Paul B. on engines

asicer said:
Again. SR20 vs 172 isn't a very good comparison. Tecnam P2010 vs 172 is a better comparison. Same engine, same gross weight, same empty weight but the Tecnam is composite.

But you already ignored the Tecnam once. If you choose to ignore it a second time, there's also the DA40. Same engine, same useful load but is only 66lbs heavier empty. Some of that is the constant speed prop, some of that is the extra long wing and some of that is because it was built for crashworthiness.
Click to expand...

I spent some time looking at the Tecnam P2010. It has a composite fuselage shell and metal wings and horizontal tail surfaces, riveted just like a Cessna's. And it resembles the Glastar, an airplane I have extensive experience with, so much so that I suspect it has the same steel-tube internal cage that carries the wings, landing gear, and engine, and it extends back into the baggage compartment. The only place any composite is bearing any flight or landing loads is the aft section of the tailcone. I could not find any pictures online of the internal construction, and the Tecnam's interior finish hides it.

The Glastar:

upload_2021-5-23_9-19-30.jpeg

The extensions into the aft fuselage are shown in this photo. They're necessary to carry the loads around the rear windows without having to have more heavy composite reinforcement. It just shows that old stuff like steel tubing is still lighter.

upload_2021-5-23_9-20-33.jpeg

So, it it has a steel-tube frame, and I suspect it does, the Tecnam is NOT a fair representation of a composite airplane any more than the Glastar. If it was all-composite it would be heavier. Maybe someone has some more informed input on the internals of the Tecnam.

Yes, it is lighter than a 172SP and has better performance. In 2015 its base price was around $350K. In 2015 a 172SP was $364K. Going to have to do better than that to change GA.
 
Tecnam’s approach for P2010 is pretty smart with composite fuselage and aluminum wings. All things being equal, an insurance underwriter told me aluminum planes insure for less then composites due to variables and costs fixing aluminum. They are especially concerned about wing damage for a variety of reasons including most common damage - wing rash. The hybrid designs are view more favorably by insurance companies over all composite.

Much more slippery air design optimization is achievable with composite. A big reason the P2010 has the cruise performance of a 182, fuel burn of 172, and half the difference in useful load between 172/182.
 
NordicDave said:
All things being equal, an insurance underwriter told me aluminum planes insure for less then composites due to variables and costs fixing aluminum. They are especially concerned about wing damage for a variety of reasons including most common damage - wing rash. The hybrid designs are view more favorably by insurance companies over all composite.
Click to expand...

That is something I’ve wondered about. Having dabbled in composite construction and repair it can be quite time consuming and expensive to do it well. Much more so than the equivalent sheet metal repairs I’ve also performed.

But, I suspect airplane type and history of losses has far more influence on insurance premium price than metal vs. composite (fabric is a different story). I’ve insured similar metal and true composite airplanes and the premium has always been roughly equivalent between them. I’m sure there are outliers on both sides though.

Fabric airplanes have always been the most expensive to insure.
 
Dan Thomas said:
If it was all-composite it would be heavier.
Click to expand...
The DA40 is all composite and is only 66lbs heavier than a C172, with some of that coming from the constant speed prop and the fact that it's built for crashworthiness.
 
asicer said:
The DA40 is all composite and is only 66lbs heavier than a C172, with some of that coming from the constant speed prop and the fact that it's built for crashworthiness.
Click to expand...
The DA40 has a composite MT cs prop that likely doesn't weigh any more than a metal fixed-pitch prop. Wooden blades with carbon fiber sheath, I think. Same as the MT prop on the SMA diesel 182 I once worked on.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Competing with Cessna is the way to go. Should be a piece of cake
Click to expand...
It always bugs me the argument when a genuine point is made "why can't they make small, continual, continuous improvement to enhance efficiency and reduce costs" and the counter is "how many planes have you built!" or something similar. This happened on the Raptor thread too. Watch a few videos, AvWeb did at least one at each, comparing Cessna vs Cirrus production. It is absolutely night and day. One is a messy hap hazard shop and the other is a clean, Kaizen/Lean manufacturing process. People can rationalize why Cessna/Textron does it the way they do but I think it's crazy to suggest that there are no improvements they can make. I don't need to have experience deburring holes to see this. Either way, the market has spoken. If it weren't for flight schools there would be no Cessna piston's being sold. They'll blame the market "GA is dying!!" but it's a self inflicted wound.

