Regular readers will remember that my last few columns have been on concerns with the proposed new unleaded avgas. Well I am done venting on that subject for now, so I am getting off that bully pulpit until the alphabet groups and the federal agencies produce some more column fodder.
And I am getting on my soap box: Recently I was driving across the state and was listening to talk radio. The subject of the discussion was David McCullough’s new book on the Wright brothers.
The thing that got to me was not that the book described the Wrights as geniuses, but that the announcers seemed surprised at this assessment.
Historically, we have called the likes of Bell, Ford, Firestone, and Edison, geniuses, which they were.
In today’s world, we call almost everyone a genius from musicians to business leaders to even actors and entertainers.
But for some reason the conventional wisdom is that the Wright brothers were just two bicycle mechanics who just “lucked” into a way to break the bonds of earth and fly.
In reality, the Wrights may not have been college graduates nor associated with a large company or institution, but they were the two leading scientists on heavier than air aircraft in the world at that time.
Their work was based on solid research that showed that they were scientifically ahead of everyone else in the world, but they are still primarily known as bicycle mechanics.
In today’s world, we have “rocket scientists” who work on military and commercial aircraft. But general aviation has an air of being just shade tree mechanics playing with unsafe, noisy toys that do not really help mankind in any significant way.
For example, back in the early 1980s I was transferred to the aviation products area at Shell Oil. One of my first duties was to staff the Shell booth at the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) convention. At the end of the show, I had only talked to one pilot who flew a piston powered aircraft, the rest were all jet or turbo prop operators.
Since we were there promoting piston engine products, this seemed like a waste of time to me. The management team all had the same answer: “We have always done the NBAA.”
When I suggested we go to Oshkosh, they all said “that is just a bunch of guys with chainsaw motors on gliders” and “not our target market.” They finally gave in and we have been at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s AirVenture ever since.
I do not tell this story to make me look like a genius. It was a very obvious suggestion to anyone who knew that a DC-9 was not the smallest plane ever made.
So what is the point of this column? I am not completely sure — maybe it is just my frustration with the way the world views the GA community.
Part of the problem is that commercial and military aviation get a lot of publicity from advertisements and positive news stories. GA has almost no general public advertisement and the only news we hear is of a GA plane accident anywhere in the world.
Also, the military and commercial aviation industries have made great technology advances. GA still uses engines designed in the 1930s and 1940s.
Compare the appearance and performance for a 1950s GA aircraft to a new one — they are quite similar. Now compare a 1950s commercial or military aircraft to a modern one. They are totally different.
So what can we do? We need to bring GA into the 21st century. We are seeing a start with the light-sport aircraft and some of the electronics, but we need to bring the rest of the business along.
For example, GPS is common in almost every car and cell phone. It needs to be used in almost every airplane so that pilots at least have a good guess as to where they are.
Then there is the subject of aircraft engines. Why do we have auto diesel engines converted to aircraft, but no one has thought of using an auto gasoline engine and modifying it to run in an aircraft on simple auto gas. I know we have conversion kits, but why not put a Ford Eco-boost 4 cylinder engine that produces well over 200 hp in an aircraft from the factory?
They are dependable and will last thousands of hours and cost less than an overhaul on an aircraft engine.
Now I know about liability, but why can they do it with diesel and not gasoline?
The list goes on and on. GA companies seem afraid of change and they do not understand why the world has passed them by. We have been to the mountain and we have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.
I owned a C-140 exactly like the picture (same color scheme) and had many delightful and inexpensive hours of flight as I built time.
What a crap article
i 100% disagree with this statement “Compare the appearance and performance for a 1950s GA aircraft to a new one — they are quite similar.” 1950’s avionics are for practical use, useless. Bringing GA into the 21st century these planes need to be retired or HEAVILY upgraded. Performance wise as well this is an incorrect statement. Cessna has upgraded to the Corvallis, the fastest fixed gear 4 seater (that is certified). Mooney Acclaim now is the fastest. And not to mention Cirrus aircaft. Cirrus is the most sold aircraft for over a DECADE, and has extremely modern avionics, extremely fast and better tuned engines, and modern design (parachute). The statement about GPS is also ridiculous. A plane with out it in todays world serves no practical purpose, and you only see planes that dont have them in clubs for trainers, or an owner who really doesn’t fly much.
I think this is a crap article. Not in touch with today’s General Aviation.
GA gets no respect because it’s not relevant to most people.
