C172 Still In Production After 60 Years. [Archive]

onetrack

9th Mar 2017, 06:47

27/09 - I'm talking engine design improvements that could have placed the 172 into current-level cutting-edge engine technology, with improved engine construction materials, engine design changes that could have improved fuel efficiency by 25-30%, airframe design changes that could have improved the drag coefficient, construction material changes that could have seen lighter weight with the same or more strength - along with numerous other areas where Cessna technology still lives in the 1950's.

In the same era that the 172 has been in production, we have seen automotive improvements that make the automotive products of today seem like space-age, as compared to the automotive offerings of 1957.
There's nothing like manufacturer inertia and resistance to change - or more importantly, resistance to the costs of changing production procedures from manufacturing equipment that was paid for by the mid-1960's, and which has produced a regular cash-cow ever since.

If the automotive manufacturers were still building motor vehicles on 1957 production lines and equipment, they wouldn't be able to sell anything, such would be the cost of manufacture and the inefficiency of the end product.

If the 172 had kept pace with automotive advances - today, it would be built entirely by robots, with faultless, 100% repetitive precision, contain large amounts of composites and alloys, and high-tech plastics and resins, be 30% more fuel efficient, have a considerably lower drag coefficient, and cost 2/3rds to buy new, of what it did in 1957.

Corporate manufacturing would still be building wood-and-wire biplanes, and wooden-wheeled drays for transport, if they were allowed carte blanche control over competition and technological advancement.

Gearup3reds

9th Mar 2017, 08:19

I'd have to agree that Cessna could use composite design and construction techniques blending a rig with lighter weights and improved performance including a more powerful donk. But of the many older training, touring types of frames I still consider the 172 to be the "Swiss army knife" of many since you can take it almost anywhere and do quiet a lot with it if handled correctly! In my opinion, although perhaps ancient in design, still a good frame :)

Old Fella

9th Mar 2017, 08:31

Sorry Acrosport II, didn't mean to "hijack" your thread, just wanted to point out the venerable C130 has been around a long time in it's various forms. Probably the most versatile airlifter ever built. That said however the C172, as pointed out by onetrack, has changed little over it's lifetime. That it is still selling says plenty about it being acceptable to many over a very long period. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.

Seagull V

9th Mar 2017, 08:33

C172 - Not only the world's safest aeroplane, but also the word's most populous aeroplane. With over 40,00 built it even beats that ever popular German design the Me109.
By comparison, the automotive industry produced 3 million Ford Falcons in a backward country like Oz, in roughly the same time span.
To give them their due, Cessna tried to do some of the things onetrack describes and came up with the C177. Nuff said.
Maybe the Cirrus range meets some of things onetrack espouses..

john_tullamarine

9th Mar 2017, 08:36

There's nothing like manufacturer inertia and resistance to change

I have no doubt that the various OEMs would run with improvements .. if it weren't for the certification on-cost remora

tartare

9th Mar 2017, 08:52

Now now.
I love the Cardinal.
Beautiful looking aircraft - especially the RG.
The facts that stabilator would kill you if that bolt failed and that it was underpowered, and earlier ones were a pig to land are totally irrelevant...
Does make you wonder thought what a 21st century 172 really would be like.
How would a largely composite aircraft handle FBO treatment?
How long would glass panel EFISs last?
One would assume they'd at least get the seats right ;)

Acrosport II

9th Mar 2017, 08:54

Old Fella
Sorry Acrosport II, didn't mean to "hijack" your thread, just wanted to point out the venerable C130 has been around a long time in it's various forms. Probably the most versatile airlifter ever built. That said however the C172, as pointed out by onetrack, has changed little over it's lifetime. That it is still selling says plenty about it being acceptable to many over a very long period. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.
No worries Old Fella. Another Classic aircraft design.

Although considerably more C172s were built over the last 60 years, and considerably more PPLs / CPLs would have flown them.

I wonder if there is little change because it was a sturdy good design.
I see they are around $275000 USD new now.
The modern day composite (modern materials) Cirrus SR22 4 seater (bigger engine) is around $520,000 USD or so. Not surprising I don't see many of those flying around locally.

27/09
Please explain. What advancements could be made that haven't been made? What efficiency gains are you thinking of?

P.S. The PA28 is 57 this year and still in production as well. Yes another 'Classic' only 3 years younger. I didn't know they were still making them. I cannot find their new price online, you have to 'inquire'.

Pinky the pilot

9th Mar 2017, 09:37

Had to do a check flight in a fairly recent model 172 recently. Glass panel an' all!:ooh:

I would describe it as a "Lady of the skies!':ok: (Or a Gentlemen's conveyance!:E)

Mein Gott!! If you got into trouble in one of those you had stuffed up badly.:=:=

Then again, if you can fly a Seneca 1 (makes sign to ward off evil eye, throws salt over shoulder, crosses myself etc) you can fly anything!!:=

Acrosport II

9th Mar 2017, 10:15

I was surprised how different one C172 was to another I flew.

I flew a few C172s many years ago and had fond memories. Flew a different plane many years later and wondered why I had such fond memories.

It must have just been that aircraft. Haven't flown one for years. Id imagine a new C172 would be nice.

Id like to know the total combined flying hours of all C172 over the last 60 years. (some 43,000 aircraft).

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

9th Mar 2017, 10:48

The design might be 60 years young, but they've only been building them for 50 of those.

If the 172 had kept pace with automotive advances - today, it would be built entirely by robots, with faultless, 100% repetitive precision, contain large amounts of composites and alloys, and high-tech plastics and resins, be 30% more fuel efficient, have a considerably lower drag coefficient, and cost 2/3rds to buy new, of what it did in 1957.
No one builds aircraft like that. Even a 787, while falling into most of your categories, is largely hand built. There just isn't the economy of scale to invest in the high tech manufacturing. As quoted above, the closest thig to your description, a Cirrus, costs twice as much.

Andy_RR

9th Mar 2017, 19:22

That the C172 is still available 60 years on means that modern tech ain't as great as people think. There plenty of newer ideas that have come and gone in the meantime.

That's not saying it can't be significantly better. Just that not enough people are prepared to pay for what it takes to develop it. Whether that's regulatory strangulation or the collective failure of the market's imagination is debatable. There's little reason why private flying couldn't be a much larger part of our lifestyle though, but plenty of reasons why it isn't.

Captain Dart

9th Mar 2017, 19:50

I thought the Piper Cub was the 'world's safest airplane'? (It can just barely kill you).

onetrack

9th Mar 2017, 23:59

I note that the Japanese CAB is now on a course to investigate making light aircraft safer, after a recent spike in light aircraft accidents in Japan.
They are going to examine the potential of the fitment of (cheaper) CVR's and FDR's to light aircraft - as well as looking at the potential of fitting airbags to same.
As many light aircraft crashes are quite often relatively low speed crashes, perhaps airbags in light aircraft do have some life-saving potential.
I trust the Japanese proceed with their ideas, they are very good at perfecting others ideas, or transferring technology from other fields to additional uses.
Maybe they could go the whole hog, and upgrade the 172 to some current cutting-edge technology, while they miniaturise everything at the same time!

tartare

10th Mar 2017, 03:08

Dart - I thought it was the Bell 206B?
Slow, solid and when you hit something, everything flies outwards. ;)

27/09

10th Mar 2017, 06:53

onetrack: be 30% more fuel efficient

Using BSFC figures, can you point me to any motor vehicle engines that are 30% more efficient than an aircraft engine? Actually even finding some that are more than 15% will probably do.

As for the use of composites and robots. The composite aircraft I know of like the Diamonds are heavy suckers for their size when compared to a metal aircraft. I'm sure robots would have been in use by now if there was an advantage to be had from using them.

The aircraft manufacturing market is only a minute fraction of the size of the automotive market. There isn't enough economy of scale for automation.

cattletruck

10th Mar 2017, 08:22

What's a brand new Cessna 172 or Cherokee PA-28 cost in Australia? Last time I checked it was a big scary number. As a so called "proven" design I would have thought it be a lot cheaper by now, but they've gone and added that poxy glass cockpit which probably accounts for more cost than the engine and airframe combined to pay for all those software engineers. I wonder how much these simple planes would really cost without all that electronic jazz.

onetrack

11th Mar 2017, 01:41

Using BSFC figures, can you point me to any motor vehicle engines that are 30% more efficient than an aircraft engine?27/09 - I was actually referring to a 30% fuel efficiency gain over the last 60 years in automotive engines - which has been driven by legislation, not by any effort on the part of auto manufacturers.
The legislation was more than likely driven by the understanding that the corporate inertia to introduce improved engine efficiency was unlikely to be overcome without legislation, when you have auto manufacturers and oil companies sharing directors on the company boards - as is, and has long been, the case.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

11th Mar 2017, 07:22

They only sell about 150 a year, that's why they're a quarter of a mill.

27/09

11th Mar 2017, 07:28

onetrack

Had you ever considered that the current crop of avgas burning aero engines may well have always been as efficient as you can make a a petrol engine. There were no appreciable gains to be made.

Have you every noticed how almost every automobile to aero conversion has been so totally unsuccessful?

Perhaps the current crop of aero engines isn't so bad after all.

I suspect much of the automobile gains have been in technology gains with respect to the whole motor vehicle, i.e.some engine improvements along with gearbox and drive train improvements, weight reductions, more aerodynamic shapes etc.

It's pretty hard to make significant gains with your average present day aircraft. Physics dictates the shape/size etc.

Band a Lot

11th Mar 2017, 08:20

A254 cu in (4.2 L) version of the L-6 (designated the M-series orRouge 254) was used from 1948 to 1953 in F6-series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series)Ford trucks (COE, Dump, semi-, etc.), and small Ford school buses. The M-seriesengine produced 115 hp (86 kW) and 212 lb·ft (287 N·m). oftorque. They were also used in miscellaneous industrial applications. e.g., topower water pumps for irrigation purposes and within wine-producing farms tomanage risk by powering giant frost-control propellers on stands in the middleof rows of grapes.
The Barra 195 is the last version of the naturally aspirated I6 engineand is in the Ford FG Falcon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FG_Falcon) sedan and ute (the BF Falcon MkIIIwagon and Ford Territory SY and SY II SUV and Territory SZ RWD Petrol use theBarra 190 engine). Modifications made to the engine include a revised plasticinlet manifold on naturally aspirated models and new cylinder head, whichachieved minor power and economy improvements over the Barra 190.
Power:195 kW (261 hp) @ 6000 rpm
Torque:391 N·m (288 lb·ft) @ 3250 rpm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are"engine" figures!

If we runthe Barra 195 @ 75% of the 1948 254 cu in engine, I will bet the Barra will beusing much more than 70% less of the 254. At a guess only I would happily say1/2 the fuel.

So an IO-360of old at same trend of auto needing 160 hp, could be smaller, thus lighter andthat also reduces required hp. You would be looking at an engine of about 190cubic inches (maybe a 2 cylinder) for same fuel burn or better.

Horse power = Fuel
Engine efficiencyreduces fuel burn for a given horse power, but generally fuel burn is kept thesame to have a greater horsepower available.

onetrack

11th Mar 2017, 08:51

27/09 - True, there have been efficiency gains in automobiles, with "gearbox and drive train improvements, weight reductions, more aerodynamic shapes, etc."
However, there have been pure fuel efficiency gains in auto engines, to the order of around up to 50% in the last 40 years alone.

Not surprisingly, the affluence of Western nations has seen these gains negated, as auto buyers have elected to buy heavier vehicles such as 4WD's, pickups and SUV's in vastly increased numbers in the last 25 years.
In addition, those more affluent Westerners have also demanded a lot more luxury accessories such as high quality onboard entertainment and communication systems, luxurious interiors, more safety features such as multiple airbags, "luxury" accessories such as climate control, electric windows all round, heavier multi-speed transmissions (GM's latest offering is a 10 speed automatic), and a host of other add-ons that all increase weight and impact on fuel efficiency.

