I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

[Beefitarian]

Last year I saw one of those Beech Starships that the Evergreen museum had aquired. Poor thing, a lot of the epoxy seemed to have come off or something there was some fibre glass sheet exposed on some of the surfaces. The composite is probably higher maintainance.

[Deltawidget]

Hey don't forget about the fact that the Cessna 162 does basically the same thing as its 60 year old predecessor. 7 kts faster and carries 40lbs less. Same fuel consumption. Very uninspiring.

[Beefitarian]

I'm not little and have trouble getting into the P-51 doubt I could fly one. I actually folded myself into a 162 on static display. I think it might even be comfortable to fly.

[akoch]

Last year I saw one of those Beech Starships that the Evergreen museum had aquired. Poor thing, a lot of the epoxy seemed to have come off or something there was some fibre glass sheet exposed on some of the surfaces. The composite is probably higher maintainance.

That's probably specific to that particular airplane, or Starships in general. I don't own one, can't tell

But in two years I have had a composite aeroplane I can say that so far it has been trouble-free. And those couple of repairs I chose to do (hangar rash, previous owner) were more than easy. A couple of pieces of glass fiber and carbon fiber, plus epoxy work were inexpensive and simple. Paint job was same as any other aeroplane. So fixing a few spots (wingtip) and painting turned out to be a thousand dollars when all done. Cessna's wingtips are also fiberglass, would not be any cheaper I figure.

So unless you hit something hard to damage the part, there is no maintenance required otherwise. No corrosion, or fatigue.

[Beefitarian]

Certainly may have just been that particular plane. I have no idea what would have caused it. It just seemed like it was in strange spots.

If it was on the edges or wingtips I'd just think it would have been hanger rash. Still might have been.

[iflyforpie]

No corrosion, or fatigue.

But there is the potential for delamination and heat damage. Also, composites aggravate corrosion in the still necessary metal parts and can suffer from damage from lightning strikes if not properly bonded.

Composites don't suffer from fatigue, but they also have no yield strength. Overload steel or aluminum and it will deform and work harden until it reaches its ultimate failure load. When composites are overloaded, they simply explode.

[Beefitarian]

That's looks quite a bit worse than the Starship.

[akoch]

No corrosion, or fatigue.

But there is the potential for delamination and heat damage. Also, composites aggravate corrosion in the still necessary metal parts and can suffer from damage from lightning strikes if not properly bonded.

Composites don't suffer from fatigue, but they also have no yield strength. Overload steel or aluminum and it will deform and work harden until it reaches its ultimate failure load. When composites are overloaded, they simply explode.

Yes, there is possibility. And I heard of a few curios cases of the wing walk delamination. Trivial fix. Yet to hear about any serious delaminations affecting the structure of the aircraft. Certainly no Diamond yet to experience an in-flight breakup, something we can not say of 172 where an owner missed corrosion or fatigue spot. We all know if a few.

Thue, it will shatter into pieces. But consider the load it will happen at..... The wings are measured at over 14g. Kind of explains the absense of the in-flight breakups.

Heat damage and limitations are an old joke or urban legend. It is just not there for all practical purposes. Can link to the POH. Or realistically how many Boeings or Airbuses are grounded for this reason?

[Geo]

Heat damage and limitations are an old joke or urban legend. It is just not there for all practical purposes. Can link to the POH. Or realistically how many Boeings or Airbuses are grounded for this reason?

The DA20C1 I learned in hd a limitation of 54 C on the interior. There is actually an indicator. (and yes, it's in the AFM). "For all pratical purposes" it is not a problem...in Calgary. (except Maaaayybe in the summer, with the canopy closed, in mid july). But those restrictions do exist. You may want to be careful if you go south in the summer.

g

[akoch]

Yes, there is the dot core temperature indicator between the seats, for 54C. Now would you as a human being be able to fly in such conditions? hope not

This is why it is only theoretical limitation. The aircraft does not get that hot anywhere on this continent. Even Texas, or Hawaii, or anything. Perhaps Sahara a couple day a year, still unlikely.

[Colonel Sanders]

Heat damage and limitations are an old joke or urban legend

Why are they all painted white?

I'm no expert on plastic airplanes, but the ones around
here have more restrictive ops limit temps than the
aluminum ones.

would you as a human being be able to fly in such conditions?

