What if... Modernizing GA

[Dan Thomas]

I see a lot of critics here, but very little contribution towards the OPs ask. KInda sad. I don't mind critical positions per-se, but to be critical without offering any solution is the weak man's choice.

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

And really, it comes down to the size of the market and the extreme cost of getting anything certified and produced.

Even Cirrus had to be sold off to the Chinese, and they are by FAR the most successful new entrant into the market in the last 50 years.

Mooney's latest owners were doing some good things in a piecemeal fashion - For example, moving to composite skins in some areas. Unfortunately, the Mooney is one of those planes that is pretty complex to build, and to change that would require too much investment for the market size, so I don't expect they'll come out with anything new. The high-performance single market seems like the place to be, and has always had lots of demand, but Cirrus has sucked everything out of that market.

 

[Bell206]

they are by FAR the most successful new entrant into the market in the last 50 years.

Except their success was directly due to the NASA AGATE program. Same reason behind the Columbia and number of other aviation innovations. So they both got into the market partly funded by NASA technology and taxpayer dollars. Which without that "free" support the Cirrus would have never been designed or produced. The fact they had to sell the company even with that level of design/production subsidy further shows how the private/recreational market has slipped.

 

[RyanShort1]

In order to really give a satisfactory answer, you have to define "better" - going back to the original post, and that is pretty subjective to the individual.

For me, better, would possibly be a very simple plane, most likely a Luscombe derivative with an anonymous ADS-B alternative, a lightweight Rotax engine, wings that could fold like a Kitfox for storage, and all the bells and whistles like VGs, some speed mods, and a good useful load.

 

[Barrett50]

You've been here for 81 posts. I've been here for 11,300 posts. This discussion has been raised MANY times, and there are NO easy answers yet.

Was "easy" a requirement? He closed with 'crazy or not so crazy'. Do you know how the 'ignore' feature works? Add me when you have a few min. Thx

 

[StraightnLevel]

In order to really give a satisfactory answer, you have to define "better" - going back to the original post, and that is pretty subjective to the individual.

For some characteristics, sure. However, I think that there are a few areas where "better" can be viewed objectively. For example:

1) Reliability.
2) Cost and frequency of maintenance.
3) Fuel consumption (assuming equal performance).
4) Usable lifespan.
5) Initial cost.
6) Safety.

Any improvements in these areas that don't result in cost of performance tradeoffs would be universally acceptable, IMO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In order to really give a satisfactory answer, you have to define "better" - going back to the original post, and that is pretty subjective to the individual.

For me, better, would possibly be a very simple plane, most likely a Luscombe derivative with an anonymous ADS-B alternative, a lightweight Rotax engine, wings that could fold like a Kitfox for storage, and all the bells and whistles like VGs, some speed mods, and a good useful load.

You could do a whole range of different planes. If we were to start the PlanesOfAmerica Manufacturing Co, and put together a lineup of planes to cover the widest number of missions, what would it look like?

I'd suggest that if you covered a few broad areas you could do a lot:

1) The Sport Trainer. Something resembling a modern LSA, but hopefully with MOSAIC allowing us to make it a bit less flimsy and able to hold four people. In fact, I think it would resemble an SR20 or DA40 if it were a 4-seater.
2) The Adventurer. Tailwheel, easily reconfigurable between 2 and 4 seats to allow for extra-sized baggage compartment in the 2-seat configuration, and designed to work well in the backcountry and be aerobatic (probably not at the same time).
3) The Traveler. High performance 4-seater with a mission similar to a Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza type of aircraft.
4) The Heavy Traveler. Similar, but a six-seat twin.
5) The Pressure Cooker: Eight seat cabin class.
6) The Thrustmaster: 10 seat single pilot jet* with sufficient range to make Hawaii from the west coast even in an engine failure or depressurization scenario.

* Actual jet engine(s) not required if there's a better option

All of the above should allow for all seats to be filled with average adults plus 20 pounds of bags each, with an endurance of 3 hours plus reserve. Presuming dino fuel, allowing a fuel capacity of 6 hours plus reserve would be desirable, or 5 hours minimum.

Now, as far as a single aircraft is concerned, I think @StraightnLevel has a good start on what "Better" means:

For some characteristics, sure. However, I think that there are a few areas where "better" can be viewed objectively. For example:

1) Reliability.
2) Cost and frequency of maintenance.
3) Fuel consumption (assuming equal performance).
4) Usable lifespan.
5) Initial cost.
6) Safety.

Any improvements in these areas that don't result in cost of performance tradeoffs would be universally acceptable, IMO.

