Why New Plane Companies Always Fail
Go to curiositystream.com/DWAYNESAV... and use code DWAYNESAVIATION to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
The importance of marketing cannot be underestimated, and companies have understood that innovating their marketing strategies is as important as the innovations incorporated in their products. Despite that some people believe that those that can afford planes don’t sit in front of the TV or social media, in reality, those that influence their decisions do, so it is possible to sell a bad product with good marketing than it is to sell an excellent product with a not so good marketing job. So, the question is, is having a stable product better than having a strong marketing force
#Cirrus #Mooney #icona5
___________________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
I was a test pilot for Mooney, sold them, trained owners. They have gone out of business and come back so many times I lost count. A true enigma in private aviation.
Pj❤❤l, l9o99óo999oj❤o❤o❤oj❤ojo❤oj❤o❤❤ojo❤o❤o❤❤oojooooo ooooo❤❤9o❤pj❤❤oojoo❤oj❤❤ooiojpj❤oj❤9oooj❤❤o M ooooj❤❤❤❤❤❤ooooopoo9
In my opinion Mooney is so powerful they decide to come back when the feel like it lol
@@alphafox3515 The Chuck Norris of aircraft manufacturers.
I love the look of the older style Mooney. It has a 90s Italian sport car look to it.
The Mooney is a real airplane, not a piece of plastic (carefully chosen word) that couldn't be certificated without a parachute.
Frankly there is no logical reason for any of these small 4 place aircraft to cost 1 million dollars. Most shouldn't be more than 200k even with current inflation. The issue is the lack of modernization with the construction, avionics, and powerplants. If we were still building cars by hand then a Civic would cost almost 100k USD. We don't build them by hand thus the cost is much reduced. Until there is an actual attempt to modernize construction, we'll see the old dogs continue to fight for the smaller and smaller group of wealthy individuals willing to shell out 2-3x the logical cost for these modern dinosaurs.
There's also all the built in liability with certified parts that increases cost greatly. A 172 brand new in the 60s cost around 80k today after adjusting for inflation which is a far from the 450k price tag today.
Modernized and automated construction came and only comes with scaling. When you can sell and build in bulk, you can lower costs. It costs less per unit to build 10 of something than it is to build 1. It costs even less to build 100. And, even less to build 1000. I’m sure you get the picture. This is even before you factor in the costs to even bring the product to market. There is a huge entry cost that takes the sale of a lot of units before you even start to make up those costs.
@@deanfowlkes yeah, I agree. We'd obviously need someone with the capital and vision of Elon to make it happen. Highly efficient, small scale manufacturing facilities are coming online now. Tesla is going exactly that with their new plants. You could bring the cost savings from what was thousands of products down to a facility that produces hundreds. Planes should be mass produced, unfortunately the FAA is always in the way of progress. It's understandable to an extent for safety but they knee jerk way too often and they create huge barriers to innovation and production with their outdated certification standards. This isn't 1930 anymore.
There is also the Initial capital cost to start a company from scratch
@@mescarfullery that or you can take over a company with a solid design. If you have the capital to expand manufacturing then you have the funds to do a buy out. You would need to find a company with an efficient and well tested aluminum airframe. I don't think we could mass manufacture composite airframes at the costs needed to bring 80k USD 4 place aircraft (with modern powerplants) to market.
As far as innovation, the FAA is why we are still flying behind a 1940s tractor motor that costs more than a racing engine. The FAA was dragged, kicking and screaming into the modern age of gps navigation and they still did everything they could the complicate the systems and make them overly expensive. Look at the whole unleaded aviation gas mess. There are answers out there, but not with the FAA constantly standing in the way.
Almost all government agencies repeatedly prove themselves to be a hindrance to all forms of innovation, progression, etc
Nailed it!
Amen
The FAA is like Honda. Bear in mind that they were created after a horrific air to air collision over the Grand Canyon. They’re like Honda in that they don’t push the envelope of untested technology. They stick to reliability and safety before making changes, which as someone studying to be an A&P and mostly interested in vintage aircraft, I’m perfectly fine with. I hate change.
@@Flyboy207 The problem is, Honda cars aren’t slower, less efficient, more expensive, etc than other cars or than what the currently mass producible technology allows. In fact, Honda has been widely using CVTs for years now, which are only now being proven as fully reliable. Change should sometimes be slow imo in a field like aviation, but the problem is that the FAA (and politicians that control are) are a bunch of nostalgic boomers who don’t understand and are thus afraid of current day technology. Using proven technology is fine. The problem is that we have technology from like 2005 that’s completely proven and has been around for almost 20 years, but GA airplanes still predominantly utilize technology that was available in the 1950s, or often even cutting edge 1940s technology. Then there’s the fact that government agencies just can’t ever get their shit together. A great example of that is the fact that current 103 compliance for ultralights literally just makes pilots and people on the ground less safe, they could increase the weight limit just slightly and make a few other changes, and we would be able to more easily build ultralights that won’t fall apart in the air, won’t stall from an unexpected change in wind direction or speed (The safe speed range is generally very small in ultralights because of the low weight limit and max speed allowance. Such slow airplanes can sometimes be easier to stall because of things like wind direction, many are always somewhat close to stalling) and can protect the pilot slightly in the event of obstacle collision or very low altitude stall
"the price has risen by 50% from 140k to 390k" Are you serious? That's almost 180% rise in price... Even the 260k is 85% increase, not 50%
Between the mispronunciations, and the deficit in basic math, this channel scares me.
Totally false. 140k is 36% of 390k, so 390k is only 36% bigger than 140k. Learn math in both directions and be super effective against the average person. In fact, Aristotelian fallacies can be some of the most convincing arguments for the unversed. I see physicians use fallacious arguments ALL THE TIME, and people generally think they know what they’re talking about. I started typing that out as sarcasm until I got to the last two sentences where my sarcasm got out of control and I veered into truth and now I’m sad.
@@Rabbinicphilosophyforthewin No, you're just really bad at math, that's not how you calculate percentages. You try to look smart while failing basic math...
@@videorowtv5198 you missed where I said I was being sarcastic. Poe’s Law gets me again. As an analyst with multiple degrees, I’m decent at math and I know you’re right. I was trying to make the sad point that ppl fall prey to poor reasoning all the d$&@d time and it’s awful. I hope you use the same discriminating intellect when you’re listening to physicians. Or news anchors. Or politicians. Or pharma CEOs. Or lawyers. Or all the other loudmouthed sophists who get by on charisma and hubris at the expense of reason.
