7 ms·

I have flown one, and while good, it is not "that good". What happened is the FAA rules are so stringent to create a new aircraft, that the subsequent cost was

I have flown one, and while good, it is not "that good". What happened is the FAA rules are so stringent to create a new aircraft, that the subsequent cost was so high, that few new small plane designs make ROI sense. This has created a case where the strict rules in the name of safety have actually caused a reduction in safety. This plane was originally designed on slide rules. Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon.

eblanshey 10y ago
> The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon. I'd be interested in reading a source for this, because that would be pretty big news.
- ksherlock 10y ago
  https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Part23_FinalRule_2120-AK65_WebCopy.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Revision_Airworthiness_Standards_Normal_Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-part-23-rewrite https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-... http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan
nether 10y ago
> Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. Really? The Cirrus SR20, SR22 don't count? Haven't they been outselling the 172 for several years now?
- gsnedders 10y ago
  At, AFAIK, almost double the cost. They're different parts of the market.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  I wouldn't call either of those trainers. Don't get me wrong, owning a 172 is fine and I'd love to own one. I just wouldn't buy it and say "boy, I've got a fancy, sporty airplane here," even if you stick a G1000 in it like those Cirrus models. It's a workhorse, like a pickup. Cirrus aircraft are a lot sportier. (You are correct, though, the SR22 sells like hotcakes. I think it's #1.)
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'm not sure the Cirruses would make very good trainers. If nothing else, I think you'd want something where the spin recovery procedure is something better than "pull the big red handle and call your insurance company."
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Haha, yeah, though to be fair I think we should build that particular handle on everything and train it appropriately, while still training spin recovery. Airframe parachutes are a great idea.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I love the idea of the parachute. But it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be a backup if you can't recover, not the one and only thing you do. I'm not a flight instructor, but I have to imagine that inadvertent spin entry is something student pilots might do from time to time, in something that can spin. (I did all of my initial training in craft that refused to spin with my weight in them, so it's a bit theoretical for me. I did get spin training later on in something that would actually spin, and I'm glad I did.)
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - base698 10y ago
        They don't help if you're low enough: https://youtu.be/CRXUZnsST5c https://youtu.be/CRXUZnsST5c
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Ugh. That's ugly. The history behind that crash is too.
        sokoloff 10y ago
- jacobreg 10y ago
  They're different segments of the market though. A new 172 is closer to a new SR20 than it is to an old 172. If you want a reasonably priced plane to go buzz around on the weekend, you get a 172 from the 60s-70s for $25k-$60k. If you've got $300k+ to spend on a plane and wanna get the latest and greatest, then you start looking at new 172s or an SR20 or something. Planes don't really die unless they get crashed, are seriously neglected, or an AD comes out with prohibitively high costs to get in compliance (e.g. L-13 Blanik). Almost all those old planes are still around, so there isn't much reason to be buying new ones. It's a testament to the success of the 172 that 50 years later, nobody is buying new basic trainers and the only way to sell new aircraft is to offer the latest and greatest tech.
  - dmitrygr 10y ago
    Used sr20 is ~100k$. Sr22 is ~140k$
    - FabHK 10y ago