I would add to that manufacturability and repairability. Think efficiency in all aspects (manufacturing, maintenance, and operation).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I had another thought on this while I was typing the last post. One of the big things holding us all back is, as mentioned before, the extreme cost of protecting against lawsuits.

In addition, since we're going after safety, it's even better if we can prevent accidents in the first place.

So here's my thought. Our theoretical manufacturer will also be our insurer, and our FOQA provider. This is kind of what Tesla is doing with their insurance offering. Modern avionics can have lots of sensors and log lots of data, and transmit it back to a mothership upon landing. In doing so, it's possible to detect whether checklists were run, whether unsafe maneuvers were performed, etc.

Now, as pilots, we like to have fun... And there's nothing wrong with having fun IF the airplane is capable of what you're trying to do and you have received training in doing it. So, we build systems into the airplanes to keep pilots within the envelope, and we allow for training activities to widen the envelope. For example, if you put in a flight plan that goes into the Rockies, it checks to ensure that you have received some mountain flying training. If you turn it upside down, it checks to see if you've had aerobatic/upset recovery training. And in general, it pays attention to how you fly, and whether you stay in your personal envelope.

If you continually take risks, your insurance rates get jacked way up. Risk taking pilots pay the bulk of the total insurance pie, safe pilots get lower rates.

Manufacturer requires you to purchase their insurance, and in turn accepts all liability to isolate parts manufacturers from that risk, which should drastically lower the cost of third party parts. Pilots accept the FOQA and training aspects in exchange for a (possibly) much cheaper to own/operate aircraft.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

So here's my thought. Our theoretical manufacturer will also be our insurer, and our FOQA provider. This is kind of what Tesla is doing with their insurance offering. Modern avionics can have lots of sensors and log lots of data, and transmit it back to a mothership upon landing. In doing so, it's possible to detect whether checklists were run, whether unsafe maneuvers were performed, etc.

I love how this solution is less privacy and more surveillance.

 

[Bob Noel]

In addition, since we're going after safety, it's even better if we can prevent accidents in the first place.

um, we don't?

 

[Bell206]

Modern avionics can have lots of sensors and log lots of data, and transmit it back to a mothership upon landing. In doing so, it's possible to detect whether checklists were run, whether unsafe maneuvers were performed, etc.

Technically the equipment to do this exists and the core usage as you note is currently being done but only in certain portions of the industry. And with those existing systems you could possibly approach an underwriter today and make your case. However, unless you will include some type of tort cap on damages, I don't think you'd get a product worth the hassle.

 

[StraightnLevel]

However, unless you will include some type of tort cap on damages, I don't think you'd get a product worth the hassle.

Agreed. Our legal system encourages the plaintiff's attorneys to file against any and every possible defendant, for as much as they can possibly request in damages. From a practical perspective, they are going after the deepest pockets to try to collect as much as a jury or settlement proposal will allow. Arguments can be made for an against the way our system works, but that's the way it is.

Simply put, I don't think that the highly intrusive approach to pilot surveillance will do anything to reduce the frequency and/or amount of claims. What it will do is allow the insurance companies to raise our rates every time we go 25 feet below a glideslope or take off into CAVU conditions that aren't reflected in the nearest TAF. The high-risk pilots will simply avoid insurance or opt-out of the surveillance systems anyway (just as it is today with auto insurance).

 

[AV8R_87]

It seems a lot of people want 200+ kt peformance with 5gph fuel burn, $1000 in maintenance costs per year and even less than that for insurance. Slightly exaggerating, but you get the idea.

The planes that built GA were pretty much the VW Beetle of the sky. Before we can dream of future Mooney and Bonanzas, we need the next gen SkyBeetle. An affordable plane built by the thousands, with a decent (110kt) cruise speed, cheap to maintain and operate.

 

[Bob Noel]

and electric... don't forget that it has to be an EV bird

 

[hindsight2020]

An affordable plane built by the thousands, with a decent (110kt) (140kts) cruise speed, cheap to maintain and operate.

FTFY.

On the rest of the quote above, 100pct agreed. As my signature intimates, this is all about affordability at the end of the day. The cost structure for rec use in current circumstances is completely FUBAR'd, price-inelastic 'it iS wUt iT iS' merchants poor-shaming the critics notwithstanding....

 

[Barrett50]

The musings above here bring to mind the C-162. Such high hopes, a lot of interest from every facet of GA how Cessna was going to save the GA world. Then, performance was crap. Built in China, more crap on top of crap. Price increases every month pre-release. Both prototype crashed. How Not To Bring To Market.

