From here
Silvaire wrote:
My plane cost as much as two new Porsche 911s in 1971, as did a new Cessna 172
Perhaps, but today the virtually identical to 1971 model, but newly built C-172, costs about 4, more like 5 brand new 2023 model Porsche 911s. And the 2023 version 911, even the “intro-version”, is a vastly better car than the 1971 version 911 (3 times as much HP as a start). The only difference between a 1971 C-172 and a 2023 C-172 is the glass panel.
A Shark UL is today about 2 911s. But then you get retract, autopilot, CS prop, turbo, FADEC engine, BRS and so on 
or for a bit less, you get more standard equipped version.
Silvaire wrote:
I think one should bear that in mind when making sweeping, hyperbolic, coercive (“I think we can safely say”) statements about the GA market and its economics from a country which has atypical economics and that barely registers in GA sales – something which is also true to a lesser extent to Europe as a whole.
I think indeed, Porsche 911 vs C-172 cost and technology in mind, that we (both you and I ) can safely say that:
This is what I’m talking about. If you somehow think the cost of ancient C-172 tech is OK for GA as a whole, then please explain, and stop wandering off into “the USA is best” nonsense, as well as other cheap forum “tricks”. It doesn’t work on me, if you haven’t noticed It’s also completely irrelevant for topic at hand, which is neither cars nor C-172s by the way
I can’t really respond to mental meanderings. A new Porsche 911 is $106K for the base model, $272K for the most expensive variant. A Cessna 172 is $420K, four times the price of the base model 911 and 1.5 times the top of the line 911. In 1971 the ratio was about 2.0 and there wasn’t so much cost spread in buying a new 911. The reason I brought that up was to dispute the assertion that people could more easily afford a new plane in 1971 relative to today, because it’s incorrect. What is true is that in Europe very few individuals could ever buy a new 172, then or now, due to the cost. In the US more people could afford a new 172, then or now, but they don’t buy a new one so often now because they have other choices including a lot of long lasting used planes at a fraction of the cost, as well as RVs etc. Meanwhile what used to be the Bonaza market is now the Cirrus market, very little different and not cost conscious.
As I’ve already mentioned I see no problem: this wider and more accessible market nowadays is a good thing and the cost of a new C172 is not the central issue in the GA market. I was very happy to find a plane that suits my needs for $35K, with enough power to be somewhat utilitarian and market value today likely a little higher. I could easily but don’t want to spend $200K or anything like that on a plane, and in 1971 I’d have been flying a $1500 Aeronca, a very low performance used plane because that’s what was available. The situation today has evolved to meet the needs of the market, as it always does.
The broader market issue is that the demands of the US GA market as a function of its size and maturity largely dictate what GA products are produced and sold. The economics of e.g. the Norwegian or European market, including its overregulation, extreme fuel taxation and poor airspace design as applicable do not match the GA market priorities as a whole, which is why GA products focused on the needs of the European market tend to fail in the broader market or never reach significant sales. The Shark UL and all the others that look the same are pretty good examples of that, the Thielert engine another, the Pipistrel Panthera another despite being bought by Textron. The list goes back decades. This is nothing to do with “the USA is best” as you put it in another hyperbolic red herring, other than that the USA has been most successful in building GA market and infrastructure and therefore tends to drive demand.
The Rotax engine is close to unique in that it is focused on the over taxed, underdeveloped and over regulated European GA scene but has been very commercially successful. It focuses on the largest European niche, the one that demands the lowest possible fuel consumption above all, is willing to sacrifice power, speed and payload in order to get airborne. That’s great for getting people now flying who otherwise couldn’t afford it within their economy but it doesn’t mean its driving the world GA market or an economical solution.
I don’t personally like tandem seating planes a huge amount but if I were going to spend a lot of money to buy a tandem composite sport plane in factory built form, little Game Composites is the manufacturer I’d be looking at. They sold 23 Gamebirds last year, each costing about $400K (by coincidence the same as a C172) and having 300 HP level of performance. The plane seems a reasonable fit to the niche GA market it addresses and the company is adequately funded.
For comparison within the tandem sport plane micro-market, the Shark UL has been in production since 2011 and a total of 120 have been sold. An average production of ten planes a year for twelve years. The market niche for (any) 100HP factory built plane is very limited outside of Europe anyway, people in 2023 GA want more power if they’re spending a lot of money. The only crack in that market situation within the US market is LSA planes for people who can’t pass BasicMed and have no choice. The planes for that niche are by regulatory design limited in performance and payload, old guys with no medical want to fly now, not build and they often have more than cash they can spend. So 100 HP works in that very limited space, and of course in Europe where fuel cost dominates over other considerations.
