Why is the Lancair IV-P so dangerous?

If you want to drive a stripped down, no ac, crappy seat, light as possible aircraft... Fine.. have at it...

If I want to sacrifice weight for comfort.. I should be able to.. and due to gov regs.. it is illegal to do so...

The paradigm is so rigid right now, the responses are largely "in the box" thinking...

If there was no box, what would be possible... I know enough to say , I don't know... And that is the point... Encourage innovation and you get just that...

Discourage innovation and you have a Cessna 172/182/.. Piper blah blah, Mooney... Same **** 50 years later.. it was like when I went to East Germany in 1990... Time stood still

What you have missed over the years are innovative planes that had all the bells and whistles, but had no load carrying capacity, burned twice as much gas, went slower, and cost twice as much. Those aircraft didn't survive the market. The FAA and their regs don't supercede physics and supply and demand. But you don't want to hear that, you want a TBM for the cost of a 172. Good luck with that.
 
What you have missed over the years are innovative planes that had all the bells and whistles, but had no load carrying capacity, burned twice as much gas, went slower, and cost twice as much. Those aircraft didn't survive the market. The FAA and their regs don't supercede physics and supply and demand. But you don't want to hear that, you want a TBM for the cost of a 172. Good luck with that.

Yes I do..want a tbm for the cost of a 172.. yes.. and it can happen.. get the gov out of the way and it will..

If FAA cert were not an issue... Cost of mfg would go way way way down.. add in top of that ease of use with automation and the number if customers would go way way up...

Both of those forces would give you tbm at 172 prices... Exactly
 
Yes I do..want a tbm for the cost of a 172.. yes.. and it can happen.. get the gov out of the way and it will..

If FAA cert were not an issue... Cost of mfg would go way way way down.. add in top of that ease of use with automation and the number if customers would go way way up...

Both of those forces would give you tbm at 172 prices... Exactly
Well, you CAN have a TBM at the price of a 4.9 million dollar Skyhawk.
 
If you want to drive a stripped down, no ac, crappy seat, light as possible aircraft... Fine.. have at it...

If I want to sacrifice weight for comfort.. I should be able to.. and due to gov regs.. it is illegal to do so...

The paradigm is so rigid right now, the responses are largely "in the box" thinking...

It's not illegal to do so. If you want air conditioning, quiet comfort, and limited restriction on how much the plane should weigh there's absolutely nothing to stop you from buying a Gulfstream today.
 
Yes I do..want a tbm for the cost of a 172.. yes.. and it can happen.. get the gov out of the way and it will..

If FAA cert were not an issue... Cost of mfg would go way way way down.. add in top of that ease of use with automation and the number if customers would go way way up...
Umm.. not exactly. The fixed costs of manufacturing cannot be measured relatively and that has nothing to do with regulation.
 
Umm.. not exactly. The fixed costs of manufacturing cannot be measured relatively and that has nothing to do with regulation.

Basic economic understanding will have you arrive at what I have outlined above.

Less regs, less needless r&d costs.. Of course required r&d (to make a good product) remains..

Cost if mfg goes down with volume..

Volume of customers goes up when barrier to entry goes down, financial and skills required

This is easy to understand... If you are willing to
 
which ones? You thought the PA-46 and Saratoga were in the same class lol.

I have sat in several, flew in one.. I don't remember whether it was a Malibu or Saratoga...piston... I disliked pretty much everything about it..design is old and uncomfortable.. if you like it.. good.. enjoy..
 
@Davidl13:

You're talking about some things that have been hashed and re-hashed; why do planes cost so much, and why is GA dying, etc. There's no one reason. Yes, I firmly believe that the FAA's insistence on fingering every single nut and bolt that goes into a plane drives up the cost. No doubt about that. But huge liability claims after crashes are another.

One of the biggest is just limited market size. Even in its heyday, GA sales were very tiny fraction of those for automobiles. It's not fair to ask Piper or Cessna to pour tons of money into developing a new, flashy product that will only sell -- at best -- a couple of thousand units. Easier just to tinker and add improvements to existing equipment.

As has been pointed out above, others have tried to do the flashy, bells-and-whistles thing, and it just hasn't worked.