When I was young motorcycles were considered to be dangerous and a bit anti-social. Well the motorcycle manufacturers created products that are safer, require less maintenance and are more affordable. As a result of these efforts motorcycle riding has become mainstream and relevant.
I don’t know that GA has ever been considered anti-social, though early aviators were seen as pursuing a dangerous activity (as were motorcyclists). But the manufacturers were never able to achieve any mainstream market penetration because they were not able to do what the motorcycle manufacturers did. Government resistance to change is largely to blame for this, as the article implies. So our community consists of those with wealth or those with some wealth who can do it themselves. Neither group is what I’d call mainstream. If most people don’t know someone who flies or routinely see light aircraft (and how many of them look at the skies?) then GA is not relevant to them.
Looking around the world it seems to me that in general light aircraft flight is looked down upon. The skies are primarily the product of commercial and military aviation. I don’t see governments out there doing much to encourage GA and some have made it even more difficult and expensive than it is here.
So how many of you actually have taken kids flying off the airport fence? 4 years – 60 Young Eagles (some at rallies). 5 are in pilot training – all were hanging on the fence looking. They were/are predisposed – but you have to help them across the fence. Show them the plane, let them sit in it, let them touch the controls and see what they do. Offer a flight (use the EAA program to get the insurance the attorneys so love).
Like all education – you have to show a lot of people a lot of choices before they settle on a career or interests – and it may change along the way. I’m a little surprised I have 8% pursuing what they were looking at.
You have to prime the pump – if only to have someone to sell your plane on to. In the meantime – when I find my plane sitting in the tied owns – cleaned again – I can bet certain young eagles will be hoping for a flight in the near future.
I was going to say that the decline in GA is due to a poor public image but the truth is that there’s almost no public image.
Take-away the “career kids” and what you’re left with is an over 60’s club of enthusiastic flyers attracting almost no new blood. That’s because the X/Y’s are not attracted to a bunch of old guys flying at 90MPH around the patch.
The very fact that an entire industry has been built on a medical licensing issue (make no mistake, LSA is about the medical and nothing else) tells us who the GA industry is targeting. How many 32 year-olds do you know who won’t pass a medical?
We need to make GA “cool” again. Get it on the TV, movies and sports. Red Bull, Icon and a few other guys are trying but more needs to be done.
Hire the guys who made Harley Davidson cool again 15-20 years ago. There’s 50-year old tech that costs 4-5 times it’s actual value and literally flies out the door ahead of it’s merchandising attracting everyone along the way.
One change that may be affecting GA is the increase in flight time to 1500 hours + ATP to qualify for an airline position. Very expensive and time consuming for a young person considering a future in commercial aviation. The previous 250 hour/commercial license worked for decades. With a veteran Captain in the left seat airline flying was very safe. I believe this change is discouraging many people who are interested in commercial flying.
I agree with Paul’s comment completely. I started with my airline in 1956 with a grand total of 475 hours in Cubs, Champs, & Tri-Pacers at 20 years old with a commercial & instrument rating. Retired at 50 accident, incident, & violation free with 25,000 hours+/- rather than move or commute, when my company decided to close my pilot base, There is no way I could have afforded to get an airline job with the asinine ATP and 1500 hour requirement that a bunch of idiot politicians & bureaucrats, that couldn’t hold a real job in aviation, have come up with and I would have likely stopped flying had these requirements been in place back when I started. There are other reasons that I have mentioned in my previous comments, but he has definitely hit on another real reason for GA’s slow death. Reckon I’ll just continue flying my Champ until they decide that its too dangerous for a 79 year old pilot to be flying a 70 year old airplane. We are standing by & letting our Freedoms as Americans be taken away by the “we know better crowd.”
The primary reason for the near death spiral of all GA in the US, except for the very high end “BBC” (“Billionaire Boys Club” G650 Falcon Citation X crowd), is seriously flawed governmental policy relative to aviation, especially that of a poorly informed and non-aviation experienced FAA. Bad FAA policiers and rules then adversely interact with Wall Street forces and commercial interests (e.g., avionics manufacturers and OEMs pushing for higher ROI, at the expense of low end aviation’s very survival) .
Examples, …from someone who used to rent and fly J-3 Cubs for $6/hour wet.
It just unnecessarily cost me over a third of the original purchase price of my airplane new (~$1500) to replace a failed T&B, when I could have replaced it instead with vastly superior entire EFIS EADI with compass and backup standby battery for ~$300, ….EXCEPT for the fact that such an installation would have been illegal by FAA for any certified aircraft for IFR use, and no IA or FSDO would signoff on it, per FAA AFS Hqs. direction.
