There is a whole subculture of pilots seemingly trying to run around some of these regulations using "experimental" aircraft like the carbon cub: https://www.youtube.com/@TrentonPalmer/videos
(I'm not saying Trent Palmer is trying to run around any regulations, just that his videos are cool, and seem like a good entry point into experimental bushplanes)
His current videos are about a really interesting and unique pool he is building at his house, but most of his stuff is about even cooler and even more unique airplanes he builds. He's an incredible engineer/hacker.
Mike is perhaps one the most impressive plane hackers I've seen. His creativity and transparency (he shows all the process!) are much appreciated. He inspired me to try and make some carbon fiber models for RC planes. By the second half of this year I plan to have built an RC delta wing, and use my programming knowledge to automate its flight path.
EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
I worked with a flight test engineer at Cessna who spent an hour describing his personal CitationJet RC model plane project. I was a little skeptical, but he said it even had miniature kerosene-powered jet engines.
The run around is just "if you built more than half of it, you can be trusted to maintain it" which isn't really all that scandalous. It's actually been a very healthy thing for the GA industry in recent years given the issues outlined in TFA
I worked as a software engineer on the single engine "reboot" at Cessna in the mid '90s. At the time the company would pay for your private pilot's license, up to ATP cert IIRC. I knew a number of people who got their license that way. Cessna had a great ground school and a nice flying club with well-maintained planes. Ultimately, many of the people who got their license ended up not carrying on with flying. It is a very time consuming hobby and not really a practical mode of (even occasional) transportation. I now regret contributing to the single engine program (and the jets) due to the cost to the environment--I can't believe they still use leaded avgas. I read recently that private jets have at least an order of magnitude higher emissions per passenger mile than commercial.
Jets have a huge fuel consumption per passenger per mile; airliners have it lower because of the scale. GA is different, in some cases it takes less avgas to fly from A to B than driving a car. In my case, flying a Rotax 912 powered plane to my parents' house takes 2 hours and 30 liters of unleaded gas, driving takes 8-9 hours and 40 liters of Diesel, the environment is happier with me flying than driving.
It was hard to find emissions data on the Rotax 912, from a Rotax support list [1]:
>> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions.
> I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck.
even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem.
(I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.)
I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?"
In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets.
Except that to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) they still have non-closed loop emissions--no catalytic converter or EGR--which would mean a brand new Rotax 912 would emit more NOx, CO, and VOCs than my 20 year old Mazda gas engine car. I feel like it is my right to "rag" on something which doesn't have to follow the same rules as I do.
To be fair, my neighbors probably emit 10X the pollution running their backpack-mounted, gas-powered leaf blowers and open fire pits year round. I rag on them too, and display my rake in protest.
This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed.
Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages.
An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit.
The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing.
The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up.
And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane.
Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems.
Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.
> This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.
The engines don’t require lead, it was just the only high octane fuel available. We do have a 100LL replacement now, and work is being done to get it into service. Lower compression engines run just fine on mogas where it’s available too.
I think that is just the reality of non-mass manufacturing. In the 50's those engines were going into production cars in the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Now they are produced in numbers of hundreds, maybe thousands, and as such they are hand-built specialty engines, even as primitive as they are.
Price gauging. Same for Rotax 912, the most popular small engine on planes that don't need certification (LSA/ULM) and they are 20,000 Euro for a 1.3 liter engine with an 100 HP output.
9k for a rebuilt Toyota 2f designed in to 50s & meant for a measly ground vehicle. 30k seems about right for an airplane. What do you do for a living? Why don’t you do it for less?
I'm a fan of the Rotaxes. I fly one in our club's Tecnam. I prefer it over the old tractor engines that run the Piper I fly sometimes.
Curious if you have any thoughs on Sling for kit builds? I'm very serioulsy considering building their new HW (https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-hw/) that has the new Rotax 915 (turbocharged) in it in the next 12-18 months.