@@Rabbinicphilosophyforthewin oh yeah, my bad. The first part was too much for me to handle so I didn't even manage to read the second part.
I honestly like the look of Mooney way more than the Cirrus in my opinion
me too, but the mooney is tighter inside and if you gonna go anywere it's really a two seater so i'd rather get a diamond
It's also anything but a "new plane company." Weird grouping, but expected ignorance / misapplication in social-media type space. It was well-proven tech back in wood-structure days and the conversion to aluminum made one tough airframe. 07:46 "That's a draw" on all the comparative performance figures was also a curious conclusion.
Agreed
@@pietrooliani3251 I have really broad shoulders. I sat in an M20 once. I don't think I could have safely flown the plane with anyone next to me.
The flaw in the Mooney design is that its short gear height and lack of dampening in the nose gear makes them susceptible to prop strikes if any kind of porpoising happens.
I bought one of the last M20J in 1998, added a turbo normalising kit (m20turbo). It is a 190 kts plane at 20000ft or a 170kts at 10000ft while having the engine at 75% power with11GPH (LOP). During the more than 20 Years I had no extra maintenance costs due to the turbo kit. Mooney never offered this, even when Bill Sandman (M20turbo) offered it to Mooney. If Mooney would take this design and cleaned it up to squeeze out a few more Kts. Next make it a lot lighter by replacing the chromemoly tubing with titanium or carbon fibre rods (all control rods landing gear, rol cage etc). The payload issue would be solved, the performance is better than a SR22 with a 200HP Bullit proof Lycoming 4 cylinder engine that uses way less fuel, this would be a good competitor to the SR22 even without a BRS. Mooney should have been loyal to the initial philosophy of high performance with less power like Lotus does with their cars (faster by making it lighter)
Absolutely agree. Refine the M20J and use some new tech to reduce manufacturing cost and the company might have a chance. If there were new M20's they would always cost more than the old models. That's just the way it is with everything.
The reason ALL GA aircraft companies will fail soon is due to the insanely high cost of government certification and liability insurance. You can almost compare apples to apples with Experimental aircraft. You can build (or buy) a very similar airplane for half the cost of a certified airplane. Same construction build, materials, engine, avionics etc. etc. etc. but because it doesn’t have to go through the government certification process it can be done for half the price. New GA airplane sales have 15/20 years tops before they are gone.
Aviation is over, the govt doesn't want you to fly, espically cheap!
while certification is certainly a significant factor, I'd say the insurance industry is already pounding the coffin nails even faster for recreational GA - there are a lot more pilots flying uninsured these days because it's either unaffordable or more recently flat out denied by the underwriters. That said, professionally flown Part 91 GA is going incredibly strong. Wait lists for the PC-12, TBM, and M500/600 - even the Cirrus - are years long.
@@alanmydland5210 I have a paramotor trike. It is very cheap.
@John at the Falls how do you like it?
@@alanmydland5210 This is the flying I dreamed about as a kid. Not being lockedh up in a tin can going where my job tells me to go. Am retired military. That being said, the rig I bought is junk and am still rebuilding parts of the engine so I have not flown it yet. The backbone of Paramotoring in the U.S. is KZhead and a few loudmouth schools and equipment vendors. It makes you appreciate the FAA umbrella. The EU has a small reach into Paramotoring so equipment out of the EU is trustworthy. The problem is not the FAA but politicians that are owned by corporate monopolies that are parasites and effect the whole economic food chain. Enforcing antitrust laws is not profitable for politicians.
It’s wrong to claim that they “always fail” there are standouts that have stood the test of time and look to have a bright future - In aviation there will always be lofty claims in marketing but the legends prove themselves and significantly contribute to innovation
Cirrus didn't fail.
@@angela1984a Cirrus is outselling everything else at a price point far beyond what mere mortals will be able to summon. Which proves my point, the "older" models don't offer the value for the money as Cirrus does. A modern iteration of the M20C with all mechanicals, a parachute and a glass cockpit for 200k should raise some interest, imho
@@daszieher Doesn't a new Cirrus with a fixed gear cost like 500K? Seems kind of difficult to get a modern iteration of the M20C to come in under 500K... And also: What is the Pipistrel Panthera if not a modern iteration of the M20C?... And what does the Pipistrel cost?...
@@angela1984a well, there is a lot to be said about development and aggregate costs, all already written off for the M20C. It could, if anyone wanted to do so, be produced and sold by marginal costs only, which - I believe - would ve closer to 200k. Just look at the LSA from the Czech Republic, not much "more" and to be had for a fraction. The Chinese investors had something similar on their mind, but the simpler new M10 never got off the ground. Maybe someone with a metal manufacturing facility will buy up all the assets of defunct metal aircraft and find a way to produce entire aircraft and replacement parts on demand. I really don't see the market to pay complete developments at automotive levels. The market is simply not large enough
@@angela1984a Well, a brand-new Cessna 172 costs $300,000, and a brand new Cessna 182 costs $500,000. When he said new Mooneys were being sold for $800,000, that's comparable to the two Cessna prices I listed above, given how much more you're getting. And he says the Cirrus was being marketed at the same price point, which sounds about right. Realistically, though, I never thought Cirrus was competing with Mooney, so I'm surprised to see that they're the ones that put them under. Cirrus was always competing with Cessna and Piper, from what I could tell: Same useful weight loading, slightly better speed, and a parachute, for quite a bit more money. You don't buy a Mooney for the useful load. You buy a Mooney because it can go 200 mph on a normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine.
Most of Icon’s crashes weren’t the fault of the Icon. Its inside is actually very nice and shouldn’t be dismissed as automotive-like. They put AOA top center - that is huge! No, the problem is the cost runaways and too small an engine by trying to jam into that “light sport” category. If they would have had more power and been affordable, we’d be glowing about their other features.