American Avionics (one of the largest avionics installers in the country) just went out of business after 40 years, due largely to having no one foolish enough to be wasting money on this NextGen (PastGen) seriously flawed and overspecified WAAS ADS-B LPV avionics, continuously being touted by self-serving avionics manufacturers, that isn’t going to solve the real GA cost reduction equation or future assured airspace access issue, or efficient and affordable ATS issue, one iota.
It just cost me another $3600 to tear apart my C172 to properly put in a 406 MHz beacon needed for long term rule compliance. Whereas, it could have been done for about $200, with sensible authority criteria.
As a near 50 year CFI-A-G-I-ME ATPC, inspector, and check airman, in everything from gliders to wide body jet aircraft, I am seriously thinking about simply giving up instructing in GA, due to the completely absurd irrelevant requirements for CFI refreshers, unnecessary medicals, and totally illogical and counterproductive new requirements for airman certification and qualification.
The GA fleet is dying due to cost increases driven by inappropriate FAA certification requirements (e.g., see RTCA TF 4’s recommendations over a decade ago), and due to massively flawed and over constrained STC requirements, and due to clamping down on Form 337 and field approval policies, …and due to OEMs in turn falsely dreaming that by just getting FAA to tighten up on MX and aging aircraft inspections, they’re going to somehow get GA pilots to blow $300K to $700K on factory new ASEL aircraft. This doesn’t even count $5 gal fuel now, or hangar rents going out of sight, or FBO’s charging $25 buck service fees, just to drop off a C172 passenger for ~2 minutes, or 50 to 80 year old airports (or FBOs) closing, or GA mechanic rates approaching $100/hr in some places, and now an absurd new ADS-B 2020 deadline requiring most owners to blow another $10 grand or more on avionics upgrades, just to have anything close to a reasonable avionics installation, that still WILL NOT EVER SATISFY REAL NEXTGEN requirements. It is total baloney thinking that the present FAA seriously flawed and overspecified NIC and NAC WAAS driven ADS-B requirements will ever be met, for all vehicles, “for $1,999 installed”. Worse yet, even if FAA’s version of ADS-B equipment was totally given away “free”, requiring only installation costs, IT STILL WON”T WORK TO SOLVE NEXTGEN FOR GA, or be the end of GA ‘s eventual ATS related equipage needs, such as for low cost data link, or RNP based trajectory exchange capability, that will eventually be needed even for LSAs, gliders, parachutists, and UAVs.
So why is low end GA dying??? The primary reason is it that it is being indirectly or directly strangled by FAA seriously flawed policy and criteria, forcing GA operating costs to be excessively high, and vastly higher than ever necessary or that could instead be possible.
Many Decades GA has hit the reason on the nose. If everyone would send all of the comments to this article, we might, I said MIGHT be able to get our lazy politicians in Congress to do a complete overhaul of this bunch of idiots in the FAA. When I was learning top fly in the very early 50’s, J-3’s and Champs were renting for $8/hour wet. As for aircraft mechanics getting $100/hour, auto mechanics, lawnmower mechanics, and outboard motor mechanics get the about the same per hour and they don’t have to sign a log book that some ambulance chasing attorney will use to take all of the mechanic’s assets with if some idiot vfr pilot flies vfr into ifr conditions and has the ground come up and smite him/her. Allowing use of the NTSB’s probable cause of an accident would stop a lot of these law suits against manufacturers and individual maintenance personnel and maybe cause some of these lawyers to go out and get an HONEST job. I don”t reckon anything is going to change though. .
should have said “send all these comments to our congressmen”……………..
Ladies and gents; and those with less then “conservative” or capitalistic views?
The Onawa Municipal Airport – Onawa,(K36) Iowa, will be officially closed as of July 1st.
The “town fathers” are converting the “unneeded” and under utilized airport into a drag strip, no less. Perhaps this will activity will generate $pending that the “aviation consumer” didn’t?
Why does GA get no respect? This is a good place to do a little root failure analysis. Almost all of the ‘usual suspects’ have been implicated throughout our lifetimes. But underlying it all is a mythology from just before any of our lifetimes. Therefore hidden in plain sight.
Just as in the days of Lilienthal and Langley, there are things in the body of accepted aeronautical knowledge that (when you investigate systematically and fundamentally as the Wrights did) turn out to be slightly incorrect, and those things impede practical design through misinformation.
