Comments on: Threats to general aviation

By: david

david — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:19:30 +0000

Jim: I think that LSA is a great idea for people who just want to buzz around on the weekend, but I’m not so sure about it for getting to your destination. The U.S. LSA rules allow only two seats, very little weight margin for baggage, no night flying, and no IFR. Furthermore, the maximum speed for an LSA aircraft is the same range as an entry-level certified aircraft like a 172 or PA-28, and I can say from experience that it’s no fun flying at 120 knots for a few hundred miles into a 50 knot headwind — for any non-trivial cross-country flying, most people want 145 knots or faster (I’m a rare exception). I’d also be pretty concerned about flying anywhere behind a Rotax engine after watching their horrible reliability record in the Katanas at a flight school here in Ottawa (most of the forced landings haven’t been reported, since there was no damage, but even then two or three have been).

That said, you’re right that there is a good chance for lower prices and better economy. I won’t be surprised to see more homebuilts not too far from $100K with reliable, efficient diesel engines (maybe even automobile engines) and decent speed/load capabilities.

By: Jim Stewart

Jim Stewart — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:23:24 +0000

I think there is still a huge potential for the LSA class of pilots and planes. You can get a beautiful CTSW for about 100k *new*. The Rotax 912 runs beautifully on premium mogas, burning 4-5 gallons an hour and getting you to your destination with better gas milage than most cars. Annuals for LSA’s are running about $500. Avionics are much better and cheaper than ever. So maybe the days of picking up a beater plane for $30k and running it cheap are drawing to a close. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other alternatives.

By: david

david — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:57:35 +0000

Dave: I was confused at first by the reference CYOW 32’s “9,800 feet”, since it’s an even 10,000 ft with no displaced threshold; then I remembered that a 747 is just over 200 feet long, and a B1B is around 150.

By: Dave Rooney

Dave Rooney — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:26:51 +0000

I miss the same 747’s on their way into YOW. You could seem them from miles away making that same graceful turn onto final, then look like they’re practically standing still as they crawl their way towards 07. Despite some 40 years of following aviation, the sight of something that big flying that slow still boggles my mind!

BTW, 8,000 is plenty for the 747 at the end of the Heathrow-Ottawa trip. I’m pretty sure, though, that the heavier Air Force One had to use 32. I talked to a B-1B pilot at one of the airshows about 10 years ago… he described 32’s 9,800 feet as “interesting”! 🙂

By: randall g

randall g — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:50:32 +0000

I recently heard an Avweb podcast interview with someone at Thielert. They have a deal with one of the big Florida flight schools to retrofit over 60 of their planes with diesels.

David, I’m with you on the TwinStar!

By: david

david — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:56:23 +0000

Dave: one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen in aviation was an Air Canada 747 (Heathrow-bound) making a shallow, graceful right turn over Barrhaven when I was visiting a friend there (presumably after departing CYOW 25, assuming that 8,000 ft is enough runway for a 747). You’re right that it wasn’t noisy, but it was so low that it seemed to fill the sky, and I imagined that if it were a few feet lower I could see the faces in the windows. The ILS 07 approach above Barrhaven has brought me and my family home safely in our Warrior on more than one dark, rainy night. It’s a comfort to see lights start appearing below through breaks in the cloud while following the needles down with the rain pelting the windshield and flying past the side windows in horizontal streaks — Barrhaven’s a bit like a lighthouse that way, and I’m sure that the same applies even to airline pilots after a long, rough flight.

Aviatrix: Some day the diesel conversion will make sense in North America as well, but our gas is still far too cheap for that. I expect to see flight schools switch first, since the burn a lot of gas and go through engines frequently — they might be able to make back the conversion cost in a couple of years (especially if they keep a tank of diesel on hand, rather than using Jet-A), and they’ll also have more predictable maintenance costs (the diesel engine is replaced rather than overhauled, and I think it’s warrantied for its whole TBR time) and planes that start as easily as cars (FADEC).

My plan is to buy a used plane some day where someone has already done the conversion, or else to get rich and buy myself a new Diamond TwinStar.

By: Aviatrix

Aviatrix — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:59:54 +0000

I have a reader who flies a diesel C172 in Finland. As I understand it the price of avgas made the conversion a reasonable proposition.

And I think I have heard of a manual lawnmower ordinance. I’d like to see a rake ordinance, myself. I can’t even see that leaf blowers are more effective than rakes. It’s just that for some reason if you’re blowing the leaves instead of raking them, it makes it acceptible to dump them on the street or on your neighbour’s property.

By: Dave Rooney

Dave Rooney — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:21:45 +0000

Hi David,

I live in Barrhaven, and have bought 3 homes here since 1993. For each of those purchases, I had to acknowledge that I understood that there was an airport nearby and as such there would be noise. Essentially, I was signing a waiver that I couldn’t complain about the noise from aircraft. To me, that makes perfect sense – if you don’t like the noise, don’t live near an airport. Of course in my case, the proximity of the airport and living practically underneath the approach to 07 was a selling point! 🙂

It drives me crazy to hear about people who move near an existing airport then complain about noise. I should point out how much improvement has been made with regards to noise reduction in the 14 years I’ve lived here. In 1993, close to half the flights were being made in first generation 737’s, DC-9’s and some 727’s. All of these have the old JT8D’s whose noise level is only eclipsed by the occasional military fighter. When one of those aircraft took off, you had to pause any conversation until it passed.

Now, there are exactly 4 flights per day of aircraft with that noise level – FedEx, Purolator and First Air 727’s and a single 737-200 (whose airline I haven’t yet determined). The rest of the flights have noise levels that are quite tolerable. When a 767 or occasional A330 take off, it’s louder than normal but more of a low rumble. Even the Prime Minister’s A310 is louder than most other aircraft, but you can still have a conversation without yelling as it passes by.

Now, if you consider GA aircraft, there is only a single plane here in Ottawa that I would consider to be loud. It’s the Piaggio Avanti, which for some reason is considerably louder than any PT6 turboprop I’ve ever heard. The remainder of the GA aircraft are very quiet. I would venture that a Katana or Cessna 150 passing over at 1000 feet AGL is quieter than the neighbour’s lawn mower. You don’t hear about any ordinances forcing people to use manual lawn mowers, do you?!

Of course, there are many, many more voters who aren’t involved in GA that are. As such, all we can do is continue to raise awareness and counter half-truths with facts.

Dave Rooney