Wouldn't that be more of a problem when it was parked
on a black paved ramp on a summer day? Anyone that
has ever gotten into a parked car on a hot day can understand
this.

[akoch]

Yes, painted white to minimize the effect. Does not have to be white everywhere, the POH states which areas can have what % of dark color if desired. Same as the current Boeings and Airbuses.

Would it be a problem parked on a black pavement? It will be. In Sahara on a hot day. In North America or Europe in well over 15 years these are flying this has not happened yet. Note that this is not the outer skin that is hot and baked in sun. The limitation is specifically for the aircraft core temperature - the spar and the spar box temperature indicator. When those things heat up to over 54C.... I don't know how I can stay alive inside such aircraft for more than a couple of minutest. Regardless if it is called Cessna, Diamond or Lexus. You might want to try in your hot tub. Remember, this is 54 Celsius, not F.

But it is really simple - see the indicator dot saying "no fly", don't fly. You, your engine, avionics etc will not fly at this temperature. Gosh, no we can't fly all the way to the sun. A guy called Icarus tried. Ever since then this is officially no starter and had been put into the POH, taught in 3rd grade I believe

Simply put - the composite construction has happened. This is already a "yesterday's" news, and these are far beyond the infancy. As far as I'm concerned, the material is only that.. material. Perhaps opening a bit more allowing for more slick/aerodynamic and stronger airplanes, but is not a game changer. What is however, is that the science has not stand still for the last 50 years. And some of the better more modern airplanes demonstrate this. We all sure like the comfort and nostalgia of and old pre-war bi-plan. But a modern Pipistrel Virus flies better, faster and more economical. Safer as well. Can these designs be built in aluminum alone? Unlikely. And why bother? The evolution continues to happen, even if Cessna is not innovating. Better designs will continue to come up and push the envelope. New other materials will appear some day as well. And the new round of arguments starts....

[Colonel Sanders]

Bottom line:

1) avionics/electronics has advanced exponentially since 1980

2) 1980 aluminum airframe could be replaced by composite
with the advantage of less weight but at a higher cost. It is
interesting that the homebuilders, who have absolutely no
paperwork hurdles, have chosen aluminum over composite -
see RV-X

3) 1980 Lycoming reigns supreme. No worthwhile changes
or improvements to powerplant technology since then, with
perhaps the exception of electronic ignition replacing a mag
(or two) and that's it. Even the much-vaunted FADEC doesn't
seem to be very popular, 30 years on.

[jump154]

As for selling price - don't make the mistake that just because the price is higher there is a proportional increase in the technological value of the product (or any content for that matter). Selling price is defined as the price at which the consumer is willing to buy the product - no relation to content. Of course, the consumer need to feel sufficient value to pay that price, but that value is not always technological content.

Look at gas prices - just went up 3c/litre the other day for exactly the same stuff from the pump the other day. Content increase? zero. Value - getting me to work and to the airport, so I pay.

Had a similar discussion the other day with one of my Eastern Suropean colleagues, who was arguing that because we were charging $1,000,000 for a product there had to be that much more work done than for a $200,000 product (fancier reports etc.). My reply was no, if we can make the $1,000,000 product for the same cost and at the same quality level as the $200,000 product, we should do so and just pocket the extra cash. Different upbringings and perception of value.

As for the C172, for now I like old-school tried, tested and reliable in an aircraft. I'm enough of a danger to myself, without an aircraft that could throw unexpected things at me! Wife likes comfy seats and not being able to see out the cracks in the door, so I rent newer 172s. But then i'm getting interested in cubs as well.......

If I want to fly a fancy panel, I can do that for free at home on the computer. Looks identical.

[Colonel Sanders]

That's a good point - don't confuse marketing and engineering

Most people don't understand either one very well, so asking
people to master both is generally a bit much.

[Beefitarian]

The gas prices went up because of the hurricane that went down refinery row north of Edmonton. No, wait. They closed a bunch of Canadian refineries down and export more of the oil to the gulf of mex...

I guess because I want Canada to make things locally I'm probably a racist or something.

I don't like them personally but watched a guy fly a black cub and there is a black 150 in the for sale section here. I did see a nice medium colored plane at a fly in I quite liked.