Unleaded avgas is now fully approved for the GA fleet with existing engines and is actively being rolled out this year with more widespread adoption next year. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php
Really? Electronic ignition and fuel injection alone are advantageous enough, not to mention the ability of at least one Rotax engine to use true automotive gas (gasohol).
As the article points out, the writing was on the wall for leaded fuel decades ago. The GA industry killed itself by dragging ass on eliminating the need for it, abetted by the burdensome FAA certification process for any aviation advancements.
It may be too late to save GA. BasicMed was a big help, and the increased pace of STC approval has been a boon. But with the FAA derelict in its duty to protect airports (see the sellout of Santa Monica as an example) and corrupt local governments eager to destroy our public airports and sell their land to developers... the future looks grim indeed. Just as electric training aircraft, unleaded fuel, and less-polluting and more-efficient engines render the anti-aviation cabal's excuses moot.
Having trained in some old 172s, I appreciate regulations that require updated weights and balances with a licensed mechanic when the owner does something like upgrading avionics. So I understand the cost of keeping those things airworthy.
But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go.
It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.
He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.
Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point.
I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..
Yeah, prices in CO (where Corsairpower is based) are ~100-150/hr wet for a 172, plus 30-40/hr for an instructor. I think I'm paying ~120/hr plus a varying "fuel surcharge" of ~20/hr for a T41-D.
The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.
>People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
Other than a slightly nicer looking dash with a digital radio, the brand new $500,000 Cessna 172, is almost exactly the same as the 1950s-1970s era models that make up the overwhelming bulk of the fleet.
The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?
I did a discovery flight with my son last summer in a C172. We had a blast, but I was pretty surprised how old the plane felt. My recurring thought is that Cessnas are like the TI-85s of airplanes; ubiquitous workhorses frozen in time.
Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.
Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.
That's innovation in my book. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce your costs while improving emissions, especially when we're talking about 30+ year old technology.
If 30 years ago you could fly a brand new plane for a price and now you can fly a 30 year old plane for a lot higher price, he is right to complain. It is the same comparing the price of a new car 30 years ago with the price of that used car now, with half a million miles on it, ignoring the potential "vintage, mint condition" surcharge.
I fairly regularly (several times per year) land our A36 at a class B airport: mostly BWI, PIT, and DTW. They are often the most convenient airport to access something downtown (such as a sporting event via public transport or a shorter Uber ride). Even our older 182 could blend in reasonably well speed-wise [though it often meant flying at full cruise power through much of the approach to keep the speed up to 135-140 KTAS].
Landing at a class bravo isn’t really anything special and some bravo airports are pretty small. It’s more about the airspace than the airport. Some bravo airports have heavy general aviation traffic. Others charge large landing fees.
And some airports aren’t technically “bravo” but the most common method of getting there involves transiting bravo airspace.
The main reason someone flies a small single piston airplane anymore is to work towards their commercial rating. And practice in class B airspace is an important part of that.
Readit News
(I'm not saying Trent Palmer is trying to run around any regulations, just that his videos are cool, and seem like a good entry point into experimental bushplanes)
I'd also encourage anyone here to check out Mike Patey: https://www.youtube.com/@MikePatey/videos
His current videos are about a really interesting and unique pool he is building at his house, but most of his stuff is about even cooler and even more unique airplanes he builds. He's an incredible engineer/hacker.
EDIT: To add to it, and even more remarkable: Mike has apparently got no formal education in engineering. His twin brother also wrote a book about the blessings and curses of ADHD, which both have.
Seemingly the author is still working at it:
https://corsairpower.com/
Last update (2022):
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...
May they drive a revolution.
>> I am looking for emissions data for the 912 iSc powerplant. I am in need of data regarding VOC and NO emissions.