GA cannot offer the public…who think we solved all the problems of flight long ago…any quiet, roomy, low cost solution, because we haven’t solved the problem of efficient flight AT ALL, except for at low speeds (gliders etc) and at very high speeds (jetliners etc). At the SEP level we’ve merely applied astronaut standards to the cabin space and enough reliable horsepower to noisily beat the air into submission.
On the good side, whether the technology is a bicycle, a smartphone, or (hopefully) a practical personal airplane some day, once a solution is demonstrated, the design space solidifies fairly quickly around the commercially viable, available versions. We have such for our airplane configurations, at the low and high speeds as mentioned, but not in the midrange of Mach numbers at any reasonable utility/efficiency or price tag.
The reason why auto engines are challenged in 200+ MPH, GA applications is that they enter a world where unrelenting power output is understood to be required in order to overcome MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DRAG. The same is true of why we can’t yet offer the public what they really want: right now we provide too much drag for a given amount of money.
We cannot ask the public to respect our past as their future. We have to first respect the root cause of the problem ourselves (it’s our non-mastery of mid-Mach viscous drag) then we need to marshal the required resources to turn appropriate attention to the matter: how to beat it differently, and simultaneously: how to make enough of the solution quickly enough.
Until GA understands that something much lighter than a car can be made at comparable cost, yet reasonably achieve six times the present vehicle kinetic energy for the energy consumed, we will have nothing the larger public wants, nor any way to re-populate the 19,000 local airfields they could be embracing as their own.
As John D. Anderson, Jr. points out lucidly in History of Aerodynamics, the Wrights were indebted enormously to those many who came before, even though they were ‘as disappointed as inspired’ to learn that much of the data and many concepts they had accepted were at odds with their experimental results. It didn’t scare them much in the end, because, importantly, they were also immersed in the relevant science and engineering of another nascent technology. They were not bicycle mechanics in a world of full suspension, ultra-light 27 speeds. Anyone riding a “bicycle” during that ravenous startup market for them was automatically a ‘crash test dummy working in product development’. It took decades before the bicycle became even the no-frills progenitor of a 60’s beach cruiser.
The reason nobody is clamoring for a high-wheeler today, aside from the thousands who still collect, preserve, and revere them, is exactly the same as the real reason why GA gets no respect in a world full of amazing, refined consumer products: People want somebody to make what-they-don’t-yet-know-they-want, and they want to buy said items without great effort, great learning, or a long wait attached to the process.
By extreme contrast, as the first true aeronautical engineers, the Wright Brothers knew they would either succeed or fail on their own over-commitment; that their teachers did not yet know what they had proven true, and that no one would likely supply their desired aircraft for them. And they were OK with that.
Well I am glad you addressing this problem. I like your post, but you did not address the one of the biggest
problems. I will relate a couple of stories & you can tell me if I am off base or not. When I first started driving we used incandescent light bulbs on cars. The car companies Tried to get the government to change the rules to put other bulbs in a car. Those bulbs at that time lasted about 6 mo. if you were lucky. You could go into Kmart & they had a whole section of just car light bulbs. Popular science, Popular mechanics, & others all had stories of better bulbs that we could not use because of the government regulations. Then the government finally let the regulation change. Now I have had a few cars That I have never change the bulbs. Second Look at the governments control on Phones No Improvement for a hundred years. When they got out of the way look what we have now cell phones. We used to have ultralight’s with (BFT) trainers. The government said no more trainers. Dose that make sense? Well The government is killing GA look to when they stopped all light plane manufacturing for several years. So now how long dose it take to bring a new plane to market? Cessna could not even make the sky catcher in the USA. We have to get the government on our side. They are putting us out of business & them selves as well.
The entire problem rests on the shoulders of the FAA. I own a 210 and have for the past 4 years. It has an STEC autopilot. It has not reliably worked the entire time I have owned the plane. I would love to install a new AP that works. Can I? F@$@ no. Why? It is the only one that has been approved by the FAA.
I’m building a LSA plane. I can add any autopilot I want. I did. The Dynon AP costs $1,500. Why? Because the FAA doesn’t have authority over them, hence none of the monopoly and costly certification. I’m not an idiot. For God’s sake, I can pilot an airplane. I really don’t need a bureaucrat, who is prolly not a pilot nor an A&P, to determine what is safe or not. Get the hell out of the way, FAA!!!!
