Late in the Eisenhower administration a series of atoms came together to make up a human being. A baby human being. A starter kit that, with proper care and feeding, grows to become an adolescent, then ultimately an adult. The particular collection of atoms I’m thinking of came to be me in my current form. What a lucky break, huh?
Any casual observer can tell that I am significantly larger now than I was when I started this journey through life. And I have capabilities now I didn’t have in the beginning. For instance, I can walk, and talk, and make a decent pancake breakfast these days. Early on all I really knew how to do was breathe and transform clean diapers into dirty diapers.
But am I really much better than the original model? That’s an open question.
Around the time I came into being, Boeing started producing the 707, a narrow-body transport category aircraft that introduced turbine power to the traveling public. Douglas did the same with its DC-8. The race to bigger and faster was on.
By the time my age was measured in double digits, Boeing was working on the 747, a wide-body behemoth of an aircraft that could carry more than twice the passenger load of the 707. As a result, air travel got cheaper, passenger loads got bigger, and a much higher percentage of the general public were introduced to flight first hand. Albeit, flight from several rows back into the fuselage, sandwiched between strangers, awaiting a meal service that became famous for its power to disappoint.
On the other end of the aircraft manufacturing scale, Piper and Cessna and Beechcraft were abandoning the fabric-covered steel tube structure of old for the aluminum monocoque construction of the future. The Comanche led Piper’s lineup, followed just a few years later by the venerable PA-28 Cherokee.
On the upper end of the personal aircraft single engine scale, the Beech Aircraft Corporation was pushing Bonanzas out the door to a select but appreciative audience of the business and personal travel leisure class.
Cessna was several years into building the Chevy Impala of the air, the C-172. A four-seater that could honestly carry three aloft with full, or nearly full tanks, the stage was set and the goal was clear. General aviation was in as transitional a stage as Boeing and Douglas were. But rather than going bigger and faster as the transport category crowd was doing, GA focused on making the airplane comfortable, convenient, and as practical as possible.
We can probably thank the crosswind gods for the invention and subsequent popularity of tricycle gear. Conventional gear was and continues to be available. And why not? It’s a point of pride for those of us who have the endorsement. It’s an even bigger point of pride for those who can actually land and taxi with confidence in a taildragger. Still, there may be no greater gift to the student or casual pilot than tricycle gear.
The improvements that made GA aircraft really leap into the realm of possibility for an ever wider audience that has yet to fully embrace their potential can be found in the panel. That’s where the sizzle is. And like the introduction of the 747 decades before, the alluring electronic gizmos found in a modern panel are becoming more affordable as they become more common.
It’s a brave new world, for sure.
Like the B-707, the early model 747s came with cockpits that were resplendent in steam gauges. Inertial navigation systems provided guidance. For the uninitiated the two front seats might as well have been behind the panel of the Lunar Excursion Module NASA was using to land men on the moon.
Although significantly less complex systems were used in GA, the basic airplane as a concept was nearly as vexing to new students. The panel was festooned with incomprehensible gauges, overwhelming many a new applicant to the point they missed the most important instrument available to them — the windshield.
Rather than going bigger, GA went for better. Cleaner panels, better systems, improved brakes, STOL kits, shoulder restraints, and the acceptance of innovations like GPS, Angle of Attack indicators, and even ballistic parachute systems began to creep into the mainstream of the fleet. All of which make getting into a personal aircraft a safer, more satisfying, and thoroughly more accessible experience.
The bulk of the GA fleet will never be as fast as the average transport category aircraft. They won’t be as big, either, or have legs nearly as long. But the improvements that have become commonplace in GA are so earthshattering as to have been unimaginable in 1969 when the City of Everett, the first B-747 to fly, rolled out of Boeing’s facility.
There is one other advantage to light GA aircraft that is often missed when comparing these particular apples and oranges. The 707 and DC-8 are gone. The 747 is most commonly seen in boneyards today. But those late-1950s 172s, the first of the PA-28s, and Bonanzas built in the post-war years continue to ply the skies.
