Plastic Fantastics - the future?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
Robins
Unfortunately, Mr Stampe, most pilots I know do not wish to fly in aircraft made out of wood and cloth, however economical they are. I, like most people I know, have a new car every three years, thus ensuring that we drive technologically advances, smart and ecomomic cars. There is always someone banging on about how good an old Honda Acclaim is, but this is not progress. We should all be flying Cirrus type aircraft, smart and new, for general touring. The Robin is an ugly aircraft too - I cannot imagine why anyone can sit there and say it is a great aircraft!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“So Rod1, is your opinion that they are NOT the future?”
I came to the conclusion that the “plastic fantastic” was the way to go years ago. It took me two years to choose the aircraft and order the kit, 3 years to build it and it had been flying for 2 more. Are they the future forever, no absolutely not. Right now there is nothing better on the horizon and they do represent a phenomenal improvement over the older aircraft.
The oldest MCR is now 11 years and 2500 hours ish. No sign of it having any problem with age as the carbon airframe is immune to most of the problems associated with metal and can, if you know what you are doing, be repaired very easily without any expensive “parts”. Over 500 MCR’s flying and the factory is at maximum production. The factory is taking a keen interest in electric power, which will work well on an efficient aircraft which will carry almost its own weight in useful load.
I am not saying that the current crop of “plastic fantastic” aircraft are perfect, but if you have a limited budget and you want to tour 2 up (the MCR4s will allow 4 up) relatively fast with low fuel burn and operate out of short grass strips, then they are the best thing there is. I would hate to see light aircraft design stagnate as it did in the 70’s through to the mid 90’s. The next 30 years will have to give us much faster improvement if our hobby is to survive. Fortunately the regulations are changing to encourage the VLA – LSA class of “plastic fantastic” machines. My original plan was to keep mine for 10 years and then review what to do next. I have 8 years to go and I see no problem keeping to the plan.
The second hand value of some of the older aircraft will collapse completely as the total cost of operation increases rapidly and the second hand value falls at an ever increasing rate. The true vintage machines, with C65 – O200 power will continue to do well as the cost of operation is very low and will not increase at anything like the rate of a PA28-180 or an AA5B.
Rod1
I came to the conclusion that the “plastic fantastic” was the way to go years ago. It took me two years to choose the aircraft and order the kit, 3 years to build it and it had been flying for 2 more. Are they the future forever, no absolutely not. Right now there is nothing better on the horizon and they do represent a phenomenal improvement over the older aircraft.
The oldest MCR is now 11 years and 2500 hours ish. No sign of it having any problem with age as the carbon airframe is immune to most of the problems associated with metal and can, if you know what you are doing, be repaired very easily without any expensive “parts”. Over 500 MCR’s flying and the factory is at maximum production. The factory is taking a keen interest in electric power, which will work well on an efficient aircraft which will carry almost its own weight in useful load.
I am not saying that the current crop of “plastic fantastic” aircraft are perfect, but if you have a limited budget and you want to tour 2 up (the MCR4s will allow 4 up) relatively fast with low fuel burn and operate out of short grass strips, then they are the best thing there is. I would hate to see light aircraft design stagnate as it did in the 70’s through to the mid 90’s. The next 30 years will have to give us much faster improvement if our hobby is to survive. Fortunately the regulations are changing to encourage the VLA – LSA class of “plastic fantastic” machines. My original plan was to keep mine for 10 years and then review what to do next. I have 8 years to go and I see no problem keeping to the plan.
The second hand value of some of the older aircraft will collapse completely as the total cost of operation increases rapidly and the second hand value falls at an ever increasing rate. The true vintage machines, with C65 – O200 power will continue to do well as the cost of operation is very low and will not increase at anything like the rate of a PA28-180 or an AA5B.
Rod1
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Zero brain engagment?
Laucheme
You can hardly start slaggng off the Robin for being old technology when it was so far ahead of it's time when first flown that 40 years later it is still able to better the performance of the other aircraft in it,s class.
Wood is the future for light arcraft, it will be affordable long after the oil based resin chemicals are priced out of the market and in a lot of ways is much better in terms of strength to weight and crashworthiness than the modern plastics.
Your attitude towards the Robin is likely to change if you fly the aircraft, then you will see that the plastic aircraft makers still have a lot to learn.
Goodbye I'm off to water my next wing spar!