Fuck the government. Btw. Could one augement the engine with a electric motor and small battery for boosts? Amd what about sitting in line in stead of side by side? Less power needed to fly. Also make it vtol
I never liked the Icon exactly because they were trying to make it look like a car. They even marketed it as such. They also built the plane without any useful mission in mind. The idea was to have a very expensive toy to play around with. The reason why they have so many pilot error crashes is that they market it for a consumer group that wants a toy and combine that with a plane that's so simple to fly that it's easy to become overconfident. I mean, just look at all their footage! It's almost all at a few hundred feet! That means many owners will be constantly flying in the most dangerous phase of flight, all the time!
" Most of Icon’s crashes weren’t the fault of the Icon. " disagree. You have to consider how this airplane was marketed, and what it was marketed for. The Icon was straight up, designed and marketed as essentially a jet ski with wings, (That was literally a phrase used by the founder in interviews with aviation magazines.) and the purpose of it is to hoon around on it, just like idiots on jet skis, with the added detail that they can lift off the water in the course of their goonery. You know what kills the most people in small airplanes? Hooning around at low altitudes. Hitting power lines or other obstacles, steep low level pull ups into stall-spin crashes, mushing into the ground in the pull-out of a high speed descent, that kind of stuff. Now have a look at Icon's marketing videos and other material. The message is crystal clear, this is a product for zooming around and maneuvering at low altitudes. Even their training materials encourage it. They offer low level training and tell the customer that if you do that course, then your good to go for maneuvering at high bank and pitch attitudes down to and below 100 ft agl. Specifically, you do their low alt course and you can fly at bank angles up to 60 degrees and pitch angles up to 30 degrees down to 100 ft AGL and below 100 ft agl, bank angles of up to 45 degrees are still good. Now what do all the fatal Icon accidents plus the first non-fatal accident have as a common contributing factor? Low level maneuvering flight. This isn't a coincidence.
@@crazymonkeyVII It ain't just their marketing videos. their training materials say explicitly that with their training, you are safe to maneuver at bank angles of up to 60 degrees and pitch angles up to 30 degrees, as low as 100 ft AGL (45 bank and 10 pitch below 100 agl)
@@andrewalexander9492 my point exactly. Encourage stupid games you win stupid prizes!
Mooney failed themselves by not continuing the 201 as well as not making the construction any faster. Cirrus can pump them out fast when you consider that there really only 12 molds for the aircraft in total. They were also making wing components for the Stewart S51 Mustang.
Moony failed over and over and over for decades. It's a cursed property and always has been.
You are correct. The J (201) was a great little plane. As a Mooney test pilot my favorite then and now is the Ovation. Fly in low-mid teens at a good speed sipping fuel for hours and hours. I flew one non-stop with long range tanks from Kerrville or San Antonio, Texas to VA...amazing. The reason they couldn’t make the 201 was cost. They estimated the cost of manufacturing the 201 would be only slightly less than an Ovation, given glass panels, parts and labor.
Good call. Also, everything withers if continuous improvement/efficiency is not pursued. The danger of resting on laurels.
Its sad about Mooney. Absolute beast of an aircraft, same fuel consumption as a cherokee but can cruise 40 mph faster and carry 400lbs more. The main downfall is the maintenance costs (Especially here is South Africa)
Useful load in a Mooney is piss poor my friend.
@@ckryegrass11 true but it also doesn’t care if its 300lbs overweight, or the ovation we used didn’t care, the M20C does suck tho
My '67 M20F has 1066 useful and 684 with full fuel. That's Cessna 182 territory
I am reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's speech from 1910, The Man in the Arena: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Unless you have run an airplane company, had to make payroll, manage suppliers with annual CPI cost increases, its hard to accept these assertions.
Companies don’t control all the variables, but they do control most. Outsiders only get one vote and that’s with their dollars, which often is all that matters.
my shorter version: film critics have no stars on the Hollywood Walk of fame
Right. Anyone claims to be a critic. Talkers cannot critic DOERS. Talkers are fakes if they havent done that.
things can be true even if you suck yourself. like. you can call an ugly car ugly, but sit in an uglier car yourself. the point is still valid
Vans Aircraft which makes experimentals is thriving. Just released new RV-15 high wing model. The experimental market is where the money is at. Watching the Veloce 600 project closely. Experimentals have just enough regulation to be safe and enough freedom to allow innovation and low cost.
Down side is they make up for the cost break by requiring an entire shop full of specialty tools to build them. And the time and skill.
@@mzaite Pay an experienced A&P to come with you to prebuy/inspect an already built experimental. Buy it. Done.
@@jonasbaine3538 problem is, A&P. If I have to live under Experimental rules, I'm not also putting up with a damn A&P bill too.
@@mzaite Not understanding your logic. It would be smart to hire an A&P for prebuy inspections on certified or experimental aircraft. For your safety remember?
@@jonasbaine3538 Except a used Experimental can't be fixed by the owner/operator like one built by the owner, so it's as burdensome as a certified aircraft, with the added bonus that you may not even find an A&P willing to even touch it, and if you do, they may be booked up to doomsday by everyone else who found an A&P willing to work on second hand experimentals. So you have to still factor in secondary costs that even the scales back out. The law of conservation of airplane money always applies.
The DA-42 uses a 4 cylinder diesel engine, not a Centurion 4.0 V-8.
After 45 years of flying and 1,500 hours in most Cessnas 150 to 210, most piper singles Cherokee 140 to Lance, Grumman Yankee to Tiger, Mooney M20c to 201, Lancair 320 and 360 and Piper Navajo and Cub on floats if I had to choose a plane to buy, fly and own manual gear Mooney E or F. Efficient, fast, easy to fly can take 4 passengers when necessary (back seat of E is tight). Lancair is faster but no room and VERY sensitive on controls. Pick the plane for the mission.
Apparently they want the private VFR pilots out of the sky. As commercial aviation has expanded, they have plastered Europe with control and no-fly zones. In Spain you need a flight plan for each flight even training patterns.
Wait... Mooney failed? They're not exactly a start-up... They're almost as much a household name as Piper and Cessna in the 4-cylinder aviation market.
I’m a real pilot here and I will most definitely pick up that chute over anything the M20 offers. As I get older and less reckless and also have a family, I’m not willing to compromise on safety. And that chute has demonstrated to be a lifesaver. Plus I have flown the sr22 and it’s a great flying airplane.
The cost increased dramatically with the lawsuits and awards that drove Piper into bankruptcy, and affected engine and parts manufacturers as well. Look up some of the absolutely ridiculous suits/awards of the 80s/90s.
