Hacker News Reader

Comment by nether | Hacker News Reader

> Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so.

Really? The Cirrus SR20, SR22 don't count? Haven't they been outselling the 172 for several years now?

View on HN

They're different segments of the market though. A new 172 is closer to a new SR20 than it is to an old 172.

If you want a reasonably priced plane to go buzz around on the weekend, you get a 172 from the 60s-70s for $25k-$60k. If you've got $300k+ to spend on a plane and wanna get the latest and greatest, then you start looking at new 172s or an SR20 or something.

Planes don't really die unless they get crashed, are seriously neglected, or an AD comes out with prohibitively high costs to get in compliance (e.g. L-13 Blanik). Almost all those old planes are still around, so there isn't much reason to be buying new ones. It's a testament to the success of the 172 that 50 years later, nobody is buying new basic trainers and the only way to sell new aircraft is to offer the latest and greatest tech.

Used sr20 is ~100k$. Sr22 is ~140k$

For used planes, have a look at controller.com For used single engine piston planes, it has around

- 400 Cessnas, of which 90 C-172 and 120 C-182

- 200 Cirrus, of which 160 SR22

- 60 Diamonds, of which 50 DA-40

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/categor...

So this reminds me of fiberglass boats- the ones from the 70s and 80s are pretty much all still around:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/cache/searchResults.j...

I'm not sure the Cirruses would make very good trainers. If nothing else, I think you'd want something where the spin recovery procedure is something better than "pull the big red handle and call your insurance company."

Haha, yeah, though to be fair I think we should build that particular handle on everything and train it appropriately, while still training spin recovery. Airframe parachutes are a great idea.

I love the idea of the parachute. But it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be a backup if you can't recover, not the one and only thing you do.

I'm not a flight instructor, but I have to imagine that inadvertent spin entry is something student pilots might do from time to time, in something that can spin. (I did all of my initial training in craft that refused to spin with my weight in them, so it's a bit theoretical for me. I did get spin training later on in something that would actually spin, and I'm glad I did.)

They don't help if you're low enough: https://youtu.be/CRXUZnsST5c

Ugh. That's ugly. The history behind that crash is too.

Yeah; that was a CF all around. Pilot under some stress, air traffic control making it increasingly (and unnecessarily, IMO) worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEVLqRIqd84

Pilot in command ultimately responsible, but damn, ATC did her no favors that day.

I completely agree with your last-resort comment, but the discussion has made me curious about Cirrus' spin-entry and spin-recovery behavior. After an admittedly cursory search, I get the impression that in neither case do they behave badly. The problem here is that the Cirrus' spin certification is predicated on the parachute being the only method of recovery. The article below offers several justifications for not getting the aircraft certified on the basis of standard recovery procedures, which seem to boil down to the principle that the rule 'pop the chute as soon as you are in trouble' is most likely to reduce fatalities. From the point of view of pilot training school economics, the cost of a certain number of write-offs must be balanced against a smaller, but non-zero, probability of fatal spin accidents (beyond the number that not even a parachute would save.)

http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/art...

All slow flight training must be done at a safe altitude. The emphasis on slow flight is familiarity with aircraft handling near stall speed, intentionally stalling it so you can practice proper recovery. There is already a failure if you stall, and then there's a second failure if you don't immediately recover. A stall spin at low altitude requires three failures: stall, stalling at low altitude, improper recovery which then leads to entering the spin (one wing with more developed stall condition than the other).

Right, but with a Cirrus, a stall with an improper recovery that leads to a spin results in a totaled aircraft even at high altitude. The big red handle will save the lives of those onboard, but the insurance company buys the plane as soon as you pull it.

There's only one certificate in the FAA line up that requires actually spinning an aircraft. In that sense the Cirrus makes a perfectly acceptable trainer.

See www.wmich.edu/aviation

I'm not thinking of deliberate spins, but rather that it seems like students might spin by accident from time to time, and it would be good if that didn't automatically total the aircraft.

I've obviously never attempted to intentionally spin a Cirrus but in my experience and in talking with many other instructors in the aircraft it's nearly impossible to get the aircraft to enter a spin. The stall characteristics of the split chord wing make it difficult to even fully stall the aircraft.

I much prefer the Diamond DA-40, beautiful and safe plane.

So long as you're at or under 6ft tall - its a great plane.

Hard to beat the roomyness of the 172 (for it's class)

Ah the mighty katana. Crosswinds can be a bitch, but eh not much different for a piper I suppose

The katana is the -20. The star is the -40 :)

DOH!

I've been in the market for a plane for a while and have yet to fly a da40. What about them so you find better than a 182? They seem more economical in terms of fuel.

It's just a nice pilot's plane, i.e. for flying, not transportation. It combines some advantages of the Cessna (e.g. benign handling, safety) and the Cirrus (e.g. modern, faster than the Cessna tractor). I've never owned one, so can't talk bout maintenance etc. though.

Phil Greenspan has a nice review (though a decade old):

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40

Faster, far more intelligently designed with better ergonomics and UX, can glide forever on a dead engine. The problem is two words: useful load. Good luck putting four adults with bags in a DA40

Can't do that in Cessna 172 either. But yeah, Cessna 182 probably.

There are models with higher useful load, definitely something to look out for, but basically it's a two-seater, or three without luggage, just like the Cessna 172.

> Can't do that in Cessna 172 either. But yeah, Cessna 182 probably.

sure, but the parent was asking about a DA40 vs 182

That's right, and that's probably one of the reasons the DA40 is typically seen to compete with the 172 more than the 182.

If you need 4pax+ load, Diamond doesn't really have anything, unless you upgrade to a twin. The DA50 was supposed to fill that gap in the matrix, I guess.

I wouldn't call either of those trainers. Don't get me wrong, owning a 172 is fine and I'd love to own one. I just wouldn't buy it and say "boy, I've got a fancy, sporty airplane here," even if you stick a G1000 in it like those Cirrus models.

It's a workhorse, like a pickup. Cirrus aircraft are a lot sportier. (You are correct, though, the SR22 sells like hotcakes. I think it's #1.)

At, AFAIK, almost double the cost. They're different parts of the market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com