Is the intention to keep it flying for VIP tours? Why not just focus on the cosmetics instead of the costly real maintenance work? When I see a museum WW2 or older vehicle, I assume the thing can no longer run.
There’s a difference between not flyable, flyable but not certified, fly able and certified. Each step is a big cost difference. But many hobbyist can get from one to two depending on the tech used.
If I recall correctly there’s a guy putting Honda engines inside Cessnas making them much cheaper. But they are not certifiable.
I've done business case studies where we can't even make a profitable case to re-engine a Cessna (150) with a newer technology, but already certified aircraft engine, due to the costs involved in the required flight testing, such is the cost burden of certification.
I don't think it's really intentional. Most of the aviation industry would love to get rid of the burden that is leaded avgas. Not to mention the environmentalists, health departments etc.
The problem is just that the rules for larger aircraft apply to general aviation too. And the margins there aren't high enough to pay for all the certification. So we're stuck with 1950s tech which would never pass certification today but did at one time in history. It's weird how regulations supposedly intended to make things better are holding us back and stopping innovation to make things safer, more sustainable and efficient.
I think you're right about "most of the aviation industry". From a regulatory approach if they ever approve a new GA powerplant and something happens, they'll be considered responsible. So long as they don't approve anything it's unlikely to come back on them.
It doesn't hurt that some of the industry loves selling 1930s technology at a premium price.
> From a regulatory approach if they ever approve a new GA powerplant and something happens, they'll be considered responsible.
I don't think this is the problem. GA is a fringe phenomenon anyway. Look at what happened with the 737MAX. The FAA hardly got any of the flak and they didn't even care enough to certify it themselves, they just let Boeing sign off on their own product.
If something happens with a GA powerplant no way anyone would blame the FAA. It didn't even happen for the 737MAX where hundreds of people literally died. And for GA the damage/life-loss impact would be much much lower.
It's just the cost, if you make 1000 jet engines a year that sell for $10 million each then yeah it's easily justifiable. If you sell 500 GA engines for $100k it's much harder.
Look at Rotax for example. They're doing good business, their engines are much more modern than Lycoming and the like, they run on unleaded petrol, and they are reliable workhorses. But the ultralight market simply has much lower regulatory requirements. This is why innovation still happens.
I think it's time to stop holding a 4-seater 100 knot cruise aircraft to the same standards as a 300 seater jet airliner. It'll be good for safety because people will actually use things designed in this century, good for the environment and good for aviation in general.
There is a museum near me that does the required maintenance on some of the planes they have to keep them in theoretical working condition. I like that I am looking at "real" planes, not just empty shells with the guts ripped out or decayed. Maybe one day they will actually be flown.
Much easier to restore fully in the future if they are maintained now.
The article says they want to take it to air shows, where presumably it will need to be airworthy. But yeah, I would hope they plan to do more with it than that...
I don't think they should try to turn this into a profit-seeking enterprise, but with the cost of the restoration probably pushing $20M (enough to buy a brand-new, modern jet of similar size, I'd bet), it might be nice to recoup some of that.
$20M is not even close to the cost of a new jet. Jets are insanely expensive.
Idk whether jets are best measured by dimensions or capacity, but a jet with a similar wingspan is a 737-800, and those cost like $106,000,000. If we’re going by capacity (I’m using seating-capacity because it’s easier to find than volume measurements), a G550 sits up to 19 (depending on the configuration: most rentals I saw list up to 16 passengers), and retails at $62,000,000. You can get them used for around $20M.