Mooney all the way! Had a TLS and it was an amazing plane. Fast, fuel efficient, and really fun to fly. It could land in any kind of wind. Without a doubt my next plane will be a Mooney.
Mooney’s also have an inexpensive landing gear to maintain (unlike most other retracts that result in expensive annuals).
As an avionics tech, I have literally told a Mooney customer, "Bring a wheelbarrow of cash, then I'll look at your plane. After that, I'll tell you how many wheelbarrows to bring to fix it."
...well then you're part of the problem? :-( Aircraft avionics (The Garmin 1000... those glorified iPads with 5-digit pricetages) are perhaps about as bad as the $50'000+ Lycoming-540 engines... I've flown a Cessna where the owner hardwired a literal Apple iPad with ForeFlight to the panel, as an nav :-D It was cringe but heck, it worked, and saved him thousands, so...
I flew with a highly experienced, ex-military test pilot in the first Icon A5 that came into the country I was in. The first thing he said when we landed was that he would not recommend this aircraft to a low time pilot. If one of the six-pack is an AoA indicator, then that should say enough about it's handling.
Actually the AOA-indicator is sth I'd love to have in every GA aircraft, there's a reason fighters have one. But that's not a knock of the rest of his or your observation.
You can not compare the Icon with any other aircraft on your list. That is like trying to drive a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer. The Icon A5 is a purpose built aircraft with a limited scope of usage. For instance, you could not get the Cirrus to pass the FAA requirements for LSAs. You can not get a Diamond DA42 into your average household garage. And, the Mooney is not amphibious. The issue with Icon is that they miscalculated the market and their capital needs. Also, the inclusion of a turbine-powered aircraft in your list is a serious gaffe. It does not matter that it is an experimental aircraft. The cost of the engine alone is out of most pilot’s reach. Combine those two issues and you have an outrageously expensive aircraft that you can not use commercially or in training other pilots besides the owner.
At the year of 2023, I am renting a 1960s Cessna 150. Only the avionics are outdated. And a smart phone with ForeFlight is good to go in most vfr cases. I think in the future, the google map will have an aviation option and most planes’ avionics will have something like Apple CarPlay. A fancy cockpit is cool but if it cost too much I would rather stay with the steam gauges.
Aviation over regulation plays a big part in the outrageous cost. Then it is insurance liability and the rest can be attributed to lack of economies of scale. When you have to hand build everything with skilled people in America, that is expensive.
Quantify the cost of a food server pouring water into your drinking glass cup. Electric forklift mechanics can charge upwards of $90 to pour water into those batteries.
GA is not over regulated in the us. In fact the FAA for some 50 years have done a range of things to open it up and let it grow. Creation of the ultralight category, sport pilot, 50/50 fast build kits, LSA, even spending money on powerplant research. You can build an experimental and basically do anything you like. The market is small and the parts and materials are expensive, it's always been that way and always will be. Part of the issue just seems to be expectations, that people mentally map their experience with for example automobiles and mobile phones onto aviation and expect it to be similar.
Totally agree. Privately, I'm flying the DA40 NG. Fabulous, with its Jet-Fuel powered FADEC engine and less fuel burn. I think, Cirrus has to come out with this.
a Cirrus with RG would be great looking plane
I love the looks of the Mooney way more than Cirrus
I heard in an interview with someone that owns a company that builds stunt planes, that the main reason for a lack of innovation for airplane engines are the Aerospace agency’s because every technology has to be tested by them so it is allowed in an aircraft which is very complicated and expensive.
Gotta admit, the marketing reel makes it look like a fun little plane.
I know right?! I looked at it and thought "I want one!", then I saw how much it costs! 😭
got to fly a demo one the other day and I was definitely impressed. Wouldn’t pay anywhere close to that amount but I’m definitely not in their price demographic. that being said you can’t take away it was just damn good fun
One company that has NOT failed, but has been extremely successful over the years, although they don't sell complete aircraft. That would be Van's RV series.
Well, that didn’t age so well
@@timothy____1989 they'll still be around though, Piper went bankrupt like 3 times in their history, they're still here...
@@PRH123 I certainly hope so👍🏼
6:33 . There are still benefits to scale even with hand built planes. Further, if the scale was large enough, we could start automating processes to reduce costs even further.
Yes! Also cost of development and some infrastructure costs (like composite matrices) spread across multiple aircraft...
Who's "we"..? :) Vans aircraft over invested in automation, CNC machines, presses, and match drilling machines, and as a result are now going thru bankruptcy..... the potential market is just not large enough...
12:20 "Only a few pilots are interested in flying experimental aircraft"? My goodness, have you not noticed how experimental aircraft are absolutely crushing the certified aircraft market? Most small pilot-owners are switching to experimental to reduce costs, since certified GA aircraft prices and operating costs have gotten insane in the last few years.
These are all great aircraft. They can't sell them because there is an abundance of used aircraft at a fraction of the cost. If you want to build a new airplane you need to be building the kind that people use so much they wear out, like trainers or package delivery aircraft.
Also as mentioned in the video, the buyers have a 15 year window (45-60) and require having $1M to spend on a toy. So that's not what you could call a HUGE market.
I absolutely love the Icon A5. I’ve always wanted one. (And still kind of do) But I refuse to pay the crazy ass expensive prize they want. At $140k, like we were originally told, it’s spot on for other new LSA’s. But the $300k+ asking price, plus all the other BS associated with owning one, is just absurd.
It's just an unfortunate fact of GA that everything is way too expensive now, including LSAs. A base model Cessna 150 cost $7k in 1960, that's $71k adjusted for inflation, the now defunct made-in-China Cessna 162's inflation adjusted base price was $140k!
TBH private aviation in the United States is and has been failing for years, over regulation and rising costs for aircraft/parts fuel and certification has pushed it out of the reach of most people here. Commercial aviation is also in bad shape with a lack of new pilots to replace pilots that are ageing out..
Given Textron's history with the TTX, I have little faith the Pipistrel will survive the bean counters, production mishaps and complete lack of understanding of what a new generation of GA buyers want in a plane. But otherwise it looks great. Right now in some Textron cube farm, an accountant declares, "OK, it's decided. We build the composite factory in Costa Rica." Because that's pretty much how I think they make most of their decisions.