[iflyforpie]

There is no doubt in my mind that composites offer many advantages. I'm just playing devil's advocate and saying that they are not a magical wonder material that is completely free from flaws and it is not appropriate in every situation.

But so far, there isn't a single certified composite aircraft out there that matches the safety (low stall speed, large fowler flaps, absence of major structural ADs or airframe failures), simplicity (engine, airframe, systems, support, spares, serviceability at any airport), and utility (training, aerial work, charter) of the ubiquitous 172.

[Geo]

That's a good point - don't confuse marketing and engineering

Most people don't understand either one very well, so asking
people to master both is generally a bit much.

g

[akoch]

But so far, there isn't a single certified composite aircraft out there that matches the safety (low stall speed, large fowler flaps, absence of major structural ADs or airframe failures), simplicity (engine, airframe, systems, support, spares, serviceability at any airport), and utility (training, aerial work, charter) of the ubiquitous 172.

Ifly... are your serious? Or just saying to work somebody up?

[akoch]

Bottom line:

1) avionics/electronics has advanced exponentially since 1980

2) 1980 aluminum airframe could be replaced by composite
with the advantage of less weight but at a higher cost. It is
interesting that the homebuilders, who have absolutely no
paperwork hurdles, have chosen aluminum over composite -
see RV-X

3) 1980 Lycoming reigns supreme. No worthwhile changes
or improvements to powerplant technology since then, with
perhaps the exception of electronic ignition replacing a mag
(or two) and that's it. Even the much-vaunted FADEC doesn't
seem to be very popular, 30 years on.

1) yup

2) True, but let's also say:
- not all of them ( there is still glassair, lance air, rutan's designs, and most others if they don't originate from Oregon US)
- people here still prefer aluminium RV for the same reason they like the old Cessna - tried and true formula, there is comfort in that. Besides it is such a smart design from the days of RV3. And.... a good number had in-flight break ups. All the way to the current RV6/7/8s
- RV the later RVs seem to have more and more composite parts Despite that they overwhelmingly are in the metal camp
- the higher cost point of the composites is not supported by the prices on the market. New DA40 is same or lower cost of the new 172. Used DA40 is same cost as the same vintage/equipment 172. Maintenance costs lower than the 172. So go figure.

3) will be interesting to see what will be coming. Perhaps electricals? Seem start to pop up on the radar once in a while

[Beefitarian]

Used DA40 is same cost as the same vintage/equipment 172.

Photographs or I cannot be swayed to believe such has occurred sir. I just cannot.

[iflyforpie]

But so far, there isn't a single certified composite aircraft out there that matches the safety (low stall speed, large fowler flaps, absence of major structural ADs or airframe failures), simplicity (engine, airframe, systems, support, spares, serviceability at any airport), and utility (training, aerial work, charter) of the ubiquitous 172.

Ifly... are your serious? Or just saying to work somebody up?

Yes, I am serious. Name me an airplane and I will change my mind.

[akoch]

Sure:
Vso=36 KIAS - check
Large fowler flaps (45 degrees LND) - check
Absence of major AD's (not a single one on the airframe) - check
No known frame failures in flight - check
Simplicity -check
Utility - check

in addition - 5.5GPH for 140KTAS cruise; Vne=168KIAS; rate of climb over 1000fpm

[FenderManDan]

I was looking into some cirrus prod[uce, uct] and even though they look amazing compared to the ole 172/182 there was something that smelled BS about them and I could not point it out. I ran into this web article and the author and the owner pretty much describes what I felt about the Cirrus.

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

Beef, there is the paragraph in the article from the link above "The Cirrus Revolution?", that might be interesting to read in regards to your topic.

As far as C-172 it seems that the current premium price includes G1000 and all the lawsuits from the past. IIRC product liability stops after 18 years or something with GARA.

[iflyforpie]

Sure:
Vso=36 KIAS - check
Large fowler flaps (45 degrees LND) - check
Absence of major AD's (not a single one on the airframe) - check
No known frame failures in flight - check
Simplicity -check
Utility - check

in addition - 5.5GPH for 140KTAS cruise; Vne=168KIAS; rate of climb over 1000fpm

Which aircraft is this?