I was following the release of the C8 Corvette a few years back. They had their challenges, and troubles. Covid year production, a union strike, dealers wanting to mark it way up. But - the car was a smashing success. Grand performance, an opening price of $70k(few sold at that of course), and mid-engine design.

The Cessna should have been a game changer. But - they went all Al. They went with a O-200, they went with production in China. Doomed. So, like I started with. Do everything the other way. Use a Rotax, or a water cooled engine. Use 50-75% CF and not Al. Make it a Canard. They chokd and the plane died as it should have. Had a chance to really make something special and they just built a 60 year newer 150. meh

 

[AV8R_87]

FTFY.

30 more knots requires 60% more power (and fuel) for the same airframe. While you can achieve that on a sleek, complex shaped, composite airframe, I don't think the cheap to produce/maintain/insure parts of the equation would be achieved.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The Cessna should have been a game changer. But - they went all Al. They went with a O-200, they went with production in China. Doomed. So, like I started with. Do everything the other way. Use a Rotax, or a water cooled engine. Use 50-75% CF and not Al. Make it a Canard. They chokd and the plane died as it should have. Had a chance to really make something special and they just built a 60 year newer 150. meh

They used the O-200 over the protests of the parent company Textron. But Lycoming, also owned by Textron, had had too many crankshaft issues and ADs and Cessna did not want to add THAT to a new airplane. Sure, they could have used the Rotax, but what other liquid-cooled engines are available in that HP range?

Building it in China was a reaction to high union wages. Building it in Kansas would mean a $300,000 airplane. Cessna even now has a lot of their componentry built in Mexico. This is no different than the stuff we buy at Wal-Mart: a new toaster is $20 or $30 or whatever. Built in the US it would be of better quality, probably, but $300. A new bicycle is $150. built in the US it would be $1000. I remember my parents spending nearly $100 in 1967 for a nice new three-speed for me. Adjusted for inflation, that $100 would be at least $800 now, according to online inflation calculators. This same thing is what drove the huge influx of import cars in the '60s and '70s.

Newer 150? Yup. Isn't that what is needed, basically? Cessna got it wrong, but that doesn't mean that the basic idea was wrong. Some of the failure was the price of the thing, as opposed to the price of used 150s. But used 150s are disappearing. When the new 172s showed up in 1996, their high price caused a major jump in the price of used 172s as a lot of people realized that a new one was out of reach.

History matters.

 

[hindsight2020]

30 more knots requires 60% more power (and fuel) for the same airframe. While you can achieve that on a sleek, complex shaped, composite airframe, I don't think the cheap to produce/maintain/insure parts of the equation would be achieved.

I never suggested using power to attain said speed. At the speeds we're talking it's mainly about wetted area. The airplane just has to be small. I assumed 2 seater to that assertion from the jump.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I never suggested using power to attain said speed. At the speeds we're talking it's mainly about wetted area. The airplane just has to be small. I assumed 2 seater to that assertion from the jump.

Bingo - that's the reason for some Euro-built light planes having retractable gear.

Faster and Faster — Porto Aviation's Risen Eclipses the 400 Kilometer per Hour Barrier - ByDanJohnson.com

The appeal is obvious. What pilot doesn’t like the idea of flying faster? Even those of us who enjoy low-and-slow Part 103 ultralights remain intrigued by the idea of going fast, eating up the miles en route to a destination. [Article updated 5/31/21 with additional information. —DJ] Since I...

bydanjohnson.com

SHARK.AERO - Home

Czechoslovak manufacturer of composite aircraft and aircraft parts.

www.shark.aero

VL3 - World's fastest UL aircrafts

https://www.blackwing.aero/

BRISTELL RG

The BRISTELL RG version has a retractable undercarriage which makes it an ideal airplane for more advanced training and cross-country flights.

www.bristell.com

Tarragon Aircraft

tarragon, aircraft, plane, UL, fast, fastest, carbon, fibre, tarragonaircraft, quality, best, tandem, military, modern, luxury, exclusive, performance, acrobatic, latvia, riga, manufacturer, composite, pre-preg, tehnology, endurance

www.tarragonaircraft.com

 

[AV8R_87]

I'm leaning more towards a 4-seater, or at least an honest 3-seater.
Most 2-seat airplames end up being single seaters at typical DAs and adult pilot weights of today.
A 4-seater is a practical machine, takes the husband, wife, kid(s) and a bag. I think you need that for a good GA reboot.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I love how this solution is less privacy and more surveillance.

The point is to prevent accidents to the extent necessary to lower the cost of entry. You can have your privacy in your $1.2MM SR22, or you can go as fast in a different new airplane that's even safer for $80K. The choice is yours...

I was just trying to come up with some way to make new airplanes with prices that aren't stupid.

um, we don't?

