JasonBlair.net

There are so many “pretty good” airplanes out there in general aviation, but I can’t help but think of a couple that I wish “could have been.” Airplanes that would have taken a next step, that would have probably commanded a significant amount of market share if they had just done ____________ or had _________ (you fill in the blank).

I know, these might be wishful thinking, and sometimes, those things that would have made that next step were just not mechanically practical at the time, or maybe the market wasn’t quite ready for them yet. But imagine with me the following.

A 200hp Piper Cherokee: A Perfect Match for an Iconic Airframe

The Piper Cherokee (PA28) series of aircraft has been GA’s backbone since the 1960s. Models like the PA-28-140 (140hp), -160 (160hp), and -180 (180hp) defined entry-level flying, with over 32,000 built. The airframe was simple, rugged, with Hershey-bar wings for forgiving handling, and it was a hit for training and short hops. But for serious utility, it often felt underpowered. I can’t help but wonder why there was never a 200hp Cherokee option? This would have blended the simplicity of the Cherokee 180 with the punch of later Arrows.

Real Cherokees topped out at 180hp for most base models, though the Cherokee 235 offered 235hp in a stretched fuselage. A 200hp version, say, a Lycoming IO-360 like the Arrow’s, would have been gold. At gross weights around 2,400 pounds, the thrust-to-weight ratio would have jumped, improving takeoff and climb without overwhelming the structure.

I have to think this would have been a great match for the airframe. The Cherokee’s airframe was overbuilt for its typical powerplants, with strong spars and a wide CG envelope. Adding 20hp would have improved weight and balance. Imagine how it would have been performance-wise? I have to think we would have seen cruise speeds of about 125-130 knots and improved climb rates, especially when fully loaded. Fuel burn wouldn’t have changed much, probably still about 10-11 gph, and the IO-360’s injection smooths operations.

Piper’s development history shows they iterated on the Cherokee, adding retractables and turbos, but a 200hp fixed-gear base would have made a truly load-hauling 4-person aircraft that I have to think would have competed with the Cessna 182 competition. 

If only Piper had made this one in the 1970s, I think it might have outsold many other airframes.

A 235hp Piper Arrow: The Powerhouse That Could Have Redefined Retractables

The Piper Arrow, introduced in the late 1960s as the PA-28R, was Piper’s entry into the retractable-gear trainer and tourer market. In reality, most Arrows came with a 200hp Lycoming IO-360 engine, offering a cruise speed of around 131-145 knots and a respectable climb rate of 831 feet per minute. Some early variants had 180hp, but the 200hp became standard, making it a solid step up from fixed-gear Cherokees for complex aircraft training. It was affordable, easy to fly, and sold well over 7,000 units by the time production paused in the 1980s.

But oh, what if Piper had bumped that to 235hp? The airframe was begging for it. The Arrow’s design, with its low-wing stability and retractable gear, handled like a dream, but the 200hp often felt underpowered when loaded up or at high-density altitudes. A 235hp engine, like the variants found in some Piper models, would have significantly boosted the thrust-to-weight ratio. At a typical gross weight of around 2,650 pounds, the real Arrow’s ratio hovers around 0.075 (200hp / 2,650 lbs, adjusted for prop efficiency). Upping to 235hp pushes that closer to 0.089, unlocking quicker takeoffs, steeper climbs, and better hot-and-high performance.

Why 235hp specifically? It matches the power of the Piper Cherokee 235, a fixed-gear sibling with a beefier engine for hauling. Transplanting that into the Arrow would create a retractable that punches above its weight. Imagine departing a short strip at 8,000 feet density altitude: the extra power means shorter ground rolls and a climb rate pushing 1,000 fpm, versus the real Arrow’s struggle to hit 700 fpm.

Like the Cherokee, Piper had a variety of powerplants in its aircraft. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out why they didn’t put a 235hp option in the Arrows. Was it just because they were afraid pilots would consider needing to get a high-performance endorsement that big of a barrier? They would already need the complex endorsement for it; it really wasn’t that much more training or a requirement to satisfy.

I think Piper missed a trick by not pursuing this; it would have made the Arrow not just a complex aircraft trainer, but a true traveler’s delight. I wish they’d built it; my logbook would be full of adventures in one.

A Fixed-Gear Cessna 210; The Pressurized, Deiced Turbo Beast That Would Have Been Like No Other

Cessna’s 210 Centurion, debuting in 1960, was a retractable-gear hauler with up to 310hp turbo options and pressurization in later models. It evolved from 260hp IO-470s to 285-310hp IO-520/TSIO-520s, grossing up to 4,000 pounds. But retractables add complexity and maintenance. Enter the Cessna 205/206 series, fixed-gear cousins with 260-300hp, built for bush work but lacking high-end features. My ultimate wish: a fixed-gear 210, essentially a super-205, with full deicing, pressurization, and turbocharging.

This hybrid would marry the 210’s cabin (six seats, 28-foot length) with the 205’s robust fixed gear, powered by a 310hp TSIO-520 turbo. Turbo benefits are huge: maintaining sea-level power up to critical altitudes around 18,000 feet, enabling climbs over weather and faster TAS. Pressurization could keep cabin altitude at 8,000 feet or below, reducing fatigue and hypoxia risks—vital for long legs. Deicing, via boots or weeping wings, giving the option for at least some light icing management, climbing through or descending through, for more capable weather operations.