You can hardly start slaggng off the Robin for being old technology when it was so far ahead of it's time when first flown that 40 years later it is still able to better the performance of the other aircraft in it,s class.
Wood is the future for light arcraft, it will be affordable long after the oil based resin chemicals are priced out of the market and in a lot of ways is much better in terms of strength to weight and crashworthiness than the modern plastics.
Your attitude towards the Robin is likely to change if you fly the aircraft, then you will see that the plastic aircraft makers still have a lot to learn.
Goodbye I'm off to water my next wing spar!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
A and C
Plastic fantastic or traditional?
I think the first issue with any aircraft that owners overlook is repairability. The value of an aircraft is only as good as the ability to keep the aircraft in service. At the moment it is possible to source parts and repair most aircraft. There are a number of people around who can recover rag aircraft and replace parts of the airframe. At the moment in the UK I suspect the skill pool to maintain older aircraft is diminishing. Have you tried to get a thirty year old autopilot repaired? Will this trend continue - probably in the short term.
The modern breed of plastic fantastic aircraft by definition are based around parts in current supply and a skill set on which engineers are trained.
I am concerned for how much longer it will prove viable to keep the fleet of older aircraft flying given the increase in fuel costs, the loss of skills necessary to maintain many of these aircraft and the likely loss of leaded fuel. All these factors conspire against anything of more than twenty or so years old.
The fuel efficiency of any aircraft will increasingly become a significant factor in determining its viability. That being so whether it be wood or carbon the long term viability of "traditional" GA tourers with room, if the not the load carrying capacity, for four adults, in a "large" cabin will diminish and the market for two seater light or very light sport aircraft that are super efficient will expand. Wood and rag can compete very well in this market on the basis that aircraft can be built very lightly and yet with strength and good laminar flow. However, whether aircraft of this type can be built as consistantly and cost effectively as something that can be pulled out of a mould is very doubtful, until of course the cost of resins turns the wheel back in favour of more "more natural products".
At one time the theory of buy something old and you will spend far less in maintenance than the return you could have got on the capital invested in buying something new had a ring of truth about it.
These days fuel is such a significant operating cost that by buying something new that is super efficient over the life of the aircraft you are likely to be quids in given that the maintenance costs will also be a lot less.
Plastic fantastic or traditional?
I think the first issue with any aircraft that owners overlook is repairability. The value of an aircraft is only as good as the ability to keep the aircraft in service. At the moment it is possible to source parts and repair most aircraft. There are a number of people around who can recover rag aircraft and replace parts of the airframe. At the moment in the UK I suspect the skill pool to maintain older aircraft is diminishing. Have you tried to get a thirty year old autopilot repaired? Will this trend continue - probably in the short term.
The modern breed of plastic fantastic aircraft by definition are based around parts in current supply and a skill set on which engineers are trained.
I am concerned for how much longer it will prove viable to keep the fleet of older aircraft flying given the increase in fuel costs, the loss of skills necessary to maintain many of these aircraft and the likely loss of leaded fuel. All these factors conspire against anything of more than twenty or so years old.
The fuel efficiency of any aircraft will increasingly become a significant factor in determining its viability. That being so whether it be wood or carbon the long term viability of "traditional" GA tourers with room, if the not the load carrying capacity, for four adults, in a "large" cabin will diminish and the market for two seater light or very light sport aircraft that are super efficient will expand. Wood and rag can compete very well in this market on the basis that aircraft can be built very lightly and yet with strength and good laminar flow. However, whether aircraft of this type can be built as consistantly and cost effectively as something that can be pulled out of a mould is very doubtful, until of course the cost of resins turns the wheel back in favour of more "more natural products".
At one time the theory of buy something old and you will spend far less in maintenance than the return you could have got on the capital invested in buying something new had a ring of truth about it.
These days fuel is such a significant operating cost that by buying something new that is super efficient over the life of the aircraft you are likely to be quids in given that the maintenance costs will also be a lot less.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
A few people have mentioned the price of resin in a composite aircraft. While it is true that resin is made from oil, how much of this stuff is actually used in a composite aircraft, and what's the base price of this stuff?
My guess is that the price of resin is lower than the price of the glass or carbon fiber used, and in any case labour is much more expensive anyway.
Not to mention that the price of aluminium and to a lesser extent wood will go up as well with higher oil prices (alu because of the huge amount of electricity used to extract it from bauxite, and wood because of transportation costs).