It's an awesome plane still limited by the horrible engine.
Its unlikely they will change much of current operations considering the factories already exist. Wouldn't be worth the hassle. I do however fully believe that Textron will dissolve the company and keep its Electric Aircraft technology moving it into other companies they hold.
@@chiimotosuwa8423 Yeah. That was my first thought when I heard of the sale. They just bought the patents on the electric plane.
If remembered right the agreement between old owner and the Textron will maintain the current facilities of Pipistrel also the people working there it can expand to another locations but not in a cost of current product facilities.
Ya, Textron, Stupidity is doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result. The world may be different in the future but i not going to be the result of anything done by Textron. Textron is just taking players out of the game that threaten them.
Long ago (1967) I was in a flying club that bought a new Mooney Executive 21 (M20F), the first of the long-cabin Mooneys and a great plane. It cost $20,000 ($183K in today's dollars) brand new with one NavCom radio. That plane would cost more than double (three times?) that number today.
The problem with the Icon is that it is a light sport aircraft that cost as much as a really nice Cessna 182. The fact that it is amphibious is a gimmick that a lot of owners don’t even seem to use that often.
For a million I'd either zero time a Bonanza 35. Or buy a really really nice Lancair Legacy or Glasair 3.
At 4:15, when the price rises from $140,000 to $389,000, that's not a rise of 50%. It's a rise of about 178%
Why would anybody buy an Icon when a totally refurb Seabee or Lake is cheaper????
The cost, skill and time required will forever relegate recreational flights to an oddity. When or if autopiloted drones are perfected this will change. I loved flying but even with an income 10x the local average it’s a stretch. With a wife and a couple little ones forget about it.
Agreed that general aviation engines and ignitions need a major updating. Ergonomics using available tech should also be built into the new fleet with heads-up displays of written ATC communications and voice-recognition technology. We've reached the limits of how fast all that static-filled, stepped-on, open-mike radio talk can be without read backs and errors undermining the system's safe and efficient operations.
It's 2023 and there is still no replacement for 100LL or TEL. I watched a Lycoming O-320 grenade in an A&P class back in 08 when the instructor wanted to show what ethanol would do to aircraft engines. BOOM!
There is a huge difference in ethos between Mooney buyers and Cirrus buyers. The Mooney, with its notoriuosly finicky handling characteristics and cruise speeds unheard of at the time of its introduction appeals to confidently skilled pilots, who believe in overcoming challemges through mastery. The Cirrus is today's "V-tailed doctor-killer", appealing mostly to buyers with more dollars than sense. Of the two, the latter is over-represented in accident statistics in proportion to its flying numbers, however it must be said that the CAPS parachute system hs proven itself to be more than a sales gimmick, having saved quite a few from peril. As for FADEC, I would be very surprised if Cirrus did not introduce this within the next few years, but probably not using an automobile engine. Remember, this too has been attempted many times, never successfully in the past.
350K for an Icon, and you can't even fill the fuel tanks while carrying two people. Let alone carry any bags. Cool plane....For 150K. 350K? Nah bruh.
It's ridiculous how expensive GA is... never used to be this way back in the day. That is the real reason new GA companies fail. The only ones that will survive are ones that grab the attention of multi-millionaires, just like super cars.
Am I alone in hating this narration? Like his pronunciations, inflections and the way, he speaks? 5:00 what is a “contentuous“ provision? 11:25 the prop “feethers“ itself ?! Also, it’s the cost stupid (a take on “it’s the economy stupid”)
Throttle, prop, mixture. Simple cable knobs not prone to failure, and cheap. Something to think about
how correct you are...
The cirrus is a fine looking aircraft, but the Mooney is much better looking.
Problem with Cirrus is that parachute in plane required additional regular training (mandatory if like to reduce insurance costs) and more expensive insurance as more complex machine ... by the way if use parachute ... plane is written off (Cirrus) ... if crashed as well ... there is no legal chance to restore it ... even if is damaged landing gear ... (problem with plastic body light planes .., in general for metal/wood ones there is variants )
FSX and the Mooney Bravo will always hold a special place in me
The latest version includes an Ovation…. Sweeeet! 😃
Mooney was never a competitor with Cirrus. Mooney first started producing the 20 in the 1950s and competed with the Bonanza 35, 33, and 36. They didn’t start competing with Cirrus until the 1990s when Beech, Mooney, Piper, and Cessna resurrected themselves in the wake of the passing of legislation around 1995-1996. Cirrus was late to the party, and their main selling point is the parachute. The SR20 series has basically replaced the Bonanza as the doctor killer because people think that the parachute is going to magically save them (even though there’s a list of airspeeds and altitudes for which the parachute cannot be successfully deployed in the POH).
The sr 22 will be a lawn ornament when the airframe times out.
I'm confused about a thesis of this video. What were you trying to say? Have you actually answered the question that is in the title? Seems that you've jumped from topic to topic without a meaningful structure or conclusion. If anything, based on what you said the old plane companies should have failed first. So why didn't Textron fail? And why Mooney did (multiple times)? Is Cirrus a new airplane company or an old airplane company (they've been on the market for over 30 years now)?
Certificated airplanes that are properly maintained and annualled have a very long lifespan. You can buy a 30 to 40-ear-old Cessna that will perform pretty much the same as a new one costing 6X as much, you can fly it for quite a few years and sell it for what you paid for it. Yes, you'll be putting a lot of money into it as well-welcome to aviation. Any new plane is going to start depreciating the moment it leaves the factory, and the depreciation allowances for businesses aren't what they used to be. You will probably be paying a little more for maintenance and parts with an old plane, but a lot less for insurance and you'll save hundreds of thousands in the initial price. There are any number of start-ups over the years that bought the type certificates for existing planes, advertised their new improved model, then went bankrupt leaving local governments that gave them tax incentives holding the bag.
