6 ms·

Fuel ends up being about $50 an hour (depending on the price of fuel, but most C172 trainers burn close to 11 gal/h). While an electric trainer would save almos

Fuel ends up being about $50 an hour (depending on the price of fuel, but most C172 trainers burn close to 11 gal/h). While an electric trainer would save almost all of that money in fuel costs, most FBOs don't pay for a _new_ C172 they but one of the thousands of used ones. Buying a new electric trainer would be quite a bit more expensive than a used C172 and I'm sure that would change their rental rates for the aircraft. I think it's likely to offset the cost savings you'd get otherwise. Then again, maybe with the additional reduction in maintenance costs it might end up a bit cheaper to fly.

pdelbarba 9y ago
I actually just emailed sunflyer about pricing since that's the biggest factor initially. I will update if they get back to me. I suspect that they'll be relatively inexpensive compared to a new C172SP @ around $330,000. Maintenance is the biggest difference IMO. Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business and only last ~2000hrs before they need a $20+k overhaul. The motors should last the life of the airframe, but this will be offset by battery degradation. By the time these need battery replacement, it could be quite cheap though.
- timbre 9y ago
  Why are GA aircraft so expensive? A C172 seems much simpler mechanically than a car. I can see that the price would be driven up by low volume and probably a much stricter QA/inspection process... Is that it, or am I missing something?
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Regulations and bureaucracy. Some of it is justifiable, but a lot of it is probably not responsible for saving any lives. You can legally sell, buy, and fly an aircraft that doesn't pass most of these certification procedures; but for some reason you can not make a business of operating it. In my humble opinion, the FAA does a lot more than an air regulatory agency should[0]. Since plane crashes are rare enough, the government litigates against everyone who ever worked on your plane if somebody ever dies in connection with it, and unless you can prove it was user error (expensive in its own right), you will end up paying millions in settlements and process. These costs are added at every level of the supply chain. The FAA process could seem to make aviation safer if aviation technology never had to change ever again; but because there is so much to be done in private aviation that won't ever be done because of the cost of certifying craft with new technology; there's a good chance that safety devices have been held up by the process as well. [0]: https://fee.org/articles/how-the-faa-brought-down-uber-for-planes/ https://fee.org/articles/how-the-faa-brought-down-uber-for-p...
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I think a lot of the regulation makes more sense once you understand that the FAA prioritizes different lives differently. Roughly, they consider these groups, from lowest to highest priority in terms of keeping them safe: 1. Pilots. These are the lowest priority because they're the most in control and best understand the risks. If a pilot wants to turn himself into a red splat, that's his own concern. 2. Knowledgeable passengers. These are people who may not be pilots but understand aviation to some extent and have an idea of what they're getting into. They can't necessarily evaluate all the risks completely, but they can do a pretty good job of it. The FAA can't directly determine this, of course, but they use "for hire" as a proxy: if you're just taking people for fun or as a favor, it's assumed they have some idea of what they're getting into. If they're outright hiring you to fly them around, it's assumed they don't. 3. Passengers who are random members of the general public. Most of these people know little about airplanes and about the risks. They can't be counted on to evaluate things for themselves. People paying random pilots/companies to fly them around are assumed to be in this category. (And people buying tickets on a regularly-scheduled airline flight are assumed to be even more random than people hiring a charter, for example.) 4. The general public on the ground. These people aren't even involved in the process and have no choice in the amount of risk they're exposed to. This is why the requirements get steeper as you move from recreational flying to commercial flying. If you want to fly solo over empty land, they don't care too much if you get yourself killed. If you're going to carry a hundred vacation travelers who just want to get to the beach, things are more strict.
