Hacker News Reader

Comment by cholmon | Hacker News Reader

I did a discovery flight with my son last summer in a C172. We had a blast, but I was pretty surprised how old the plane felt. My recurring thought is that Cessnas are like the TI-85s of airplanes; ubiquitous workhorses frozen in time.

Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?

View on HN

For certified piston aircraft, generally yes. The engines are pretty much made by a few manufacturers based on ancient designs, and while you may get some "newer" benefits in some models, such as fuel injection (instead of carborators), or digital engine control (FADEC), they're pretty much ancient technology compared to modern engines. Most still have manual mixture control for example and very limited monitoring.

The only example in that class (sub $750k) I can think off the top of my head with a better engine is DA40 NG, which uses a modified Mercedes diesel engine.

There is a pretty big "experimental" scene with small and ultra light airplanes. Experimental here basically meaning you can't use it for comercial. So mostly because of the costs of certification and liabilities involved and how the segment of the market is lifestyle/hobyists you end up with a lot of nice modern small planes that only the owner/syndicate flies and only for personal flights.

There's plenty of neat little planes out there, my favorite was basically the go cart equivalent of a jet that I saw at our club airport. Something like this https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070

The GA market pretty much died in the late 80s. Outside of very high end flight schools (think University programs targeting potential airline pilots), or the doctors and dentists flying Cirruses... yea, they pretty much ARE all that old.

Even the 172 went totally out of production for a decade. Cessna almost went under.

Someone else can tell the story better than I can, but supposedly the cost of certification of new light-aircraft models got out of control in the 1980s, which stifled product evolution, so it became more cost-effective to keep a really old plane airworthy than to scrap it and buy the latest and greatest. I do know there's been a lot of innovation in the LSA (light-sport aircraft) segment, so it does seem odd that four-seater and two-seater evolution would diverge so much.

I have a feeling I'm perpetrating a certain angle to the truth (maybe that product-liability lawyers suck). I'm just passing on what I heard -- please don't shoot the messenger. A more comprehensive retelling would be appreciated.

It’s not just Cessnas. Besides the normal wear and tear of a plane that’s potentially 40 years old, most of the single-engine planes at a flight school are going to see extra abuse from all the student pilots.

Student pilots = flying multiple trips several hours almost every day, on a tie down outside.

Compared to the doctor owner pilot who flies 1 hour to get a hamburger once or twice a year, and keeps it hangared the rest of the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com