A typical day at the local EAA meeting. Hot dogs were scarfed along with the obligatory not-quite-hot chili, and packaged cookies were in the offing along with bottled water and tepid coffee.
I go to these meetings, not because I have an overwhelming urge to build a “Wiz-Bang” Rotax-powered aircraft from plans I found on the internet, but because these get-togethers are one of the last bastions of aviation social life that don’t include having to pay for a ticket or listening to advertisements from insurance firms.
The speaker for the day had finished talking. I did not pay attention, but I think he was chatting about how to attach a Dzus® fastener to a bear strap to secure the left aileron spavin. Or something. I am sure it was riveting information and based on the follow-up questions about wing root fertilizer and whatnot, the presentation was a hit.
At our 6-by-3-foot folding table, the subject had become an age-old chestnut: How come aviation is so daggum expensive and how come it could not be like the good old days.
I was showing off iPhone pictures of my Cessna 140’s now digitized instrument panel when Chet, a locally seasoned pilot, came up with the best idea I have heard since my airline introduced free honey-roasted cashews back in 1986.
“Here’s the problem,” said Chet. “Everybody talks endlessly about how there is no affordable entry-level production airplane in the world today that you don’t have to build yourself or buy as a premade quasi-experimental for well over a hundred fifty grand.”
This, I thought, was a gutsy comment, considering he was pontificating in a room populated by RV builders and true believers in the experimental aircraft experiment.
“It used to be,” he continued, “that the major aircraft manufacturers each had a semi-inexpensive single-engine trainer that could also double as a beginning family airplane.” They were simple, and you could buy one for the price of a new car.
Cessna had the 120 that led to the 150. Piper had the Cub, which led to the Colt and the Cherokee, and who the hell knows what Beechcraft had. The point is that they were brand-new, factory-made airplanes with zero time and endless possibilities.
Local flight schools could afford to floor plan two or three of these trainers, and the pilots who learned in them were being groomed by the airplane manufacturers to move up and buy a brand-new Cessna 172 or Cherokee 180 after they were trained.
Our situation now is that most flight schools are renting out the very same Cherokees and 150s that were made about 60 years ago. Newly manufactured trainers, that are nothing but redone 172s and Cherokees, list for way too much frigging money and are only bought by over-funded flight schools like Empty Griddle and by the “I have too much money” crowd.
“The average flying student in our country is being introduced to flying via ancient dusty, smelly, over-worked, tired, and unattractive aircraft that were made when the student’s grandparents were groping each other at Crosby Stills Nash and Young concerts.”
By now, we at our table had put down our water bottles and had begun to pay attention to Chet’s rant.
“Now I know,” he continued, “That the GAMA crowd is all about selling single-pilot jets and turboprop bourgeois barges to the monied crowd because that is where the cash seems to be right now.
“The thing is, I am tired of them preaching to us that we grassroots fliers are somehow responsible for the demise of aviation when they are the ones that got so greedy they forgot where airplane buyers and future professional pilots come from.
“There really is no middle class when it comes to aviation.
“You are either rich and want to fly your own plane because your poodle is allergic to airline food, or you are poor and end up paying one hundred and fifty bucks an hour or more to rent a 60-year-old antique trainer.”
We could tell that Chet had really thought this through because he suddenly began handing out a printed outline.
“Here is what needs to happen. Textron, Piper, Boeing, and maybe Maule need to get together and partner on a new aircraft that can be used as a gateway drug for aviation. Why Boeing? Because they are the ones who are always constantly bitching about the low pilot supply.
“Let’s give Cessna some credit; they did try to do this in the recent past with their Sky Catcher airplane. The trouble was, they could not help themselves and began smearing lipstick on that pig before they sold the first one.”
The Sky Snatcher ended up being outfitted with a Garmin G300 glass cockpit, an SL40 comm radio, a GTX327 transponder, electric trim, and a 406 MHz ELT. For an extra five grand, it could come with its own parachute, which was handy, since it was a trainer that you could not spin safely. If you needed spin instruction, Cessna recommended that you rent one of their broke-ass 60-year-old trainers.
You will find my list of what is needed in whatever aircraft the consortium of major aircraft manufacturers will cooperate on. If they all get together, they can mitigate costs while reviving General Aviation.
Specs for the “Chet,” a new aviation entry-level trainer:
(List price $85,000 out the door with tag, title, undercoating, and extended warranty.)
- Useful load and cockpit space that allows a pair of over two-hundred-pound humans to comfortably operate and fly
- An engine that runs on unleaded regular car gas
- One simple combined radio/VFR GPS/transponder is to be developed to cost less than $1,000.
- Very basic electronic instruments
- Tricycle landing gear (tailwheels are OK, but when was the last time that airlines required tailwheel time of their pilots?)