Transports represent an expense. GA aircraft represent an investment.
Bigger isn’t necessarily better. My bathroom scale can attest to that, surely. So can the availability, the increasingly affordable cost, and the always impressive utility of the general aviation fleet.
Building better is a more nuanced concept than merely building bigger. GA has nailed that difference and revels in its mastery of it. Always improving, always intriguing, ever more attainable for those who wish to take that one giant leap Neal Armstrong started with…in GA.
Apples and pomegranates (or something).
Bigger airplanes (7X7 etc.) aren’t so much airplanes as flying money factories (at least in good times). What determines when a large airplane is retired is the accountants, in concert with the IRS, fuel costs, financing costs, ongoing maintenance costs, depreciation, corporate strategy (whatever that is), it is a financial decision on the part of the owning entity.
Nobody really wants a personal 747 (except for John Travolta who has a 747SP, which he bought relatively “cheap” because later 747s were more profitable to operate, and a few miscellaneous Sheiks), so it is the numbers – and strictly the numbers – that say whether a particular airframe or model flies or gets scrapped. When a commercial airplane doesn’t make money any more, it is gone, and will be replaced by something else that does make money. The bean counters (bless their black little hearts) absolutely RULE the airline business. (They also rule in the smaller bizjet business as well. If that Lear 25 costs too much to operate, it is gone.)
Now, when you get down into “less expensive” aircraft (say, under $1,000,000 which is an astonishing definition of “less expensive”), then you are getting into owner-flown airplanes, personal egos, status symbols and pride of ownership. At that point, in most cases the accountants are either simply run off with cattle prods or told to “make the numbers work” or else.
As to the technology of big iron versus bugsmashers, the big iron HAS to be very, very conservative because if their safety record was as “spotty” as GA’s nobody would ever fly commercial. We have the luxury (and can take the risks) of new technology, much of which works, but some of which does not. Personally, I’d be very nervous indeed if a 787 used an iPad as a primary navigation system. I’m (just) OK with it in a smaller airplane because while I can choose to accept certain risks for myself, I cannot choose to accept those same risks for a planeload of paying passengers.
Is bigger better? No, bigger is just different. Inapplicable comparison.
But keep up the good work anyway, and my bathroom scale agrees with yours, bigger (for bathroom scales, anyway) is not necessarily better!
Well written Jamie, concise and to the point about what’s really important to most of the weekend hamburger flyers
More efficient and on the edge of a new powerplant revolution as well. GA and the experimental market is proving once again that “bicycle mechanics” will often beat professional engineers to new and better ways to enjoy the skies.
The Rutan brothers gave us the enjoyment of small, safer, and less expensive composites. Today we have a new covey of composites that replace the venerable flights of Cessnas and Pipers with small, sleek, faster, and less consumptive airframes. That’s what building better is about isn’t it Mr. Beckett? Certainly, that appears to the direction GA is heading. I for one think it’s high time we accelerated the pace!
“Building better is a more nuanced concept than merely building bigger. GA has nailed that difference and revels in its mastery of it.”
Nonsense. GA manufacturers (and accomplices) build C-152 thru Bonanza class aircraft at 5% of the volume and ~400% of the inflation-adjusted price that they did in 1978. That hardly qualifies as mastery in my book. Where do they make their money? Turbine aircraft – bigger planes, in other words.
The advances mentioned, avionics, did not come from the big guys, it came from kit-builders and non-traditional electronics hobbyists ramping up to service them. Or from car market Garmin seeing an opening.
Taking the entirety of GA, it’s drying up, starting from the roots. The recent boom in training just went bust, and is unlikely to come back. Without that, numbers would be even more dismal. Old planes are getting older and GA pilots continue to total them at a pretty good clip. They won’t be replaced by half-million dollar Cirrus’s, if you can still find one that cheap.
LSA?
Automotive oil temperature sensor: $5
OT sensor for Rotax: $20
OT sensor for Rotax (certificated): $200
The advancements in technology and design that result in larger, faster and more capable aircraft compared to older, obsolete ones of the past is a bad thing?