We don't what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Simply put, I don't think that the highly intrusive approach to pilot surveillance will do anything to reduce the frequency and/or amount of claims.

Why not?

What it will do is allow the insurance companies to raise our rates every time we go 25 feet below a glideslope or take off into CAVU conditions that aren't reflected in the nearest TAF. The high-risk pilots will simply avoid insurance or opt-out of the surveillance systems anyway (just as it is today with auto insurance).

This wouldn't be something that used the traditional insurers, it would be through the manufacturer only, and the benefit would be both to the manufacturer and their customers in terms of safety and keeping liability costs to a minimum so that we can have reasonably priced airplanes.

It seems a lot of people want 200+ kt peformance with 5gph fuel burn, $1000 in maintenance costs per year and even less than that for insurance. Slightly exaggerating, but you get the idea.

I think we'd all be happy with 180 knots on 12 gph and $2000 each for maintenance and insurance... But it needs to be on an airplane that's not nearing seven-figure territory on purchase price. The Pipistrel Panthera can put up numbers in that vicinity, but the current purchase price they're aiming for on the certified version is $800K, and insuring that high of a hull value the traditional way is gonna cost quite a bit more than $2K.

The planes that built GA were pretty much the VW Beetle of the sky. Before we can dream of future Mooney and Bonanzas, we need the next gen SkyBeetle. An affordable plane built by the thousands, with a decent (110kt) cruise speed, cheap to maintain and operate.

I'm with @hindsight2020, I think we can do quite a bit better than that on speed. A 172 or Archer can do 110. A modern design should be able to do much better. For example, you can pull a DA40 back to 7.5gph and still get 135 KTAS.

To me, that's the number - 135-140 KTAS isn't too fast to train in but is fast enough that for plenty of people it could be their forever plane. 400 miles in 3 hours.

and electric... don't forget that it has to be an EV bird

Definitely not a requirement. I'm looking to discuss new ideas, so particular implementations like this can't be set in stone.

The musings above here bring to mind the C-162. Such high hopes, a lot of interest from every facet of GA how Cessna was going to save the GA world. Then, performance was crap. Built in China, more crap on top of crap. Price increases every month pre-release. Both prototype crashed. How Not To Bring To Market.

The Cessna should have been a game changer. But - they went all Al. They went with a O-200, they went with production in China. Doomed. So, like I started with. Do everything the other way. Use a Rotax, or a water cooled engine. Use 50-75% CF and not Al. Make it a Canard. They chokd and the plane died as it should have. Had a chance to really make something special and they just built a 60 year newer 150. meh

What really doomed it was its utterly worthless useful load. High 300# range. Put some fuel and a pilot in it and oops, you can't take an instructor unless it's someone like @Tristar who's 85 pounds soaking wet. Given that any two-seater with a Cessna name tag on it is gonna be looked at in the context of training, that bird just never made sense. At the end, they were trying to sell it with "Well, we're going to certify it in the Primary category and increase the max gross weight so you should buy one and it'll be OK in another year or two" before they finally killed it off.

30 more knots requires 60% more power (and fuel) for the same airframe. While you can achieve that on a sleek, complex shaped, composite airframe, I don't think the cheap to produce/maintain/insure parts of the equation would be achieved.

"For the same airframe" being the key. Modern design and manufacturing techniques should allow us to do much better. Hell, Pipistrel has a plane that can do 147 knots on 3.6 gph which is just insane efficiency.

I'm leaning more towards a 4-seater, or at least an honest 3-seater.
Most 2-seat airplames end up being single seaters at typical DAs and adult pilot weights of today.
A 4-seater is a practical machine, takes the husband, wife, kid(s) and a bag. I think you need that for a good GA reboot.

See my previous post: All aircraft for our hypothetical manufacturer should be able to carry people in all seats. Now, the question becomes, do enough people think 4 seats is a requirement that it doesn't make sense to have a simple 2-seat trainer in the lineup? Hmmm... I'm gonna go back and quote that post and throw some more ideas out:

I'd suggest that if you covered a few broad areas you could do a lot:

1) The Sport Trainer. Something resembling a modern LSA, but hopefully with MOSAIC allowing us to make it a bit less flimsy and able to hold four people. In fact, I think it would resemble an SR20 or DA40 if it were a 4-seater.
2) The Adventurer. Tailwheel, easily reconfigurable between 2 and 4 seats to allow for extra-sized baggage compartment in the 2-seat configuration, and designed to work well in the backcountry and be aerobatic (probably not at the same time).
3) The Traveler. High performance 4-seater with a mission similar to a Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza type of aircraft.
4) The Heavy Traveler. Similar, but a six-seat twin.
5) The Pressure Cooker: Eight seat cabin class.
6) The Thrustmaster: 10 seat single pilot jet* with sufficient range to make Hawaii from the west coast even in an engine failure or depressurization scenario.