Matthew Rogers said:
That is exactly what I was saying. The "factory" looks more like a crowded hangar with poor flow. The biggest improvement over the past 30 years they can point to is installing the engine and prop last! Wow, amazing (sarcasm).
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's embarrassing. I'm surprised the people at Textron let the AvWeb publish that video without them saying "hang on, come back for a second film, this makes us look really pathetic" .. the real reason is that they simply don't care. The flight schools make them enough money to keep that production line status quo.

But what do I know. I've never built a plane. Composite sucks and the way we did in in 1960 is the only way to go. Advancement be damned!
 
Doc Holliday said:
If this is such a great airplane at a great price, why aren’t they selling faster than they can be produced?
Click to expand...
I've wondered it too. Unknown name vs Cessna is a household name? They're not the prettiest plane? If you have $100K to spend why not something off the used market that is from a builder who makes thousands vs a "startup" that built a few?

That's where Paul B is right.. some of this takes shear F******G will. If they [Vashon] got in with a flight school people would train on them and get used to that, maybe buy one after. That's where Cessna, at point and time, nailed it. People learn on the 172, so they step up to the 182. Effectively the same plane, just the grown up version.. stronger, beefier, etc. And if you need to haul more then you have 205/206/210.. etc.

If you get your license on a 172 I don't see too many people then buying a Vashon after.. heck, I bet most haven't even heard of it

Cirrus pumped a bunch of SR20 to flight schools and developed specific training centers. Cirrus also has a ton of money from the Chinese (now) to put towards their production. And sort of like what Tesla/Apple do they branded out a life style.. people interested in aviation learn about it, find a Cirrus flight school, learn on a 20, then upgrade to a 22. Vashon doesn't have any of that

On paper Vashon *should* be a slam dunk.. but if people don't know about it/trust it then there's dead on arrival
 
NordicDave said:
All things being equal, an insurance underwriter told me aluminum planes insure for less then composites due to variables and costs fixing aluminum. They are especially concerned about wing damage for a variety of reasons including most common damage - wing rash. The hybrid designs are view more favorably by insurance companies over all composite.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even posted a blog about my 1st hand experience with that very dynamic. I'd would have been screwed with a plastic wing, especially when geo-adjusted. My former AP could get away with very high labor rates, but even he would have been forced to admit that had to go somewhere else for composite work, and I certainly would have demanded it, given my low confidence in his ability to work composite. Costs wise, it would have been a total. The aluminum can by comparison, is still doing the rounds. Hell, just flew it across the ocean, where I had no concern if someone had put another tool box through the spar, it could once again be repaired in situ.

These days where cheap fed money financed millionaires are making everything more expensive for us lowly savers, I'll take whatever cost control I can. Aluminum is one of those choices for me, to each their own type of thing.
 
^I'm not a composite obsessive. Both have their place for the application. For small "cheap" planes aluminum ought to be fine. It's a wonderfully strong material.. but you damage a composite part that's going to be a serious headache to fix

If speaking strictly volume you don't need crazy production numbers for a lean/kaizen manufacturing process to work. There's a small auto company out there, Ariel, in 16 years they built 1,500 cars.. that's tiny for car production standards. Without discussing costs they full embrace lean methodology.. it helps them keep their own costs down.


^this is inspirational. There's no reason planes (anything, boats, laptops, bulldozers, etc) can't be build with the same methodology. Lean applies to all manufacturing, heck you can even stretch it to software.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The DA40 has a composite MT cs prop that likely doesn't weigh any more than a metal fixed-pitch prop. Wooden blades with carbon fiber sheath, I think. Same as the MT prop on the SMA diesel 182 I once worked on.
Click to expand...
The TCDS lists the MTV-12-B at approximately 45lbs. The 172SP POH lists its MacCauley at 35lbs.
 