      For used planes, have a look at controller.com For used single engine piston planes, it has around - 400 Cessnas, of which 90 C-172 and 120 C-182 - 200 Cirrus, of which 160 SR22 - 60 Diamonds, of which 50 DA-40 http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/cessna http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor... http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/cirrus http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor... http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/diamond http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor...
      - jhallenworld 10y ago
        So this reminds me of fiberglass boats- the ones from the 70s and 80s are pretty much all still around: http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/cache/searchResults.jsp?man=&is=false&type=%28Sail%29&luom=126&fromLength=28&toLength=45&fromYear=&toYear=&pricderange=%2420%2C000+-+%2425%2C000&Ntt=&fromPrice=20%2C000&toPrice=25%2C000&searchtype=homepage&cit=true&slim=quick&ybw=&sm=3&Ntk=boatsEN&currencyid=100 http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/cache/searchResults.j...
- FabHK 10y ago
  I much prefer the Diamond DA-40, beautiful and safe plane.
  - jdhawk 10y ago
    So long as you're at or under 6ft tall - its a great plane. Hard to beat the roomyness of the 172 (for it's class)
  - drharby 10y ago
    Ah the mighty katana. Crosswinds can be a bitch, but eh not much different for a piper I suppose
    - frisco 10y ago
      The katana is the -20. The star is the -40 :)
      - drharby 10y ago
        DOH!
  - base698 10y ago
    I've been in the market for a plane for a while and have yet to fly a da40. What about them so you find better than a 182? They seem more economical in terms of fuel.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      It's just a nice pilot's plane, i.e. for flying, not transportation. It combines some advantages of the Cessna (e.g. benign handling, safety) and the Cirrus (e.g. modern, faster than the Cessna tractor). I've never owned one, so can't talk bout maintenance etc. though. Phil Greenspan has a nice review (though a decade old): http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40 http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40
    - maxcan 10y ago
jordanb 10y ago
If you look at the history of most small aircaft you can find military involvement at the beginning, usually wanting an aircraft for training or spotting. Militaries with big budgets don't have much reason to buy small fixed-wing piston aircraft anymore, or at least they lack the incentive to invest in new clean-slate designs. And if you don't have that startup customer willing to make a big purchase and maybe even fund R&D it becomes impossible to justify a new type.
- zokier 10y ago
  I suppose Super Tucano and related aircraft are in a bit different class?
  - bb611 10y ago
    Quite different, the turboprop for the Super Tucano is the better chunk of $1 million. It's a Lamborghini in the propeller plane world, where the 172 is a Honda Civic.
Retric 10y ago
The problem is total sales are going to be tiny. You might sell 2,000 aircraft per year with an amazing design, but that's just not much to justify a lot of R&D. So yes the FAA could make it a little cheaper, but don't expect that to change much.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Unfortunately, that's rather optimistic. In 2016, a grand total of 2262 general aviation aircraft was shipped (haha) worldwide, of which 890 single engine piston (as the Cessna 172 of the article). Thus, if you go into the single engine piston market and grab a full 10% of it, you'll be selling fewer than 100 aircraft a year. https://www.gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statistics/statistical-databook-and-industry-outlook#year2017 https://www.gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statis...
  - phkahler 10y ago
    What I don't understand is the number of companies that started building LSAs. It was a great idea and has lowered the costs, but there are so many of them I don't see how anyone can make enough money to bring prices down.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      How to make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a large fortune and do pretty much anything aviation-related...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