* Actual jet engine(s) not required if there's a better option

All of the above should allow for all seats to be filled with average adults plus 20 pounds of bags each, with an endurance of 3 hours plus reserve. Presuming dino fuel, allowing a fuel capacity of 6 hours plus reserve would be desirable, or 5 hours minimum.

I wonder what it would look like if we tried to use existing airplanes for those missions above?

I'd go 1) DA40, 2) Um, Citabria with bushwheels? 3) M20R, natch, 4) DA62 because nobody else seems to be playing in this market any more, 5) Beech Denali, 6) PC24.

If you start with a 2-seater at the trainer end, though, maybe it looks more like 1) Pipistrel Virus SW 100IS, 2) No better ideas than the Citabria I guess, 3) SR22, and the rest the same. I chose the SR22 over its competitors in this case because it's got fixed gear and should be a little easier to get into for a newer pilot.

Now... Imagine if the cost for these was $40K for the Pipistrel, $60K for the Citabria, $80K for the DA40, $120K for the SR22, $180K for the DA62, $400K for the Beech Denali, and $1M for the PC24.

 

[RyanShort1]

Newer 150? Yup. Isn't that what is needed, basically? Cessna got it wrong, but that doesn't mean that the basic idea was wrong. Some of the failure was the price of the thing, as opposed to the price of used 150s. But used 150s are disappearing. When the new 172s showed up in 1996, their high price caused a major jump in the price of used 172s as a lot of people realized that a new one was out of reach.

Texas Colt. Look it up.

 

[Barrett50]

They used the O-200 over the protests of the parent company Textron. But Lycoming, also owned by Textron, had had too many crankshaft issues and ADs and Cessna did not want to add THAT to a new airplane. Sure, they could have used the Rotax, but what other liquid-cooled engines are available in that HP range?

Building it in China was a reaction to high union wages. Building it in Kansas would mean a $300,000 airplane. Cessna even now has a lot of their componentry built in Mexico. This is no different than the stuff we buy at Wal-Mart: a new toaster is $20 or $30 or whatever. Built in the US it would be of better quality, probably, but $300. A new bicycle is $150. built in the US it would be $1000. I remember my parents spending nearly $100 in 1967 for a nice new three-speed for me. Adjusted for inflation, that $100 would be at least $800 now, according to online inflation calculators. This same thing is what drove the huge influx of import cars in the '60s and '70s.

Newer 150? Yup. Isn't that what is needed, basically? Cessna got it wrong, but that doesn't mean that the basic idea was wrong. Some of the failure was the price of the thing, as opposed to the price of used 150s. But used 150s are disappearing. When the new 172s showed up in 1996, their high price caused a major jump in the price of used 172s as a lot of people realized that a new one was out of reach.

History matters.

According to Cessna, the 'savings' by making it in China amounted to $71,000/plane. But - I think that's hogwash because the initial price of around $100k quickly rose to $149k. A 50% bump in price, mostly due to the logistics of sending a lot of bits from the US TO China, then assemble, then disassemble, crate, and send it BACK to US, and then re-assemble. All this logistics eats up mfg costs. The engine, prop, wheels, panel, and several other systems went to China from US for every plane built. If they had done their homework, and had it built in PR or Mex they could have shipped stuff a lot cheaper, and once assembled, flown direct to retail markets.

The whole production fiasco was a mess, and it wasn't a $300k mess if built in PR or Mex. The public backlash when the China build was announced came with a cancellation of > 1000 firm orders from private purchasers, not flight schools. Too late in the game, the heads at Cessna said they were going to bring production back to the US, but they'd killed all their sales base already, and no one wanted to get burned again.

I avoid China made stuff all the time, and the mark-up is anywhere from 10-14% up to 40% higher for the like-kind product. Bearings are a good example. I just bought a Timkin bearing made in Japan for the US market for $42. The same bearing from a China mfg was $33.79. Sadly, the bearing house had to special order the Timkin because they sell 95% Chinese bearings. I was one of the few that refused and chose the higher cost, higher quality.

Oh, and this has absolutely SQUADOOSH to do with the subject of this thread, but thanks for playing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The whole production fiasco was a mess, and it wasn't a $300k mess if built in PR or Mex. The public backlash when the China build was announced came with a cancellation of > 1000 firm orders from private purchasers, not flight schools. Too late in the game, the heads at Cessna said they were going to bring production back to the US, but they'd killed all their sales base already, and no one wanted to get burned again.