I just did a very, very rough calculation and even if you assume that all of the empty weight of a Europa (http://www.europa-aircraft.biz) is actually resin, and pay Europa retail prices, then the total cost of this resin would be something like 16.000 UKP. In reality, once you subtract the weight of the engine, glassfiber and other parts, and apply wholesale pricing my guess would be that there's less than 4000 UKP worth of resin in a Europa. A doubling of the oil price would perhaps raise this to 6000 UKP. Sounds not like a lot to me. Not an amount which would make composite structures immediately unappealing.
My guess is that the price of resin is lower than the price of the glass or carbon fiber used, and in any case labour is much more expensive anyway.
Not to mention that the price of aluminium and to a lesser extent wood will go up as well with higher oil prices (alu because of the huge amount of electricity used to extract it from bauxite, and wood because of transportation costs).
I just did a very, very rough calculation and even if you assume that all of the empty weight of a Europa (http://www.europa-aircraft.biz) is actually resin, and pay Europa retail prices, then the total cost of this resin would be something like 16.000 UKP. In reality, once you subtract the weight of the engine, glassfiber and other parts, and apply wholesale pricing my guess would be that there's less than 4000 UKP worth of resin in a Europa. A doubling of the oil price would perhaps raise this to 6000 UKP. Sounds not like a lot to me. Not an amount which would make composite structures immediately unappealing.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Backpacker
I agree. I doubt the cost of resin will ever be a significant factor compared with the cost of other materials which are also likely to rise in any event.
However, the cost of labour will become more significant, coupled with which are the skill sets to work with the material.
Pleasure yachts have embraced this tecnology for many years. The cost of building a modern racing dinghy in wood compared with carbon or glass is at least double. Once the mould has been made, building in wood (even with a cold layup) requires far greater skill and even then consistancy is hard to achieve. Modern aircraft are built to fine tolerance a facet of any form of "mass" production without which the whole process becomes even more labour intensive.
The key issue is the cost of labour, rag and wood may prove cost effective for very low volume production but scaling up is always going to be a challenge which certainly at the moment gives the plastic bath tubs the edge even if some may feel they are rather less pretty.
I agree. I doubt the cost of resin will ever be a significant factor compared with the cost of other materials which are also likely to rise in any event.
However, the cost of labour will become more significant, coupled with which are the skill sets to work with the material.
Pleasure yachts have embraced this tecnology for many years. The cost of building a modern racing dinghy in wood compared with carbon or glass is at least double. Once the mould has been made, building in wood (even with a cold layup) requires far greater skill and even then consistancy is hard to achieve. Modern aircraft are built to fine tolerance a facet of any form of "mass" production without which the whole process becomes even more labour intensive.
The key issue is the cost of labour, rag and wood may prove cost effective for very low volume production but scaling up is always going to be a challenge which certainly at the moment gives the plastic bath tubs the edge even if some may feel they are rather less pretty.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
From: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Some years ago the flying club I was a member of, in one of its many attempts to replace its C152s bought a couple of Grob 115As. A terrific looking aeroplane but a disappointment to fly. How could such a slick machine not outperform the old Cessnas with all their carbunkles and struts? Probably weight.
Flying clubs are still using Cessnas more than any other type because they are still the best all round trainer.
It will probably be different for the private owner who is prepaired to put up with the shorter TBO of the rotax, doesn't need to fly at night or in cloud & will hangar his AC.
While there are many glass aircraft about relatively few are used for ab initio training.
I think there will still be loads IFR equipped "dinosaurs" around in 20 years time.
DO
Flying clubs are still using Cessnas more than any other type because they are still the best all round trainer.
It will probably be different for the private owner who is prepaired to put up with the shorter TBO of the rotax, doesn't need to fly at night or in cloud & will hangar his AC.
While there are many glass aircraft about relatively few are used for ab initio training.
I think there will still be loads IFR equipped "dinosaurs" around in 20 years time.
DO
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 577
Likes: 2
From: Inverness-shire
Let's face it, there has been little significant improvement in light aircraft performance since the 1930's - in fact some of the 1930's hot ships (Mew Gull etc) would outfly most of what is in the air today!
How many branches of technology can you say that about? (I know, the bureaucracy means 1930's design Lycomings when vehicle engine technology has advanced more than a little.)
Whereas there have been huge advances in glider performance. 1930's lift/drag ratio (or glide angle) about 1:25 at 40 knots. Now it's 1:60 at twice the speed. And it's because of much better designs allowed by much better materials (glass & carbon fibre and kevlar).