There are restored model-Ts around but would anyone try driving one on a serious trip? Even to a grocery store? They have all the same elements of a modern car but can you see why they are impracticable and not still being made?
One serious destructive, obsolete element of some older GA aircraft is the presence of retractable gear. Given the new materials and advancements in construction and design these are no longer needed. Old round gauges, the lack of GPS navigation and the inability to save oneself under a chute are also happy relics of the past most no longer have to endure.
Sure there are 50/60 year old GA aircraft still being flown…but compared to a modern SLSA, RV, Cirrus or even a new version of a Cessna 172/182 they are clunky, rickety and far less safe and fun to fly.
So,”They are clunky, rickety and far less safe and fun to fly.”, and yet they are affordable and therefore available to fly.
Many of those “clunky” antiques will manage a miles per gallon efficiency greater than their current replacements, several with higher useful loads. Flying often in IFR, the “new” panel would indeed be better, for VFR operations there is nothing wrong with “steam” gauges, paper charts and knowing where you are rather than chasing the magenta line.
gbigs, I must say you post a lot and none of it is worth reading. For a person who has so many opinions, you have so little information or wisdom to share. Sad, just sad.
Rob, well said. +1
I just priced a Cirrus (read China) SR20 … ~$475K for the entry priced airplane which cruises at 155ktas for 3 hr (+45 res) carrying 775 lbs. One might justify buying an SR20 bare bones … especially if comparing it to a new C172.
The bare bones SR22 is $655K for the entry airplane which cruises at 183ktas for 3 hr (+45 min res) carrying 963 lbs. By the time you’d outfit an SR22, it’d likely cost you nearly a million dollars with taxes.
I only know one person who can afford such an airplane and — in fact — just sold one to get a newer one. Everyone else looks for the best airplane they can buy for around $100K … or less IF they’re lucky.
Apparently, gbigs can afford such an airplane and look down his nose at those of us who fly the “clunky, rickety and far less safe and fun to fly” machines. Good for him.
Given what’s going on in the economy just now and the fact that older Americans are among the most vulnerable, it’s likely the pilot population is going to go down some once Mr Covid “gets” some of ’em if age doesn’t. THEY are the ones with the money, too.
I’d LOVE to own such a better airplane but my timeline is getting shorter by the day. Heck, I’m having a hard time justifying an RV-12 for the very same reason.
Oh well … there can only be so many such winners. Most of us are relegated to being peon’s. Me … I’ll stick with my 172 which I’ve owned for 35 years and has been a loyal friend for all that time. I can stuff a lot of nice avionics into that thing and deal with less than perfect condition.
Try a partnership where you have 2-3 partners. That is the only way I could afford to fly a 6 place plane. I used to own a Cherokee 180C. Because I flew more than 10 hrs a month (biz related) we could afford that. Once we got out of the biz, we sold it.
I got into a partnership in two airplanes where there were 10-13 of us. It made the costs go down below what rentals would cost. Work relocation took me out of that to a partnership of 4 (total). And that is how I fly a 6 place complex/hi-perf plane. But there are partnerships out there in 4 place fixed….
I dunno, whenever friends get a chance to fly my ’62 172c, complete with anemic climb performance and a service ceiling of maybe 12K before you run out of fuel, they’re shocked how light and yet stable the controls feel. They love it. And then they get to the best part; to experience those mechanical flaps!
Sure I would like to go faster, and higher, with a G1000 + AP to monitor regularly. But there really is nothing to replace comfortably cruising at FL030-FL080 at maybe 115MPH watching the scenery go by, on MoGas to boot.
And, I do not know mine to be rickety or clunky…actually feels more solid than the rental 172SPs here and without the distraction of who flew or maintained this thing last.
Mr. Jamie Beckett: just a couple of words to say I’m completely whit what You’ve written. The only thing I’ll note is that, unfortunately, the powerplants of GA didn’t have the improvement they desert, because, the piston engines are, although with some (in my humble opinion minor) advances, similar in the way they were functioning for more than 60 years.
Keep on writing good stuff, as You always do.