@@spaceranger3728 yet there is a multi-year line to get a new Cirrus, a Diamond or a Cessna. No, it’s not that simple. And the more complex the airplane (let’s say a twin retract with FIKI) - the less sense it is to buy old compared to new - increased maintenance risks would easily outweigh depreciation (which is very small in a high-inflation environment)
@@YaroslavNechaev There's a multi year waitlist because they take so darn long to MAKE. And new performance twins that are FIKI without requiring a Type Rating are not even a thing. Closest you get is the Diamond DA-62 and that's tiny as hell and not REALLY FIKI. It's get out of jail fee "FIKI" AND it only goes barely faster than an SR-22T
@@mzaite I'm confused as to what part of my comment are you disagreeing with. Regardless of my/yours opinion about FIKI and twins that wasn't the point of the comment. The point was that the more complex the airplane the less sense it is to buy old. If you buy a really old Boeing 747 it will consume a small country budget in operating costs yet you can scoop one up for the price of a new DA-62. A new 747 will cost way less to operate but way more to buy. P.S. your part about time-to-build for an airplane doesn't make sense - it doesn't matter how long each individual airplane is to make, what matters is how many the company can produce per year vs how many orders it has on the books. It's a simple question of supply and demand.
@@YaroslavNechaev I'm disagreeing with your belief that the small true performance sector with FIKI is even available as new. It's really not. Nobody is cross shopping a Cessna 310Q Or a Sennica V against a 747. And you aren't cross shopping either against anything new because other than the underperforming DA-62, there isn't anything new to cross shop. And time on the wait list does make sense. If Cirrus could crank out 60 planes a month, there would be no wait list. It only exists BECAUSE they take forever to make. No amount of Demand can realistically change their supply. Layup and cure still takes what it takes. And so, it doesn't take many orders to get a wait list going.
It’s simple: the reason many people don’t buy airplanes is because they are so expensive. It’s not about innovation or modernization or anything like that. It’s all about money. Case in point: the 162 Skycatcher. Cessna introduced it as a new airplane, under $100,000 and capable of LSA and certified operations. But they tried to “innovate” with glass cockpits, carbon fiber structures and all the “new” stuff. The result was a plane that doubled in cost, lost over half it’s pretty orders and ceased production at 200 units. Meanwhile, “antique” 172s and Cherokees are selling left and right with “outdated” equipment all because they are far more affordable. Simple fix: if you want to sell more airplanes, make them cheaper. If that means going for old steam gauges instead of G1000s, then so be it.
Don't forget the whole almost everything is a denied medical part too! High Blood Pressure? screw you, walk. Sleep Apnea? screw You, walk! Prediabetic? screw You, walk! ANY history of Depression? Jump through these expensive hoops, oh and still, screw You, Walk! If you take care of your health at all once you're old enough to actually buy a plane, your medical is on borrowed time.
The parachute on the Cirrus is marginally useful. Cirrus still has a higher fatality rate than Diamond, and there are no parachuted Diamonds. There are also plenty of recorded instances of the parachute outright failing to deploy. The parachute is a crutch. Better off having a plane that doesn't need one.
I think the Cirrus fatalities have dropped in recent years, since Cirrus started training the pilots to pop the chute when they realize they're in trouble, not when they can see the ground rushing at them.
about engines... experimental aviation has been turning to modded car engines (mostly around L4 on the 2 liter capacity). with modern dual ecus, individual dual coils per cylinder and water cooled. runing on regular gas. down here theres a basic design that many people has been building around the honda 1.5 found on the honda fit and honda city,. the first one is powered by a 1.4 fiat from the early 2000´s from a scraped fiat uno. that plane built a few years ago has now over 9000 hours and no engine issues or rebuilds or nothing. just regular car mainteneance.
hmm.... 9000 hours on a piston engine... running at 75%-100% power... don't be offended, but don't believe it.... If that plane was flying 10 hours per week it would take 18 years to accumulate that many hours...
met the designer/builder/owner last year. showed him some pics i took during 2000 EAA meeting, and realized it was the same plane. waiting to be covered. so, the plane has been flying since late 2000 thats 23 years. @@PRH123 the plane, is his work. eveery potential client gets a ride. also its been used to make long range trips to several meetings in argentina. the other one i know. with a honda 1.5 flies every weekend with at least a long trip every month (around 2500 km start to end. )
8:52 I agree. I’m not interested in the parachute.
What this video doesn't mention is that in the end, all of them had to sell out - to China (Cirrus, Diamond), to the Islamic Somethingorother of Brunei (Piper), to Textron (Columbia) to survive. And still new aircraft have moved upward in price so far above inflation it's just gobsmacking. Seeing as how much more computerisation there is, it's like the one area in IT that defies Moore's Law. And yet, some, like Diamond, can't keep up with orders. I was cheerfully told that waitlists for a DA62 are 3-4 years. For a AU$2million twin. Reminds me of Mercedes Benz in the 70s - the patience was as much part of entering the elusive club as the price tag.
Those this apply to evtols?
Failing, Failed, Will fail.....Best thumbnail ever.
I don't think op really understands how much it costs to certify an aircraft, or how much it costs to create or install an stc. Yes, all the electronic fun with engine controls and single lever power is neat, but it's expensive as hell to develop, and MUCH more expensive to update the engineering. Yes, it's about the regulations. But getting rid of the regulations is how you end up with the Boeing MAX.
As a pilot, I enjoy the engineering and technology in aircraft. The "glass panel" is one of the most expensive add-ons to modern cockpits, but it is also the equipment most of us desire. Marketing to the average person a "flying car" is the wrong approach. Pilots are a very select group and want the challenge of flight, not a computer to fly us, but a tool to assist us. Market the usefulness and efficiency of the technology. Yes, costs are out of reach for most people. That being said, in the end aviation, renting or owning is just too expensive for the average person.
The SR22 needs the parachute for certification, the Mooney does not. With Mooney in and out of business, it is hard for them to make a case for stable support.
Lol this is not true. The cirrus didn’t need the parachute for certification. This is the biggest urban legend started by pilots that didn’t like the idea of parachutes.
@@jaredh723 Yes it has not demonstrated one-turn recovery, so the CAPS was accepted as an alternative.
Haha Carmelo. This is ignorance. Please look up the Cirrus Aircraft passing EASA certification. They had to demonstrate the same spin recovery as every other airplane sold in Europe. I can send you a link if you need.
@@Hockey20620 Why do you want to split hairs on this? Yes I know about the wing cuff design, the bypassing of the spin requirements (and yes it can recover) with the chute. Blah blah blah. We get it. So what.
The Mooney m20 Acclaim is the best damn aircraft of its kind, imo...