I love old wooden gliders - plenty of character and colour. But if you want to go long distances, fast, go plastic.
So why havn't we had similar improvements in GA aircraft? Bureaucracy, lack of advanced thinking? Discuss
How many branches of technology can you say that about? (I know, the bureaucracy means 1930's design Lycomings when vehicle engine technology has advanced more than a little.)
Whereas there have been huge advances in glider performance. 1930's lift/drag ratio (or glide angle) about 1:25 at 40 knots. Now it's 1:60 at twice the speed. And it's because of much better designs allowed by much better materials (glass & carbon fibre and kevlar).
I love old wooden gliders - plenty of character and colour. But if you want to go long distances, fast, go plastic.
So why havn't we had similar improvements in GA aircraft? Bureaucracy, lack of advanced thinking? Discuss
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
Lets look at a few numbers.
A Cessna 172 160 metal 1970’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 105kn
Fuel burn 34 lph
Useful load 410kg
Range 520nm
A DR400 160 wooden 1970’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 34lph
Useful load 420kg
Range 400nm
Dyn Aero MCR 4S Carbon 2000’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 18lph (mogas)
Useful load 400kg
Range 830 nm
A 100 hp carbon aircraft compared with two 160 hp aircraft! Remember although the useful load is slightly less, the reduced quantity of fuel required will wipe this out.
Rod1
A Cessna 172 160 metal 1970’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 105kn
Fuel burn 34 lph
Useful load 410kg
Range 520nm
A DR400 160 wooden 1970’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 34lph
Useful load 420kg
Range 400nm
Dyn Aero MCR 4S Carbon 2000’s vintage
4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 18lph (mogas)
Useful load 400kg
Range 830 nm
A 100 hp carbon aircraft compared with two 160 hp aircraft! Remember although the useful load is slightly less, the reduced quantity of fuel required will wipe this out.
Rod1
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
We have all these old flying Anglias and Zephyrs because the certification rules - and to be fair the main market - the US have made it that way.
The rules have made certifying new materials very costly and penalised them with higher factors of safety. The US market does n't like technology or efficiency - just compare US versus 'foreign' cars....
But with fuel costs going the way they are and the success of the US LSA rule, which will hopefully be followed by something almost as good from EASA the writing is certainly on the wall if not yet quite in the air.
Both Dyn aero and Jabiru and proved you can do with composites what Jodel did with timber nearly 50 years ago. The private owner market will lead the changes but I find it impossible to imagine significant numbers of privately owned Pa28s and the like in 15 years time.
Are the present generation of plastic fantastics the future - probably not - because once people start innovating the rate of progress increases so the future will be even faster, lighter and more economical. Heaven know we may even see real production engineering appearing and bring costs and prices down.....
The rules have made certifying new materials very costly and penalised them with higher factors of safety. The US market does n't like technology or efficiency - just compare US versus 'foreign' cars....
But with fuel costs going the way they are and the success of the US LSA rule, which will hopefully be followed by something almost as good from EASA the writing is certainly on the wall if not yet quite in the air.
Both Dyn aero and Jabiru and proved you can do with composites what Jodel did with timber nearly 50 years ago. The private owner market will lead the changes but I find it impossible to imagine significant numbers of privately owned Pa28s and the like in 15 years time.
Are the present generation of plastic fantastics the future - probably not - because once people start innovating the rate of progress increases so the future will be even faster, lighter and more economical. Heaven know we may even see real production engineering appearing and bring costs and prices down.....
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
gasax
I agree - it makes you wonder if you could make the "perfect" light aircraft with real scaled up production just how cheap they could be?
I suspect with the possible exception of glass avionics there is hold load more technology in a Porsche these days than there need be in a light single.
I agree - it makes you wonder if you could make the "perfect" light aircraft with real scaled up production just how cheap they could be?
I suspect with the possible exception of glass avionics there is hold load more technology in a Porsche these days than there need be in a light single.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
I agree that Rotax-powered Plastic Fantastics are definately where the future lies; at my home airfield fuel has just reached a completely irrational £1.83/litre, and I can see it touching £2/litre very soon if current Market Speculation Balls/Tax/Eco-Nazi/Middle-Eastern Greed trends continue.