I’ve been flying my PiperSport since 2010. I’ve teaching Sport Pilots in her for the past 2 years. I’m not sure how we are responsible for the death of GA, but if we are, we’re having a fun time doing it. The modern ROTAX engine sips auto gas. The glass panel is in step with the computer generation. The autopilot coupled GPS makes long cross-country flights enjoyable. It cost less than half as much as a new “certified airplane” and operating costs are about $25/hour. If you haven’t taken a close look at a modern LSA you’re missing out at a glance of the future.
It’s my opinion that gasoline is itself one of the drawbacks to GA and for that matter to all forms of transport when compared to diesel or Jet A as the fuel source. If we went all diesel on everything but lawnmowers and chain saws and such smaller engines we would as a result of the lower consumption rate likely not have to depend on foreign powers who hate us to supply us with their crude oil for refinement into gasoline.
Three cheers to Continental and Lycoming for developing GA diesel engines for the future. Yes those early development diesel engines for GA airplanes are more expensive than their gasoline cousins but I’m confident the price will become competitive as production volume increases.
Unlike the U.S. the rest of the world is in the process of transitioning to diesel power largely because gasoline has become scarce and very expensive. Gasoline is a hold over from the early days when compression ignition technology either didn’t exist or wasn’t what it is today. It’s an indisputable fact that you can go further on a gallon of diesel than you can on a gallon of gasoline irrespective of the mode of transportation. With diesel the issue of adding lead or removing it is moot.
The Ford eco-boost gasoline engine referenced in the article for adaptation to GA airplanes would likely not be able to withstand the compression and high RPM it would be subjected to as opposed to what it sees in a passenger vehicle. Renewable energy may eventually become a competitive alternative fuel source for GA either as a stand alone or in a hybrid configuration.
I like to point out that no one in this country starts out flying a 747. It all starts out in a GA aircraft, and with that experience, we know how to not fly our plane into a sea wall….
Cost! Back in ’60s-’70s the average working person could afford a 172, Warrior or what ever. They were expensive but a person who really wanted an airplane could do it. Now days there is no way that the average person could afford one.
Why this exorbitant cost for something that is mechanically simpler than an automobile? FAA bureaucracy for one. Juries, pilots are not judged by there peers. And then lawyers, why aren’t NTSB reports allowed in court?
Thanks Russ, for your comments. You hit the nail on the head. I got my ticket in 1964 and in the following years owned (2) two aircraft. Now bear in mind that I wasn’t a Wall Street shyster or wonder boy. Just another hard working American who dropped out of UC to pursue the “American Dream.”
General Aviation’s problem is not lack of support – it’s the acceptance of our American youth of bowing to limits. I wish it were otherwise …
Ben, That 4 cylinder Ford engine might not last as long as you think it will while its turning up multi-thousands of rpm’s to get that 200+ h.p. It certainly will have to turn way more than it does in a car to make the power needed to keep an airplane in the air. That may be part of the reason that its not done from the factory. Also, two things are hurting General Aviation are the so called “experts” in the news media who don’t know squat about an airplane or why it flies and that wonderful bureaucracy called the FAA that always seems to put up an obstacle to the advancement of private aviation.
Ben, auto engines are nicely suited for GA use. The big problem is the need to reduce the crankshaft speed to keep the propeller in the 2,600-2,800 rpm range, a PSRU. The reflected power pulses will quickly destroy auto gearing. Rotax has a very reliable, modern engine, but is low HP at 100+ and is primarily used in light experimental aircraft and light sport.
Other points on why GA has little visibility, [ there is a lot of respect ].
– the certification/cost of new aircraft vs demand- 250k pilots vs 200million drivers and $150k -$500k aircraft cost vs $30k-$50k auto cost.
– Aircraft have to look similar vs autos which can be ‘styled’ to look new and ‘fresh ‘.
– The entry cost of $7-$10k for a pilot license is a large barrier.
– So, experimental aircraft is where the growth is, with lower cost, easier maintenance, higher performance, and the freedom to innovate without an STC or 337. But, the pilot/ owner has to also be willing and able to spend the years it can take to build and acquire the skills necessary to complete an experimental aircraft.
It’s not just GA where owners make the choice to buy 1930s technology… and then REALLY regret it when their engine quits at 200ft Agl. Pickup trucks’ basic construction is still like a model T and there must be many more examples.
GA gets no respect because it’s the playground of the rich guys. Make GA affordable again for regular people !!!
Then you have respect in the society
and you will have a new generation of young pilots again !!!
GA was Piper tomahawk for $17000 (1985) and not cirrus for $500000 !!!