Getting back on track, one wonders if manufacturers could magically get a 300 HP turboprop to say 25% more fuel consumption than a Lycoming if anybody would be interested for use in a factory built sport plane, just on the basis of light weight and performance. I’d say it’s unlikely.
other than that the USA has been most successful in building GA market and infrastructure and therefore tends to drive demand.
But that’s the thing. It has since long stopped driving any demand in Europe. What drives demand here is UL. It has been like that for the last 20-30 years at least. The reason is, people can (still, barely, but still) get a new fancy aircraft for a lot less than for a 50+ year old technology like a C-172.
Shark is not in the business to get large. Since the beginning they have made a small amount of planes each year, but have always had their hands full. UL exclusively, no lack of focus like venturing into LSA. Today it’s well over a year waiting list, more like 2 years. It’s a healthy way of doing a small business. There will always be a demand when the market isn’t saturated. People purchasing a Shark will know they get something special for their money. Others, like Pipistrel, are selling lots, and eventually turned to the dark forces
Shark is somewhat similar to the Italian aircraft manufacturers. Somehow they manage to not wander off into “more is better”, but instead stay healthy simply producing excellent airplanes that are in enough demand to keep it going. It doesn’t seem to matter if it’s the Ferrari type for the few, or the Volkswagen type that most people can afford.
Norway is rather atypical in a European GA scene, but not that different from Sweden or Finland. Here the experimental scene has been stronger than what’s normal in Europe and very US oriented. In addition the number of helicopter pilots must be the largest in the world compared with the number of people we are, a factor 13 times the number in the US.
Another thing is that the UL scene wasn’t planned by anyone. It just happened, partly because it simply could happen, and partly because there obviously was a huge demand for simple and easy going flying, more like motorized hang gliding or something, more in the aviation sport category.
The Shark is in many ways the example of what could be done in the extreme, but also the example of what most people didn’t want. In reality, more than enough people want it to keep a small healthy business going.
EuroGA is also very atypical of what is really going on in Europe. Everybody think they are at the heart of things by the looks of it A bubble here, a bubble there. It make lots of foam
This stuff is hugely country-dependent.
Europe is not a “place”. It’s a bunch of largely pretty different countries which happen to (mostly) share borders, and not much else. Culturally they vary a lot and GA-wise they vary a lot. Probably 90% of European pilots will not fly outside their country, and some other large % will “on principle” never fly to a particular other country.
This topic started off on the turboprop Robin and here is something to think about on that one. It’s quite an isolated community, with quite specific market characteristics. A lot of people got their fingers burnt thinking that the total Robin fleet size means there is a big market for some potential Robin STC.
Posts split off to a new thread
Thanks Peter.
……the overregulated certified EASA rulemaking that’s driving GA Ferrari style UL business currently :-)…
You are free to kill yourself flying through a TCU/CB with UL at 300Km/hrs without to much hassle but if you want to try the same with a certified aircraft you need to pass some serious administrative and skill test hurdles first, which basically drives the customers in buying a fast UL for those who can afford it…
There is a serious gap in Europe btw…the operational risk management allowed by regulation for (EASA) certified aircraft and (national CAA) ULs.
Curious what the FAA MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates) will bring….
LeSving wrote:
The only difference between a 1971 C-172 and a 2023 C-172 is the glass panel.
As much as I support you in this discussion, that isn’t correct. There are important differences between the “restart” C172s (the R and S models) and earlier versions. E.g. they have a fuel-injected engine and a 24V electrical system. The engine in the S model is rated at 180 hp. Also, it doesn’t necessarily have glass.
I noticed that one (twice) but intentionally let it go. There are only so many obvious factual errors, red herring distractions and sophomoric exaggerations that you can address in a response before you risk losing the plot yourself. The most recent quote is actually:
LeSving wrote:
The number of people who can afford a new C-172 (that is literally identical to the 1971 version)
I wonder where they hide the ADF in the new ones? 
Vref wrote:
Curious what the FAA MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates) will bring
I’ve understood this is just a refinement of the existing LSA rules to expand the number of eligible types, without increasing the performance limits of planes that can legally be flown without any pilot medical certification.
I have flown a Shark and visited the factory.
The moulding quality is poor and everything requires a great deal of finishing afterwards. There was a hangar full of people sanding parts without masks.
The actual plane is ok but it is a toy. It uses 3d printed parts everywhere, and the ailerons are spring loaded to centre yet they also have a servo tab. Bizarre. The servo tab pushrods are the same size and type as on one of my RC models.
These planes are a total fad, they are not even remotely close to the robustness of more traditional types. Also tandem seating is pointless unless the plane is aerobatic, which it isn’t. For the price of a shark I could get an absolutely top spec RV7 and have loads of money left for fuel.