- Folding wings so we can store it in the barn or our garage during winter
Chet summed up with, “Just imagine what having a brand-new airplane that costs about as much as a new pickup truck would do for aviation and the pilot supply.”
I don’t know if the EAA crowd was buying into his idea that day, but we all knew that something at the level of raising the Titanic had to be done to save and revitalize flying. Maybe Chet’s rant could be the beginning of a renaissance in aviation, but most likely not.
Everything Chet asked for is available right now in a single seat, tail dragger version from Spirit Engineering. They are working a nose dragger version and word is that 2 seats are coming.
See the resurgence in ultralight aircraft. My company is working on a new one at a fly-away cost of under $30k, no license required, 100% made in the South. Watch aerosouth.net for news later this year.
Kent-
I am assuming your vision of “the South” stops at the Rio Grande, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Trump Ocean; but why “the South”? Is there evidence of a performance or quality or knowledge or training or cost difference? What’s wrong with just saying “Made In The USA”?
Boeing moved major operations into South Carolina, but sure hasn’t seen any convincing improvement over Seattle. NASA’s Space Operations are entirely located in “the South”, but NEWS FLASH! Private industry (yes, located in the USA) is taking over from NASA. And that beat goes on.
Let’s stop feeding the beast that patrols the Mason-Dixon Line at night and start looking at ideas for building bridges to reach over the “divide”. We are all Americans and we live in the United States of America. We need to start living together.
John Caulkins
You’re on to something here John. Looking over aerosouth.net, an expose of the company logo appears complete with a statement by Kent identifying as a native of the Old South.
We do live together. But revealing that knowledge by some is akin to facing death, and always will be.
The reveal would expose parts made and sourced by ‘others’ at various levels, sales to ‘others’ in blue states, sales to liberals, Dems, sales to the North, the West…none of which would be refused at signing by the ‘company’ in the South.
A limp, hypocritical cattle-prod without any power again revealed by this poster.
But yes, we always work toward peace.
Although this could break AvBrief’s record for thumbs-down votes, I would like to wish you, Kent, the best in your endeavor to make flying more affordable.
It has been done, almost. Spirit Engineering has a capable light sport airplane available now for under 77K with all options. Granted that it is a single seat aircraft meant for recreational flying and does not meet Chet’s specification for a trainer. The design concept and innovating engineering of that airplane and engine is ground breaking, not in terms of materials but in execution. It does incorporate a practical folding wing design.
I have no doubt this team could come up with an airplane for Chet’s mission but I’m afraid that keeping the cost at 85K is no longer realistic. Due to development cost, time, and the size of the market, I’m not sure they would be interested in the project. Spirit Engineering hit a home run with their current airplane and may now be concentrating on ramping up production.
When I first began researching and searching for my first aircraft to purchase, I had almost exactly the same requirements (mine would be used for under 30k)
The manufacture of anything aviation related requires liability insurance as a crash involving said parts or aircraft feeds many lawyers.
The cost differential between a certified aircraft or parts and uncertified (homebuilt) aircraft, engines or avionics is significant as the latter are of less interest to lawyers looking for contingency fees. The assets of a homebuilder pale in comparison to a major corporation.
While major legislative action has reduced the ‘liability tail’ of older airframes any new parts, including engines, required to keep the aircraft airworthy require liability insurance at considerable expense, explaining the rapid rise in parts costs.
A new engine for a C-150 might approach the cost of the aircraft with the tired engine. Avionics upgrades are similarily cost prohibitive as cheaper uncertified avionics are not an option.
The threat of legal consequences makes manufacturing anything in the US, or exporting products to the US, an expensive proposition.
Alexis de Toqueville in the 1800s wrote about the influence of legal profession. The situation is much more disturbing today.
The cost of new airplanes isn’t driven by aluminum or resin or labor – it is driven by a 30 year open-ended liability insurance policy attached to every component, subassembly and system.. Add them up and new 172 is $100K airplane with a $400K insurance policy premium wrapped around it.. Not likely to change..
I don’t think 85 is reasonable but perhaps $200K is as this is the price of a cheap house. the other problem is we have vastly increased our definition of what is acceptable. just get a 1970 car and drive it and see if you would want to buy one and drive it. the new ones are vastly superior.
the closest thing would be a RV10 with a modern engine. the RV12 already exists in light sport and why are they not selling like hotcakes? they fit the bill for a simple trainer
“There really is no middle class when it comes to aviation.”
Not just when it comes to aviation. In the US between 1980 and 2020 $50 trillion in wealth moved from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.
A Cessna 172 in 1978 cost about twice the median family income at the time. In 2020 one cost about 5 times the median family income then. Lots of reasons for that of course, but one that is consistently not mentioned is the hollowing out of the middle class.