In addition, many of the latest emission control devices on low-emission engines, have incurred fuel efficiency penalties as the emission devices such as EGR work against fuel efficiency.

Car and driver.com (2006) - Why gas mileage hasn't improved in 25 years (http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/csaba-csere-why-mileage-hasnt-improved-in-25-years-column)

We still look to the racing field to provide substantial efficiency improvements, as a means for power output increases. However, many racing developments have spin-off potential for improved fuel efficiency in ordinary autos.

Arstechnica.com - 2016/05 - Turbulent times for Formula 1 engines results in unprecedented (engine) efficiency gains (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/turbulent-times-for-formula-1-engines-result-in-unprecedented-efficiency-gains/) (excuse the excruciatingly simplistic technology descriptions)

27/09

11th Mar 2017, 09:06

Onetrack

You've sidestepped my original question. How does the modern automobile engine fuel consumption in BSFC compare to a Lycoming or Continental?

Jabawocky

11th Mar 2017, 09:12

How many auto engines (petrol jobbies), have a 200-260 HP output at 2500 RPM with a BSFC of around 0.39-0.395 and equal or less drag in an airframe?

And do not start on diesels, despite the 172, the 182 was a great example of why not. Very few people know why it was canned....Textron do not talk about it. A small number of us do. If I was textron i would have canned the idea too.

So, who has some real world data on auto engines with better fuel burns? I have data from a few that have done it, but it does not come anywhere near 0.395 and is north of 0.45.

Be interesting to see if anyone had achieved it.

PS: C172 with an IO360 is hard to beat for its class.

Pinky the pilot

11th Mar 2017, 09:52

Someone once pointed out to me that there are not too many auto engines that can run at red line RPM for a significant time followed by being reduced to 75% power for the cruise time.

A bit simplistic perhaps but.....:hmm:

Band a Lot

11th Mar 2017, 09:54

A 172 with 200-260 hp now that's a machine of note!

Band a Lot

11th Mar 2017, 10:13

Yes pinky I used "If we runthe Barra 195 @ 75%"

Here is one of the most powerful auto engines, maybe aviation development needed a reduction drive phase (not part of engine) to utilize non aviation engine developments to an aviation advantage.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-Bugatti-Veyron-need-an-8-litre-W16-engine-with-4-turbochargers-to-generate-1000+-horsepower

Left 270

11th Mar 2017, 10:44

When was the last time someone bought a new car with magnetos and a low pressure fuel injection system let alone a carburettor?

There have been huge gains in economy in autos (ild hate to be running a 308 like my first car now, would cost a fortune) but unless we change our thinking and use electronic timing, high compression and reduction drives not much is transferable to aviation, and reductions could never work that's what turbines never took off....

onetrack

11th Mar 2017, 13:35

27/09 - Well, without getting into an extended argument and providing reams of individual engine tests and lengthy scientific examination - Wikipedia provides some basic figures that show a Lycoming O-320 at 0.460 BSFC (29.3% energy efficiency); and a Toyota (Prius) 1NZ-FXE at 0.0370 BSFC (36.4% energy efficiency) - a difference of nearly 25% in efficiency with the Toyota engine.

I don't know how you can expect an engine that has had virtually no engineering development/advances in technology since its inception in the early 1950's, to seriously compete with a modern automobile engine that utilises a wide range of efficiency improvements in its design - such as high-tech fuel injection systems, VVT-i, multiple OHC's, low-friction rings and pistons, high compression ratios, CGI and high-tech alloys in blocks and heads, fractured metal caps for bearings, sintered iron powder for conrods. The Lyco is a dinosaur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

Sunfish

11th Mar 2017, 21:08

Onetrack:

Using BSFC figures, can you point me to any motor vehicle engines that are 30% more efficient than an aircraft engine?
27/09 - I was actually referring to a 30% fuel efficiency gain over the last 60 years in automotive engines - which has been driven by legislation, not by any effort on the part of auto manufacturers.
The legislation was more than likely driven by the understanding that the corporate inertia to introduce improved engine efficiency was unlikely to be overcome without legislation, when you have auto manufacturers and oil companies sharing directors on the company boards - as is, and has long been, the case....

......I don't know how you can expect an engine that has had virtually no engineering development/advances in technology since its inception in the early 1950's, to seriously compete with a modern automobile engine that utilises a wide range of efficiency improvements in its design - such as high-tech fuel injection systems, VVT-i, multiple OHC's, low-friction rings and pistons, high compression ratios, CGI and high-tech alloys in blocks and heads, fractured metal caps for bearings, sintered iron powder for conrods. The Lyco is a dinosaur.

Onetrack. You are talking complete and utter bollocks.

You do not understand the concept of the duty cycle of an engine - the spectrum of torque and rpm over which the engine is expected to operate. An engine designed for automotive use has a completely different duty cycle to an aircraft engine and many of the automotive "developments" you speak of have no useful application to aircraft engines and they are heavy as well.

Variable valve timing and overhead cams for example have no relevance to a direct drive engine that is going to spend its entire life at 55% + of full power at 2500 rpm.

Manufacturing techniques such as fractured bearing caps, etc. may be relevant if they are amenable to quality control and reliability and maintainability considerations.

As for fuel injection, I am deeply involved in the process of commissioning an aircraft with a Rotax fuel injected engine for an alleged fuel economy increase of around 10%. I can assure you that the installation is neither cheap nor simple because of the complexities of ensuring an uninterruptible high pressure fuel flow and that relies on an uninteruptable electrical system. The engine is heavier than a carbureted engine as well.

The engine has two alternators, two ECUs, eight injectors, a raft of sensors (knock, MAP, temperature, etc) and a raft of built in logic devices to provide fail-over and alerting. It is not a trivial exercise to wire and plumb this thing.

Tee Emm

11th Mar 2017, 23:54

I wonder how much these simple planes would really cost without all that electronic jazz.

With the plethora of EFIS electronic cockpits into the Cessna and Piper population, is it any wonder that automation dependency is brain washed into student pilots at such an early stage of their career.:ugh:

onetrack

12th Mar 2017, 00:10

Sunfish, I fully understand the principle of duty cycle, as I was deeply involved with heavy-duty engines for the best part of my working life. I was not inferring that automotive engines can be instantly and quickly transferred to aircraft use.
I am fully aware of the major differences in duty cycle and reliability requirements between automotive engines and aircraft engines.
What I am getting at is that old-established aircraft engine manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping archaic production lines and design principles in permanent use, as they have amortised the cost of those production facilities and designs long ago, and they are a permanent cash cow for them.
Corporate America, in particular, is permanently intent on promoting shareholder and corporate wealth, over any progress in efficiency or cost reduction to the end-users of their products.
There is no reason why the engineering advances in automotive engines cannot be engineered into aircraft engines, along with numerous other sound and progressive ideas such as rotary or sleeve valves, using current high technology.
For Gods sake man, engines are still using poppet valves, the shortest life, worst and weakest part of any IC engine design, and it's the same valve design as used in the 1890's!!
If ULPower engines can produce a modernised Lyco, utilising a number of automotive technologies, then it shows what can be done.

27/09

12th Mar 2017, 07:49

onetrack

You seem to be a trifle selective when quoting the specs on the Toyota (Prius) 1NZ-FXE engine.

From that fountain of "undisputed" information - Wikipedia:
The net result is that the engine has a greater effective expansion than compression—making it a simulated Atkinson cycle, rather than a conventional Otto cycle.

The reduction in cylinder charge means reduced torque and power output, but efficiency is increased. This combination makes the 1NZ-FXE suitable for use with the Hybrid Synergy Drive, where peak torque and power are of less importance.

Probably not a suitable engine technology for use in an aircraft.

Sunfish

12th Mar 2017, 07:57

Onetrack, I've done expert reports as a consultant for the stock market float of "new engines". The reality is that current aircraft engine technology is well understood, light and easy to maintain.

Overhead cams, variable valve timing, etc. etc are heavy and produce no worthwhile result for an aircraft engine. Advanced manufacturing techniques such as plastic flow head bolts, etc. are of no use to engines that must be rebuilt. The current automotive manufacturing technology is NOT designed for rebuilds, overhauls, etc., it is designed on the basis that the engine is going to be thrown away.

Without starting the whole Lean of peak thing again, the BSFC of the old Lycoming engines is just fine, of course there is stuff like direct injection, etc, but the technology is not only complex but Heavy and unmaintainable in the field.

There is a world of difference in design philosophy between an automotive engine that spends most of its life at 20% of rated output and an aircraft engine running at least 55% of power at a fixed rpm.

Acrosport II

12th Mar 2017, 10:20

Looking at the majority of posts in this C172 thread, I swear I was reading an 'Auto Engine' forum.

I wonder if the 'Auto Engine Forum' are talking about that 60 year old, Classic sturdy Four seater, Cessna 172, that many a PPL and CPL has flown at one time in their past, (or present as they are still producing them). Might do a google search and check.

I did predict it though.

Carry on!

Band a Lot

13th Mar 2017, 09:43

I like it say 1200 -1500 throw away quick change engines.

Would increase units sold (bring down unit cost) and reduce many other maintenance costs.

What's a overhaul/new 172 motor with all fruit cost these days? $40,000+? What ever it is it is redickyouless!

If they were $15,000 for a rubbish bin job after 1,500 hrs/15 years it is $10 bucks an hour or $1,000 a year.

Pinky the pilot

13th Mar 2017, 10:58

Looking at the majority of posts in this C172 thread, I swear I was reading an 'Auto Engine' forum.

Yers...well.....Thread drift an' all. You know how it is!

Overhead cams, variable valve timing, etc. etc are heavy and produce no worthwhile result for an aircraft engine.

Whilst I would agree with most of that statement Sunfish; I really do find it somewhat bemusing that an Aircraft engine originally designed in the late 1930's had overhead cams and IIRC, four valves per cylinder!

Something which in auto engines is really only a 'recent' innovation!:hmm:

Merely a thought.:D

cooperplace

13th Mar 2017, 11:15

Using BSFC figures, can you point me to any motor vehicle engines that are 30% more efficient than an aircraft engine? Actually even finding some that are more than 15% will probably do.

any diesel car engine!

Derfred

13th Mar 2017, 11:28

There is no reason why the engineering advances in automotive engines cannot be engineered into aircraft engines, along with numerous other sound and progressive ideas such as rotary or sleeve valves, using current high technology.
For Gods sake man, engines are still using poppet valves, the shortest life, worst and weakest part of any IC engine design, and it's the same valve design as used in the 1890's!!

Interesting the mention of sleeve valves - I thought that idea had been done to death by Bristol and Continental back in the 1940's - although it was obviously the advent of the jet engine that killed further research into large aero pistons.

But the main point seemed to be that the early advantages of sleeve valves disappeared with improved poppet valve design, and improved fuels.

Of course, it's possible that modern technology metallurgy, lubrication and fabrication could put sleeve valves on top, but if so, wouldn't the auto-manufactures have done it already?

Such R&D purely in piston aero-engines would be cost prohibitive. Any major developments such as re-introducing sleeve valves into mass-production IC engines are going to have to come from the auto industry.

onetrack

13th Mar 2017, 13:13

It may be thread drift, but what I'm getting at, is the companies that innovate and reduce costs whilst increasing the efficiency of their products, are the ones who are successful for longer periods of time.

I note the old line about, "sales levels of light aircraft aren't sufficient to introduce robot manufacturing".
Well, perhaps if some company had the wheelbarrow-sized cojones to introduce robotic manufacturing, the cost of the 172, or its modern equivalent, just might halve - and then more people could afford them, production would increase substantially, and cover the cost of the robotics - and GA might once again flourish.

It's unfortunate, but the following is a typical story of innovation stifled. An innovative Australian company produces a stunningly effective rotary valve for F1 engines - and the controllers of F1 racing pass new engine design regulations, effectively banning the new rotary valve, such is its inherent efficiency.
The F1 head honchos, just like the manufacturing corporations, prefer to keep the status quo in place.