Look, it frustrates me, too. As a musician, it drives me crazy that people are still playing guitars that were designed decades ago (the Line6 modeling guitars are a notable exception). But if you ask the manufacturers, they'll tell you that they've tried, and musicians just won't buy the radical new designs. They want what their favorite artist plays, and that's that.

That doesn't apply directly to aviation, of course, but the mindset is illustrative. A pilot who grew up with a six-pack and a crowded cabin, and who learned to fly just for the pure joy of hunting and killing a $100 hamburger, isn't going to pour the money into a million-dollar airplane that only gets him/her there 50% faster (and burns more fuel to boot).

Sad, but it is what it is. If you're serious about flying, set your budget, look at what's available, and go for it. Otherwise, yes, you probably ought to stick with commercial. Ranting at the EDIT: folks who are happy with their 182s doesn't really solve anything. :)

(Got rid of the "old timers" thing. Wasn't thinking.)
 
Last edited:
Sad, but it is what it is. If you're serious about flying, set your budget, look at what's available, and go for it. Otherwise, yes, you probably ought to stick with commercial. Ranting at the old timers who are happy with their 182s doesn't really solve anything. :)
The young timers too, lol. And you have to be realistic... You're not getting a Koenigsegg on a Corvette budget
 
Regs are there, in part, to make planes insurable. I'm not a fan of excessive regulation, but some is necessary. Also noted that manufacturers use regs to their advantage. Less regs on EAB, that permits planes like the Lancair and Glasair to be built. With corresponding increase in risk.
 
Regs are there, in part, to make planes insurable. I'm not a fan of excessive regulation, but some is necessary. Also noted that manufacturers use regs to their advantage. Less regs on EAB, that permits planes like the Lancair and Glasair to be built. With corresponding increase in risk.

Not to mention that if we do get autonomous aircraft, someone ( ie, government) will have to set a whole bunch of rules for lanes, patterns, speeds -- you name it.
 
@Davidl13:

You're talking about some things that have been hashed and re-hashed; why do planes cost so much, and why is GA dying, etc. There's no one reason. Yes, I firmly believe that the FAA's insistence on fingering every single nut and bolt that goes into a plane drives up the cost. No doubt about that. But huge liability claims after crashes are another.

One of the biggest is just limited market size. Even in its heyday, GA sales were very tiny fraction of those for automobiles. It's not fair to ask Piper or Cessna to pour tons of money into developing a new, flashy product that will only sell -- at best -- a couple of thousand units. Easier just to tinker and add improvements to existing equipment.

As has been pointed out above, others have tried to do the flashy, bells-and-whistles thing, and it just hasn't worked.

Look, it frustrates me, too. As a musician, it drives me crazy that people are still playing guitars that were designed decades ago (the Line6 modeling guitars are a notable exception). But if you ask the manufacturers, they'll tell you that they've tried, and musicians just won't buy the radical new designs. They want what their favorite artist plays, and that's that.

That doesn't apply directly to aviation, of course, but the mindset is illustrative. A pilot who grew up with a six-pack and a crowded cabin, and who learned to fly just for the pure joy of hunting and killing a $100 hamburger, isn't going to pour the money into a million-dollar airplane that only gets him/her there 50% faster (and burns more fuel to boot).

Sad, but it is what it is. If you're serious about flying, set your budget, look at what's available, and go for it. Otherwise, yes, you probably ought to stick with commercial. Ranting at the old timers who are happy with their 182s doesn't really solve anything. :)

Traffic reg do not cause costs.. different issue

I love 182s.. so, young and old.. a non issue for me.

If people like any plane.. awesome.. enjoy it.. all good..

I am musician as well. Analogy does not work.

If you goal for flying is pure joy of flying and the $100 hamburger.. do whatever makes you happy.

Tech of autonomous aircraft will be a disruptive technology shift that serves a purpose.. to get somewhere... An autonomous guitar doesn't make one happy except if you want to hear the sound of a automated guitar (or piano)people don't fly 182s because they are resistant to change, they do it because they don't have a choice..and any choices there are , that have imporoved specs, are very expensive for the reasons I have already stated

People still ride horses for fun and joy, but a large consumer base and much less gov interference led to increadible ingenuity in automotive.. to this day..

