spend upward of half a billion dollars to develop a new engine. Even if it only cost a fifth of that for Lycoming to develop a completely new engine, they would struggle to recoup just the non-recurring engineering costs. However, Ford will sell more engines in a week than Lycoming has done in its entire existence. Ford can recover their non-recurring engineering costs, but Lycoming simply can’t. Even if you abolished certification, all you’d get would be an incremental improvement to a Lycoming engine (probably just around the accessories and ignition system). The remainder of the aircooled lump won’t change.
The difference between cars and planes in terms of volume is mind boggling and you can’t draw a comparison between why cars have advanced and aircraft haven’t. (And look at homebuilders – Vans owners still overwhelmingly choose the “outdated” Lycoming engine over anything else).
Peter wrote:
Cirrus sold only 7000
And Van’s alone can show more than 10k verified completions (not counting the several thousands that don’t report back to Van’s). And there is a whole bunch of others making kits.
alioth wrote:
Certification is a bit of a red herring
Indeed. Manufacturers must find ways of cutting costs, cutting man hours needed to manufacture an aircraft. Except Vashon, none are doing that, not even European microlights. Composites, while being strong and light (carbon/kevlar) and enables perfect aerodynamic (and visual) shape, it’s a dead end as far as cutting cost goes.
alioth wrote:
Certification is a bit of a red herring. While it has plenty of faults, even if the need for certification were abolished it wouldn’t result in some sort of GA renaissance, due to extremely low volumes
Well, the low volumes have to do with the exorbitant prices, the exorbitant prices are a result of low volume and the overhead costs of certification and product liability. It is a self propelling wheel of misfortune which needs a decisive break in order to get prices back to a level which get you a new airplane for less than the price of a house or more. That basically is the major reason we today are restricted to an aging fleet of technologically outdated airplanes and technology. And while the airframes still may be sound (after all, the newer planes are not necessarily better in terms of HP/kt then older models) the technology in them is archaic.
You are right that car companies can do the innovation because of the volume they sell, however there is no reason why innovation present already can not be applied to aircraft engines as the research in all this has been done decades ago. Why can’t we have electronic ignition, which arguably would cut fuel flow quite dramatically, why can’t we have FADEC or at least automatic mixture, why can’t we have engines which start at the turn of a key rather than a half page checklist and the hope the darn thing will light up despite having been shut down only minutes ago, which, as every IO360 user knows, is VERY unlikely… Why can there not be a technology transfer from automotive elements to aeroengines? That this does work the diesel engines show, they are converted autoengines. It would work all the same with other auto engines modified for the use, but the certification is in the way. In terms of HP, there are more than enough autoengines which are in the mostly used 180-250 hp band and even beyond that, most of them turbo, most of them injectors, all of them electronic ignition these days and vastly more economical, all of them running with gas of the pump. And after all, the concept is anything but new: Limbach had converted VW engines for decades. But getting any of these through a airplane certification would be such that they would cost more than the lycosauri we have, which makes the exercise stupid.
But if anyone would come up with a upgrade engine which would cut fuel flow in half and run like a product of the 21st century rather than something out of a silent movie, then a market would be there, this much Thielert has shown. But also they went bust in the process killing the whole momentum.
And what about avionics. I don’t want to repeat myself but look at the price difference for more or less exactly the same piece of hardware with or without certification. Sais all.
For me, any regulation which forces people into illegality or at least out of it’s own regime is a bad regulation which needs change or scrapping. Certified GA has literally been outregulated and outpriced. That has to change unless Europe changes to the same useability and accessability of kitplanes as the US does. And that is even more unlikely.
