How much does it cost to get an airplane certified?

easik

easik

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
235
Display Name
Display name:
easik
Just curious. I see a lot of airplane prototypes take a long time to market or they just get stuck in the certification process for years. I've had conversations with a few pilots and I've heard cost numbers as high as $100 million to get an airplane certified. And I mean actual certified aircraft like a Cirrus SR22.
My initial reaction was; NO WAY it cost that much. Or does it?
 
Yes... yes it can. Some cost even more.
 
When I graduated from college in 2004, my prof's were involved and for some GA aircraft they estimated $30MM. Of course your results may vary.
 
The more complex the plane the costlier the certification. Something as seemingly simple on the surface such as FIKI certification is a real bear. Then again, the flip side is that when you need those systems you want to know that they were tested to the hilt. I would think 100mil on more on the side of a complex cross-country plane. Perhaps less for a trainer type aircraft.
 
Rockymountain said:
The more complex the plane the costlier the certification. Something as seemingly simple on the surface such as FIKI certification is a real bear. Then again, the flip side is that when you need those systems you want to know that they were tested to the hilt. I would think 100mil on more on the side of a complex cross-country plane. Perhaps less for a trainer type aircraft.
Click to expand...
Okay I understand a simple scratch on the body frame can mean going back to the drawing board. But my curiosity is; where does most of that cost go into? is it design, fees or testing of prototypes? and then you still have to have some budget for marketing.

I ask these questions because as Timbeck2 already said, these costs are pushed down to the end customer. Which makes flying expensive. And I can't help the fact that European designs are more appealing to the eyes and in some ways more innovative. I don't know the rules they have there but looks like they have more freedom to innovate and create new designs for their airplanes. I can't say the same for American manufacturers. Take the Cessna 172 for example. That body frame/design is at least 50 years old. Cessna wouldn't dare alter the design, at least not heavily because they would pay out the wazoo for any changes.
 
Last edited:
easik said:
where does most of that cost go into? is it design, fees or testing of prototypes?
Click to expand...
All the above plus. There is no one-size-fits-all to that question. Too many variables beyond the obvious: construction materials, flight envelope, max speed/weight, etc. If you're using new technologies and materials your design/testing costs are higher than using legacy materials. So it all depends.

easik said:
these costs are pushed down to the end customer
Click to expand...
Yes design costs are "pushed" down to the consumer but it is not that linear. Before an aircraft is designed the target market is defined to determine the foundation of cost vs. return on investment. Will the intended market absorb 20 airframes? 50? 100? Once the break even point (profitability) is determined then they calculate what the design/certification budget which equates to how many aircraft need to be sold to cover the design/development costs. After X number of aircraft are sold, which can take years, then the project makes money. Some popular models are flying goldmines like the 737 which just had its 10,000th unit produced last month and it first flew in 1966.

easik said:
And I can't help the fact that European designs are more appealing to the eyes and in some ways more innovative
Click to expand...
In what manner? Curious, on the certified side (TC) which new European models have been introduced into the US GA market? As for the development costs in Europe there was a time--and in some cases to this day--where the state government subsidized all aviation industries. So it would not be a equal comparison to US OEMs.

easik said:
Cessna wouldn't dare alter the design, at least not heavily because they would pay out the wazoo for any changes.
Click to expand...
Why would they? They enjoy a legacy fleet numbering in the 10s of thousands. Where is the "new" market to support a new Cessna model? However, Cessna did just that by "updating" 3 popular models after the passage of the GARA act in 1994 which provided tort law protections for OEMs of small aircraft. Old design sure but still very popular. 1994 is also the same year the Cirrus flew. Coincidence?

So if I had to pick one driving factor to aircraft design cost it would be the target market. If the market can handle the cost then that's what it will cost to build the aircraft. Look at that new super-sonic business jet being designed in Colorado. They're selling pre-production slots now for an aircraft reported to cost $120M each. And they haven't even build a prototype yet. So it all depends...
 
easik said:
Just curious. I see a lot of airplane prototypes take a long time to market or they just get stuck in the certification process for years. I've had conversations with a few pilots and I've heard cost numbers as high as $100 million to get an airplane certified. And I mean actual certified aircraft like a Cirrus SR22.
My initial reaction was; NO WAY it cost that much. Or does it?
Click to expand...

I think Cirrus spent a full decade securing certification of their jet. Not hard to spend $10 million a year on an effort like that.
 
easik said:
Okay I understand a simple scratch on the body frame can mean going back to the drawing board. But my curiosity is; where does most of that cost go into? is it design, fees or testing of prototypes? and then you still have to have some budget for marketing.

I ask these questions because as Timbeck2 already said, these costs are pushed down to the end customer. Which makes flying expensive. And I can't help the fact that European designs are more appealing to the eyes and in some ways more innovative. I don't know the rules they have there but looks like they have more freedom to innovate and create new designs for their airplanes. I can't say the same for American manufacturers. Take the Cessna 172 for example. That body frame/design is at least 50 years old. Cessna wouldn't dare alter the design, at least not heavily because they would pay out the wazoo for any changes.
Click to expand...

Which new European designs that you find so appealing have a USA certification equivalent to the 172?
 
By designs, I mean interior design and ergonomics. And in terms of Innovations, I like what manufacturers like Pipistrel and Diamond are doing. Mooney started something great with the M10 program and sadly that's already been suspended or shut down for good. Cool innovations like 'FADEC' for example can be hardly found in new US model aircrafts even though the technology is readily available.
 
easik said:
Just curious. I see a lot of airplane prototypes take a long time to market or they just get stuck in the certification process for years. I've had conversations with a few pilots and I've heard cost numbers as high as $100 million to get an airplane certified. And I mean actual certified aircraft like a Cirrus SR22.
My initial reaction was; NO WAY it cost that much. Or does it?
Click to expand...

Often it is an issue of cash flow more over than capital constraint because most develop under an R & D umbrella which in Europe at least provides for deductions against profits of 150 percent. Basically the tax payer pays. There are caviets of course yet the R&D has benefits for investors also.
 
The Part 23 re-write was supposed to make certification less expensive... 'not sure if the jury is in yet.
 
easik said:
I like what manufacturers like Pipistrel and Diamond are doing
Click to expand...
You had mentioned "type certificated" aircraft which Pipistrel is not. And Diamond is a niche market OEM which is not on the same level as Cessna or Piper. Now if you are talking Light Sport there are a lot of innovative designs out there but they are built to a "consensus standard" and not a certified standard. Apple/orange comparison.

easik said:
Cool innovations like 'FADEC' for example can be hardly found in new US model aircrafts
Click to expand...
There is no cost/benefit for putting a true FADEC system on a recip engine over a modern fuel injection system. But 95% of the new US turbine powered aircraft to include helicopters have been FADEC equipped since the 90s. So it depends again...
 
CT4ME said:
'not sure if the jury is in yet.
Click to expand...
The jury has been in. No new market to justify costs from what I've read. Everyone still watching the LSA market which now has seem to plateaued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top