That doesn't track at all - That would have meant that nearly every cancellation ever was because of China production, while most of them were because it had abysmal numbers, especially for useful load.

Three days before the announcement that they were to be produced in China, they had 850 orders. Over the next year, they went up to 1,000 orders and stayed there for a while.

The price was also 10%/$10K higher than it was supposed to be right out of the gate, and within a couple of years had increased by 50%, which allowed position holders to cancel their orders and claim refunds on their deposits. In light of the terrible useful load and high price, almost everyone bailed. I'm sure some of them used the excuse that they didn't like the idea of it being built in China, but that was certainly not Cessna's only misstep.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

The point is to prevent accidents to the extent necessary to lower the cost of entry. You can have your privacy in your $1.2MM SR22, or you can go as fast in a different new airplane that's even safer for $80K. The choice is yours...

I see no positive relation between surveillance and safety.

I was just trying to come up with some way to make new airplanes with prices that aren't stupid.

I think you failed.

 

[StraightnLevel]

This wouldn't be something that used the traditional insurers, it would be through the manufacturer only, and the benefit would be both to the manufacturer and their customers in terms of safety and keeping liability costs to a minimum so that we can have reasonably priced airplanes.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it, and the experiential data from similar attempts in other industries doesn't support it.

If this worked. we would have seen a massive reduction in accident rates, cost, and price from automotive "nannies" like OnStar. The savings haven't materialized. What we HAVE seen, though, is higher prices for purchase, insurance, and repairs, due to the added system cost and increased complexity of the overall vehicle and systems.

Of the ideas you're posting up here, I think this one is the most likely to end up driving prices higher, not lower.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Now... Imagine if the cost for these was $40K for the Pipistrel, $60K for the Citabria, $80K for the DA40, $120K for the SR22, $180K for the DA62, $400K for the Beech Denali, and $1M for the PC24.

Those prices simply are not possible from any rational perspective, regardless of manufacturing approach. The materials alone today cost multiples of those numbers, before you even start thinking about labor, support, tooling and capital machine amortization, design costs, certification costs, etc.

FWIW, I see this exact same thread every few years in the auto racing discussions. Everyone wants a 150 MPH, 2.5 lateral g new race car for $35K with an engine/transmission that will run 50 weekends without maintenance. It's not going to happen.

 

[Bob Noel]

...

We don't what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

"it's even better if we can prevent accidents in the first place."

your post made it seem like you think we don't prevent accidents.

 

[Bell206]

Now... Imagine if the cost for these was $40K for the Pipistrel, $60K for the Citabria, $80K for the DA40, $120K for the SR22, $180K for the DA62, $400K for the Beech Denali, and $1M for the PC24.

While I think your pricing is not realistic on several levels, the key to this is not developing the aircraft first but the viable market first, ie., who and how many would realistically buy a new aircraft? With that number you could then set your wants vs potential costs. This is basically SOP in the aviation industry and is still practiced today. Two prime examples are the Sky Courier and Denali. FEDEX wanted a twin-cargo aircraft for their feeder ops so approached Textron, after which they settled on the specs for the clean-sheet Courier. While Textron saw a potential larger market, they pulled trigger on the Courier with only FEDEX's 50 firm/50 option order for a total of 100 aircraft. And its a similar history for the Denali. So it doesn't take 1000s of new aircraft to make a market. Just committed individuals in that market which unfortunately the Part 91 recreational side has a historically bad track record with.

I see no positive relation between surveillance and safety.

Its actually the opposite. As mentioned above, FOQA programs, which do monitor pilot actions in flight, have brought about another proactive safety level with good results. A FOQA process will use quick access recorders (QARs) to download a set number of flight parameters on a regular basis. That raw flight data is then digitally reviewed and any flights which exceed standard parameters are kicked out for review by dedicated staff. While not everybody participates at the FAA FOQA level, a number of them have in-house version which keeps tabs on their fleet. And adding that level of “surveillance” to the Part 91 recreational world would have a profound effect on overall flight safety in my experience.

 

[AV8R_87]

See my previous post: All aircraft for our hypothetical manufacturer should be able to carry people in all seats. Now, the question becomes, do enough people think 4 seats is a requirement that it doesn't make sense to have a simple 2-seat trainer in the lineup?

Economy of scale: if 3000 buyers want a 2-seater and 3000 want a 4-seater, it's cheaper to design and build a 4-seater for all of them.