To be honest I couldn't care what I fly in, but I wouldn't mind a shot at one of the nice new GRP hotships that are becoming increasingly popular. Added with the increasing number of aircraft coming equipped with glass cockpits, I think we are living in a time of great innovation in GA (it is however unfortunate that small-minded authorities, Anti-Aviation governments and society in general cannot move with the times to keep up with the innovation). In some ways it is exciting to see what the future will bring in GA.
Smithy
To be honest I couldn't care what I fly in, but I wouldn't mind a shot at one of the nice new GRP hotships that are becoming increasingly popular. Added with the increasing number of aircraft coming equipped with glass cockpits, I think we are living in a time of great innovation in GA (it is however unfortunate that small-minded authorities, Anti-Aviation governments and society in general cannot move with the times to keep up with the innovation). In some ways it is exciting to see what the future will bring in GA.
Smithy
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: Uk-south east
Quick question to Rod 1 or anyone else who can answer this for me but i thought the Dyn Aero MCR 4S wasnt PFA approved 
and from the article i read 
while back now
said the company wasnt going to pursue PFA approval as they didnt think it was worth the relatively small market. Hope im wrong and its been PFA approved as it looks alot nicer than a J400
and from the article i read while back now said the company wasnt going to pursue PFA approval as they didnt think it was worth the relatively small market. Hope im wrong and its been PFA approved as it looks alot nicer than a J400
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
It is not LAA approved, but when the new ELA cat comes in it will not need to be. It will be possible to buy one factory built or possibly kit built provided you copy the factory aircraft. For the purposes of comparing 1970’s tec with a “Plastic Fantastic” it was the best example I knew about, and it is approved in almost all the rest of the Weston world.
Rod1
Rod1
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: midlands
Lauchy.... I do not believe that most pilots you know 'wouldnt care to fly in a wood and cloth aircraft.'
All you are doing is adding fictional allies to your argument. If they are pilots, they will love the Robin.
Wood is natures composite and is literally green. The cloth you mention is Dacron - a little more advanced than something you would lay on your dining table.
Lets not forget to mention the flying experience - you clearly havent flown a DR400. Ask your passengers afterwards and I will guarantee they will love it.
Anyway - the future of GA is surely the R44. Whatever machine you fly, you will always start from somewhere you dont want to be, go to somewhere else you dont want to be just to get to your destination.
Fixed wing? DR400 every time. I have spent a lot of time in the Cirrus and have also flown the Dyn Aero BanBi.
Composites are great for gliders, I'll stick with tree for my fixed wing flying. My old DR400, bought new in 2000 and now with 500 hours on it still looks like brand new and has an indefinate airframe life.
My 1930's plywood aeroplane is pretty much the same airframe that left the factory - a few repairs here and there thats all. It should in theory last forever ( I am very careful with it....!).
A tear down of 30+ year old hight time DR400's will not reveal any major structural problems.
Jack
All you are doing is adding fictional allies to your argument. If they are pilots, they will love the Robin.
Wood is natures composite and is literally green. The cloth you mention is Dacron - a little more advanced than something you would lay on your dining table.
Lets not forget to mention the flying experience - you clearly havent flown a DR400. Ask your passengers afterwards and I will guarantee they will love it.
Anyway - the future of GA is surely the R44. Whatever machine you fly, you will always start from somewhere you dont want to be, go to somewhere else you dont want to be just to get to your destination.
Fixed wing? DR400 every time. I have spent a lot of time in the Cirrus and have also flown the Dyn Aero BanBi.
Composites are great for gliders, I'll stick with tree for my fixed wing flying. My old DR400, bought new in 2000 and now with 500 hours on it still looks like brand new and has an indefinate airframe life.
My 1930's plywood aeroplane is pretty much the same airframe that left the factory - a few repairs here and there thats all. It should in theory last forever ( I am very careful with it....!).
A tear down of 30+ year old hight time DR400's will not reveal any major structural problems.
Jack
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Right here
What would really make a "plastic fantastic" interesting is if there was one that would be a perfect match for the C172 or PA28. By which I mean:
- 4 seats, 400-450-ish useful load
- takeoff and landing performance like the C172
- cruise speed similar-ish to the C172; faster is of course no problem!
- similarly pleasant handling skills, suitable for a flying club with a fair number of less-than-experienced pilots who might not always be in perfect flying trim
- CofA, normal/utility category
- purchase and operating costs at least no higher than a new-ish C172; preferably lower
There are a great number of modern aircraft that meet some of the above requirements, but is there one that meets them all? DA40 - poor takeoff and climb performance and a not very reliable engine. Cirrus - far too sophisticated and expensive to be a C172 replacement. Various non-CofA aircraft mentioned above - well, no CofA. And so on.
