Cessna does have a team capable of getting a job done on time etc. They did the Mustang. Cessna just used Team B (or more likely Team Z) on the Skycatcher…
From my own business (electronics) and seeing how regulatory compliance works, I think most of the certification job is knowing how to do it, so you don’t have to make all new contacts in the FAA, and you don’t need them to find the problems. That’s partly why Avidyne took so long to do the IFD540… they had never done this sort of thing before.
For example some years ago I tried to get something BASEEFA approved. I contacted the organisation and the first thing I got was some old geezer telling me in a pompous voice that I am not ever going to succeed. It was a message I was supposed to “just get”. His behaviour was of course totally inappropriate. I guess he was used to dealing with the few companies who were making the relevant products, and maybe even was friends with some of their people. I bet he got lots of excellent lunches.
it would be really interesting to see what happened with the Columbia.
At the surface, it is a Lancair ES (Not as many believe Lancair IV – that one has the same fuselage, but a different wing).
Did they just have to make a few modifications, and all the money went into getting production facilities certified, or did they redesign the aircraft based on the airfoil and fuselage, and they have no parts in common with the ES?
Probably in the middle.
Now… What is the difference in handling and in the safety record between these two?
I wish we had some insider here on this forum
Mooney_Driver wrote:
That is a darn sight different than a car plant which produces a couple of million cars per year.
It’s more like hundreds of thousands than millions. VW, for example, has about a hundred factories worldwide (not all produce cars, some produce engines, transmissions, etc. and they still buy loads of components from suppliers).
JasonC wrote:
The TBM900 is also actually under the TBM700 TC ISTR.
It’s done with jets too. And even in the automotive world (new S-Klasse is in fact on paper just modification of the previous one), for the same reason – it’s cheaper (and S-Klasse is no cheap, low margin car).
boscomantico wrote:
VLA is a dead end road as it doesn’t include IFR certification.
Is that really necessary for a 152 replacement? Anyway, IFR is included in the proposals. And IFR would obviously drive cost up.
Diamond hasn’t built any new Rotax powered DA20s in almost 20 years.
I saw one recently that was supposedly just a few years old. But it didn’t have the same cockpit as the Canadian version, I suppose someone might have been pulling my leg (or it was just cheaper version, they had some stripped out version of DA40 as well I think). I forgot to add that that price was without VAT and obviously for standard equipment.
A new 211 costs 180-200k once it’s in your hands. VFR-only.
Given the price of new Stemmes, I can’t be shocked. 
Peter wrote:
From my own business (electronics) and seeing how regulatory compliance works, I think most of the certification job is knowing how to do it
Exactly. You need people who have done it before (and fairly recently). Guimbal worked I think on the EC120 when he was at Eurocopter, which was a new design. And Steinbach (designer of the XAs) worked for Extra, IIRC, I think he worked on the 400, which was also a new design. Robinson got burned on the certification of R66 here in Europe. They didn’t have experience with it.
Peter wrote:
BASEEFA approved. I contacted the organisation and the first thing I got was some old geezer telling me in a pompous voice that I am not ever going to succeed. It was a message I was supposed to “just get”. His behaviour was of course totally inappropriate. I guess he was used to dealing with the few companies who were making the relevant products, and maybe even was friends with some of their people. I bet he got lots of excellent lunches.
It’s just like certification for aircraft. We have various products that have been through ATEX certification (which is what BASEEFA do) and the process was tedious and lengthy. but not difficult. It DOES stifle progress though, and simple modifications which would improve product reliability are difficult to impossible to justify.
Coming back to the idea of any new SEP plane, one would need to look where would be the largest market?
I guess there is still a huge need for a robust trainer (as replacement of the 150/152 fleets) that is easy to maintain, very strong, has nice handling, user friendly – 2 doors no need to climb on wings etc, and is economic to run with Mogas/Avgas Jet/Diesel is still far to far way of being availible on the engine side
Cessna once predicted 1000 or more request for the 162 but they failed but maybe as it is about 50 years or more since they had to design a new SEP airplane
maybe they wanted to be to “clever” with it instead of bringing the 150/152 into the 21th centory?? that can happen easy if you have desingner on the case that want to “profile” themself more than just doing an “major update”
So maybe Cessna is now “burnt” as they for sure lost money and image on the 162 ?
I still think there is reasionable money to be made on a modern 150/152 ( and I am not a particular big fan of this aircraft only done about 25hrs on it but if you look at what flightschools and low cost clubs want you can not ignore this
This US review from 2000 has just been kindly sent to me.
It is mosly good but, reading between the lines, it shows how little marketing progress Socata had made in the USA in the previous ~20 years. It is no wonder that when Cirrus got going, they just decided to pack it in.
I think the TB-20 cockpit is my all-time favorit cockpit. Put an alphanumeric keyboard between the engine levers and the rudder trim and I’ll never ask for anything again.
I agree (I would of course ) and I think you can almost get there with the Avidyne bluetooth keyboard. I am not up to date with the IFD scene though; I believe this keyboard exists.
Peter wrote:
Avidyne bluetooth keyboard
I’ve got one in my TB20.
I found the TB20 cockpit to have catastrophic ergonomics, especially all those circuit breakers and switches which are completely obscured by my left leg/knee. Maybe the setup is better in the TB20GT? I’ve only flown a 1984 model for less than three hours so far, but found both the C172 and especially the Aquila A210 to have a better cockpit layout. Then again those two are less complex aircraft with fixed gear, so the comparison might be unfair.