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        Sure, but no aviation company actively dabbles in endangering the life of its customers or members of the public through negligence anyway. In the case of an incident, settling with the victims is going to be enormously costly with or without aviation-specific regulations. Regulations that insure the NTSB has resources to follow up on incidents make a lot of sense, so do ones on accounting (in manufacturing and maintenance); but it's hard to imagine what positive effect the FAA could have outside of that.
        9y ago
  - pdelbarba 9y ago
    You're pretty close. Basically they used to be about the price of a nice car, but it become fashionable to sue the pants off everyone who was involved with the manufacture of the airframe if it was involved in a crash, fatal or not. An entire sector of lawyers emerged, taking advantage of lax regulation surrounding liability in the sector. This began at the end of the 70s and the prices skyrocketed to the point where Cessna actually ceased production of the 172 airframe. Congress had to get involved and passed the GA Revitalization Act which, among other things, limited liability duration on airframes. This was enough to cause the 172 to return to production but I've heard that something like half of the total cost of a new 172 is for liability insurance. This become apparent when you start to look at newer designs that have similar price tags and seat counts like the SR-20/22 line. For $330k you get a skyhawk that can barely break 110ktas. For $400k you get a composite Cirrus with better performance than a 182 (the next level up in Cessna's line). It's also possible that the inclusion of the whole airframe parachute system in the Cirrus design was enough to get the insurance companies to give them a little more of a break. The other big factor is the construction. Cars are largely stamped and then welded together. Aircraft are either stamped/milled aluminum that is then manually riveted together (production volumes are orders of magnitude lower than cars so no robots are used) or they are made of fiberglass/carbon fiber composite which is even more labor intensive to form. The issue with the comparison with cars is that they're way cheaper than they reasonably should be because of the sheer volume that they produce. In the time it takes cessna to build one plane, ford can pump out 1000 new cars.
  - dceddia 9y ago
    The FAA certification has a lot to do with it. Little parts you'd think would be cheap (say, a lightbulb) end up costing a ton of money because they have to go through a rigorous testing and certification process. Here are some LED landing lights for a C172 for the low low price of $227: http://www.knots2u.net/categories/cessna-single-engine-models/172-175-models/lighting/landing-and-taxi-lights.html http://www.knots2u.net/categories/cessna-single-engine-model...
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business Yikes, trainers don't have turboprops yet? I get that the initial cost would be higher (though not that much, I would think), but engine on time is the commodity that training airfields sell, it seems ludicrous that they would accept the piston tax.
  - pdelbarba 9y ago
    A 550hp PT6 turboshaft engine (pretty much the smallest one you'll see in use) is around $300k new. OEM pricing on an IO-360 180hp piston engine is about $30k. Turbocharged engines in the same hp range as the PT6 can be had for around $100k. The dirty secret they don't tell you is that turboprop's have miserable efficiency. A 1950's era carborated piston will outperform them every time in terms of fuel economy. The Cessna caravan or Pilatus PC12 will burn on the order of 50gal/hr of jet fuel at cruise and as turbine engines get smaller, they lose further efficiency.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Seems like the cost would be ludicrously higher. With some brief searching around, it looks like small single-engine turboprops cost well over a million dollars and cost hundreds of dollars per hour to run. You can get a new Cessna 172 for about $200,000, and it'll cost in the neighborhood of a hundred dollars an hour to run. Or get a light sport trainer for $100,000 or so.
  - blktiger 9y ago
    Turbo prop aircraft are generally above 200 hp and therefore are considered high-performance aircraft by the FAA. High performance aircraft generally are much more difficult for takeoff and landing because they fly so much faster which makes them unsuitable for a new pilot to learn on.

