4000 hours is nothing there are plenty of Cessna with 20000 hours all of it in the flight school environment.
i can't vouch for tecnam but I've seen at3 and they n my opinion are totally unsuitable for the flight training market
The cost of any travelling is very high, and is suprisingly constant regardless of the method.
According to a recent Boeing advert I saw, the new 787 burns only 20% less fuel than a TB20, per passenger. Of course you get more cabin crew in a 787, though you might get a more attractive kind of "cabin crew" in a TB20
A more interesting test, would be to compare the fuel consumption of a TB20 souped up to fly at 787 speeds, or a 787 'souped down' to cruise at TB20 speeds.
Peter and all.
The Lancair 4 at the Museum in Oberschleissheim is there in an airworthy and conservated status with the intention of it being reactivated some day. It appears the gentleman who built it has many interests and this was just one of them. It has to be said that it is a highly modified airframe, not an "ordinary" Lancair 4 but conditioned for range. It has much larger fuel tanks and a non standard IO550 engine (the normal 4 has turbocharged engines). His report is not quite conclusive on it but it appears he built it in order to do this one trip primarily. Has to be said that it is quite hefty to fly all the way to Base Marambio (Antarctica) from Germany in what appears to be VFR (that is without an instrument rating) and then back up to Alaska and finally back to Germany, not talking about the fact that he had a mere 100 hours PIC time when he set off. The airplane's usual speed is 170 kts at 30 liters per hour or so, 2500 NM or 15 hours range, no noise dampening, 480 liters fuel tanks, 2 seats only e.t.c. in other words an experimental outside the normal box.
Frankly, reading his trip report in German tells me that he was fairly lucky all the way. Certainly not a "by the book" operation and unusual in many regards. Frankly, I think he would have been better off with either a stock Mooney Ovation with Monroy tanks or a Twin Commanche on these trips. Out of that, possibly that plane is safer where it is now.
The question what a Corvails 400 is like with retracable gear is more or less the Lancair 4. The Columbia was developed out of the Lancair 4 and made certifyable. That was no easy task and I can see why they went out of their way to simplify the design as much as possible. They were practically bancrupt when Cessna bought them, the design would have disappeared by now otherwise.
The Lancair 4 per se is a very high performance airframe and as that certainly not suitable for beginners or low time or low experience folks. As it is today, there is no chance for certification ever. Personally I think the folks at Columbia made a heroic effort to get it to a certifyable state. A friend here who flies one tells me it is a very nice airplane and one of the most performing in the world, combined with a spacier cabin than the Mooney Acclaim (who until recently held the status as the fastest piston single), a more modern look plus quite some ramp appeal.
Cirrus won the race so to speak (they went close to bancruptcy themselves and had to be bought up by the Chinese to survive) thanks to the parashute effect. This got a lot of new buyers interested who would not have gone into a higer performance airplane otherwise. Consequently it is now dubbed the new "doctor killer" as it is often enough crashed by new pilots with a lot of overconfidence due to the shute system but who are not ready to use the shute when it would be appropriate to do so.
It has to be said however that Cirrus have done more things right in recent years than other companies when it comes to winning customer appeal. The CAPS system is only one factor, a very important one nevertheless.
The main problems of todays aircraft manufacturers have been named in this thread: tremendous cost of components thanks to liability and small numbers, stranglehold onto old designs due to financial impossibility to certify newer ones and a general decline in sales due to the overregulated GA market in a recession.
That is why in the US folks go towards experimentals more and more. As these airplanes can be flown pretty much like any other there in terms of IFR use particularly which is basically impossible to achieve in Europe. In Europe, the move is to UL or light aircraft, not insignificantly so due to the fact that IFR in Europe is still unachievable in terms of cost and time for most pilots. We shall see how this changes with the new EASA IR.
Consequently, if there was a will to make certified airplanes more attractive again by lowering cost, the first moves would have to be on the liability and certification cost issue. In recent years there have been many promising designs which never made it through certification due to going bancrupt before reaching certification.
Secondly, it would be nice if the de facto monopolies within the industry could be broken up. With onyl 2 manufacturers of engines, avionic basically in the hand of 2-3 companies e.t.c. it is no wonder that prices soar. We need competition in that market and we need more variety. It would be very desirable if avionic companies who today make products only for non certified airplanes made them for certified ones too.
The way things are now, new airframes will continue to stay on the shop shelfs and the common old designs will continue to fall in price and be snapped up by the few who understand GA and their role in it.