elmar 10y ago
people are still waiting for decades for the FAA to change a couple of words so you can have electrical planes https://www.wired.com/2015/09/blame-faa-blunder-lack-electric-airplanes/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/blame-faa-blunder-lack-electri...
- trhway 10y ago
  the staleness of the situation naturally leads to a kind of Uber style dialectic resolution when technology unleashes the forces which just can't fit into the stale/outdated rules and that is definitely going to happen once cheap electric VTOL multicopters capable of lifting 1-2 persons appear (yes, my education was in USSR, so Uber is a typical case from Hegel/Marx in my worldview :)
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Battery battery battery! So far, flight times don't exceed 20 minutes or so... :-/ But yes, can't wait for battery tech to improve. It'll be great both for multicopters, and for good old fixed wing with an electric engine (you'd achieve longer range and endurance than in multicopters for given crap battery tech).
    - trhway 10y ago
      >Battery battery battery! So far, flight times don't exceed 20 minutes or so... :-/ drop half the battery and replace with ICE based generator, and you'll have best of both worlds - endurance of ICE with controllability, safety, convenience and other advantages of electric engine multicopter. That can already happen today, just somebody should go to garage and make it happen (i myself live in a condo without such a garage unfortunately. Btw, SV innovations were done in garages and with all those condos rising around without such garages i wonder how we're going to do it here in future:) In several years the metall-air fuel cells are going to appear which is even better - size/weight comparable to ICE with efficiency close to battery based electric.
    - elmar 10y ago
      in theory 15 minutes flight with no reserve and you can't test it on altitude on real life ;)
ksherlock 10y ago
The Tecnam P2010 (designed in 2010, FAR 23 certified in 2015) is the most recent single engine, 4 seat, high wing airplane to be certified by the FAA. The second most recent is the Cessna 177. That was certified in 1968.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  I like to think Eclipse had a shot, but they blew up in 2008. The housing boom might have been the only reason they existed, but the housing bust absolutely killed them. Having to throw away that first engine design could have been survivable if the economy didn't get so sucky so fast.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Yeah, the whole very light jet (VLJ) thing sort of faltered. There was Eclipse, Piper Altaire, Diamond D-Jet, HondaJet, Adam A700, etc. Most of them were shelved, only the HondaJet is still being produced (in small numbers). As they say: The way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a big one.
    - debergalis 10y ago
      Cirrus just certified the SF-50 Vision, a new single-engine VLJ. Cessna doesn't call it this, but the Mustang is pretty close to VLJ sizes. (Not many being made though, as their M2 pretty much took over that space of the market.) The Embraer Phenom 100 is similar. Both have been reasonably successful.
- Tuxer 10y ago
  That's just because new material technology makes high wing aircraft not very useful anymore. Plenty of low-wings get certified by the FAA (the cirruses, diamonds...)
hackuser 10y ago
Is the problem the FAA, or is it that safety is expensive?
- drharby 10y ago
  >it's one or the other and not a complex situation with many interconnected nuances
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  Small market.
- xemdetia 10y ago
  There is also something that the OP didn't mention in the market of kit planes/experimental class. If you are already trying to cut cost on a buyer level a kit plane can often make more sense then buying something already built. The used market is very strong too, similar to boating, where planes can have a very long active and useful life.
vacri 10y ago
> This has created a case where the strict rules in the name of safety have actually caused a reduction in safety. Local maxima != 'reduction'.