One of the issues with higher speeds is that you can't easily get there with a fixed pitch prop. And once you go to adjustable/constand speed prop, there will be significant purchase/maintenance costs.
I was looking at options for an experimental build a couple years ago. Found a nice engine for $18k, and a variable pitch prop was going to add almost $12k (as I recall) to the powerplant cost. At that point the $10k in savings (plus less maintenance) would offset the 20kt speed gain.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Its actually the opposite. As mentioned above, FOQA programs, which do monitor pilot actions in flight, have brought about another proactive safety level with good results. A FOQA process will use quick access recorders (QARs) to download a set number of flight parameters on a regular basis. That raw flight data is then digitally reviewed and any flights which exceed standard parameters are kicked out for review by dedicated staff. While not everybody participates at the FAA FOQA level, a number of them have in-house version which keeps tabs on their fleet. And adding that level of “surveillance” to the Part 91 recreational world would have a profound effect on overall flight safety in my experience.

I see significant difference between monitoring an employee during his work-cycle to verify the quality of his work and the monitoring of a private person during his leisure by a company to determine the person's eligibility as a customer, especially when that company might then sell the data they record.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Oh, and this has absolutely SQUADOOSH to do with the subject of this thread, but thanks for playing.

Discussing the failure of the Skycatcher has nothing to do with this discussion of modernizing GA with affordable airplanes? Where do you get your logic?

 

[ateamer]

One of the issues with higher speeds is that you can't easily get there with a fixed pitch prop. And once you go to adjustable/constand speed prop, there will be significant purchase/maintenance costs.
I was looking at options for an experimental build a couple years ago. Found a nice engine for $18k, and a variable pitch prop was going to add almost $12k (as I recall) to the powerplant cost. At that point the $10k in savings (plus less maintenance) would offset the 20kt speed gain.

If I ever want to get back in an RV, I will probably build. Nearly all that are being built these days are loaded with fuel injection, constant speed prop, dual electrical systems, multi-screen glass panels with fully redundant avionics, full-featured autopilot, high-end custom paint scheme, leather upholstery that leaves no metal uncovered between panel and aft bulkhead, it goes on and on. It’s not only extremely costly in dollars, but in weight as well. Many RVs are close to 100 pounds heavier than they really ought to be, and in a plane that small it makes a difference.

I’d build a -7 or -8 the way Van intended - light and simple. Maximize performance and fun, reduce costs. VFR panel, fixed pitch, basic electrical system, basic paint, no upholstery besides the seats, could reduce cost by $50K. How much more fun could you have by putting that fifty grand in the gas tanks?

From what I’ve seen, some (or more than some) of the RVers with the most hours in them have the simplest planes. They aren’t stunning show winners, but they fly the heck out of them. Fly it instead of staying in the hangar and petting it.

Much like the guys with the $50K+ custom motorcycles who put ten times the mileage on their trailer (which is parked just outside the town of where the latest generic stand-and-talk-but-never-ride rally is held), versus the guys with bone stock bikes that aren’t shiny anymore but ride 300+ days a year and go to another state for lunch.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Texas Colt. Look it up.

So I did. Wiki has this to say about it:

The company plans to build six to eight aircraft in 2019 and 24 during 2020, at its plant at South Texas Regional Airport in Hondo, Texas. The plant was officially opened in February 2019 and employs many ex-U.S. military aircraft maintenance personal to build the aircraft. Prices have not been announced, but sales are to start in July 2019.

So where is it now? Not even a price shown. This is the first time I've heard of it.

Edit: This is a shot from an AOPA page dated this year:



That doesn't look affordable.

They (Wiki) go on to say,

He [Paul Bertorelli] also noted the design's limited useful load, "at 836 pounds empty, the Colt has 484 pounds of useful load. That’s two 200-pounders and 14 gallons of gas. That’s fine for a training flight, but not so fine for cross- country flying where you might also wish to carry some baggage. So if you carry full fuel, the people better not weigh more than 300 pounds total."

So, the same old problem. A two-seater that has the same shortcomings of the old 150s, which were built to fit 1950's Americans who weighed about 3/4 of what some do now.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The planes that built GA were pretty much the VW Beetle of the sky. Before we can dream of future Mooney and Bonanzas, we need the next gen SkyBeetle. An affordable plane built by the thousands, with a decent (110kt) cruise speed, cheap to maintain and operate.

The planes that built GA were a lot simpler than current or recent attempts. Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, Taylorcrafts and a bunch of other similar low-powered, slow airplanes. When we start insisting on 110 Kt cruise, we now need much more power. Power increases generally improve takeoff and climb significantly, but cruise speed doesn't gain a lot. And power increases mean bigger and heavier and more expensive engines and bigger tanks to feed them.

