Over the years, you may have noticed my lack of enthusiasm for many of the changes and upgrades made to the Experimental Aircraft Association‘s (EAA) Oshkosh event, now called AirVenture.
In the good old days, Oshkosh was a technical information exchange and social gathering. The primary purpose of the event was for homebuilders and aircraft owners to learn about their aircraft. It has now become a major sales event with some social and technical information mixed in.
For example, the major exhibitors are such general aviation stalwarts as John Deere, Ford, Honda and Boeing. Consequently, even the GA companies now send sales personnel to man the booths. This makes finding answers to technical questions challenging at best.
Prior to heading out to Oshkosh, I sat down and noted which companies or people I wanted to talk to during my visit. I also noted questions that I would like to have answered.
One of my first questions was the mystery of the missing Cessna 182s with diesel cycle engines. A couple of years ago, Cessna made a big deal about the introduction of a direct from the factory 182 with a SMA Diesel engine. We heard a lot of talk about it and then nothing but rumors.
My first stop was at the Cessna display to get the straight answer directly from the source. After asking several people, I was finally directed to a “technical” person. After identifying myself as a writer from General Aviation News, I asked him what had happened to the diesel 182s. He said that they had all been converted to avgas engines, and tried to sell me one.
I asked him why had they been changed out, and he said that the diesel 182s had not performed up to Cessna’s high standard of quality. I asked if there had been failures, and he said no, they just did not perform up to Cessna’s standard. I asked several other questions and got the same or similar answer.
I have run into this before when there was a possible problem. What the companies do is leave their technical people home and give their “technical sales people” a lawyer-sanitized answer to give to all questions.
I then went to SMA. They were much more helpful. It appears that they have three current versions of the engine. One is being developed by Continental and is flying with an MT prop. The second was the one used on the 182s with a US-built prop. And the third is the latest version, which has solved all of the problems of the previous models, according to company officials. Their rep would not say it was a propeller problem, but they did say it was a component problem.
I then went to a couple of independent “prop” overhaul guys who stated that the prop chosen by Cessna could not handle the sharp pressure rise and power pulses of the diesel engine. As to the question of failures, they had heard of five or six “unscheduled” landings, which were the basis of the total recall by Cessna.
So what have we learned here? First, you can find technical answers at Oshkosh — you just do not get them from the source you may expect, which means you need to know who to ask. I asked several engine rebuilders who they call at the engine manufacturers to get technical answers. They all had sources to call, but none of them would share who they were.
Second is a problem that GA has faced for many years. The engine and airframe builders are always two different companies with different ideas as to what works and what does not. This results in an end product that may not work well together.
The third and final lesson is that Murphy’s Law does apply to all new products — and some old ones as well. The principle that anything that can go wrong will go wrong is a lesson that all companies should put as a computer screen saver for all employees so that none will forget it.
I wonder if the companies trying to market an unleaded 100 octane avgas have ever heard of Murphy’s Law?
Actually, I believe that Murphy was an optimist.
Hi Group well I am no technical “guru’s here. just a back seat quarterback. I am looking at this as an observer. I see a grate idea caned & I think it is because the people at Cessna got gun shy on this project. They had a few off airport landings & was probably afraid the big brother (the FAA) would hit them with a stick if some one had been injured or worse. I think the sky catcher product also had something to do with it, because sky catcher should have been a winner. I think it failed because it one came from China and people are angary about there jobs going to China & getting back junk. Also they are trying to give us a Lincoln when we only could afford a Taurus. The engine the used probably was mismatched for the project any way.. who would not want a Lincoln? Who would not want a fancy glass panel, but if you could only afford steam gages why not put them in. steam gages have been around since the beginning. What was the final cost of the Sky catcher &139,000.00 If they kept it simple they might have kept it to $89,000. They probably did not want to chase the diesel down the same rabbet hole the Sky catcher went down. The last thing Many light sport plane are coming from Check republic, and some are coming from Italy, & I hear some are now coming from South America. Try & try again.
The change happened when Paul was no longer in control and the primary reason for being became the bottom line.
I agree with you generally, Ben … but not necessarily over the issue of getting answers to technical questions. This was my 35th year at Airventure since 1977 so I have some historical perspective to draw from.
Back almost 40 years ago when I started attending, “Oshkosh” was much smaller and friendlier and manageable, as you say. It WAS mostly EAA’ers helping EAA’ers. But remember where all the vendors were … in those three tiny low hangars which were nothing short of heat torture chambers for vendors and attendees alike … especially in years when it was hot? I remember YOU looking like a wilted flower at the Shell booth … do you? Now, with the four large and tall hangars defining a quadrangle of kiosks and outdoor booths — some air conditioned — it’s much easier to navigate to see those items one wants to see and get information on in relative comfort. In fact, one of the major reasons I go is to spend several days among all the vendors with MY sheet of who to see and what to garner info on — as you do. In fact, I am a serious shopper for new avionics and other products and I always come away smarter (and poorer).
Oshkosh has become a major event … no doubt. It is no longer a specialized event for EAA’ers only. And, yeah, sales of tractors and flag poles and hot tubs don’t really fit the EAA mold but … they help to provide interest for some. That part I lament Now, the non-aviator general population who likes airplanes and adrenalin attend as well. They can sit on the flightline and be wow’ed by the airshow performers while I get answers to MY questions in the vendor hangars. The venue size has grown to the point where there’s room for all … even on days where major air performances bring in the masses at large. That’s good for everyone, I’d think. EAA has done a superb job of providing for all the attendees … and it gets better year after year. Kudos to Jack Pelton, et al.
We’re all getting older. Tantalizing the younger crowd with the thought of becoming an aviator is important, too. Throwing out the ‘seed’ into the field is one way to attract them. The military must agree because they, too, have become a major part of the event, as well. Recruitment occurs wherever it occurs. Airventure THESE days is as much a state of mind as it is an event. I noted that RV’s in Camp Scholler were spread out all the way to Hwy 41 this year … WOW!
Ben; and respectfully. The VERY problem is NOT GA’s lack of technical “guru’s, like yourself, BUT qualified sales/marketing folks with a degree of technical savey, in that order. The industry doesn’t need more technical types, no offense – but NEEDS (badly) those can SELL flight lessons/courses and aircraft – period!
The days of the airport/FBO/flight school as a pure social gathering and telling of “war’ stories are closing in fast – do ANY of these well meaning guys and gals ever BUY anything? Have you checked the number of GA (smaller) airports closing for lack of use or under utilization lately?
YES, Ben; the good old days are just that – PAST tense. The hard and unpleasant reality is the recreational (valued?) pilot/aviation consumer of today is more interested in coming in to the flight school, getting his/her 1-2 hours of dual – and leaving to play golf or spend the afternoon with the “Mrs” or grand children. He/she is NOT interested in the “social interaction” of who finally soloed, “Elmer” got checked out in the “172”, or that Mr.and Mrs. Verne Watson bought a “used” 1974 Cherokee 180!
This (GA recreational) is and WILL continue, if it does at all, to be for the “utility” pilot owner/user, be it for business OR pleasure – the COST/BENEFIT just doesn’t cut it for recreational flying for others – only those who see a true $VALUE$ for the airplane of today and how it make cent$.
Like the Big Bands of 1935-47 – the era, and end, of “recreational” (purely social?) aviation as most know it, is perhaps only a decade away – my guess anyway.
With out failure you will not move ahead. Just because it failed once dose not mean a future try will not be successful.