eblanshey 10y ago

> The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon. I'd be interested in reading a source for this, because that would be pretty big news.

ksherlock 10y ago
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Part23_FinalRule_2120-AK65_WebCopy.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Revision_Airworthiness_Standards_Normal_Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-part-23-rewrite https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-... http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan

nether 10y ago

> Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. Really? The Cirrus SR20, SR22 don't count? Haven't they been outselling the 172 for several years now?

gsnedders 10y ago
At, AFAIK, almost double the cost. They're different parts of the market.
jsmthrowaway 10y ago
I wouldn't call either of those trainers. Don't get me wrong, owning a 172 is fine and I'd love to own one. I just wouldn't buy it and say "boy, I've got a fancy, sporty airplane here," even if you stick a G1000 in it like those Cirrus models. It's a workhorse, like a pickup. Cirrus aircraft are a lot sportier. (You are correct, though, the SR22 sells like hotcakes. I think it's #1.)
mikeash 10y ago
I'm not sure the Cirruses would make very good trainers. If nothing else, I think you'd want something where the spin recovery procedure is something better than "pull the big red handle and call your insurance company."
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Haha, yeah, though to be fair I think we should build that particular handle on everything and train it appropriately, while still training spin recovery. Airframe parachutes are a great idea.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I love the idea of the parachute. But it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be a backup if you can't recover, not the one and only thing you do. I'm not a flight instructor, but I have to imagine that inadvertent spin entry is something student pilots might do from time to time, in something that can spin. (I did all of my initial training in craft that refused to spin with my weight in them, so it's a bit theoretical for me. I did get spin training later on in something that would actually spin, and I'm glad I did.)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - base698 10y ago
      They don't help if you're low enough: https://youtu.be/CRXUZnsST5c https://youtu.be/CRXUZnsST5c
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Ugh. That's ugly. The history behind that crash is too.
        sokoloff 10y ago
jacobreg 10y ago
They're different segments of the market though. A new 172 is closer to a new SR20 than it is to an old 172. If you want a reasonably priced plane to go buzz around on the weekend, you get a 172 from the 60s-70s for $25k-$60k. If you've got $300k+ to spend on a plane and wanna get the latest and greatest, then you start looking at new 172s or an SR20 or something. Planes don't really die unless they get crashed, are seriously neglected, or an AD comes out with prohibitively high costs to get in compliance (e.g. L-13 Blanik). Almost all those old planes are still around, so there isn't much reason to be buying new ones. It's a testament to the success of the 172 that 50 years later, nobody is buying new basic trainers and the only way to sell new aircraft is to offer the latest and greatest tech.
- dmitrygr 10y ago
  Used sr20 is ~100k$. Sr22 is ~140k$
  - FabHK 10y ago
    For used planes, have a look at controller.com For used single engine piston planes, it has around - 400 Cessnas, of which 90 C-172 and 120 C-182 - 200 Cirrus, of which 160 SR22 - 60 Diamonds, of which 50 DA-40 http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/cessna http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor... http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/cirrus http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor... http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/category/6/piston-single-aircraft/manufacturer/diamond http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor...
    - jhallenworld 10y ago
      So this reminds me of fiberglass boats- the ones from the 70s and 80s are pretty much all still around: http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/cache/searchResults.jsp?man=&is=false&type=%28Sail%29&luom=126&fromLength=28&toLength=45&fromYear=&toYear=&pricderange=%2420%2C000+-+%2425%2C000&Ntt=&fromPrice=20%2C000&toPrice=25%2C000&searchtype=homepage&cit=true&slim=quick&ybw=&sm=3&Ntk=boatsEN&currencyid=100 http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/cache/searchResults.j...
FabHK 10y ago
I much prefer the Diamond DA-40, beautiful and safe plane.
- jdhawk 10y ago
  So long as you're at or under 6ft tall - its a great plane. Hard to beat the roomyness of the 172 (for it's class)
- drharby 10y ago
  Ah the mighty katana. Crosswinds can be a bitch, but eh not much different for a piper I suppose
  - frisco 10y ago
    The katana is the -20. The star is the -40 :)
    - drharby 10y ago
      DOH!
- base698 10y ago
  I've been in the market for a plane for a while and have yet to fly a da40. What about them so you find better than a 182? They seem more economical in terms of fuel.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    It's just a nice pilot's plane, i.e. for flying, not transportation. It combines some advantages of the Cessna (e.g. benign handling, safety) and the Cirrus (e.g. modern, faster than the Cessna tractor). I've never owned one, so can't talk bout maintenance etc. though. Phil Greenspan has a nice review (though a decade old): http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40 http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40
  - maxcan 10y ago

jordanb 10y ago

If you look at the history of most small aircaft you can find military involvement at the beginning, usually wanting an aircraft for training or spotting. Militaries with big budgets don't have much reason to buy small fixed-wing piston aircraft anymore, or at least they lack the incentive to invest in new clean-slate designs. And if you don't have that startup customer willing to make a big purchase and maybe even fund R&D it becomes impossible to justify a new type.

zokier 10y ago
I suppose Super Tucano and related aircraft are in a bit different class?
- bb611 10y ago
  Quite different, the turboprop for the Super Tucano is the better chunk of $1 million. It's a Lamborghini in the propeller plane world, where the 172 is a Honda Civic.

Retric 10y ago

The problem is total sales are going to be tiny. You might sell 2,000 aircraft per year with an amazing design, but that's just not much to justify a lot of R&D. So yes the FAA could make it a little cheaper, but don't expect that to change much.

