From my odd perch at Potomac Airfield, where we charge $18/mo and give fuel away at our cost (now $4.56), I noticed that when the 100LL hit about $3/gal, almost all of the 'casual' flying stopped. Suddenly many low power, low speed cruisers from airports all around, Cherokee 140's etc, showed up for sale on our bulletin board.
So much for the $100 hamgurger.
On the other hand, thanks to TSA and the 'convenience' of commercial flying, I'm seeing more people than ever buying high-performance x-country machines, to avoid commercial flight, to travel for business aned vacations, than ever before.
My theory is that GPS navigation and WX in the cockpit have dramatically increased the utility of GA AS TRANSPORTATION, while the utility of relying on airlines has become ever worse and worse.
For example we had a meeting in NJ, about 4 hours drive each way from DC (My airplane being overhauled). Airlines would have been a joke; so driving up the night before, dinner, hotels, etc, for the next morning 10AM meeting, (you cannot get to NJ in 4 hours going through all the rush hour traffic), and loss of the next day driving back, cost out of pocket about $700. In the 'thrasher could have left that AM, had the pow wow, and been back by lunch; maybe $200 in fuel. No, not cheap, but when factoring everything in, a LOT cheaper than driving.
Our sales guy enrouote to a 2 day conference got stranded in Raleigh (his continuuing flight was CANCELLED enroute!). So we lost two days of him doing anything useful (no way to get back), $700 in airfare for flying the friendly skies, a $1,500 booth fee down the drain, un unused hotel room at the destination for two days, plus another in Ralieghm, and about $250 to get our booth materials shipped two way to nowhere.
And the lost opportunity of being at that conference in the first place.
Makes GA start to look rather good.
I'm also seeing a lot of Mooneys all of a sudden. Very efficient if you aren't carrying a lot. Great solution for small guys with wife/girlfriend and some light luggage. (I'm 6 ft 180, and flying commercially I get to inspect my knees against the seat in front. 1st Class gets you TWO bags of peanuts and another few inches).
Another example making me feel better about my 'thrasher: A friend with a gorgeous loaded Bonanza recently DROVE 22 hours each way to Minnesota with his family. I asked why. He said with family and now two full-size kids, the Bonanza doesn't have the payload or range to carry them plus any luggage. The utility of his bonanza, weighed against his mission, has become low.
I often have my family of 4 plus LOTS of stuff; and a lot of my flying is over water (Wash DC to Hatteras NC). Having owned english and italian cars, helicopters and fixed wing, I know with confidence that no matter how much you spend, things DO break. Two points for the inline twin.
A friend in his single recently had an engine quit right after takeoff with his teenage daughter aboard; put both of them in intensive care. They'll survice, but think of what he has to live with now. His first 12,000 hours flying nothing happened, so I guess his single was statistically safe.
The statistics are good, but somebody gets to be the statistic.
Twin accident rates are comparable to singles; but perhaps that's because most of the events in a twin never end up in the NTSB reports at all? What's the number of unreported events that remained unevents because of being a twin? Anyone want to hazard a guess? In 1200 hours in my 337 since 1989, I've now had three events that if I had been in anything OTHER than the 337, I and others would have been in great physical danger. Because of the inline 337 twin, only my balance sheet was threatened; I have never been in danger.
So I've just decided I need my redundant twin-engine flying Winnebago (1969 T337D) and have just sunk $70k into new rear engine, fresh engine (firesleeved) and hydraulic lines, re-rig landing gear, etc etc etc. It gets maybe 5-8 gals/mile; a bit worse than a Chevy Suburban, but a lot faster and point to point.
Have you checked airline ticket prices, when you get away from the competitive hubs? Compare that to fuel, and time enroute, and almost anything short of flying to the Galapagos islands gets closer to coming out even.
So lets see what happens. A lot of the buyers into the highline singles are low time pilots, with a lot of money, buying transportation with high tech avionics. Until relatively recently, the only way to get the increased utility of modern avionics has been in a new airplane, so that's what they've been buying. As new avionics in old airplanes become comprabale to the stuff you could only buy in a new aircraft, the old aircraft, and twins, will come into their own. Fuel cost isn't a factor with a Columbia buyer.
Probably the biggest difference are th tax incentives for buying new. I believe there is a rapid depreciation schedule that knocks off the HUGE part of the acquisition cost, if you're in the right bracket. That's the real competition.
So I plan to keep tooling around in my T337 for awhile; a long while.
D
www.potomac-airfield.com