Regards Fred
I agree with what you said, Fred. I don’t know what $17,000 in 1985 dollars is in today’s inflated dollars, but would guess it would be in the $30,000 range. I still lay most of the blame on the FAA and of course on the court system where the juries are non-aviation folks and the NTSB cause of an accident is not allowed in court, thus driving up the cost of insurance for everyone from the manufacturers to the every day weekend pilot flying a Cub or Champ.
Fred, you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Aviation simply costs too much. Now days, for the average young person to join aviation, that person has to be single minded about it and sacrifice everything else in order to fly. That’s a huge trade off and simply not worth the cost to the vast majority. Make it more affordable, and the kids will join in.
Ben, sometimes you really do get out into left field, totally out of touch, LSA is going to end up the Bane of GA, leading us into a backward direction, that coupled with the lack of any real effort by the alphabet groups to save GA, will only serve to tighten the death spiral that it is in.
Further, I do not need a GPS to tell me where i am, none of my students do and no good pilot should, basic stick and rudder skills are rapidly vanishing in favor of Technologically Advanced Aircraft, another accelerator to the death spiral.
We could do with a lot more of Ben’s ‘left-field’ questioning. Why do you expect the alphabet groups to save GA? Especially when you just want to stay sheltered in your version of the ideal past?
If we keep doing what we’ve always done (as per your comments), we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting for a while now (ie: your self-induced death spiral).
LSA & Experimental have been virtually the only breath of fresh air we’ve seen in recent years. Those sectors have been the lifeblood of development in GA for some time now.
I’ve seen countless aeroclubs disappear up their own backsides because the GA blue-bloods pushed away new technology and lighter-weight aircraft. Because their own egos demanded they only operate ‘real aircraft’. The problem is; nobody younger than 40 is attracted to those old buckets, and the next generations are staying away from GA in droves.
If we in the GA sector can’t move into the future, the future is going to leave us behind…..
My two cents worth.
“Further, I do not need a GPS to tell me where i am, none of my students do and no good pilot should…”
John, really, GPS is bringing down GA? Or making bad pilots? To my way of thinking, a good pilot embraces advances in the field which promote safety and reduce the workload in the cockpit. Keeping your eyes completely inside the airplane while trying to unfold a paper chart and locate information printed in a tiny font, then dialing in frequencies and rotating dials to attempt to find an approximate course…providing that beacon source happens to be functioning that day, does not seem efficient. Following a GPS line, which only required setting a four letter identifier, and using an instrument which reads multiple sources of information, giving you redundancy, just seems safer to me. Did you hand write your response to Ben and send it through the USPS? No, it appears you used a computer. Do you own and use a cell phone or are you still sending telegrams? Are you still driving a car you have to stand in front of and crank? Things change, and your complaints that we aren’t doing things the way we did them in the “glory years” of aviation in the middle of the last century aren’t helping. We aren’t ever going back to those times for reasons too numerous to mention here, and insisting things would be better if we did simply seals our fate. I applaud Ben’s asking the obvious questions that the rest of us should be asking. I don’t think he’s in “left field” at all.
To John’s points.. a student pilot needs to learn the ‘stick and rudder’ skills and use pilotage, to learn the basic skills in flying an aircraft, basic navigation and communication on the CTAF and with ATC.
A GPS and electronic MFD and PFD are certainly great advancements, and can greatly reduce the pilot workload, if the pilot programs these things before engine start.
However, as far as the airframe, they’re still mainly riveted aluminum, and the engines still use magneto ignitions from the 1920’s, providing only 15kv of spark vs auto electronic ignitions with 60kv. Newer engines have fuel injection, but it’s the 1960’s Rochester , continuous flow design, used on the 1960’s Corvettes.[ the 350 HP, 327 ‘fuelie’ ]
Experimental engines can use true electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection, which improves performance and fuel consumption.
So, again, I believe that the future of GA is in experimental aircraft, and certified single engine piston aircraft are doomed, unless the FAA relaxes the part 23 certification standards.
Ben, I couldn’t agree more with you on your assessment of our GA engines. In my humble opinion, GA aircraft have been held back by the draconian rules and antediluvian certification methods of the FAA, whose sole purpose seems to be keeping us in the 1930’s for as long as possible, and squarely under their thumb while doing it. Since the GA pilot base is small, and growing smaller every year, we’ll likely never have enough influence to make the changes we need to modernize our propulsion and aircraft. As Dennis Miller used to say, “That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…” But I don’t think so.