Some will argue that one or more of the above points are unnecessary or even undesirable, but to suit me and the flying I do and intend to do, I would like them all to be met. I think that is actually the same for most club/rental pilots. Certainly not all, and for those latter pilots the current breed of "plastic fantastics" must be great!
Regarding the old vs new comparison, I don't think it's very fair to compare a brand spanking new plastic with a 30+ year old wreck of a PA28-140 or C172-ancient. If the comparison is with a brand new, bells n' whistles C172S, at least the "cracked trim, worn-out carpet" type of argument falls. Incidentally no different from commercial aviation, where the world's most common airliner is an early 60's design with "new" (late 70's) engines and brand new avionics.
Fundamentally, I think the reason the C172 remains the world's most successful GA single is that it is such a damned good airplane, and such a perfect match for many pilots' requirements, that it's very hard to invent something better to replace it with. Hopefully, someone will eventually succeed!
- 4 seats, 400-450-ish useful load
- takeoff and landing performance like the C172
- cruise speed similar-ish to the C172; faster is of course no problem!
- similarly pleasant handling skills, suitable for a flying club with a fair number of less-than-experienced pilots who might not always be in perfect flying trim
- CofA, normal/utility category
- purchase and operating costs at least no higher than a new-ish C172; preferably lower
There are a great number of modern aircraft that meet some of the above requirements, but is there one that meets them all? DA40 - poor takeoff and climb performance and a not very reliable engine. Cirrus - far too sophisticated and expensive to be a C172 replacement. Various non-CofA aircraft mentioned above - well, no CofA. And so on.
Some will argue that one or more of the above points are unnecessary or even undesirable, but to suit me and the flying I do and intend to do, I would like them all to be met. I think that is actually the same for most club/rental pilots. Certainly not all, and for those latter pilots the current breed of "plastic fantastics" must be great!
Regarding the old vs new comparison, I don't think it's very fair to compare a brand spanking new plastic with a 30+ year old wreck of a PA28-140 or C172-ancient. If the comparison is with a brand new, bells n' whistles C172S, at least the "cracked trim, worn-out carpet" type of argument falls. Incidentally no different from commercial aviation, where the world's most common airliner is an early 60's design with "new" (late 70's) engines and brand new avionics.
Fundamentally, I think the reason the C172 remains the world's most successful GA single is that it is such a damned good airplane, and such a perfect match for many pilots' requirements, that it's very hard to invent something better to replace it with. Hopefully, someone will eventually succeed!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
bjornhall
After having given this some thought I think there is a light single that perhaps surpasses the C172 or is at least as good.
The new Tiger.
Why?
Well, a tried and tested design with a long pedigree - never a bad thing in aviation.
Good load carrying.
Modern interior, with a cabin more conventional and imo more attractive than the Cessna.
A robust Lycoming even if could do with being replaced with a more modern FADEC engine with the economies that would follow, but there is nothing on the market at the moment whatever aircraft you consider.
A modern avionics suite which can comprise either the G1000 or a Garmin 430 stack.
Decent autopilot and proper throttle levers.
Handles very nicely.
It is a tad faster that the typical trainer and it does have a wobbly prop. but I reckon that may be no bad thing. It would make a very good first, second and third aircraft.
Moreover it would attract pilots who think the Cessna is for training and they should be looking to move on to something "a bit more interesting".
Sadly Tiger went bust, but if the economic climate were any better the new owners might well commence production - as it is it will be interesting to see if they bother.
Never the less there are some very good examples for sale in the States - although sadly not this side of the Pond.
Its no plastic fantastic, but aside from less than frugal fuel consumption compared with ULAs it ticks most of the boxes and is no where near as thirtsy as some.
However, I agree from a practical point of view the 172SP takes a lot of beating. On price Cessna have the enormous advantage of volume and of being a well established company with propoer funding. Parts are relatively cheap and readily available. They are not very likely to go bust. Everyone knows how they work. For all of those reasons they are the Ford of GA and it will take a lot to knock them off their perch from the practical point of view of ownership, particularly if you are buying new when Cessna will simply have the edge on everyone else. Buy a three of four year old aircraft and the prices of a Tiger and a Cessna will come much closer into line and you may just be getting better value for money with the Tiger.