Expensive r/d costs, expensive prototype costs, expensive certification costs, expensive fuel costs, expensive training costs.. it's still cheaper to own and operate 30+ yr old aircraft in an oversaturated market where the vast majority of potential customers can't afford a $1 mil+ aircraft.
It boils down to what the customer sees as a value proposition. All things being equal, if you offer a value product, it will sell - simple.
"Value" is on the mark. Most single engine aircraft owners keep aircraft on the ground for value, personal time in the air loses value.
The age of GA and more specifically light aviation is over. Has been for over 23 years. Its purpose no longer exists. Combined with funding and licensure make it an ongoing impossible task for most but the well healed. When I received my license 43 years ago it was still something that could be approached. In my case was able to work at a small private airport in Vermont. Trading labor for flight lessons. The airframes although old by those time still current with the technologies. That cannot be said of today. Still own a 67 Cessna 150 but every year more and more technology requirements are added to the mix. Bought it for a bit over six thousand dollars some 35 years ago. Looking at what the market prices it at it would be impossible for me to purchase it today in inflation adjusted dollars.
The last 2 years have seen more student pilots than any years before...GA is booming
The ICON is a POS that can only carry 400lbs before fuel. It's basically a 1 person plane.
GA is dying or killing itself due to excess regulation and ovepricing on every aircraft. There are or were many, hundreds, maybe thousands of wannabe pilots like me that had to surrender or quit aviation because we are not rich enough to afford even the cheapest aircraft an old cessna 150 or the new category LSA that started cheap and has skyrocketed too. My staring salary as a private worker was $7.25/hour years ago, today in PR the cost of one flying hour is at $250 or more on the smallest or cheapest aircraft too. they are killing the desire for new pilots as not to many can afford those pricings, the real true.
Feeters itself? Feathers!
I reckon the Mooney wills still be going strong when the last Cirrus is no more.
Mooney > cirrus. Every day of the week
In the kit homebuilt aircraft the 'Plane Jane' Van's RV planes outsell all others. With over 10,000 sold.
It helps that they're better in every possible way. Except the damn 51% rule.
Everyone overlooks the fact that the SR22 NEEDS a parachute otherwise you die in a stall-spin.
I think the main problems with the aircraft industry are regulation, cost of production and used market oversaturation. Getting into general aviation is a huge investment before you even buy the plane. It's tens of thousands to just get into the club, if you want to be a licensed pilot. Then you've gotta pony up an exorbitant amount for a new certified aircraft, buy a cheaper one built in someone's garage or buy a used certified. Used GA don't normally get scrapped in running condition and don't crash at a high rate so there's loads of them out there. I've flown in loads of aircraft and the only one newer than 1979 was a powered parachute.
I agree with all in this vlog, excellent work.
Amazing video bro
IMO the SR22 is not the leader of general aviation. The Skyhawk has been the king since it was first produced, and before that the cub. I’d say it’s just about impossible for a more modern airplane manufacturer to compete with 172 sales
As a 50 y/o guy who just got his PPL, the FADEC based aircraft are so much more attractive. Going experimental route is also attractive for the same reasons. Professional pilots by themselves can not maintain volume for these companies. Lower the workload, increase training and safety management, the industry owes it to itself to attract hordes of new well trained pilots who can afford to spend around 500K.
It is the cost of certification and the liability that drives the high cost of certified aircraft. Reliability is the main reason change happens so slowly. Lawn mower engines now use electronic ignition, plane mags still have points and are now required to be rebuilt every 500 hrs. A car ignition can go 100,000mi. With no attention.
They're kicking Mags in a lot of new engines sold now. Makes it work better with Un-leaded due to better spark timing control, and the units are now redundant without needing FADEC. Next big Magneto job just chuck em and switch to the new ignitions.
Plane mags are not required to be rebuilt at 500hrs…. But, many people that fly in IMC prefer to OH them regularly at 500hours…. The newer electronic mags are taking a strong foothold in this area…. Mechanical things wear, adding high voltage to them makes them dirtier and wear faster…. 😃
continental engines needs more technological advancement in fuel and ignition management.... says who? engine technology may be outdated. but very few can afford the new tech and even fewer are willing to fund R&D for GA. stable business model means tried and true. most pilots are looking for something superior that burns diesel..... you mean turboprop with FADEC?
Especially in 2023. Even the people who can afford a GA plane are going to be having more and more trouble justifying the cost of any new engine tech with inflation going buckwild
Fortunately, with aviation…. The engine controls get set for cruise and stay there for hours… people often get their best mileage running the engine LOP…. Maximum efficiency as 100% of the fuel is converted to mechanical power… none wasted on cylinder cooling… No new high tech required!
Have a look on europes microlight industry, very fast (230-300 km/h) small (2-seater) airplanes with small motors. Thats a different story to Pipers from the sixties with 6 liter motors. And they are deregulated no EASA sportplanes.
Amazing Icon can still show low level formation flying and what appears to be flying below 500 ft AGL when not taking off or landing. Seems that the formation flying is a pretty advanced skill even at a higher elevation.
The Diamond DA-40NG is a single engine Jet-A FADEC. I prefer it over the SR22.
I’ve just completed an RV12IS , the cost of this was 200K AUD …. I’m now building another RV7 and won’t have change of 250k . That is using my 1000 hrs of labor , I can see why aircraft are so expensive to buy Re cost of an experimental build.
And you haven't even counted all the tools and work space you needed.
You have a good point. Building and certifying aircraft is not cheap. I don't see an issue with Icon's price given their low production rate and method of manufacture.
I think the key to mass take up of light aircraft lies in the adoption of standardise fly-by-wire controls with auto-stabilizer, making light manned aircraft simply scaled up model RC aircraft, without the RC. If the components could be approved and produced in large enough numbers, installing the system could be much simpler than installing the rod/cable mechanical systems currently used and could result in much cheaper airframes. Persuading the authorities might be a problem, unless NASA came up with the idea.
RC tech scaled up for an autopilot makes sense. Fly by wire in small aircraft does not, by the time you got enough redundancy in place to make it safe the cost would be quite high and very likely weigh far more than mechanical controls. Cables pulleys and pushrods work well, are lightweight, inexpensive and very reliable. They also work if the electrical system fails unlike fly by wire. If you want to make general aviation cheaper then fix the tort laws.
