What should Cessna do?

[tspear]

*I think* (which means I, me, only this person ) that its been proven well enough in the Experimental Homebuilt that you don't need these burdensome regulations to maintain safety.

LSA had teething problems with the ATSM standards. Those have largely been resolved now.
Last I looked, there were two separate issues with pending Part 23 rewrite. I think it is unfortunate that the two separate issues are being forced to move in a serial manor.
The first issue is Part 23 has very detailed prescriptions on how things are to be accomplished in the design of the plane. Now these have been written in blood, so they are battle tested; and overall have proven to be very solid. This section is super difficult to refactor as an ATSM standard that allows almost any pilot to switch from one plane to another and be able to safely fly the plane into a normal runway (not edge cases). Last update on the part 23 stuff, this the major problem. Here is one example, the Part 23 actually dictates the mathematical relationship of control deflection with stall behavior and structural strength. Redefining this into requirements that define the limitations in terms of what the pilot can do without killing him/her self is much harder.

The second issue with Part 23 is the manufacturing standards. I think this is where there is significantly more savings for owners; but this is proceeding after the new certification standards have been defined. The standards require insane levels of auditing, data/engineering verification... It does not allow for TLAR; or even testing using sampling methods without massive documentation.

To me, this is a** backwards. If the FAA could fix the manufacturing standards, largely by using the updated ATSM and related audit system they put in place for LSA; you could see huge savings for the manufacturing of existing aircraft and parts. This would do more than other measure to lower costs, both operational and acquisition capital.

Tim

 

[midwestpa24]

We often hear the argument that "well it's impossible to build a plane for under $400K" or some absurd number. Frankly, that's assuming the consequence in my book, and not a valid argument.. and doesn't really open any doors for innovation. I get that regulations are out there and challenging, but they're not insurmountable, and they've been out there for decades. The automotive industry has some heavy regs as well.. so here are some thoughts

**YES, car makers have the luxury of insane volume so they can readily overcome these costs and keep their consumer prices reasonably low. GA new sales figures are a joke.. we're talking something like 500 total single engine piston sales last year, of which one manufacturer made up at least 300.. the remaining Cessna and Piper sales were mostly to schools. So the development costs, etc., are spread across a MUCH smaller number of units. That is all and well and understood.

**BUT, that does not explain why a Skyhawk is $400K. This plane was developed in the 1950s and the dev costs, etc., have long since been recovered. If Cessna can't build these things for $150K or less then they're doing something very wrong. You have all the forms, dyes, and tooling already there. Outside of saying "it can't be done" I need someone to tell me why not. Budget $50K for the engine, and $50K for avionics (come on, a Skyhawk does NOT need G1000, or offer as an upgrade option) and you still have $50K left for 1,500 lbs of sheet metal.. to be formed in honestly not very complex shapes (for which again, the dyes and forms already exist)... If volume is the problem, then stamp out 1,000 of these damn things and price them at $150K.. selling 1,000 at $150K is $150M right there

The real reason these things aren't happening is that Cessna and Piper just don't give a flying F* about the GA owner market. If I ever win the lottery or come into tons of money suddenly I am going to do it just to prove it can be done

The market is obviously hungry for it, if people are ready to spend nearly $1M for a single engine plane in (comparatively) very high numbers then there is demand. How many threads have we had here about how GA can be made great again, etc., and in each of these things it comes back to a hunger for the ability to buy a new plane that is not grossly overpriced

The issue is you are still trying to sell a bare-bones VFR only Skyhawk for $150k+. The people with $150k of expendable income aren't looking for that, and the people that would be satisfied with a simple VFR Skyhawk don't have $150k. The LSA market was proof of that. The PiperSport came in three different trim levels. The number one seller was the most expensive, well equipped one.

 

[jaybee]

LSA had teething problems with the ATSM standards. Those have largely been resolved now.
Last I looked, there were two separate issues with pending Part 23 rewrite. I think it is unfortunate that the two separate issues are being forced to move in a serial manor.
The first issue is Part 23 has very detailed prescriptions on how things are to be accomplished in the design of the plane. Now these have been written in blood, so they are battle tested; and overall have proven to be very solid. This section is super difficult to refactor as an ATSM standard that allows almost any pilot to switch from one plane to another and be able to safely fly the plane into a normal runway (not edge cases). Last update on the part 23 stuff, this the major problem. Here is one example, the Part 23 actually dictates the mathematical relationship of control deflection with stall behavior and structural strength. Redefining this into requirements that define the limitations in terms of what the pilot can do without killing him/her self is much harder.

The second issue with Part 23 is the manufacturing standards. I think this is where there is significantly more savings for owners; but this is proceeding after the new certification standards have been defined. The standards require insane levels of auditing, data/engineering verification... It does not allow for TLAR; or even testing using sampling methods without massive documentation.

To me, this is a** backwards. If the FAA could fix the manufacturing standards, largely by using the updated ATSM and related audit system they put in place for LSA; you could see huge savings for the manufacturing of existing aircraft and parts. This would do more than other measure to lower costs, both operational and acquisition capital.

Tim

https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-accepts-astm-standards-for-part-23-aircraft?src=SOC&dom=fb

I perused this the other day. Not sure if it hits all the points you were talking about.

 

[tspear]

@jaybee

Not sure; the article is rather vague. ATSM can cover both the initial certification or the on going production.
I unfortunately do not have time to go peruse the FAA NPRM.

Tim

 

[LoneAspen]

Would love a PIREP. I've seen so much about the G6 SR22s but very little about the G6 SR20s. Very interested in real-world performance numbers of the IO-390 in that plane.

Unfortunately, as a very low-time student pilot, I'm fall into the bucket of "I don't know what I don't know" when trying to compare the G6 against the generation (G5?) I've flown earlier.

I started the preflight and noticed a few things different. No landing light in front, they're on the wingtips now. Oil hatch is on right-hand side instead of left, with a slightly different dipstick. No checking the alternator belt through the air intakes. Small stuff like that.

As far as performance, I believe the speed at rotate was a little higher (71 vs 65 kts IIRC). Everything else was so similar to the other SR20s I've been in, I didn't notice. I'm sure there are some differences, probably in relation to the different engine, but I'm not sure what they are.

I did notice that in general, everything seemed more "streamlined" with the G6. Wingtips, fuel vents, and some other minor things seemed more streamlined, with a better fit and finish. Real nit picky stuff, and very similar to differences in car model generations when they clean stuff up with each new generation.

I hope over time I get knowledgable enough to spot performance differences in these various planes. It would be nice to spot the nuances in each as I fly various ones.