Both are typical "old school GA" and both are pushing on for £100k for a decent example or £130K for a new aircraft. The market is probably weak for individuals willing to tie up that amount of capital at the moment taken together with running costs of around 7-10K pa. This market will continue to be vunerable to the new breed of plastic fantastic two seaters with high performance Rotax type engines.
After having given this some thought I think there is a light single that perhaps surpasses the C172 or is at least as good.
The new Tiger.
Why?
Well, a tried and tested design with a long pedigree - never a bad thing in aviation.
Good load carrying.
Modern interior, with a cabin more conventional and imo more attractive than the Cessna.
A robust Lycoming even if could do with being replaced with a more modern FADEC engine with the economies that would follow, but there is nothing on the market at the moment whatever aircraft you consider.
A modern avionics suite which can comprise either the G1000 or a Garmin 430 stack.
Decent autopilot and proper throttle levers.
Handles very nicely.
It is a tad faster that the typical trainer and it does have a wobbly prop. but I reckon that may be no bad thing. It would make a very good first, second and third aircraft.
Moreover it would attract pilots who think the Cessna is for training and they should be looking to move on to something "a bit more interesting".
Sadly Tiger went bust, but if the economic climate were any better the new owners might well commence production - as it is it will be interesting to see if they bother.
Never the less there are some very good examples for sale in the States - although sadly not this side of the Pond.
Its no plastic fantastic, but aside from less than frugal fuel consumption compared with ULAs it ticks most of the boxes and is no where near as thirtsy as some.
However, I agree from a practical point of view the 172SP takes a lot of beating. On price Cessna have the enormous advantage of volume and of being a well established company with propoer funding. Parts are relatively cheap and readily available. They are not very likely to go bust. Everyone knows how they work. For all of those reasons they are the Ford of GA and it will take a lot to knock them off their perch from the practical point of view of ownership, particularly if you are buying new when Cessna will simply have the edge on everyone else. Buy a three of four year old aircraft and the prices of a Tiger and a Cessna will come much closer into line and you may just be getting better value for money with the Tiger.
Both are typical "old school GA" and both are pushing on for £100k for a decent example or £130K for a new aircraft. The market is probably weak for individuals willing to tie up that amount of capital at the moment taken together with running costs of around 7-10K pa. This market will continue to be vunerable to the new breed of plastic fantastic two seaters with high performance Rotax type engines.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
How anyone can compare the C172 to a MCR4s is beyond me. That thing, the Dyn-aero, is too tiny and "homebuilt" to ever function as a general aviation aircraft for the masses.
Seriously, how many persons that aren't enthusiasts and would enjoy worming themselves through a hole, would ever get into it? The cabin, although wide enough, is built like a Ferrari or Lambo interior, or perhaps glider is the better comparison. A C172 can be used to haul just about anybody around with relative comfort and doesn't require unnatural gymnastics to enter and exit.
I think we sometimes, as enthusiasts, forget that many persons find this whole climbing over wings, sliding over seats and folding backwards to enter a seat, design that comes with light aircraft a bit of a joke.
I'm biased as I've flown the DA40 quite a bit lately, but I must say that everyone I've flown with has commented on its relative comfort, and certainly in the entry/exit department. Sure, the diesel has its teething problems, and it's not a stellar performer, but the lycoming version zips along and the new diesel will too.
Engine trouble aside it is a fantastic flying machine. This really is an option to the ageing C172 fleet, it just needs a solid engine that burns Jet fuel.
Seriously, how many persons that aren't enthusiasts and would enjoy worming themselves through a hole, would ever get into it? The cabin, although wide enough, is built like a Ferrari or Lambo interior, or perhaps glider is the better comparison. A C172 can be used to haul just about anybody around with relative comfort and doesn't require unnatural gymnastics to enter and exit.
I think we sometimes, as enthusiasts, forget that many persons find this whole climbing over wings, sliding over seats and folding backwards to enter a seat, design that comes with light aircraft a bit of a joke.
I'm biased as I've flown the DA40 quite a bit lately, but I must say that everyone I've flown with has commented on its relative comfort, and certainly in the entry/exit department. Sure, the diesel has its teething problems, and it's not a stellar performer, but the lycoming version zips along and the new diesel will too.
Engine trouble aside it is a fantastic flying machine. This really is an option to the ageing C172 fleet, it just needs a solid engine that burns Jet fuel.