> I suspect you will have to measure this yourself. I cannot think of a reason why any user outside Rotax would know this, but good luck.
even harder to find emissions on an unknown road vehicle. Lead for autos was phased out in the US starting in the 1980s. I stopped using leaded gas my 1972 VW Beetle (designed to run leaded) in the late 80s. I know some piston A/C are running unleaded, but it is glacial progress compared to cars. Having been in the industry, I am well aware of the reasons (certification/safety requirements, politics and lobbyists). I just regret in my ignorance at the time I contributed to the problem.
(I would also assume you and your parents live next to airstrips, eliminating the need to get to one.)
I think our problem is more systemic. A better question than "Do I fly or drive?" might be "Why don't I live closer to my extended family and friends?"
In fact the computer industry uses more energy than the aviation industry [2]--cryptocurrency and AI are just going to add to it. When I design software, I try to keep efficiency and utility in mind--but the human mind is good at rationalizing what it needs to. Who needs software used to repair broken tech? Hopefully more people than need single engine aircraft or jets.
--
[1] https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912is-technical-questions/653...
[2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3483410
A modern piston plane can get the equivalent of 30 MPG, and fly directly to its destination. So there's no need to rag on it.
To be fair, my neighbors probably emit 10X the pollution running their backpack-mounted, gas-powered leaf blowers and open fire pits year round. I rag on them too, and display my rake in protest.
Many people are complaining about the ancient technology, but newer ones offer very few advantages.
An piston GA airplane runs basically at two speeds: flat-out for take-off and cruise. For both the fuel/air mixture is easily optimized to optimal, and the slow engines reduce waste. Benefits from EFI are decent but below 10%. Supercharging helps a lot at higher altitudes, but most planes aren't pressurized or carry oxygen, so even that has limited benefit.
The main benefit of the current engines are robustness: I know people who have even flown without oil or with a blown valve. Many experimental builders combine mechanical magnetos with electronic ignitions, partly for fuel efficiency but mainly to lower idle speed on the runway when landing.
The real difficulty is not technology but service. There are very few engine rebuilders, and they are happy with the current limited supply of engines keeping prices up.
And unless you built your own experimental plane, or you get an experimental where the FAA permits owner inspections, the main cost of flying is service on the plane.
Aside 1: many engines have STC's to run car avgas. All require there to be NO ethanol for its impact on the fuel system. The studies I've seen of those engines report bottom rebuild times more like 800-1000 hours rather than 2,000 hours, and of course a higher incidence of valve-related problems.
Aside 2: experimental planes are not a subculture. They form the largest number of new planes. The $200K+ alternates only go to the wealthy. And after 50 years of competing companies, only one has been the overwhelming success, in both popularity and numbers: Van's aircraft. They use old-style, simple designs and construction, and (mostly) old-style engines, preferring the Rotax for their RV-12.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.
Curious if you have any thoughs on Sling for kit builds? I'm very serioulsy considering building their new HW (https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-hw/) that has the new Rotax 915 (turbocharged) in it in the next 12-18 months.
As the article points out, the writing was on the wall for leaded fuel decades ago. The GA industry killed itself by dragging ass on eliminating the need for it, abetted by the burdensome FAA certification process for any aviation advancements.
It may be too late to save GA. BasicMed was a big help, and the increased pace of STC approval has been a boon. But with the FAA derelict in its duty to protect airports (see the sellout of Santa Monica as an example) and corrupt local governments eager to destroy our public airports and sell their land to developers... the future looks grim indeed. Just as electric training aircraft, unleaded fuel, and less-polluting and more-efficient engines render the anti-aviation cabal's excuses moot.
But in my case, that same plane has a seat rail lock that fails during takeoff. Luckily I had an instructor with me who grabbed the yoke when I had to let go.
It's a weird world where you're confident to not rent a plane that will stall because of some aftermarket install, but you're on your own if that old seat fails.
Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point.
I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something.
Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..
The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.
Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells?
Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
According to BLS.GOV - 1970 $45 == 2022 $353.
Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.
And some airports aren’t technically “bravo” but the most common method of getting there involves transiting bravo airspace.