Unfortunately, this innovative company, Bishop Innovation, went into liquidation in 2015 - no doubt due to one its sources of income drying up, and probably because no manufacturer was prepared to risk anything, to put the Bishop Rotary Valve into everyday production engines.

Auto Technology - the Bishop rotary valve. (http://home.people.net.au/~mrbdesign/PDF/AutoTechBRV.pdf)

Sunfish

13th Mar 2017, 21:06

Thread Drift? Not quite! I love these old "innovation stifled" stories! They always turn out to be rather far from the truth. If we take the "innovation stifled" thing to its logical conclusion "robot technology", etc., is supposed to drive the cost of everything to zero and produce marvellous things like engines that run on water (suppressed by the oil companies) and now cheap Cessna 172s.

Now about Bishop. My memory tells me that Bishop made their money by making a major innovation in automotive power steering technology that was taken up by all the worlds car manufacturers forthwith. However they may have then made the somewhat rash decision to keep innovating.

Mr. Onetrack, innovation is very, very expensive and highly risky. It mostly fails. This is why smart managers don't do it. If they are smart, they copy other peoples innovations and save their money. They only innovate as a last resort ( I can substantiate this but I'll save it for my doctorate).

So yes, robot produced cheap Cessnas with multi valve petrol EFI engines are being suppressed by Lycoming and Teledyne in a conspiracy to make flying expensive??? The truth is more prosaic.

The Bishop rotary valve was a solution looking for a problem - and it found one - an F1 engine turning at 18,000 rpm! It had little relevance to current automotive technology, which anyway appears to be going electric, it would be at least ten years from actual production and delivers no performance increase apart from perhaps reduced weight and possibly complexity (or not). And that is without taking into account the designers little devil NVH (noise, vibration and harshness). For all we know, a Bishop engine might sound like chalk screeching on a blackboard, which renders it useless.

So did the evil FIA squelch another innovation by a little Aussie battler? I don't think so. Same reason they squashed gas turbines, no relevance to todays automotive problems. Furthermore, if you think FIA isn't innovative, look at the regenerative braking systems on F1 cars.

As for aircraft and robots, my aircraft kit and the Mahindra/Gippsland GA 8 have one thing in common - their sheet metal is CNC cut and drilled to the point where the parts are interchangeable, which is more than can be said for the FA-18 and a whole lot of Boeing products which still have pilot holes on corners and require you to match drill everything.

As for robotic assembly, you need to redesign the aircraft for that and then recertify it as a new product, in any case since when is the American labour cost in assembling a Cessna going to the deciding factor in aircraft cost??

However I like innovation stories, but they don't usually have a happy ending - didn't Rotax announce they were building a multi valve, fuel injected V6 300 HP engine to take on Lycoming and Continental? Remember how that panned out? The Thielert diesels on the Diamonds? Lycoming is going to be around for a while longer.

Stationair8

13th Mar 2017, 23:00

Perhaps, the Cessna XMC was the way to go.

I know an operator that purchased a brand new 1974 Cessna 172M, from Rex Aviation for the sum of $19,750.

The aircraft averaged 100 hours a month for the first six months of operation and was sold 18 months later with 1500 hours total time to private owner.

onetrack

14th Mar 2017, 01:31

Sunfish, I wasn't getting on the old, "suppression conspiracy" bandwagon - I was referring to the inertia of corporations towards innovation and design improvements, as they prefer to keep the status quo in eternity, and will resist change as long as they can.

Robotic substantially reduce expensive labour costs, I thought, by eliminating large amounts of tedious labour requirements? Or did I get that wrong, too?
Robotic welders put your current production vehicles together at much lower cost and with far superior accuracy than any welding done by hand.

Stationair8, the XMC was a prototype design, produced to try and find improvements in basic light aircraft design layout. The XMC apparently provided no substantial aeronautical efficiencies, and actually incurred higher levels of cabin noise.
The basic design layout of the 172 appears to be highly satisfactory, what I am saying is that there could have been a number of build and material improvements in the construction, as well as engine efficiency improvements in the last 60 years, that haven't happened.
In the same period we have seen substantial improvements in the build and material improvements in motor vehicles, as well as at least a 30% improvement in fuel efficiency.
That fuel efficiency improvement has largely been driven by legislation, not by any competition or innovation on the part of manufacturers.
Yes, I understand certification is a big bogey in aircraft manufacture, but it hasn't stopped a vast number of aircraft design improvements in other aircraft. The European "plastic fantastic" composite offerings prove that.
It's a shame that everything European-built seems to come with a substantial cost component that I am convinced has little to do with actual build cost, and a lot more to do with the heavy levels of European socialist taxation, and a desire to ensure very substantial levels of profit.

Andy_RR

14th Mar 2017, 03:54

any diesel car engine!

Nope. Not even close.

A well-managed Lyc/Conti should be good for 235/240g/kWh (0.39lb/hp.h) in the cruise and most modern auto diesels are lucky to be any better than 210-220-ish

Where the Lyc/Conti loses is that they require the largely-uneducated to manage the mixture knob.

Sunfish

14th Mar 2017, 06:15

Onetrack, with respect, the costs of tooling up for robot based production are extraordinary. While Boeing and Airbus have automated plenty of processes over the years, not every process is amenable to it.

For example Boeing had water jet cutting of interior panels years ago and also automated some wing spar riveting. However aircraft are series production projects not mass production and "design - for -easy - assembly " does not take priority over design for performance and low weight.

I would say a lot of interior work and engine components like blades are now produced on robotic lines, but primary structure? I think not, with the exception perhaps of some automatic layup of composites. Of course anything that can be inc machined will be. I also seem to remember that Boeings latest paint shop is robotic.

5th officer

14th Mar 2017, 06:38

It could be argued that in June next year the Cessna 172 will be 70 years old?
After all the first 172 was just a Cessna 170B with a nose wheel and nothing more. After owning a beautiful Cessna 170A for many years and also instructing on Cessna 172's for many hundreds of hours there was little difference, even more the 170 was cleaner, shorter take and landings and the beautifully smooth and the C145 6 Cylinder motor ran like a switch watch. Did the addition of training wheels really justify a name change??
Hopefully this diatribe will get this thread back on Track? He He :ok:

Acrosport II

14th Mar 2017, 08:16

60 or 70 Years? It could be argued that in June next year the Cessna 172 will be 70 years old?
After all the first 172 was just a Cessna 170B with a nose wheel and nothing more. After owning a beautiful Cessna 170A for many years and also instructing on Cessna 172's for many hundreds of hours there was little difference, even more the 170 was cleaner, shorter take and landings and the beautifully smooth and the C145 6 Cylinder motor ran like a switch watch. Did the addition of training wheels really justify a name change??
Hopefully this diatribe will get this thread back on Track? He He http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Don't say 'Could be argued' on here, you are just asking for it arnt you?

Your post got me googling.

1948 C170 Introduced
1952 C170B Introduced (cost $7245 USD) how does that stack up to today price of around $275,000USD.
1956 Nose Equipped C170B with square tail called the C172. (All C170 production stopped).
Id 'Argue' the C172 is 61 years old.;)

Never flew the C170 unfortunately.

The O-1 Bird Dog had 60* Fowler Flaps. That would slow it down.

Jabawocky

14th Mar 2017, 08:29

Nope. Not even close.

A well-managed Lyc/Conti should be good for 235/240g/kWh (0.39lb/hp.h) in the cruise and most modern auto diesels are lucky to be any better than 210-220-ish

Where the Lyc/Conti loses is that they require the largely-uneducated to manage the mixture knob.

Andy.......Post of the Year Award from me at least. Nailed it.

And it is not their fault. They were ignorant due the system. But there is a solution, ;) https://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html

Andy_RR

14th Mar 2017, 09:18

Speaking as a fully paid up member of the largely educated, why in the year 2017 do I still need to manage the mixture knob at all?

I don't understand why my fuel injection system isn't at least half as clever as the one on the average current Toyota. I guess I just need to be educated in those black art theories and techniques of 1935.

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what date the last car had a mixture control other than a choke? I'm guessing 1930.

I agree on your first point, Cleared, but applying automotive-spec systems to an aero engine makes for a dog's breakfast. The Rotax is a good case in point. Something actually worth having is more expensive than everyone is willing to pay for, especially at the certified end of the market.

The advantage Toyota have is that they can amortize the development over not just one engine model, but across their entire range - the production volumes of which has more than a few extra zeros on the end compared to even the entire lifetime of O-360's

And, most cars with carbs needed mixture control, even when they didn't have it, say for when you started driving up mountains. Carbs did tend to disappear around 1986 though, at least here in Aus - only 30 years ago - blink of an eye really.

onetrack

14th Mar 2017, 11:24

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what date the last car had a mixture control other than a choke? I'm guessing 1930.I do not know of any car that ever had a (manually-controlled) mixture control. AFAIK, manually-operated mixture control is limited to aircraft engines.
Early cars (prior to about 1932) had manual spark advance/retard controls, usually mounted on the steering column - so perhaps you are confusing the spark advance/retard mechanisms with mixture control.

emeritus

15th Mar 2017, 04:58

Don't knock the old 172. Is anyone aware that 2 Americans bought a stock 172 and took off on Dec 4 1958 and did not land till Feb 4 1959 ?

Google it for more info. I think the record still stands.

Emeritus

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2017, 06:34

Imagine the regulatory ructions if someone tried to refuel a 172 from a truck today!

The cabin must have been a bit festy after 2 blokes spent a couple of months airborne in it...

onetrack

15th Mar 2017, 12:22

The cabin must have been a bit festy after 2 blokes spent a couple of months airborne in it...They did have a shower arrangement of sorts, apparently - although one does wonder what level of shower cleanliness one could attain in the slipstream of a 172. :)
Maybe it was just the old "ABC" that the grunts in SVN did, out of a waterbottle! ([under]Arm, Bum & Crotch, in case you needed to ask). :)

The history of the record-breaking light aircraft flights around AZ, NV and CA (http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20130414yuma-flight-record.html)

er340790

15th Mar 2017, 17:34

The cabin must have been a bit festy after 2 blokes spent a couple of months airborne in it...

When I did my initial training in the Summer heat of FL, 45 mins was all I could stand with my somewhat corpulent instructor.

I reckon if he'd got into shape I could have taken 10-gals more :mad: fuel!!! ;)

flyinkiwi

16th Mar 2017, 03:39

Speaking as a fully paid up member of the largely educated, why in the year 2017 do I still need to manage the mixture knob at all?

A few reasons. 1) Complexity (and therefore increased weight and maintenance costs), 2) Compliance costs (i.e certification) and 3) People like their C172 the way they are (see C177 discussion earlier in this thread).

If you want FADEC and Toyota-like carefree engine management, buy a Cirrus. But be prepared to pay and pay and pay...

Sunfish

16th Mar 2017, 20:57

The Rotax injected engine has Two of everything; ECU, MAP sensors, temperature sensors, airbox temp and pressure, knock sensor fuel pumps, eight injectors and plugs, coil packs and of course Two permanent magnet alternators with automatic fail over from one to the other and space for a belt driven alternator as well.

There is both an ECU box and a "fuse box". You require seven switches to control the beast (ECU A & B, alternator tie (for starting), start, fuel pumps 1 & 2 and emergency battery mode. The use of a key switch is not advisable because they can be unreliable, I am using only MS 35059. Then of course you will need an EFIS or a $3000 engine display unit because all data is provided by an automotive CAN bus protocol. The supplied wiring loom has plugs on it that must not be inserted/removed from the ECU more than 20 times or you need to replace the wiring loom (plug connect/disconnect must be entered in the engine log).

But wait, there is more, each cylinder has an EGT probe and. at less than 97% power, the engine runs in "ECO" mode which probably means its running LOP (rotax doesn't say) and you adjust required power by setting fuel flow.