Actually…with the exception of the cost… the “Chet” trainer already exists.
I fly from a small airport near Portland, Oregon. I have to fit in with the RV-12is trainers used by the FBO there. They’re pretty active. They run on car gas, which the FBO stocks.
The RV-12is is sold ready to fly, with a reliable Rotax 912 engine. It is, basically, the modern equivalent of the Cessna 150… two seat, side-by-side, all metal, tricycle gear.
Now, I’m anything but an RV fanboy. I proudly fly a wooden single-seater in the very heart of RV territory. My EAA chapter was actually founded by the combination of a small EAA group and a large batch of local RV owners. I kid my RV-driving friends by referring to their planes as “JAFTHA”s (the last three letters stand for “Tin Homebuilt Aircraft”).
Seriously, though…I’m really impressed with the aircraft coming out of Aurora Oregon, both the kits and the ready-to-fly RV-12s. Over past 50 years, Van’s has perfected the art of making small, affordable, all-metal light aircraft. Their safety record is among the best in homebuilt aviation; it actually rivals that of the small Cessnas. And that’s for the *homebuilts*.
So when Van’s has to sell ready-to-fly RV-12s in the neighborhood of $200,000… well, one kinda has to assume that they know what they’re doing.
A key factor in that price, of course, is the Rotax 912 engine the aircraft uses. But that’s just ~20% of the aircraft price. Even with free engines, the RV-12 would STILL go for $150,000-$160,000.
It might explain why I’m a wee bit skeptical about a new product hitting a price point of half that.
Yes, I’m fully aware of the Spirit SE-1. At $70,000, CINChouse actually implied she might let me buy one.
But there’s a LOT of difference between a single- and a two-seater. And a lot of difference between the in-house-developed 42 HP engine the Spirit uses and the 80-100 HP a typical two-seater will require. I wish the company all the best, but they’ve got a steep road in front of them.
I’m just a knuckle-dragging retired engineer with a Walter Mitty complex a mile wide. But I recall the day when an aircraft owner could actually at least break even leasing their plane back to the local FBO. IIRC, this “loophole” was closed in the mid-80s. Wonder if restoring it might be a help to revitalizing General Aviation.
There is a parallel with the car market. You can’t get a cheap runaround NEW car anymore. The high priced cars and trucks with all the bells and whistles are high margin. Car manufacturers have no interest in cheap, volume, low margin cars. I don’t imagine the airplane manufacturers have either.
Affordable 2 seat aircraft can be done. They need to be kit built, simple and not certified. The parts need to be manufactured in China/Malaysia/Vietnam/Taiwan/Indonesia or such to avoid the liability trail with acceptance of ICAO as kitbuilt/homebuilt/ultralight and exempt from crushing liability concerns. If handheld navcomms and GPS receivers can be produced for less than the price of a tooth filling then the door may finally re-open for affordable ownership. If not, then what we have known as G.A.is “stick a fork in me–I’m done”.
Kevin, the closest thing I’ve found to the airplane you and your EAA buddies are looking for is the one I found after I lost my Glastar in a flood .. If there is one negative, I’d say at my age and kilograms it’s a bit snug when entering and exiting but that’s the only thing. Once in it’s very comfortable. On my maiden flight when I bought it, the seats and structure didn’t dig into me anywhere after 6 hours in the air.
The engine is a Rotax 912ULS – 100 HP. It uses car gas sparingly. The airframe is simple and maintenance is very much the same. The wings fold if you want to do that and the importer even has a trailer builder that can fix you up with a hauler that is custom sized for it.
The airplane is Czech-built, and is branded as the Aerotrek. It’s available in conventional (taildragger) configuration or tricycle gear. Paved-runway tires and wheel pants or grass-runway, larger tires without the decorations. About 130K to buy it. For going up and looking down, it suits me just fine.
The $100 hamburger is 50 bucks again.
Ol’ Chet said, ““It used to be,” he continued, “that the major aircraft manufacturers each had a semi-inexpensive single-engine trainer that could also double as a beginning family airplane.” They were simple, and you could buy one for the price of a new car.”
No Chet, you couldn’t. A1973 Ford Maverick sold for $2000 new. A1973 Cherokee 140 sold for just under $20,000 or 10 times the cost of a new car.
What needs to be done is for the manufacturers to convert their aircraft to kit-builds as complete as any Van’s offering without the Type Certificate and allowing for a Repairman Certificate to maintain it themselves.
I am confident that anyone who could assemble an RV-14 could put together a Skyhawk or Archer.
A 1966 Cessna 150 was the same price as that year’s Corvette.
The Ranger is in production and meets all the requirements.