Tantalum said:
People can rationalize why Cessna/Textron does it the way they do but I think it's crazy to suggest that there are no improvements they can make.
Click to expand...
As Mr. 206 pointed out somewhere in this thread, "improvements" must be blessed by the FAA. And, the FAA has no incentive to stick their collective neck out and approve a change.

There is a reason for the proverbial "$300 toilet seat" and "$100 hammer". Government paperwork.
 
Tantalum said:
I think it's crazy to suggest that there are no improvements they can make.
Click to expand...
If it's so crazy, why can't people offer any specific improvements to the existing process when asked? Step up and be the first.;)
Tantalum said:
There's no reason planes (anything, boats, laptops, bulldozers, etc) can't be build with the same methodology.
Click to expand...
FYI: Nobody says the same methodology can't be used with aircraft. You just need to get it approved first for the certified side. And the Part 23 rewrite gave that flexibility to get things approved. But no takers. Why not? However, keep in mind any new methodologies have global implications as well and not just here in the US.
 
Tantalum said:
It always bugs me the argument when a genuine point is made "why can't they make small, continual, continuous improvement to enhance efficiency and reduce costs" and the counter is "how many planes have you built!" or something similar. This happened on the Raptor thread too. Watch a few videos, AvWeb did at least one at each, comparing Cessna vs Cirrus production. It is absolutely night and day. One is a messy hap hazard shop and the other is a clean, Kaizen/Lean manufacturing process. People can rationalize why Cessna/Textron does it the way they do but I think it's crazy to suggest that there are no improvements they can make. I don't need to have experience deburring holes to see this. Either way, the market has spoken. If it weren't for flight schools there would be no Cessna piston's being sold. They'll blame the market "GA is dying!!" but it's a self inflicted wound.
Click to expand...

Seems as though you've now separated continuous improvement/modern processes from cost. Considering the cost for a new Diamond DA40 and a Cessna 172 is close to the same, it would seem that Cessna's lack of continuous improvement in their processes isn't hurting them too much. At least on the surface.

Perhaps the Icon should be discussed in this thread too. Fairly modern, and I assume modern manufacturing processes. It's even an S-LSA so we can avoid the certification costs that Bell has brought up as being a major expense. Based on all the arguments in this thread they should be cheap and incredible but they seem to have missed the mark on both.
 
The icon is a joke marketed as a jet ski with wings as rich people toys.. not a great example. I have a hard time believing Textron needed a prohibitive FAA approval process to put the propeller on after, vs, before painting (nevermind it shouldn't take 60 years to figure that out)

I feel like I'm living in some kind of bizarro aviation world

Screenshot_20210523-130408~2.png
 
George Mohr said:
I'm sorry guys, but I just don't think this is true. No spec Miata or 25' center console comes close to the amount of sheer capital investment you need to own an operate an airplane. Sure its true that a boat and a plane might have vaguely similar buy-in costs, but the ongoing cost of maintenance, storage, and insurance for that plane will greatly out-pace the other options. In any other motorized hobby, the hobbyist can do most of the work should they choose to, not so for certified airplanes. And the fact that at any time a $30-50k AD or overhaul inducing event can just flatten you is a fact distinctly reserved for airplanes.

Of course, there are a lot of rich people out there, and it seems to me that they are buying Cirri in reasonable numbers. But capturing folks that can sink 1M into a plane is not the road to a healthy GA industry.

“In 1970 a Cessna 172 was 1.3 times the average salary in the U.S. and a Bonanza was 5 times the average. Today it is 6 times the average salary for a 172 and 14 times the average salary for a Bonanza. Anyone else wonder how [the manufacturers] are staying in business?”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericte...ing-pilots-out-of-the-market/?sh=28bd315c3722
Click to expand...

I own a 1967 Chris Craft. 33 feet of wonderful wooden boat that I purchased for less than most people would pay for a broken down C152. The problem is the operating costs... $400 a month to moor it, $500 to fill the gas tanks, $2000 to have it hauled out for bottom scraping and anti-foul paint, $800 a year for liability insurance....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top