Since the engine will immediately stop if it loses fuel pressure even for a fraction of a second, you need a header tank capable of flowing 70 ltrs per minute with no bubbles, a seven micron high pressure fuel filter and of course the aforesaid Two alternators and two fuel pumps.

the benefits of the technology are greater fuel economy and a smoother engine for a few extra kg of electronics.

So yeah, I don't understand why Lycoming and Continental aren't falling over themselves to install cheap, simple automotive EFI instead of those complex, inefficient and unreliable carburettors and WWII era injection... complete with mixture control..

Acrosport II

16th Mar 2017, 22:50

button push ignored

I own a 1973 Cessna 172M.

I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.

The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973/1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D. You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you gave a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.

The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977-1980 was a disaster for Cessna. The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate. The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided. Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.

The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.

The R model had a lot of problems when production resumed. The Cessna 172 was not produced for a number of years due to liability insurance. So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
Interesting you say the C172N 160HP had issues. I did most of my C172 flying in that model. I liked it. Not sure if they had changed the lifters or any other mods though.

You say the C172P can use 100LL or 92 MOGAS. Is that the only fuels they recommend. What about 95 or 98 MOGAS.

I hear C172 on the radio flying from two airfields close to me. Sixty years on and they are still flying every day within 5nm of my home.

Stationair8

17th Mar 2017, 02:52

Cessna C172N, also nicknamed nasty due to problems with the engine.
Most of the 1977 N's were grounded in Australia for an engine mod in mid 1977.

Andy_RR

17th Mar 2017, 03:46

You say the C172P can use 100LL or 92 MOGAS. Is that the only fuels they recommend. What about 95 or 98 MOGAS.

92 MOGAS is similar to 98RON we have here in Aus, I think. It's a (RON+MON)/2 thingy, IIRC, as is also the 100 in 100LL

Acrosport II

17th Mar 2017, 04:15

Stationair8 Cessna C172N, also nicknamed nasty due to problems with the engine.
Most of the 1977 N's were grounded in Australia for an engine mod in mid 1977.
OK, Good to know.

I didn't fly them until the 80s, so they should have been modified.

I never heard of any issues during that time.

Acrosport II

17th Mar 2017, 04:21

Andy_RR

92 MOGAS is similar to 98RON we have here in Aus, I think. It's a (RON+MON)/2 thingy, IIRC, as is also the 100 in 100LL

Ill look that up.
Cheers

Acrosport II

17th Mar 2017, 04:22

button push ignored
The original razor back/fast back, straight tail Cessna 172 from 1956 thru 1959 is a wonderful classic plane, that is great fun to fly.
The landing gear is very close together and it sits very tall in the saddle, so you have to be very careful taxing in strong winds as it's easy to tip over.
I absolutely LOVE the manual flaps, much more than any later electric flaps.
You get to fly by the 'seat of your pants' by looking outside as you fly by feel of the plane in the air.
The Continental O-300 six cylinder engine is a smooth running engine, but costs more to maintain and rebuild than a later Lycoming.
It also does not last as long as a Lycoming.
If you buy one, you'll love it, but do not upgrade it.
It is a classic plane, and should be treated as such.
These engines run much better on 87 octane car gas than 100LL aviation gas.

They then changed to the Omni-Vision style that you know.

The Cessna of the 1960s are rather nondescript.
The early ones have the Continental O-300 six cylinder before they switched to four cylinder Lycoming in 1964.
You can tell a Continental engine one from a Lycoming by the two exhaust pipes on the six cylinder machine.

In 1976 a Cessna 172 was $16,000. The average wage was about $8000.
So it was possible for a working man to buy a plane and pay for it over three years.
Today the average wages are about $53,000 but the cost of a Cessna has grown to over $350,000.
Putting it out of reach for the average working man.

Thankfully there are plenty of used Cessna's available, but beware that any old aircraft will require a lot of work to make it a safe machine.
You can not operate a plane for 40 years on a shoe string budget and expect to have a safe plane without doing a complete major overhaul.
I just spent nine months and over $60,000 giving my plane a major overhaul.

The Cessna from the early 1970s are in my opinion the 'best of breed'.
I much prefer a 150 horse powered machine for flight training.
I think 180 horses is too much for a new pilot student.

I own a 1973 Cessna 172M model.

I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.

The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973 and 1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D engine.
You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you have a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.

The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977 and 1980 was a disaster for Cessna.
The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate.
The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided.
Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.

The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.

The Cessna 172 was not produced between 1987 and 1997 due to liability insurance.
So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.

Production resumed in 1998 as an R model.
The early R models should also be avoided.
The engine size had now grown to an O-360 but was de-rated to 160 hp by limiting the engine RPMs.

A few years later came the S model that is still in production.
This fuel injected engine is probably the best engine ever built.

And there lies the problem with the modern 180 hp Cessna's.
The only benefit of a bigger engine is slightly shorter take off distance.
The downside is far greater. More noise, more fuel burn.
And yet the standard fuel tanks remained at 40 gallons usable.
An O-320 will burn about 8 gallons per hour, but and O-360 will burn closer to 10.
With standard fuel tanks and O-360 powered machine does not have much range.
I would not want an O-360 powered Cessna 172 without optional 50 gallon long range tanks.
Very interesting write-up thanks.

megan

17th Mar 2017, 04:58

Concur that the old straight tail 172 (and 182) were the nicest handling of the lot. Bring back the crowbar and 40°.

megan

18th Mar 2017, 00:42

These were eliminated from the later models due to liability reasonsAnyone able to flesh out the story of exactly why the 40° flap was done away with?

Jabawocky

18th Mar 2017, 01:34

92 MOGAS is similar to 98RON we have here in Aus, I think. It's a (RON+MON)/2 thingy, IIRC, as is also the 100 in 100LL

Andy, 100LL is typically 102.5MON
Our Pump fuel is RON and the american auto fuel is (R+M)/2 :ok:

Jabawocky

18th Mar 2017, 01:43

Acrosport II

18th Mar 2017, 13:12

The flaps 40 was eliminated for the 1981 P model.
There were two reasons for this.
1st reason. Was the climb gradient on a balked landing (go-around) with flaps 40.
Apparently people got into trouble on the go around by using incorrect procedures.
2nd reason. Was STC 5A2196CE that increased gross take off weight if the flaps were limited to 30.
Again based on an immediate return to landing with a go around.

My opinion is flaps 40 are an asset, especially for short field landings.
You just have to get used to using them, and know when to land flaps 30, and how to go around with flaps 40.

A bit of history.
The Cessna 170A had non slotted - fowler type flaps that went to 50 degrees.
The 170B had regular type flaps 40.
The Cessna L-19 Bird Dog has flaps 60.

Yes I'm sure the 172N (and the others I flew) had 40* Flaps.

The LSA I fly now could benefit from 40* flaps on landing, not sure how it would go doing a go-round though, which may be why they have limited the full flap setting.

Cloud Basher

19th Mar 2017, 00:44

Acrosport II

19th Mar 2017, 10:45

People are wondering why the cost of new GA aircraft is so high.

When Cessna restarted the 172/182 and 206 production lines I was speaking with a Cessna US guy who came out with the first couple inported into Australia. He stated hat 50% of the cost of the Cessnas was the cost of liability insurance for 20 (or may have been 25 years) for that airframe. If you look at production costs for other items and how they have risen, this makes sense. Cessna stated that they could resume production when the GA revitalisation bill was passed in the States that limited liability to 20 years (25?). So a 100% markup on each airframe to pay for this is the cost of the US litigious society.

I can't speak to the rest of the argument on manufacturers not wanting to change the status quo. The only thing I do know is, it was economically feasible it would have been done. I am sure the latest technology could be incorporated into aircraft engine making them more economical, more reliable(?) lighter, etc etc. but if it does not make economic sense then it won't be done.

Cheers
CB

That's incredible if correct.

That would make the price of a new C172 in the USA of 180,000AUD.(Not sure what the listed price is in Aus, its so high they don't publish it on the dealers website).

All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).

Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.

Real shame, and even bigger shame the USA and AUS govts don't have the b***s to stop it with sensible legislation.

Derfred

19th Mar 2017, 17:43

That's incredible if correct.

That would make the price of a new C172 in the USA of 180,000AUD.(Not sure what the listed price is in Aus, its so high they don't publish it on the dealers website).

All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).

Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.

Real shame, and even bigger shame the USA and AUS govts don't have the b***s to stop it with sensible legislation.

I'm no expert but perhaps the price of doing business in USA is limited regulation mitigated by the risk of litigation. The end result being the eventual doubling of the price due litigation.

Australia, in contrast, over-regulates, equally doubling the price of aviation, but due regulation. Of course, the litigation aspect still prevails due to our commercial and legal relationships with the country of origin of the aircraft.

But because we don't have the population or aviation density to design and manufacture our own light aircraft, we pay the existing double US price, and then double it again to operate it in Australia, then add shipping and GST and whatever else and no wonder no-one can afford to purchase and operate a new C172 in Australia.

Maybe someone with internet skills can compare the 1970 price of a C172 to a similarly priced BMW or Mercedes or John Deere tractor, and recompare the difference to equivalent plant today.

I suspect you would find that a BMW purchaser in 1970 could easily have been in the money for a Cessna, but today would be out by a factor of 5 or more. Meanwhile, the BMW's have evolved and sport the latest and greatest gear, while the Cessna has hardly changed since 1970.

BMW can afford to constantly improve the engine reliability and crash safety of it's vehicles because the regulation and litigation costs allow them too. The same doesn't apply to Cessna or Lycoming.

People still crash and die in BMW's, but if it happens in a Cessna, the cost continues to rise, because it's somehow "not acceptable".

Why is this?

Prior to the 1970's, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation was to innovate, build and fly great aircraft.

At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.

A Squared

20th Mar 2017, 06:33

A bit of history.
The Cessna 170A had non slotted - fowler type flaps that went to 50 degrees.
The 170B had regular type flaps 40.

The 170 and 170A have plain, non slotted flaps. The 170B has slotted fowler flaps. (just like most other cessna singles from the early '50's on)

Acrosport II

20th Mar 2017, 06:58

Defred,

You could be right about a new C172 in Aus costing four times what it should.

People still crash and die in BMW's, but if it happens in a Cessna, the cost continues to rise, because it's somehow "not acceptable".

Why is this?
I too don't understand why there is a 'zero' tolerance to any aircraft death (ie: Overregulate to such an extent it is unaffordable to most) yet other activities are acceptable.

I personally would never skydive, yet many do. There has been deaths around the world from people, swimming, racing cars, racing motorbikes, scuba diving, Mt climbing, working at your job, driving on the roads, bee stings, shark attacks, shooting, boating, jet skiing, skiing, abseiling. You name it.

Accept there is a risk with whatever sport / hobby / job, we do, but don't over regulate it until it doesn't exist.

If the wings fold inflight in a new aircraft, they have a case to answer, if pilot error causes and accident. Don't sue the Manufacturer. Change the law to common sense law.

Like your comment here.

Never a truer word spoken in jest'

Prior to the 1970's, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation was to innovate, build and fly great aircraft.

At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.

A Squared

20th Mar 2017, 07:11

I think that a representative of BMW or any other current auto manufacturer would be surprised to discover that they aren't heavily regulated and aren't subject to lawsuits.

De_flieger

20th Mar 2017, 07:55

Maybe someone with internet skills can compare the 1970 price of a C172 to a similarly priced BMW or Mercedes or John Deere tractor, and recompare the difference to equivalent plant today.I'll give it a shot.

The 1971 C172 Skyhawk (according to Wikipedia) retailed for $US 14,995.
A new C172, admittedly with glass cockpit avionics and other gadgets, but new from the factory and ultimately doing the same job of transporting two adults and two midgets in moderate discomfort, is listed online from Textron for $US403,000 or so, or roughly 26 times the price of the 1971 model. That works out to just shy of $520,000 Australian dollars today, before you put fuel into the tanks.