Why fixed gear? Simpler, cheaper to maintain, better prop clearance for rough strips, perfect for GA utility. At 3,600-4,000 pounds gross, a thrust-to-weight ratio of around 0.078 means strong performance; the turbo pushes the service ceiling to 25,000+ feet, dodging icing layers and extending range to 800+ NM. Sure, it wouldn’t be as fast as the 210, but a few extra knots isn’t that big of a deal for the easier to manage systems it would provide when compared with the somewhat finicky to maintain retractable gear option.

Cessna’s history shows they pressurized the 210 in the 1970s, but never this fixed variant. It would have been the everyman’s airliner: haul gear to remote spots, cruise high above storms, land anywhere. Icing? Dealt with. Weather? Avoided. I wish Cessna had built it; it’d still rule a big segment of the owner-flown single-engine traveling aircraft market today.

The Ultimate Pressurized Turbocharged Hauler that Wasn’t – A Turbo, Pressurized A36

And then there is what is probably my dream personal airplane. A turbo-charged, pressurized, fully de-icing equipped Beech A36. Imagine it. 

This just screams “missed opportunity” to me. With 6 seats, a 3,650-pound gross weight, and a cruise speed up to 175 knots, a pressurized version of this would allow comfortable cruising at altitude. There are turbocharged versions, but you have to wear oxygen masks or a cannula when up at altitude. There are some deicing options, but not many of them had it or they were limited.

My imaginary version: an A36 airframe with a 300hp TSIO-520 turbo, pressurized to 5-6 psi differential (cabin at 8,000 feet up to 25,000), and boots/weeping deice. Turbo maintains power high, boosting climb to 1,200+ fpm and ceiling to 25,000 feet. Pressurization adds comfort for long hauls, reducing noise and allowing oxygen-free flights. Deice enables IFR in known icing, a GA rarity.

Imagine crossing multiple states at 180 knots, above weather, with family and gear. It’s the “everyman travels everywhere” machine, rugged, fast, safe. Beech missed the boat; this would have been GA’s crown jewel. There just isn’t anything like this in the market. It would give the efficiency of a single-engine aircraft in terms of fuel burn that many owners have to give up by going to multi-engine aircraft, such as the Cessna 340, to get the speed and altitude for cruising.

I have to think that if this plane were made, it would be a heavy competitor for market share taken by the Piper M600 series of aircraft and would be a slightly smaller option for personal owners than the TBM series offers. I wish it existed.

Ok, enough dreaming for today. Maybe you want some of these also. If anyone reading this happens to work for any of the manufacturers who might just want to revisit their airframes and take a hint from this post, call me. I would love to help and be a test pilot for them.

Flight training is a place where there is supposed to be a high degree of professionalism and well-behaved students and instructors, but this isn’t always the case. For flight training providers, when their staff or customers deviate from safety or social norms, they sometimes face awkward conversations and difficult decisions.

Some students and CFIs engage in behaviors that range from immature to outright reckless and illegal. These actions compromise safety and business stature and, in some cases, may even violate regulations.

With modern tools like ADS-B tracking, cockpit cameras, and social media, many of these misdeeds are no longer private. What once might have been a whispered story among pilots might now be part of the public record, damaging trust in flight schools and the broader aviation community.

As in any environment, human dynamics are present and can generate aberrant behavior. With that in mind, here are 10 things flight training providers just might find themselves having to deal with when it comes to their customers or their staff.

And yes, all of these are things that flight training providers have actually encountered or found out happened in their aircraft. The goal of telling these is not to sensationalize but to reinforce the non-negotiable priority of safety and professionalism.

Creating Inappropriate “Pictures” with ADS-B Flight Tracks

It is becoming more common to find “pictures” drawn from ADS-B flight tracks posted on social media sites. In some cases, the pictures are commemorative, bringing attention to charities, or drawing innocent pictures. But that isn’t always the case. Some pilots choose to allow more immature impulses to take over and draw pictures of things such as phallic items.

This isn’t always just local pilots, either. Sometimes it is the “best of the best” who do it.

In April 2026, Finnish Air Force cadet pilots were reprimanded after multiple aircraft traced two giant penis-shaped patterns during a training exercise near Jyväskylä. The shapes appeared clearly on tracking services, drawing widespread media attention and disciplinary action from senior officers.

The inappropriateness of this is obvious.

Distracted Flying While Making Social Media Content

The rise of aviation influencers has led some students and CFIs to film, narrate flights, pose for selfies, or create content mid-flight using GoPros, phones, or mounts. What starts as “harmless vlogging” can quickly become a deadly distraction.

Incidents involving content creators, such as pilots focusing on their cameras instead of flying, have contributed to crashes or near-misses. One analysis highlighted a female pilot whose heavy emphasis on social media filming was suspected in a fatal accident. Another YouTuber staged a crash for views, leading to federal obstruction charges. Even without crashes, constant narration or camera adjustments violate the spirit of sterile cockpit rules extended to GA.

FAR 91.13 and good airmanship prohibit activities that interfere with safe flight. Risks include missing traffic, botched landings, or spatial disorientation. Many schools now ban non-essential recording during critical phases and require all content to be reviewed and approved post-flight. Professionalism demands that the airplane is flown first; content creation belongs on the ground.

At a minimum, cameras should be turned on before the airplane is turned on and left to run, focusing on flying rather than managing cameras, unless the camera work is left to a passenger. Continue reading →