Dan64456

So they need to start designing some small turboprop single engine planes... more reliable, faster, safer... =)

ryan1234

Try to find a 61 school that rents the aircraft DRY! I did and I can tell you it saved A LOT of money! No surcharge and you can even learn how to fuel up your own airplane..... XC's run at peak economy... works a lot better.

There are reasonable flight schools out there! One I know of in my area rents a 01' 172sp for $65/hr dry ... and PA34 for $100/hr dry .... solid well maintained aircraft ... instruction is $35/hr, fuel at an airport right up the road is $3.15/gal

Dan64456

Damn that's cheap... where is this located?

Pilotpip

Turboprops aren't efficient until you get into the flight levels.

Diesel is probably the future, and those engines are ideal for general aviation (high torque, low RPM) but companies like Theilert are getting bogged down in the certification process and going bankrupt.

Engine technology hasn't changed much in the last 50 years. It's time for the FAA to work towards streamlining the certification process for new technologies because thousands of jobs will be lost as GA dies.

PearlPilot

I am actually in the same exact situation as you are in. I pay $135/hour for a 1998 and a 2000 172. I was wondering the same thing about the price decrease, but it is clear to me now that it has much more to do with avgas. I look at it like this. Yes, I am also paying out of my pocket, and if I wasn't living with my parents, I am not sure if I could make this. At the end, I have minimal amount of savings etc. But I am flying as you are too. We can fly without borrowing 40K and uncertain of how long it would take to get the licenses, what problems may occur (medical etc.), and most of all how the industry goes. I am glad that I am paying out of my pocket. Certainly, if all goes well what an investment!! There are places in this area that offer much more cheaper training ($80 something for 152 for example), that I am thinking about looking at after I got my PPL. However, keep your options open, try to pay out of your pocket. I think it would be a miracle if they lowered the prices...But again, I think the best bet for me is to find a cheaper place, if it is possible. Then again, you pay for what you get, like instruction, reliability, maintenance. I have yet to think hard, and if I think that paying $135 for this place (which is absolutely excellent), is worth it, then I may as well continue to obtain my ratings here, again, I have to think hard, visit other places, and see how it goes. For now, I am just concentrating on getting my PPL. Good luck and hang in there.

Lowtimer77

There is no doubt that costs have skyrocketed just in a few years. I joined a flying club in 2004 and was paying $33/hour WET for a C152!!!! Now it costs $58/hour wet( which still is a steal) almost doubling what I paid 4 years ago. Unfortunately I moved to another state for college and am stuck trying to pay a minimum of $90/hour for anything else.

Not that I believe in conspiracies or anything, but on a separate forum awhile back I was reading somewhere that 100LL is pretty much still around just because companies know that they can make a decent profit off of it because so many small airplanes require it. And honestly, many airplanes have been STC'd to use autofuel which is now half as expensive as 100LL. There are several issues with this though: Many operators believe that autofuel is kind of a cheap and not necessarily healthy fuel to be putting through their engines. However, from some material that I have read and comments Ive seen on other forums, autofuel in many cases has shown to be a better fuel than 100LL because it will often improve compression quite a bit. The other issue though is that it is becoming harder and harder to find autofuel without ethanol in it, which is prohibited in most cases for use in airplanes that have autofuel stc's. Lastly, not too many airports have autofuel pumps located on the field. Obviously if you are adventurous you could always go to your local gas station and fill up a bunch of tanks .

PearlPilot

Even if auto fuel is appropriate for a 172 the student has no say in it. It is a good alternative to save money for those who actually own the aircraft.

ryan1234

Located at XFL... PM me if you are interested, good people there! One of the reasons they are inexpensive is the way they do business. They did not over-extend their credit like many flight schools did by getting into state of the art facilities with brand-new planes (which doesn't make sense to be used by students). They only have 2 172sp's and 1 Seneca.

btw... AVGAS has gone down significantly... lower than it has been in a long time... it is a niche fuel, and I have heard that some places are taking a loss on it to bring people to their FBO.... I've seen avgas as low as $2.99 around Florida.

The aviation industry is a good example of over-regulation and several needless regulations...that is what is killing it..IMHO

Also... you don't always get what you pay for.. I can think of several schools of the top of my head that are really expensive and the planes/instruction isn't anything to write home about. Personally old planes (to a degree) are probably better for primary training anyways....if something does happen, at least you'll know the signs and how to deal with it.

I remember flying with a student from a very high priced school who refused to fly VFR because one (!) of the radio's display wasn't fully working! Another student refused to lean the mix below 3000, even though it is super-humid in FL...and would yield the better performance! Many students memorize procedures (which is good) however they refuse to think through a process.... for example... engine quits @ 5000ft, they immediately start looking for somewhere to put down.... never think maybe check the ignition key, fuel valve, etc...all items that take a second to check... anyways... that's all for a different thread!

Zayghami

I hear ya bro...flew today for 3 hours...cost me $336

rickair7777

Even under optimal conditions at the flight levels, no turbine engine is anywhere near as efficient as a piston job. Basic thermodynamics.

Turbine engines are far more reliable, and produce far more power for their size and weight. They also make airplanes go faster. But they are expensive to build and maintain, in addition to burning more fuel.

Heavy industry uses large diesel/natural gas engines wherever possible...the are cheaper to maintain and more fuel effecient. However a piston engine which can work in the middle flight levels and come anywhere near jet speeds is a massive, extremely complex machine with staged turbos and intercoolers. In addition it would have to be rebuilt on a regular basis.