The Mercedes 280 SL, which was just what appeared when googling 1971 Mercedes sports car, and apparently was (and remains) a fairly highly regarded sports car, had a new retail price of ~$11,958, just under the price of some of the slightly older C172s, and a new Mercedes sports car, depending on the trimming and model, won't give much change out of $100,000.
A top of the line 1971 Ford Mustang had a sticker price of $US 4124, the new top of the range Ford Mustang comes to around $US 55,000
And in 1971 the US median household income was $US 7956, compared to today- the latest figures I could quickly find were from 2014, $US 53013.

So for a rough guide from 1971 to today, the other equivalent items have gone up roughly ten times in price, looking solely at the number of US dollars being handed over, and the average Australian weekly income went from around $88 per week - $~4580 per year - to around $1145 after tax.

A C172 went from less than two years of average US income, to more than 7 years of average US income, or less than three years of average Australian income to just under 9 years of average Australian post-tax income. If you want a Mercedes, Ford Mustang, expensive yacht or some other luxury toy, you can do it much more affordably than going anywhere near a Cessna, and have $300,000 left in the bank. And on the weekend you can take your car or yacht for a fun drive without checking your medical, licence, ASIC, biennial flight review, night currency, $1400 headset, stopping off to buy new maps and ERSA because the old ones expire every 3-6 months, updating your AIPs, putting $300 in the bank to cover fuel and maintenance for every hour in the air and so on and so forth.

There are probably some minor rounding errors in there, but the gist of it remains:
Ford Mustang, takehome pay, Mercedes sportscar etc are approximately ten times their 1971 prices. The Cessna, 26 times.

Seagull V

20th Mar 2017, 08:10

From latest Avweb

Authoritieson both sides of the border are investigating the apparent ghost plane crash ofa Michigan-based Cessna 172 in a remote area of Northern Ontario. According tothe Wawa News, the plane crashed about 11:30 p.m. about halfway between SaultSt. Marie and Thunder Bay near the north shore of Lake Superior, and there wasno sign of a pilot. Local police reported the plane was empty, there were notracks in the snow, no gas in the tanks and the autopilot was on. The crashsite is about 400 NM from Ann Arbor, pretty close to the full-tanks range ofthe 172.

Acrosport II

20th Mar 2017, 09:21

I'll give it a shot.

The 1971 C172 Skyhawk (according to Wikipedia) retailed for $US 14,995.
A new C172, admittedly with glass cockpit avionics and other gadgets, but new from the factory and ultimately doing the same job of transporting two adults and two midgets in moderate discomfort, is listed online from Textron for $US403,000 or so, or roughly 26 times the price of the 1971 model. That works out to just shy of $520,000 Australian dollars today, before you put fuel into the tanks.

The Mercedes 280 SL, which was just what appeared when googling 1971 Mercedes sports car, and apparently was (and remains) a fairly highly regarded sports car, had a new retail price of ~$11,958, just under the price of some of the slightly older C172s, and a new Mercedes sports car, depending on the trimming and model, won't give much change out of $100,000.
A top of the line 1971 Ford Mustang had a sticker price of $US 4124, the new top of the range Ford Mustang comes to around $US 55,000
And in 1971 the US median household income was $US 7956, compared to today- the latest figures I could quickly find were from 2014, $US 53013.

So for a rough guide from 1971 to today, the other equivalent items have gone up roughly ten times in price, looking solely at the number of US dollars being handed over, and the average Australian weekly income went from around $88 per week - $~4580 per year - to around $1145 after tax.

A C172 went from less than two years of average US income, to more than 7 years of average US income, or less than three years of average Australian income to just under 9 years of average Australian post-tax income. If you want a Mercedes, Ford Mustang, expensive yacht or some other luxury toy, you can do it much more affordably than going anywhere near a Cessna, and have $300,000 left in the bank. And on the weekend you can take your car or yacht for a fun drive without checking your medical, licence, ASIC, biennial flight review, night currency, $1400 headset, stopping off to buy new maps and ERSA because the old ones expire every 3-6 months, updating your AIPs, putting $300 in the bank to cover fuel and maintenance for every hour in the air and so on and so forth.

There are probably some minor rounding errors in there, but the gist of it remains:
Ford Mustang, takehome pay, Mercedes sportscar etc are approximately ten times their 1971 prices. The Cessna, 26 times.

Yes, quite a substantial increase over the years.
It appears my new price for the base model C172R may be a bit off. That was from Wiki, but the 2012 price.
$400,000USD is high. Not even sure if you can buy a base model now without the EFIS.

Real Shame.

Role Civil utility aircraft
National origin United StatesManufacturer
Cessna Aircraft Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna), Reims Aviation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reims_Aviation) (under an agreement)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#cite_note-1)

First flight 1955
Introduction 1956
Status In production
Produced 1956–86, 1998–present
Number built c. 43,000[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#cite_note-FlyingMag1-2)
Unit cost

172: US$ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)8,700 (1956)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#cite_note-AirAndSpaceMag2006Jul-3)
172R: US$274,900 (2012)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#cite_note-4)
172S: US$307,500 (2012)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#cite_note-5)

Developed from Cessna 170 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170)
Variants T-41 Mescalero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-41_Mescalero)

cattletruck

20th Mar 2017, 10:05

If you think a C172 has a huge markup take a look at the list price of an F35. :eek:

Normally big manufacturers end up pricing themselves out of the market when fresh competition is allowed to prosper - but in today's world this aint happening because of over regulation and litigation which feeds a lot of non-flyers.

The C172 will probably be in production for another 60 years and by then will cost as much as an F35 costs now.

The alternate pathway to getting into owner/flying is to buy a Fokker Dr.1 kit from the kiwis for $10k, source an aero engine ~$20-50K, and build it yourself.

Andy_RR

20th Mar 2017, 10:19

We should compare the price of C172s with houses, which are equally dangerous should they fall out of the sky and still tend to be made with similar methods to fifty years ago. By using this benchmark the humble Skyhawk will look like very good value indeed!

rutan around

20th Mar 2017, 10:59

onetrack said in post #47

Well, perhaps if some company had the wheelbarrow-sized cojones to introduce robotic manufacturing, the cost of the 172, or its modern equivalent, just might halve - and then more people could afford them, production would increase substantially, and cover the cost of the robotics - and GA might once again flourish.Well actually there is a close Australian equivalent to the C172 that does have some clever manufacturing advantages over traditional cessnas. eg two men making 5 sets of of wings in 5 days while next door 5 men worked 5 weeks to make a set of similar sized aluminium wings.

This Ozzie aircraft has a better useful load , a wider cockpit , and a lower fuel burn. It does all this with the same or better cruise speed and range of a C172.

It costs $130K - $140 K if built by the factory. Compare that price with $492 K plus freight for the American machine.

What plane is the Ozzie competitor?

A Jabiru of course. Before going ballistic and berating me on this forum look up the specs yourself for the Jabiru J450 and for the Newbuild C172.

Derfred

20th Mar 2017, 12:47

I think that a representative of BMW or any other current auto manufacturer would be surprised to discover that they aren't heavily regulated and aren't subject to lawsuits.

Of course they are regulated and subject to lawsuits (as are the manufacturers of $5 plastic kids' toys), but no-where near to the same extent. Someone quoted 50% of the purchase price of a C172 is now pure liability insurance coverage. That's before any regulation and certification costs.

I don't think 50% of your BMW purchase price would be liability insurance. Of course, we don't know the figure - we only know the Cessna figure because it came out in public to pass new liability laws to allow Cessna to recommence manufacturing.

There have been some high-profile liability cases against auto-manufacturers, but they generally don't kill the manufacturer and send the prices through the roof in the same way they did Cessna. I don't think anyone doubts that Cessna built good, safe aircraft*. It's a shame the legal system effectively killed them.

The only Cessna equivalent to the "modern" Mercedes sports car is the TTx (which Cessna didn't even design) and which costs more than twice a C172. So our 2.6-4.0 ratio (suggested by a couple of posters, thank you for that) then goes up to a factor of 5.2-8.0 or more. And that's in the US. It would be presumably even higher in Australia.

So perhaps we could suggest that in 1970, an average LAME (or any private pilot with a slightly above-average income) with a good savings discipline could have purchased a new C172 after 4-5 years of savings, whereas today it would take them 30-40 years. That aint gonna happen, hence private GA is dead, and enter the rise of the less-safe ultralights, experimental, home-builts etc.

Most automobiles reach the point of diminishing returns between say 12-16 years of age where it becomes cheaper to scrap them and buy a younger one than to maintain them to standard. That's a "good thing", because newer cars are generally safer, so there is a safety benefit in having a certain level of turnover. Commercial RPT aircraft, being built to more industrial standards, still hit that point around 18-25 years.

Yet we persist in flying 50 year old C172's not because we love them but because the new ones are priced out of reach. Is that really the optimum safety outcome the law-makers have been looking for all these years? Or, out of perhaps good intentions, all they have succeeding in doing is stifling innovation, research and development, and manufacture of better and safer aircraft for one and all.

Why? I don't know. But perhaps it is due to the absurd concept alluded to by an above poster that GA needs to adhere to a "zero accident" policy, which is not applied by society to any other private or small-business pursuit that I can think of. Seen a fatal truck accident near you recently? I certainly have. But them $5 kiddy toys have to make the warehouse by morning "or else".

At the end of the day, the only explanation for the current state of affairs is that it's the law-makers' fault. Do they care that they have killed GA? Sadly no. There's the problem, right there.

onetrack

20th Mar 2017, 13:28

After seeing the liability payout figures for Toyota and VW (just to name 2 auto manufacturers) in recent times, the claim that auto manufacturers face no liability claims, falls flat on its face.

You would have to go through the auto manufacturers financial statements with a fine tooth comb, just to try and get an reasonably accurate estimate of what recalls, lawsuits, and civil and criminal penalties have cost them. They sure aren't trumpeting it to the world.

At a glance -

Toyota - US$1.2B in regulatory fines in the U.S. for the "unintended acceleration", Govt punitive action ...
US$3.4B for the "rust in pickups" action ...
Unknown $ figure for the cost of over 10,000,000 recalls in the early years of this century, as Toyota dropped the ball on QC ..
Unknown $ figure for the total payouts in individual "wrongful death" lawsuits and civil class action claims.

VW -

A reputed US$19B in punitive damages ... just in the U.S. alone ...
An unknown number and cost (to me) of VW recalls ...
An unknown figure for financial compensation, for a huge number of VW owners who were deceived by cheating on emission figures ...
An unknown $ cost figure for Australian VW owners, that is yet to hit the courts ..
An unknown $ punitive penalty from the regulatory Australian ACCC if it wins its "misleading and deceptive conduct" case against VW.

There are many other auto manufacturers that have had massive payouts and punitive damages awarded against them.
The fuel tank fire problem with Ford Pintos, the early Ford Explorer rollover problem, the dozens of models with faulty fuel systems that caused fires .. the list goes on.

I would hazard a guess, that the legal fraternity in the U.S. have funded their luxury lifestyles out of the hundreds of millions they have made from auto manufacturer lawsuits alone ...

I guess the simple fact is, that the C172 liability insurance cost factor is purely related to the low number of C172's produced - and the fact that most of the C172 crash lawsuit claims would have been centred around fatalities, and that most of those fatalities would have been wealthy and high-income earners, thus seriously increasing the payouts, as the claims probably took "loss of potential earnings" into account.

Probably what is more interesting, is that there is no similar "liability cost factor" in the price of a Jabiru. I suppose that is partly because the Jabiru has not been in production as long as the C172, and partly because the Jab is a relatively "crashworthy" aircraft with good cabin strength - and partly because Australia hasn't got quite as litigious as the U.S., yet.