 

[Bell206]

I see significant difference between monitoring an employee during his work-cycle to verify the quality of his work and the monitoring of a private person during his leisure

I merely replied to the context of your post: no positive relation between surveillance and safety. The existing FOQA data and other data proves that not to be correct. Hence the reason of its widespread use as a safety process. But if privacy is more important than safety then you’d probably be correct. There are many proven ways to make flying safer, however, some people simply don’t want that in their neighborhood for various reasons and the accident rates reflect that difference.

 

[Barrett50]

​

The Cessna 162 Skycatcher: An In-Depth Review | SkyTough

No other single-engine piston aircraft is quite like the Cessna Skycatcher. This light-weight two-seater is in many ways its own category.

www.skytough.com

The 162 was seen as the quintessential flight trainer. Especially since it was certified within the LSA framework. This meant that it could be flown by pilots without a medical certificate, in contrast to the 150 and 152 which are both heavier General Aviation (GA) aircraft.

All of this to say that it filled a vacuum in the market at the time. It was, so to say, destined for greatness, and attracted more than 1,000 pre-orders. The first delivery took place in 2009. But much would have time to change before then.

​

How was the Cessna 162 received?​

Based on market analyses, Cessna predicted that they would sell 600 Skycatchers a year, and looking back at the initial 1,000 orders, that likely seemed very reasonable.

However, only 275 Cessna 162 would ever be produced, and out of that number, only 192 would ever be sold.

Why Did The Cessna 162 Skycatcher Fail?

The two-seat Light Sport Aircraft was canceled with less than 200 units publicly sold.

simpleflying.com

Why was the Cessna Skycatcher canceled?​

The idea behind the Cessna Skycatcher was to create a low-cost aircraft. Articles at the time lauded it as the airplane that would cut pilot training costs in half.

The thinking was that the low price in combination with it being an SLA would make it attractive to beginner pilots and flight schools alike. Cessna first projected a price tag under $100,000, then adjusted this to the slightly higher $109,500. So far so good.

However, this plan never crystalized and the 162 would fail to take off within just a few short years. This was mainly because of two reasons:

1. Early on, Textron Aviation made the decision to have the 162 manufactured in China. This was with the expectation of tapping into the Asian market. Unfortunately, this never happened.
2. The second reason was linked to the first. The fact that the 162 was put together in China means that components (for example US-made engines) first had to be shipped to China to be installed. The finished plane would then be shipped back to the USA to be sold. All of this extra shipping served to increase the price significantly with the final price skyrocketing by 50% to a staggering $149,000.

All of this angered many buyers and a good deal of cancellations quickly followed. Many buyers had been upset over the decision to manufacture the Skycatcher in China, to begin with, and the steep price increase didn’t help matters.

Why Did The Cessna 162 Skycatcher Fail?

The two-seat Light Sport Aircraft was canceled with less than 200 units publicly sold.

simpleflying.com

Being that the USA was the primary market for this aircraft, and given a number of Americans at the time were wary of China - the FBI in 2005 called China “the biggest threat to the US today,” per WSJ - the backlash was strong. In a post to the now-defunct Cessna Skycatcher noted,

“Since Cessna's announcement in late November that the new SkyCatcher would be assembled in China, we have received many comments from people obviously very passionate about flying and what the Cessna brand means to them. Through this blog, by e-mail, by phone, and by regular mail, many people have lauded Cessna's foresight, and to be frank, an equal number have taken us to task.”

Cessna stood by its decision, however, and the first production Skycatcher took flight from the Shenyang facility in September 2009. By this point, orders exceeded 1,000.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Question: Why are the modern composite certified planes not that much lighter than the metal ones? Is the FAA requiring them to be stronger, or to be tested in such a way that they need to be stronger, or...??? Would it make sense to have a metal spar, and possibly some other metal innards as well, and a composite skin?

I can’t answer that, but consider the Hawker 4000 with a composite fuselage vs the Citation Longitude with an aluminum fuselage. Interior dimensions are the same, but an aluminum structure needs ribs and stringers, so the outside dimensions are larger. Larger fuselage means more drag, requiring bigger engines, requiring higher fuel consumption…roughly equal weight of construction is a very small part of the equation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I can’t answer that, but consider the Hawker 4000 with a composite fuselage vs the Citation Longitude with an aluminum fuselage. Interior dimensions are the same, but an aluminum structure needs ribs and stringers, so the outside dimensions are larger. Larger fuselage means more drag, requiring bigger engines, requiring higher fuel consumption…roughly equal weight of construction is a very small part of the equation.

I was thinking more like DA40 vs 172. The DA40 does tend to have a better payload, but not by a ton.