Secondly, it would be nice if the de facto monopolies within the industry could be broken up. With onyl 2 manufacturers of engines, avionic basically in the hand of 2-3 companies e.t.c. it is no wonder that prices soar. We need competition in that market and we need more variety. It would be very desirable if avionic companies who today make products only for non certified airplanes made them for certified ones too.
Volumes are so low I expect consolidation is the only reason a lot of this stuff is still being produced.
i can't vouch for tecnam but I've seen at3 and they n my opinion are totally unsuitable for the flight training market
You've seen it. What is the basis of your statement that it is unsuitable? Do you have a requirement for certain qualities in an aircraft as an instructor, mechanic or student pilot? I'm curious.
Back in the good 'ol days, pilots could be trained on Cubs, Aeronca Chiefs, Austers, Tiger Moths and all kinds of impossible aircraft. It also meant they could handle a DC3 or C46 in a crosswind when they got that far. These days "some" pilots I've flown with don't have those basic skills. They can program the Garmin like you wouldn't believe but somehow hand flying is very difficult.
Anyway, I was involved with an FTO for a while and we tried the Tecnam P92 and P2002 together with the Piper PA28. Honestly, they are quite different and have their own strong points. In light planes such as the Tecnams you really notice if you've learned to fly the aircraft and the same could be said for the AT3, Sportstar or any other similar design. The Piper PA28 is good for training operators of airplanes... Just my basic opinion, and I also learned to fly on the PA28...
It also meant they could handle a DC3 or C46 in a crosswind when they got that far
I've been seeing some chatter about the recent crunch at SFO with the Asiana B777. There are a few US and European instructors who were in South Korea training crews after it was recognised there were safety problems with their crews, and all of them have basically said that the crews have excellent systems knowledge, but they just can't fly. Crosswind landings stump them. Basically, the common theme that's come from this is it's fine and dandy knowing systems but when you have to fly a visual approach because the automation is not available, you still need to know basic flying skills. SK basically has no general aviation at all so the crews rarely have the opportunity to fly stuff where it's all down to basic skills, so don't necessarily grok them. The end result - a perfectly good B777 got destroyed the other day.
Krister - I got my pilot certificate not so long ago (2003/2004) in an 800 lb tail wheel aircraft. When a few years after that I flew a Tecnam 2002 it seemed so incredibly easy to fly. I certainly wouldn't say everybody should learn to fly the way I did, but I would say there are benefits to being exposed to a wide range of different aircraft along the way, and preferably before interest is lost due to complacency.
As a more general statement, it's clear to me that putting people on rails in their 'training' and in their lives, removing personal choice and flexibility, will have negative results that outweigh the apparent increase in efficiency. Constraining people to doing primary training in an FTO sausage machine, and over regulating private aircraft to the point where many people can only afford to fly in clubs are two very good examples. Aviation always focuses broader issues and serves as a good example, as in the SFO landing accident.
SK basically has no general aviation at all so the crews rarely have the opportunity to fly stuff where it's all down to basic skills, so don't necessarily grok them. The end result - a perfectly good B777 got destroyed the other day.
I would say that plenty of US and European crews have also had accidents that involve 'not flying'. Commercial aviation training has problems globally. I think people are too focussed on the SK thing. I see lots of UK schools where they are trained on rails as well.
Krister - I got my pilot certificate not so long ago (2003/2004) in an 800 lb tail wheel aircraft.
Congratulations! I mean that. Too few learn to fly in "real" aircraft these days, myself included, and I also feel that the modern training environment doesn't spend much time teaching flying skills properly. I eventually got the hang of it after doing some tailwheel flying and getting my FI rating...
I would say that plenty of US and European crews have also had accidents that involve 'not flying'.
That's probably true. There are some recent studies into the "automation" issue where pilots don't fly more than a few minutes on takeoff and landing. In some companies this has resulted in updated SOPs requiring hand flying ILS or visual approaches with some interval, and other solutions.
One article I read (can't remember where) stated that as many as two thirds of commercial pilots would not pass a skill test for the IR, despite thousands of hours of experience. That's not so great.
as two thirds of commercial pilots would not pass a skill test for the IR
Somebody is going to say "speak for yourself" 
but I am sure most private IR holders would not pass it either...
I am fairly sure I would not today pass the UK CAA initial IRT, if you just dragged me out of bed and made me fly it, with no practice. Maybe a 50% chance, reducing to 10% if there were NDB procedures in it.
But flying in CAVOK conditions and presumably not noticing the auto throttle is not working is not an IRT...