@@ulbuilder Let me guess. The tort laws allow those who are injured in an aviation accident to sue the manufacturer for millions even ini the absence of clear evidence that they are responsible, so it is too risky to manufacture lower-cast planes?
@@ulbuilder agree. Ive flown RC for many years and sooner or later, they all crash. Many (most?) from electrical system and RF failures of some sort. As a full scale pilot now, I would never rely on fly by wire
Disagree. 1:Do you really propose that aircraft are so expensive because of the complicated control mechanisms? 2:RC's don't need auto stabilizers unless you're building unstable planes. On an LSA it would be of no use. 3: RC's are so cheap because they have poor performance. Fly relatively slow, no pilot to carry, no +6-3G requirements, so you can get away with really heavy and inefficient structures like gluing balsa pieces together. Do that in an LSA and you'll be overweight at empty.
Why would anyone want to spend the effort, time, and money to develop a new reciprocating internal combustion engine that has a ton of liability and will potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, certify, manufacture, market, and distribute? Then there's the issue of training mechanics and providing parts distribution and technical support... All this when these engines have a very large number of moving parts and all it takes is one small part failing (say a valve stem keeper) to cause the shutdown and possible catastrophic failure of the entire engine? Compare this to a turbine engine, which burns jet A all day long and only has one, yes 1, moving part and are known to be light weight and very powerful! That's right, turbine engines only have one moving part, ok sometimes two or possibly three for large turbine engines but all in the same shaft, and are known for their reliability and longevity. The major cost of any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or other component is the cost of liability insurance and certification costs. If one could avoid these, we would have had general aviation aircraft that would have been so much more reliable, fuel efficient, and technologically advanced than we do now.
6:26 of course production costs go down with scale. There are fixed costs associated with aircraft production just like with any manufacturing business regardless of how automated it is.
Mooney (1929) and Cirrus (1984) are hardly "new airplane companies". General aviation was a good business until late 1980s when attorneys found out that you can get a jury to award ten times as much compensation to a death from an airplane crash than from the exact same participants in an automobile crash. They also managed to make aircraft manufacturers liable when pilots were primarily at fault through deep pockets laws, unlike automobile manufacturers. The cost of a middling GA aircraft went from a two or three years of the average wage earners income to ten times. Manufacturer liability insurance went from single digit thousands per unit to more than a hundred thousand. This often more than doubled the cost of the aircraft. Far fewer people could afford the now much more expensive new machines that were little different than used ones, due to FAA certification costs, and new sales cratered as much as 90%. With far fewer units across which to spread fixed engineering and other costs, prices went even higher. Manufacturers shifted focus to more upscale products sold to businesses, turbine and jet aircraft, and the piston aircraft industry became a niche, money losing business. Both Mooney and Cirrus are now owned by Chinese companies directly or indirectly controlled by the Chinese government. Neither publish profit/loss statements. Icon's majority shareholder is also the Chinese government.
Regulations and cost....flying is very much an elite sport
Actually, the importance of marketing cannot be OVERestimated (but should not be underestimated :-) )
Part of Icon's problem is that an aircraft that is supposed to cost less than $140,000 actually costs $367,000 on delivery.
Look at Tecnam on how innovation is successfully mixed with legacy. What you missed is the fact that the ones that will fail are also Cessna and Piper, both companies that like Boeing have given up their engineering roots in favour of pure financial logic - which is the entropy of aviation.
yeah..they spent it on the boat..could use an ejection or parachute escape... some de icing issues....plus it s no use in that market..it will sell in time..negotiate market shares, is what i could say. .happy flying..
If you take a look at successful automobile manufacturers, they all share some common characteristics. They have wholesale deals for the materials used, they maintain control of proprietary technologies and features and they manufacture or have exclusive relationships with manufacturers to make all components including engines and drivetrains, instruments, lights, wheels and brakes etc.. The final feature is they sell the product at a price that is obtainable. Aircraft use universal engines, instruments, autopilots, wheels and brakes. They all have the same supplier options for materials. They all set their pricing in the range of lavish and luxury. The cost of operation and maintenance is prohibitive.
Will Epic E1000GX fail? Will Diamond DA62 fail?
Icon A5 is such a prime example of designing a beautiful product (that if it wasn't so shitty and expensive, i would love to own one day) yet managed to fuck up literally everything else. I read reviews of actually people that flew it, and they dont have many positives to say about it. They all complain about shoddy manufacturing quality from the interior to the exterior, and that they are designed in such way that maintenance is a nightmare that takes entire weeks and a lot of money. Yes, i know many others managed to make small hydroplanes for much cheaper, but i really liked how the A5 looked.
So.. tesla of planes.
@@airworks7809 Yes, except prettier and not virtue signalling on eco friendly.
There is something the Mooney M20 models have to offer the plastic planes don't have: A history of record flights with unmodified or slightly modified production planes. In my time at Bonn-Hangelar airfield (EDKB) in Germany where the dealership for Germany and Austria used to be (Superbly nice folks!) I witnessed two records broken. In 1984, an owner off a Mooney 231 (M20K, if I have the model names right) stripped out the interior of the plane to the bare minimum needed and took it to some 14000 metres/40000ft. It must have been in 1995 when Wolfgang, the CEO of the dealership, told me a Mooney Ovation had set a world record for normally aspirated planes when doing Newfloundland to Shannon/Ireland in just over seven hours on her ferry flight. Take that, fixed gear-plastic pilots! If anything out there really is competition for newly built Mooney M20s, it's second hand planes. That's because Mooneys, besides being high performers, are durable. Just wait another ten years and watch all first generation composite planes get grounded due to UV erosion while the sturdy metal planes keep flying!
I believe the FAA cannot even fall back on the claim that "It's all for people's safety!" I believe it is making aviation LESS safe because when costs of things are x10 of what they could've been without them in the way - people (owners, operators, pilots) - will cut corners everywhere they can away with. I've seen my share of aircraft which are legally flightworthy but practically I just walked away from them after a preflight inspection thinking "Nope, not taking off in this peace of...". And that's coming from someone who rides sportbikes year round... Aircraft companies, and private builders - don't need the FAA to tell them to build things such that they are safe. But if not for the FAA - the operating costs would be so much lower that things would've been built better, people would replace parts when they honestly ought to be replaced, with what WORKS BEST, rather than with what's legally certified.