A Squared

20th Mar 2017, 18:41

Well actually there is a close Australian equivalent to the C172 that does have some clever manufacturing advantages over traditional cessnas. eg two men making 5 sets of of wings in 5 days while next door 5 men worked 5 weeks to make a set of similar sized aluminium wings.

This Ozzie aircraft has a better useful load , a wider cockpit , and a lower fuel burn. It does all this with the same or better cruise speed and range of a C172.

It costs $130K - $140 K if built by the factory. Compare that price with $492 K plus freight for the American machine.

What plane is the Ozzie competitor?

A Jabiru of course. Before going ballistic and berating me on this forum look up the specs yourself for the Jabiru J450 and for the Newbuild C172.

OK, well, I'll concede that you did have me googling, not being terribly familiar with the Jabiru. Excellent troll, you got me.

Unless wikipedia has misled me, the factory built aircraft do not have standard airworthiness certificates, they are all 2 seat aircraft certificated in the LSA or Primary category.

The J450 you quote as the faster, further with more load and cheaper than the 172 is neither certified in *any* category, nor is it factory built. It's an amateur build kit. Sorry, comparing a kit to a certificated airplane is not an intelligent comparison. It has long been the case that some amateur built planes have been able to outperform certificated aircraft. The reasons for that are various, but it's pretty unlikely that the price is going to survive going through certification with a standard airworthiness certificate and paying the people assembling it.

Have you got an aircraft certificated in the Normal Category which has a larger cabin than the C172, and can go further and faster with more load than the 172 on less fuel at half the purchase price?

A Squared

20th Mar 2017, 19:58

I guess the simple fact is, that the C172 liability insurance cost factor is purely related to the low number of C172's produced -

That's one of the major factors that folks are neglecting from thier economic comparisons. In 2015, cessna sold 143 172s. They sold 539 total aircraft that year. In the US alone, MB sold 4,000 SL roadsters in 2015. MB's US sales are around 25,000 vehicles per month

If MB engineers a new airbag system, they amortize the development costs over hundreds of thousands of units. If Cessna engineers a new seat, those development costs are amortized over, at best, a few thousand units.

Seats come to mind because of an experience a few years back. I was writing for an aviation publication and travelled to Columbia where a new utility aircraft was being developed (The Gavilan, very similar to the AirVan) One of the things I learned while down there was just how big a deal seats were. Part 23 has specifications for crash energy absorption for aircraft seats, and the company developing the Gavilan had spend in incredible amount of money engineering a pilot seat to meet those specs, then demonstrating the seat's ability to meet the specs. Demonstrating that ability was a considerable portion of the cost. I wish I recall the cost I was told as it would make a better story, but I just recall that it was astonishing amount, for something which seemed so simple. In a way, it was the seat costs which sunk the Gavilan. They essentially ran out of development money after designing and getting approval for the seats, and were unable to design and certify passenger seats. As a result the aircraft never received US certification with more than the front seats, which is obviously a pretty significant disadvantage in a fairly large utility airplane.

ANyway, the point being, if you take the large costs of engineering and testing energy absorbing seats, and amortize that cost over very few units, the per unit cost is very high, and is reflected in the price of the airplane. Then you consider that an airplane contains lots of things like the seats which require a lot of money to develop and prove.

Derfred

20th Mar 2017, 21:18

That's one of the major factors that folks are neglecting from thier economic comparisons. In 2015, cessna sold 143 172s. They sold 539 total aircraft that year. In the US alone, MB sold 4,000 SL roadsters in 2015. MB's US sales are around 25,000 vehicles per month

If MB engineers a new airbag system, they amortize the development costs over hundreds of thousands of units. If Cessna engineers a new seat, those development costs are amortized over, at best, a few thousand units.

Seats come to mind because of an experience a few years back. I was writing for an aviation publication and travelled to Columbia where a new utility aircraft was being developed (The Gavilan, very similar to the AirVan) One of the things I learned while down there was just how big a deal seats were. Part 23 has specifications for crash energy absorption for aircraft seats, and the company developing the Gavial had spend in incredible amount of money engineering a pilot seat to meet those specs, then demonstrating the seat's ability to meet the specs. Demonstrating that ability was a considerable portion of the cost. I wish I recall the cost I was told as it would make a better story, but I just recall that it was astonishing amount, for something which seemed so simple. In a way, it was the seat costs which sunk the Gavilan. They essentially ran out of development money after designing and getting approval for the seats, and were unable to design and certify passenger seats. As a result the aircraft never received US certification with more than the front seats, which is obviously a pretty significant disadvantage in a fairly large utility airplane.

ANyway, the point being, if you take the large costs of engineering and testing energy absorbing seats, and amortize that cost over very few units, the per unit cost is very high, and is reflected in the price of the airplane. Then you consider that an airplane contains lots of things like the seats which require a lot of money to develop and prove.

A2... I think your post is kind of my point.

Suppose I own a highly regarded German seat manufacturer, let's call it DasSeat GMBH.

I just googled that to make sure I'm not upsettting anyone and surely enough, there is currently no company named DasSeat GMBH. And no-one with that internet domain name.

Weird. That domain wouldn't last 5 minutes in the US without someone trying to scalp it.

To get back on topic, suppose I am contracted by BMW to make top-of-the-range seats, in comfort and safety. And let's assume that I can and do deliver.

And then Cessna USA contacts me and says "I want those seats, can they do X G's forward, Y G's sideways and Z G's vertical?"

My response might be, "Yes we can do that specification both forward and sideways, but not the vertical because BMW never needed that cert".

So then Cessna says "great, just cert them for Z G's vertical and we will buy 2000 of them.

Response: "I'm sorry, your message got cut off. Did you want 2 million, or 2 hundred thousand."

Cessna: "No, 2 thousand".

"We are a wholesaler not a retailer, I suggest you go to Walmart".

Band a Lot

21st Mar 2017, 09:37

Have you got an aircraft certificated in the Normal Category which has a larger cabin than the C172, and can go further and faster with more load than the 172 on less fuel at half the purchase price?

No but a few short years ago in a rough ball park price the Gippsland Aerospace GA8 was certified Normal Category.

Top speed (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+top+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUs1OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqyS9QKC 5ITU0BALQylVs0AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMIlQEoADAW): 241 km/h

Cruise speed (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+cruise+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_U0shOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbFKLirNLE 5VKC5ITU0BAAe0y0w3AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMImAEoADAX): 222 km/h

Weight (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+weight&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUspOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqT81Mzy gBAD6un8oxAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMImwEoADAY): 1,014 kg

Range (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+range&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUsxOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqSsxLTw UA5kX8ezAAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMIngEoADAZ): 1,352 km

Wingspan (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+wingspan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUslOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqz8xLLy 5IzAMABQfoCTMAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMIoQEoADAa): 12 m

Unit cost (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+unit+cost&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUs1OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqzcssUU jOLy4BAJrYutQ0AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMIpAEoADAb): 699,000–699,000 USD (2013)

Engine type (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=gippsaero+ga8+airvan+engine+type&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3sDCyTK_UUs9OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbFKzUvPzE tVKKksSAUANYIr2TYAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgwtGMo-fSAhVEX5QKHTZxBe0Q6BMIpwEoADAc): Lycoming O-540

__________

Range (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+range&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUsxOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqSsxLTw UADLloAjAAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMIiQEoADAS): 1,185 km

Top speed (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+top+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUs1OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqyS9QKC 5ITU0BANqffWI0AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMIjAEoADAT): 302 km/h

Cruise speed (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+cruise+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvR0shOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbFKLirNLE 5VKC5ITU0BAPr6-rs3AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMIjwEoADAU): 226 km/h

Wingspan (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+wingspan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUslOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqz8xLLy 5IzAMA5qv24jMAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMIkgEoADAV): 11 m

Length (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+length&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUspOttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbHKSc1LL8 kAAFf6iYwxAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMIlQEoADAW): 8.28 m

Engine type (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+engine+type&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUs9OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbFKzUvPzE tVKKksSAUAoSIyijYAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMImAEoADAX): Lycoming O-360

Unit cost (https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1280&bih=598&q=cessna+172+unit+cost&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDRPMSvRUs1OttJPLMtMLMnMz9NPzCxKLkpMK4nPzU9JzbEqzcssUU jOLy4BAPR1Uu00AAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy1bKmo-fSAhWHmpQKHYb_B9UQ6BMImwEoADAY): 364,000–364,000 USD (2014), 289,500–289,500 USD (2013)

Remember the GA8 is sold in Australian $'s and 2013 was when AUD was high almost $ to $, prior to GFC and now it is about 30% less.

From memory they started life at around $400,000 Australian not sure, but it was less than 206 price (here in Oz)

rutan around

21st Mar 2017, 11:52

A Squared said:-

Have you got an aircraft certificated in the Normal Category which has a larger cabin than the C172, and can go further and faster with more load than the 172 on less fuel at half the purchase price? How Embarrassing! I should have checked before posting.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gifYou are correct. Jabiru factory built aircraft only come in the LSA category and so in Australia are limited to 600kg gross weight. I suppose it should be of some comfort to know that the same aircraft if built in the experimental category has a 100 kg higher gross wt (and one site said 160 kg more.) The only difference between the two would be the word 'EXPERIMENTAL' written down the side.

So what do we have. As usual nothing is simple in aviation.

1 We don't have a C172 equivalent certified normal category aircraft.

2 If you don't want to build it yourself we do have a factory built LSA 2 seater
J230D with a wider cockpit and a lower fuel burn. Other parameters are much the same as the 172 except fly away price ex Bundaberg. $106,450 Aus or $82,966 USD

3 If you are keen on building you could build in the experimental category a J450 four seater. for around $90,000 AUD ($69,300 USD)
Then for ...... Dah Dah......not half the price, not a quarter the price but about one fifth of the Cessna price you could own a new aircraft that does all the things highlighted above.

A Squared

21st Mar 2017, 16:53

3 If you are keen on building you could build in the experimental category a J450 four seater. for around $90,000 AUD ($69,300 USD)
Then for ...... Dah Dah......not half the price, not a quarter the price but about one fifth of the Cessna price you could own a new aircraft that does all the things highlighted above.

Are you seriously persisting with a price comparison between the 172 manufactured in a factory by paid employees and an airplane you build your self (and thus pay nothing for the labor) which does not meet the regulatory requirements met by the 172, and cannot be used in commercial operations?

1 We don't have a C172 equivalent certified normal category aircraft.

Right. That's kind of my point, You haven’t offered any kind of a reasonable comparison. There is a huge expense resulting from certification with a standard airworthiness certificate. A special airworthiness certificate (LSA and Primary) is much simpler and less complicated. That translates directly to "Less expensive" And the special airworthiness certificates carry limitations which the standard airworthiness certificates do not have. For some potential purchasers, those limitations may not be serous drawbacks. That's well and good, but that doesn't make the comparison valid. The cost of achieving Normal category certification is high, much higher than the cost of LSA or Primary category certification. I'm not saying that is the only reason for 172's high price, but it's part of it. Comparisons with LSA or Primary aircraft, and especially uncertificated aircraft built with amateur labor are completely inane.

Perhaps the reason there aren't direct comparisons is that people have had the idea to build a comparable aircraft for substantially cheaper and after studying the question have discovered that they couldn't.

Off the top of my head, the closest comparison with the 172 of a recently (20 years or so) certificated normal category aircraft is the Cirrus SR20. An imperfect comparison at best, but in approximately the same size/number of seats/ engine power class. Current price of an absolute bare bones base model is $389,000 USD. If the 172 is unjustifiably overpriced, why doesn't Cirrus price the SR20 at 2/3 or even half the price of a new 172?

5th officer

21st Mar 2017, 21:17

All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).

Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.

5th officer

21st Mar 2017, 21:20

Acrosport II

21st Mar 2017, 21:38

I think the closest replacement available to the C172 is the Maule.