pdelbarba 9y ago

I actually just emailed sunflyer about pricing since that's the biggest factor initially. I will update if they get back to me. I suspect that they'll be relatively inexpensive compared to a new C172SP @ around $330,000. Maintenance is the biggest difference IMO. Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business and only last ~2000hrs before they need a $20+k overhaul. The motors should last the life of the airframe, but this will be offset by battery degradation. By the time these need battery replacement, it could be quite cheap though.

timbre 9y ago
Why are GA aircraft so expensive? A C172 seems much simpler mechanically than a car. I can see that the price would be driven up by low volume and probably a much stricter QA/inspection process... Is that it, or am I missing something?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Regulations and bureaucracy. Some of it is justifiable, but a lot of it is probably not responsible for saving any lives. You can legally sell, buy, and fly an aircraft that doesn't pass most of these certification procedures; but for some reason you can not make a business of operating it. In my humble opinion, the FAA does a lot more than an air regulatory agency should[0]. Since plane crashes are rare enough, the government litigates against everyone who ever worked on your plane if somebody ever dies in connection with it, and unless you can prove it was user error (expensive in its own right), you will end up paying millions in settlements and process. These costs are added at every level of the supply chain. The FAA process could seem to make aviation safer if aviation technology never had to change ever again; but because there is so much to be done in private aviation that won't ever be done because of the cost of certifying craft with new technology; there's a good chance that safety devices have been held up by the process as well. [0]: https://fee.org/articles/how-the-faa-brought-down-uber-for-planes/ https://fee.org/articles/how-the-faa-brought-down-uber-for-p...
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I think a lot of the regulation makes more sense once you understand that the FAA prioritizes different lives differently. Roughly, they consider these groups, from lowest to highest priority in terms of keeping them safe: 1. Pilots. These are the lowest priority because they're the most in control and best understand the risks. If a pilot wants to turn himself into a red splat, that's his own concern. 2. Knowledgeable passengers. These are people who may not be pilots but understand aviation to some extent and have an idea of what they're getting into. They can't necessarily evaluate all the risks completely, but they can do a pretty good job of it. The FAA can't directly determine this, of course, but they use "for hire" as a proxy: if you're just taking people for fun or as a favor, it's assumed they have some idea of what they're getting into. If they're outright hiring you to fly them around, it's assumed they don't. 3. Passengers who are random members of the general public. Most of these people know little about airplanes and about the risks. They can't be counted on to evaluate things for themselves. People paying random pilots/companies to fly them around are assumed to be in this category. (And people buying tickets on a regularly-scheduled airline flight are assumed to be even more random than people hiring a charter, for example.) 4. The general public on the ground. These people aren't even involved in the process and have no choice in the amount of risk they're exposed to. This is why the requirements get steeper as you move from recreational flying to commercial flying. If you want to fly solo over empty land, they don't care too much if you get yourself killed. If you're going to carry a hundred vacation travelers who just want to get to the beach, things are more strict.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      Sure, but no aviation company actively dabbles in endangering the life of its customers or members of the public through negligence anyway. In the case of an incident, settling with the victims is going to be enormously costly with or without aviation-specific regulations. Regulations that insure the NTSB has resources to follow up on incidents make a lot of sense, so do ones on accounting (in manufacturing and maintenance); but it's hard to imagine what positive effect the FAA could have outside of that.
      - 9y ago
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  You're pretty close. Basically they used to be about the price of a nice car, but it become fashionable to sue the pants off everyone who was involved with the manufacture of the airframe if it was involved in a crash, fatal or not. An entire sector of lawyers emerged, taking advantage of lax regulation surrounding liability in the sector. This began at the end of the 70s and the prices skyrocketed to the point where Cessna actually ceased production of the 172 airframe. Congress had to get involved and passed the GA Revitalization Act which, among other things, limited liability duration on airframes. This was enough to cause the 172 to return to production but I've heard that something like half of the total cost of a new 172 is for liability insurance. This become apparent when you start to look at newer designs that have similar price tags and seat counts like the SR-20/22 line. For $330k you get a skyhawk that can barely break 110ktas. For $400k you get a composite Cirrus with better performance than a 182 (the next level up in Cessna's line). It's also possible that the inclusion of the whole airframe parachute system in the Cirrus design was enough to get the insurance companies to give them a little more of a break. The other big factor is the construction. Cars are largely stamped and then welded together. Aircraft are either stamped/milled aluminum that is then manually riveted together (production volumes are orders of magnitude lower than cars so no robots are used) or they are made of fiberglass/carbon fiber composite which is even more labor intensive to form. The issue with the comparison with cars is that they're way cheaper than they reasonably should be because of the sheer volume that they produce. In the time it takes cessna to build one plane, ford can pump out 1000 new cars.
- dceddia 9y ago
  The FAA certification has a lot to do with it. Little parts you'd think would be cheap (say, a lightbulb) end up costing a ton of money because they have to go through a rigorous testing and certification process. Here are some LED landing lights for a C172 for the low low price of $227: http://www.knots2u.net/categories/cessna-single-engine-models/172-175-models/lighting/landing-and-taxi-lights.html http://www.knots2u.net/categories/cessna-single-engine-model...
microcolonel 9y ago
> Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business Yikes, trainers don't have turboprops yet? I get that the initial cost would be higher (though not that much, I would think), but engine on time is the commodity that training airfields sell, it seems ludicrous that they would accept the piston tax.
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  A 550hp PT6 turboshaft engine (pretty much the smallest one you'll see in use) is around $300k new. OEM pricing on an IO-360 180hp piston engine is about $30k. Turbocharged engines in the same hp range as the PT6 can be had for around $100k. The dirty secret they don't tell you is that turboprop's have miserable efficiency. A 1950's era carborated piston will outperform them every time in terms of fuel economy. The Cessna caravan or Pilatus PC12 will burn on the order of 50gal/hr of jet fuel at cruise and as turbine engines get smaller, they lose further efficiency.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Seems like the cost would be ludicrously higher. With some brief searching around, it looks like small single-engine turboprops cost well over a million dollars and cost hundreds of dollars per hour to run. You can get a new Cessna 172 for about $200,000, and it'll cost in the neighborhood of a hundred dollars an hour to run. Or get a light sport trainer for $100,000 or so.
- blktiger 9y ago
  Turbo prop aircraft are generally above 200 hp and therefore are considered high-performance aircraft by the FAA. High performance aircraft generally are much more difficult for takeoff and landing because they fly so much faster which makes them unsuitable for a new pilot to learn on.