FabHK 10y ago
Unfortunately, that's rather optimistic. In 2016, a grand total of 2262 general aviation aircraft was shipped (haha) worldwide, of which 890 single engine piston (as the Cessna 172 of the article). Thus, if you go into the single engine piston market and grab a full 10% of it, you'll be selling fewer than 100 aircraft a year. https://www.gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statistics/statistical-databook-and-industry-outlook#year2017 https://www.gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statis...
- phkahler 10y ago
  What I don't understand is the number of companies that started building LSAs. It was a great idea and has lowered the costs, but there are so many of them I don't see how anyone can make enough money to bring prices down.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    How to make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a large fortune and do pretty much anything aviation-related...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

elmar 10y ago

people are still waiting for decades for the FAA to change a couple of words so you can have electrical planes https://www.wired.com/2015/09/blame-faa-blunder-lack-electric-airplanes/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/blame-faa-blunder-lack-electri...

trhway 10y ago
the staleness of the situation naturally leads to a kind of Uber style dialectic resolution when technology unleashes the forces which just can't fit into the stale/outdated rules and that is definitely going to happen once cheap electric VTOL multicopters capable of lifting 1-2 persons appear (yes, my education was in USSR, so Uber is a typical case from Hegel/Marx in my worldview :)
- FabHK 10y ago
  Battery battery battery! So far, flight times don't exceed 20 minutes or so... :-/ But yes, can't wait for battery tech to improve. It'll be great both for multicopters, and for good old fixed wing with an electric engine (you'd achieve longer range and endurance than in multicopters for given crap battery tech).
  - trhway 10y ago
    >Battery battery battery! So far, flight times don't exceed 20 minutes or so... :-/ drop half the battery and replace with ICE based generator, and you'll have best of both worlds - endurance of ICE with controllability, safety, convenience and other advantages of electric engine multicopter. That can already happen today, just somebody should go to garage and make it happen (i myself live in a condo without such a garage unfortunately. Btw, SV innovations were done in garages and with all those condos rising around without such garages i wonder how we're going to do it here in future:) In several years the metall-air fuel cells are going to appear which is even better - size/weight comparable to ICE with efficiency close to battery based electric.
  - elmar 10y ago
    in theory 15 minutes flight with no reserve and you can't test it on altitude on real life ;)

ksherlock 10y ago

The Tecnam P2010 (designed in 2010, FAR 23 certified in 2015) is the most recent single engine, 4 seat, high wing airplane to be certified by the FAA. The second most recent is the Cessna 177. That was certified in 1968.

jfoutz 10y ago
I like to think Eclipse had a shot, but they blew up in 2008. The housing boom might have been the only reason they existed, but the housing bust absolutely killed them. Having to throw away that first engine design could have been survivable if the economy didn't get so sucky so fast.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Yeah, the whole very light jet (VLJ) thing sort of faltered. There was Eclipse, Piper Altaire, Diamond D-Jet, HondaJet, Adam A700, etc. Most of them were shelved, only the HondaJet is still being produced (in small numbers). As they say: The way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a big one.
  - debergalis 10y ago
    Cirrus just certified the SF-50 Vision, a new single-engine VLJ. Cessna doesn't call it this, but the Mustang is pretty close to VLJ sizes. (Not many being made though, as their M2 pretty much took over that space of the market.) The Embraer Phenom 100 is similar. Both have been reasonably successful.
Tuxer 10y ago
That's just because new material technology makes high wing aircraft not very useful anymore. Plenty of low-wings get certified by the FAA (the cirruses, diamonds...)

hackuser 10y ago

Is the problem the FAA, or is it that safety is expensive?

drharby 10y ago
>it's one or the other and not a complex situation with many interconnected nuances
vermontdevil 10y ago
Small market.
xemdetia 10y ago
There is also something that the OP didn't mention in the market of kit planes/experimental class. If you are already trying to cut cost on a buyer level a kit plane can often make more sense then buying something already built. The used market is very strong too, similar to boating, where planes can have a very long active and useful life.

vacri 10y ago

> This has created a case where the strict rules in the name of safety have actually caused a reduction in safety. Local maxima != 'reduction'.