Although, Im not sure if they are certified. Cannot find anywhere that states they are.

So can they only be operated on Private Ops?.

Price is certainly better than the $400,000USD for a new C172.

I certainly prefer the all metal C172, but if I was in the market for a 4 seater for Private Ops, I would certainly look into them.

Maule Air » Maule Aircraft Models (http://mauleairinc.com/maule)

Acrosport II

21st Mar 2017, 21:46

Acro, the straw that broke the Camels Back for Cessna was not Pilot Error, it was the failure of the Seat Track on a 1951 170a causing the Pilot to slide rearwards whilst holding onto the control wheel causing a stall after take off. His widow and her legal counsel sued for tens of millions and won, Cessna gave up after that case.

This liability issue (with very large payouts for individuals) certainly may be largely to blame for the C172 demise in the current market.

I wouldn't say that a 'seat track' fault on the c170a in 1951 killed Cessna or the C172. 43,000 C172 were built after that along with C170Bs.

I haven't read up on this incident, but perhaps that was the first big lawsuit that all the rest followed. Millions of $ as you stated, would be a considerable blow to Cessna back in the early 1950s.

PS: I'm certainly not saying all C172 deaths were the result of pilot error, or that manufacturers should get away with known potentially fatal design / manufacturing flaws.

No manufacturer is perfect. They should fix the problem immediately. Perhaps that's part of the problem. To admit you have a design fault, you admit liability with that fault, and risk numeral lawsuits.

Some larger aircraft manufacturers may have taken that stance too.

rutan around

22nd Mar 2017, 01:07

A Squared wrote

Are you seriously persisting with a price comparison between the 172 manufactured in a factory by paid employees and an airplane you build your self (and thus pay nothing for the labor) which does not meet the regulatory requirements met by the 172, and cannot be used in commercial operations?If GA is to survive, new, affordable 172 like aircraft are required. Arguably the Jab is as safe or safer in an accident than a 172 so why would a private pilot spend $369,000 USD when the type of flying he wants to do can be bought for $82,966 USD fly away.

If he wants all or more than 172 capability then build a J450 for a kit cost of $ 69,300 USD. It's a pretty complete kit and can be done in about 600 hours of builders time. Say the builder prices his time at $30 USD per hour making labour $18,000. Total cost becomes $ 87,300 ..........a bit more affordable than $369,000 for the 'certified' 172. Not everyone wants to fly their plane commercially and if prices are lower they have no need to.

The difference in cost between a J230D kit and a fly away aircraft is about $14,000 USD so the factory is not too heavy handed with its charges. Certification and insurance must be the killers.

This area of aviation, especially where it involves light aircraft, needs to be put under the microscope and reformed urgently before GA dies.

onetrack

22nd Mar 2017, 03:13

The basic failure behind the level of C172 sales is the failure to produce a better product at a lower price, so that more end-users can afford the item.

I do not know of any manufacturers that wouldn't like to sell a lot more of their product. More of their product out in the field means more profits from both production, as well as spare parts sales.

I personally find it hard to believe that certification costs and liability insurance costs are totally restricting any increase in C172 sales.
The major restriction on the sales level of C172's is purely the high purchase cost. If Cessna were seriously interested in increasing the production levels of the C172, they would spend some money on finding ways to lower production costs and purchase cost.

I believe Cessna have no interest in producing more C172's, they are content to sell a minimum number of them at high prices to a range of well-heeled clients to whom cost is no object, and Cessna are happy to keep the status quo and all their current production facilities and methods in place, to ensure good levels of profits from facilities whose setup costs were amortised decades ago.

What is needed is a 21st century disruptor, an "upstart" light aircraft manufacturer with a revolutionary new approach, to shake Cessna to the core, and to get them outside their carefully nurtured comfort zone.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 03:46

I wouldn't say that a 'seat track' fault on the c170a in 1951 killed Cessna or the C172. 43,000 C172 were built after that along with C170Bs.

I haven't read up on this incident, but perhaps that was the first big lawsuit that all the rest followed. Millions of $ as you stated, would be a considerable blow to Cessna back in the early 1950s.

I think that you misunderstood the post there. Supposedly, it was a 170 manufactured in 1951, not a lawsuit award that happened in 1951. I don't know when this was supposed to have happened, or if it actually did. I've never heard of a lawsuit involving the seat tracks of a 170, but it's possible. There was however, a very large judgement against Cessna for seat tracks in a 185 crash. It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD.

rutan around

22nd Mar 2017, 05:17

A Squared is correct. Cessna stopped manufacturing the light end of the market for 10 years until some laws were changed. They were sick of defending themselves over faults real or otherwise(mostly otherwise bought on by greedy relatives) in aircraft they built 10,20 and 30 years ago. The new laws limited the age of an aircraft for which the manufacturer could be held responsible. Prior to the new laws the situation was like Ford being fined today for faults in the T model car.

5th officer

22nd Mar 2017, 06:44

Sorry I should have included the time line but it was a 1951 Cessna and the seat failure was in the early 1990's, the locating holes in the seat tracks developed ramps either side of the holes and after many years and much wear allowed the pin to jump out causing the seat to slide rearwards on take off. The "Judge" ruled that this was a design fault, Cessna should foreseen this wear??
This is how US litigation worked and quite unfair on Cessna after all those years. Cessna did not want risk the chance of anymore biased litigation and walked away from light aircraft for 10 years. I do believe there is an AD for seat tracks and I checked my 170A seat tracks not long after this incident accident and yes they were worn too.:mad:

Acrosport II

22nd Mar 2017, 07:13

I think that you misunderstood the post there. Supposedly, it was a 170 manufactured in 1951, not a lawsuit award that happened in 1951. I don't know when this was supposed to have happened, or if it actually did. I've never heard of a lawsuit involving the seat tracks of a 170, but it's possible. There was however, a very large judgement against Cessna for seat tracks in a 185 crash. It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD.

OK, I see now, the lawsuit quoted involved a C170 built in 1951, but had an accident many years later in which the widow sued for millions.

Was it soon after that lawsuit Cessna closed its doors for a number of years?.

The other accident you quoted...$480 million payout to the family, ridiculous, might as well close the company down for good. Bet the scumbag lawyer did OK out of that. Some of them are real Parasites.

Stupid Laws by Stupid Countries (Talking the lawmakers / politicians here, not the aircraft Manufacturers).

Hard to keep going with lawsuits like that.

These aircraft must have operated for a number of years before these fatal accidents. Was the seat issue always there, or was it as a result of worn out materials / fatigue. Or just not being lock in place properly before Takeoff.

An extra block with a pin that goes through the rail maybe a good idea. Set a little back before each pilot climb in.
There are short and tall pilots.

tartare

22nd Mar 2017, 07:29

That Maule is a damn fine aircraft - just finished reading the brochure.

rutan around

22nd Mar 2017, 07:57

Acrosport 11
It was a wear problem. Most high time Cessnas have had their seat rails replaced at least once. Cessna just a few years ago gave the secondary stops out free. My C210 has one fitted and it works well.

SEB07-5 Rev 5 provides for the installation of a secondary seat stop under the pilot’s and copilot’s seats. It looks a lot like a seatbelt reel attached to the bottom of the seat. The end of the belt is attached to the cabin floor. The reel has a release mechanism that is activated by the same lever the pilot lifts to release the latching pins.I believe the New Start Cessnas have a different rails. The top of the rail is smooth where the rollers run and the positioning holes for the lock pin are in the side of the rail. The new style rails should have a much longer life.

Pinky the pilot

22nd Mar 2017, 09:33

The other accident you quoted...$480,000 payout to the family, ridiculous, might as well close the company down for good. Bet the scumbag lawyer did OK out of that. Some of them are real Parasites.

Umm Acrosport II; Unless I'm grossly misreading that particular post, the amount quoted was;

It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD

My bolding.

And just another view of GA Aircraft Manufacturers:

The construction of the mainstays of Light Commercial GA Twins in Australia, (and probably elsewhere for that matter) the Cessna Piston engined 402/404/414/421 and the 441 Turboprop; and the Piper Chieftain (and its variants) stopped around the same time as the Cessna Singles, and for much the same reasons!

Although I believe cost per unit rose markedly here in Australia once depreciation laws were changed, which contributed to a huge drop in orders which didn't assist the manufacturers at all! Tailwheel and Gaunty are far more able to expound on those issues than I.

My point is; All the abovementioned Twins are getting older and older. What is available to replace them?

ASAIK; Nichts!!:=

Acrosport II

22nd Mar 2017, 10:17

That Maule is a damn fine aircraft - just finished reading the brochure.

By all accounts they are.

I haven't actually poled one around, but have done a few sorties into airstrips in the RHS.
It was a MXT7 180HP with CSU.

Seems to fly well, and good for strip work by all accounts.

They have Fabric rear fuse and tail feathers, solid wing from memory.
Can be bought new for significantly less than the C172.

They don't look as nice as a C172, and they have two bars going from the ceiling to the centre of the dash, so the C172 is better in that regard.

Acrosport II

22nd Mar 2017, 10:25

Acrosport 11
It was a wear problem. Most high time Cessnas have had their seat rails replaced at least once. Cessna just a few years ago gave the secondary stops out free. My C210 has one fitted and it works well.

I believe the New Start Cessnas have a different rails. The top of the rail is smooth where the rollers run and the positioning holes for the lock pin are in the side of the rail. The new style rails should have a much longer life.

Yes, I would be happier they have that mod if flying one now. I flew a number of Cessna Models without issue with the seats, but remember you had to slide the seat into position then rock back and forth to ensure the pin locked in.

I believe a C206 went in up this way a couple of years back on takeoff for parachuting. Seem to recall that may have been the problem (cannot confirm).

Cloudee

22nd Mar 2017, 11:40

If you mean the Caboolture 206 prang the report has not been released. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-053/

Acrosport II

22nd Mar 2017, 12:37

Pinky,

Yes, finger trouble.

I've corrected to $480 million

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 16:26

Was it soon after that lawsuit Cessna closed its doors for a number of years?.

I don't know. I have no information about this alleged 170 lawsuit or when it took place. Cessna stopped producing single engine piston aircraft from 1986 to 1996. Obviously, the 185 seat track lawsuit was after production had resumed.

These aircraft must have operated for a number of years before these fatal accidents. Was the seat issue always there, or was it as a result of worn out materials / fatigue. Or just not being lock in place properly before Takeoff.

An extra block with a pin that goes through the rail maybe a good idea. Set a little back before each pilot climb in.
There are short and tall pilots.

The issue is wear. the seat locks by a steel pin which extends down into a hole in the aluminium track. Over time the most frequently used holes wear. it is possible for the wear to to reach a point at which it is possible for the locking pin to pop out of the hole.

The fix that Cessna has offered is to install a locking belt reel, much like a retractable shoulder harness belt reel. The reel attaches to the seat and the end of the belt fastens to the floor of the aircraft, under the seat. The locking mechanism is attached to the seat adjustment lever which retracts the locking pin. When you raise the handle, you can slide the seat back. When the handle is down, the belt reel locks, preventing the seat from sliding back, regardless of pin engagement.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 16:29

Sorry I should have included the time line but it was a 1951 Cessna and the seat failure was in the early 1990's,

Well, that wasn't the lawsuit which caused Cessna to stop production of Single Engine airplanes then. They stopped in 1986.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 16:40

And I have installed rear seat locks.
They were not free.

Mine were. As well as other Cessna Owners I know. Cessna for a time was offering the kits for free, plus a reimbursement for the mechanics time to install them. The reimbursement must have been sufficient, as I know mechanics who were actively seeking Cessna owners to do the installation for them.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 17:55

Although I believe cost per unit rose markedly here in Australia once depreciation laws were changed, which contributed to a huge drop in orders which didn't assist the manufacturers at all! Tailwheel and Gaunty are far more able to expound on those issues than I.