I am not anti gov, I am anti gov over reach that cause neg consequences...

Aviation is in an amazing place right now, we have a president who wants to get the government regulations out of the way so innivation can occur... first time in my lifetime, We should support him big-time.. and elect people who will allow him to open the flood gates.. between deregulation and autonomous planes... This is a potentially huge huge deal.. we already are global leaders in avaiation... And this would be a game changer for a few generations
 
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it earlier, but what are you flying now and what did you train in?

Nauga,
and the learning curve
 
Let's go with a Lance air ivpt... And why are they so dangerous.. the OP question.

The answer is human pilot error. Eliminate human error and deregulate.. and you have a fast and capable pressurized plane for not a bad price... And it would be a heck of a lot less money if people didn't have to spend 5 years getting capable enough to fly it..because more people would want one
 
Let's go with a Lance air ivpt... And why are they so dangerous.. the OP question.

The answer is human pilot error. Eliminate human error and deregulate.. and you have a fast and capable pressurized plane for not a bad price... And it would be a heck of a lot less money if people didn't have to spend 5 years getting capable enough to fly it..because more people would want one

Exactly. I'm calling this thread done.
 
Let's go with a Lance air ivpt... And why are they so dangerous.. the OP question.

The answer is human pilot error. Eliminate human error and deregulate.. and you have a fast and capable pressurized plane for not a bad price... And it would be a heck of a lot less money if people didn't have to spend 5 years getting capable enough to fly it..because more people would want one
The cost to certify a new plane is roughly 100 million for a light Jet, and 60 million for a piston plane. These numbers are from a prospectus I read on a company that was looking for funding (a wealthy friend who knows I fly asked for my opinion).

That was just the R&D costs, and presenting a report to the FAA. If you want a safe plane, eliminate the FAA report and do all the work, you save a few grand. The FAA report is the work outputs and data you need to prove the plane is safe.

Where the FAA adds a lot of cost is the manufacturing process. But even then, not as much as they are blamed for. Look at the Cessna SkyCather and compare it to the SportCruiser. The sportCruise was 150k, SkyCather was 180k. SportCruiser was LSA to ATSM standards. SkyCatcher was to FAA Part 23.

The FAA adds a lot of costs, but they are significantly limited to specific areas. The reality is other factors drive the costs more than anything else. Low volume, customer expectations requiring rapid changes, liability insurance, investors requiring faster ROIs.... the list goes on.
As another example, look at the Vasion Ranger, they sell for 100k. The factory, all R&D was paid for by the founder as a way to give back. The 100K only pays for manufacturing.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
needless r&d costs
That's the craziest part, these $400,000 Skyhawks and Archers (new) have been in production since like 1950, all that crap should be paid off.. the Cirrus SR22T is expensive, but that comes down to a capitalism thing, they sell for almost a million dollars and yet are still the clear market leader with hundreds sold per year.. if it wasn't for a flight schools then Piper and Cessna wouldn't sell anything over about a dozen planes, just look at Mooney and Beechcraft

The fixed costs of manufacturing cannot be measured relatively and that has nothing to do with regulation.
I've been over this in this form before though, the straight material cost is relatively low, and the labor cost are low as well. You're talking well below 2000 lb of either straight aluminum, or composite material, with existing tools and dyes. In a lean production environment these machines could be built for $100K and profitably for $250K..

Cessna abandoned the single-piston GA market, so they never sought to lean out their operation because they knew the fight schools would keep buying the 100-200 Skyhawks each year.. Piper is commendable in the fact that they've kept a diverse product line and a genuine interest in the market.. however, the Malibu and Meridian feel very cramped inside, the Archer requires you to crawl over seats, etc. Frankly, most of what Piper and Cessna offer just don't feel commensurate with 2018

Why Cessna killed the TTX is beyond me, but that's what a single-engine GA market, if it will exist, is going to be comprised of. Planes like the SR22, lancair, TTX, etc.. fast, safe, modern, capable planes
 
Back
Top