A similar thing happened in the US. The heyday of booming small aircraft sales was the 1960's and 1970's Cessna was selling more than 1000 172s a year for much of that period, and of course other models. Cessna was also selling 182s at about half the rate of 172s, which is still a lot of airplanes compared to today's numbers. Sometime in the late 1970's US tax laws were changed. Prior to that change, it was possible to deduct a large portion of the cost of owning an airplane (and other things) as a business expense. So if you were a small business owner, owning an airplane was pretty economical. As I understand it, the laws were changed so that you could only write off that portion of the expenses which could be demonstrated as being directly related to the use of the airplane in the business. By severely reducing the tax advantage, the cost of owning an airplane effectively rose considerably, and aircraft sales decreased dramatically.

My understanding is that this tax law change contributed a lot more to the decline of GA in the US than most people realize.

Sunfish

22nd Mar 2017, 21:40

For those of you wondering about American lawsuits there are a few things you need to understand.

1. America has no social safety nets worth a damn.

2. If a family's sole breadwinner dies, then the kids won't be going to university, they won't have much in the way of healthcare, they will probably have to downsize their house (due to American tax treatment of mortgage interest). Basically, their entire life collapses because in America, you are what you earn.

3. The family may also be destitute or bankrupt if the breadwinner incurred medical bills before dying.

The legal strategy pursued in these aircraft lawsuits is predicated on the fact that the jury makes the award:

(a) Make everyone on the jury totally miserable about the fate of the victims family (see 2).

(b) determine exactly which party to the lawsuit has the deepest pockets.

(c) blame everything on them.

Then add exemplary and punitive damages and "voila!"... $480 million!

The problem is of course exacerbated by lawyers agreements to take their costs plus a share of the damages.

But wait, there is more... we now have "litigation finance companies" who will fund potentially lucrative cases in return for a share of the award.

And since 90% of politicians started life as greasy, scum sucking lawyers, don't expect tort law reform any time soon.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 21:57

The FREE secondary locks offer ended in December 2016.
Now Saf-T-Lock sells them for $55.
You get two in a package.
I ended up with four and had to send one package back.

The Cessna program was something quite different. I described it in a post up the thread, but it involved an locking belt reel. If installed correctly, it's automatic, and doesn't require you to remember to tighten iy behind the seat when you adjust the seat.

A Squared

22nd Mar 2017, 22:02

rutan around

22nd Mar 2017, 22:19

Posted by A Squared
Over time the most frequently used holes wear. it is possible for the wear to to reach a point at which it is possible for the locking pin to pop out of the hole. There are other factors worth noting involved in the pin pop out problem and they involve the design and placement of whole system.

The seat is prevented from coming off the rails by metal fingers that fit under the top part of the rail. There has to be some clearance to allow the seat to slide easily but in time the fingers and rail wear and the clearance grows allowing the seat to tilt back and lift the pin further than it did when new. The pin can't be made longer because the rail height and design prevents a deeper hole being drilled to receive the pin.
The third problem is that the mechanism is at the front of the seat which tries to lift when the pilot leans on the seat back as happens on rotation.
Had the system been installed at the back of the seat the problem probably would not exist because on rotation the pin would have been pushed down ...not lifted up and potentially out of the hole.

A late uncle used to say 'If my foresight was as good as my hindsight I'd be better off a darn sight'

The late model system with horizontal holes through the rail and with a horizontal pin unrestricted in length makes all the above problems go away.

rutan around

23rd Mar 2017, 01:05

What was his plan if he just suddenly died of some medical cause through no fault of anyone else? That's just family responsibility 101, have a life insurance policy that will provide for your family if something bad happens to you. Perhaps A Squared might explain to us unedumacated Aussies how the millions of unemployed, under employed and over employed but still not being paid a living wage might go about obtaining that insurance. Remind us of what your minimum wage is ......if your keyboard numbers go that low.:ugh:

rutan around

23rd Mar 2017, 01:24

Button Push Ignored
What can I say?
To quote Monty Python in the Fish Licence skit

'It's people like you wot cause unrest'

onetrack

23rd Mar 2017, 01:51

BPI - Please remind us (those of us who live outside the Utopia that is America), the numbers of people in America applying for those great job positions you have outlined?
As I gather, the aim of American capitalism is to make the workers fight for jobs, to keep wages at minimal levels, and to ensure there's a large pool of unemployed fighting over those relatively few jobs on offer.
And this system is designed purely to reward corporations, their already-wealthy shareholders, and their already-wealthy senior management, in many gluttonous ways, as evidenced by senior corporate salaries and perks.

Personally, I much prefer our Australian system, which I consider better balanced overall - despite the gluttony of corporations here as well.
But then again, as far back as the 1920's, many American leaders apparently viewed Australia as a socialist paradise with unions running the place.

Fortunately, we've had a few good American imports such as King O'Malley who recognised corporate greed from his American experiences, and who set about controlling excessive corporate greed - of the banking sector, in particular.
What is more unfortunate is that spineless politicians in recent years have undone much of O'Malleys good work.

rutan around

23rd Mar 2017, 02:40

Onetrack,
Just in case our American friends don't understand what you are saying I think we can sum up the US system thus:-

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF CRIED THE ELEPHANT AS HE DANCED AMONG THE CHICKENS.

Andy_RR

23rd Mar 2017, 04:00

Gee the socialism smells a bit whiffy today!

The one point the socialists seem to miss is that you can't make a buck without a willing customer. You really do have to provide a worthwhile good or service to be paid something, unlike socialism where you'll be asked to pay whether you want to or not...

But, I digress...

rutan around

23rd Mar 2017, 05:00

unlike socialism where you'll be asked to pay whether you want to or not...So you are not a believer in a fair days pay for a fair days work?

All systems have to have some form of social justice otherwise we start a race to the bottom. A complete laissez faire system leads to complete anarchy.

tartare

23rd Mar 2017, 05:49

I think I might just head off back to the Maule website...

Pinky the pilot

23rd Mar 2017, 08:28

I think I might just head off back to the Maule website...

Think I'll join you, tartare.

Tailwheel;This thread has lost the plot!:ugh:

Acrosport II

23rd Mar 2017, 08:29

Damn, you turn your back for 5 minutes and look what happens.

Time to send in the Mighty Cessna!

Katamarino

23rd Mar 2017, 15:15

Very few people know why it was canned....Textron do not talk about it. A small number of us do.

Care to share, if you do indeed have some info the rest of us don't?

A Squared

23rd Mar 2017, 19:23

Perhaps A Squared might explain to us unedumacated Aussies how the millions of unemployed, under employed and over employed but still not being paid a living wage might go about obtaining that insurance. Remind us of what your minimum wage is ......if your keyboard numbers go that low.:ugh:

WHy are you so worried about what goes on in a country in which you don't live, and whose internal politics don't affect you? Australia and the US are 2 pretty different places with some pretty different outlooks on the relationship between the state and the individual. As a single example, I was surprised recently, to discover that in Australia, a private pilot may be compelled to submit to a random narcotics test.

The Australian position seemed to be approximately "well, yeah, how else are thye going to keep us safe?"

The US response is "ARE YOU EFFIN" KIDDING ME!!!!!?????? A Private citizen, conducting his own private, non-commercial, personal activities can be accosted by a government agent and in the absence of any probable cause, be compelled to prove that he hasn't broken the law,????? "

Now, it's not my intent to get into a discussion of personal liberties and the presumption of innocence, etc, etc. I'm just saying that Australians and Americans have pretty different philosophies on some things. It is not irrelevant that even within this thread we have an example of brothers who share DNA and upbringing, but came to opposite conclusions on which philosophy is better to live under. Point being that applying your view on how things "should be done" to somewhere else with a significantly different organizational philosophy, without really understanding the complexities of the issue may fall somewhat outside the topic of the price of a new 172.

rutan around

23rd Mar 2017, 22:13

First of all you didn't answer the question. Let me remind you.

Perhaps A Squared might explain to us unedumacated Aussies how the millions of unemployed, under employed and over employed but still not being paid a living wage might go about obtaining that insurance. Remind us of what your minimum wage is ......if your keyboard numbers go that low.:ugh:To keep the moderators happy US policy does effect me. The price of parts for my cessna have gone through the roof.

WHy are you so worried about what goes on in a country in which you don't live, and whose internal politics don't affect you?ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME????????

If you have an ounce of common decency in your body or empathy for fellow human beings your heart must cry out at some of the sights in the US. On my first visit to Chicago I saw beggars on every second corner. There were all sorts , women with kids , people down on their luck but predominately returned soldiers probably wondering why they gave their all to a country that treats them so woefully on their return.

I talked to people whose wages were well below a living wage every week of the year. Suddenly a random alcohol breath test seems a small price to pay in exchange for a decent wage.

WHy are you so worried about what goes on in a country in which you don't live, and whose internal politics don't affect you?Again are you effing kidding???? The US is the most aggressive country in the world with more than double the military might of any other country yet your new Dear Leader wants to increase arms spending while his people starve. This effects me because it encourages our weak minded leaders ... er.... I mean opinion poll followers ... to buy billions of $s more weapons while our power and water systems slowly collapse. It also effects me as your Dear Leader strives to trash the world's environment and take everyone down with him.

A Squared

23rd Mar 2017, 22:30

well, like I said; I'm just saying that Australians and Americans have pretty different philosophies on some things

You want to have yourself an "I hate the US" rant, take it to Jet Blast.

Sunfish

23rd Mar 2017, 22:50

A-squared, I am glad you are happy and think you are living in a great country. Enough folks however disagreed with you enough to elect donald trump. The fact remains that insurance premium cost against product defect litigation is a major component of aviation product cost.

A Squared

23rd Mar 2017, 23:02

The fact remains that insurance premium cost against product defect litigation is a major component of aviation product cost.

Can you point out for me, the words of mine you misunderstand as me saying differently?

rutan around

24th Mar 2017, 01:33

Quote by A Squared
You want to have yourself an "I hate the US" rant, take it to Jet Blast.A Squared I don't "Hate the US" There are many things I greatly admire about the US. 99% of Americans I have met are great people and many of them despair about the growing inequality as I do about the same problem here in Australia. It's probably a subject best sorted out over a few beers rather than this forum. How about it next time I'm in the states?
If we solve it we'll both have cheaper planes and happier neighbours.

Band a Lot

25th Mar 2017, 02:33

Not quite sure when USA was part of the Pacific!

This is a professional pilots rumour network, where one would assume that you are at least an aviation professional of some sorts.

* Would a C172 owner and private pilot be considered a "professional"? I can not see how they would meet the criteria but certainly believe they have every right to post on this public forum.

There are so many opportunities for decent paying jobs that you'd have to decide which offer to take.

* Can you please link say 10 of these positions of well paying jobs (a variety of professional aviation jobs such as Pilots, Engineers, Air Traffic Controller, Mechanics, Painters, Regulators and Refullers would do).

You can go to mechanic school and get a decent $30 an hour job at a million and one places.

* I suggest only if you have mechanical skills and that is only about $60,000 a year not enough for a single parent with 3 kids and paying $20,160 a month in rent.

You can get a flight instructor job paying $35 an hour at every airport.

* $35,000 a year if the max hours (using 1,000) of the regulator are used.

With a Commercial/Instrument/Multi you can go right seat of a Beech 1900, Jetsteam 31 or Metroliner that pays $25,000 a year.

* What will my kids eat?

Captains with 1200 hours and a Pt135 letter get about $50,000 a year.

* I'll eat the kids!

With 1500 hours and an ATP you can get a job at any regional airline paying $50,000 a year to start, and about $80,000 once your captain.

* Is that 80K take home?

If that sounds like a mean, oppressive, nasty place. Then it's not for you.
Personally, I love it

* I have never been to the States but I know certain thing are quite cheap but I honestly can not see $80K even if net, having me and my 3 kids having a better quality of life than we have now. Possible great for a single or couple both working.

As a mechanic I don't think I would work for $30 per hour.