I can see how some juries would consider the older systems ‘flawed’, but I don’t think design changes really count. AIUI, the problem is that the new systems have to be certified, and that is a very expensive undertaking; so they just keep using the older designs to save the expense.
Porsche made the PFM 3200 engine in the 1980s (after having offered the 678 series from 1957 to 1963), but the introduction of the ‘single-lever’ PFM coincided with the crash of the aviation industry and they surrendered the type certificate in the '90s and will no longer provide parts or support for them.
Well, sort of. I see the maneuvers as: aileron roll, loop, sort of a chandelle, barrel roll, 3 rotation spin, hammerhead, snap roll, and tail slide. Now the chandelle was probably only 2g, but I think that loop entry was 3g. The other thing is that the tail slide recovery was from the neggie side. Great way to throw up, neggies.
Hubby is on flight test this week. He said it was ok for me to show you the link to today’s test flight. You can change the perspective with the pull-down upper right.
Just saw a Cirrus 22 inbound at 203kts. Stepped out on the front porch, heard a plane, looked North, and there he goes about a half mile away!
Of course, if you’re an uber-geek like me, you watch ships, too, when you’re near the water…
For some reason, my MIL has to know what that ship is right there when we sit on the porch of our house in Ponte Vedra, so I hooked her up. Now, she sits with her Ipad and binoculars, and watches the port traffic up at Jacksonville.
Naw, he’s a fireman. They don’t let him fly the plane, no matter how much experience he has on the FA-18 game I gave him 15 years ago! Can you say, “ground support?”
After some repairs or an instrumentation change, they might want to take it up for a test flight. Yeager got his start in flight test as a maintenance test pilot at Wright Patterson. The P-80s they were flying then needed an engine rebuild after 10 hours. He’d have to try them out before they’d be released to the flight line. He rapidly build up more hours in a P-80 than any of the pilots in the squadrons.
In our company we flight test all aircraft after completing a C check. It involves a test of all systems including the stick shaker. We don’t scribble as much as that though.
Sporty’s Pilot Shop posted this on Facebook, and I thought it was worth reminding people why General Aviation is so great. Maybe it will inspire the non-pilots reading this thread.
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway will take you anywhere.
I remember that paint scheme, and the ‘Take Off’ promotion. I liked the scheme. It was more striking than the moretypical ones of the time. I couldn’t find a page on the Take Off promotion. That was in a decade when personal flying was… erm, ‘taking off’. (There were over 7,300 Cessna 172Ms produced in its four-year run, and over 6,400 172Ns made during between the 1977 and 1980 year-models.) It was a time when a middle-class worker could buy a Cessna 150, and a middle middle-class worker could buy a Skyhawk.
I miss the times when personal flying was marketed to the masses.
Remember the Piper Tomahawk came out in 1978 to compete with the 150. That’s when I started flying, and thought the T-tail was sophisticated and cool as hell!
That kind of price normally means the engine is timed out and the owner has decided to sell rather than spend $25K on a rebuild. So, you’re looking at a $45K airplane. Possibly, there’s an expensive AD or some history of structural damage.
Re the Cessna 162 pricing and manufacturing strategy: Remember that the single-engine business is virtually an afterthought for them, and one which they’d probably rather not get into if they were starting today. Their main source of revenue is the bizjet line - they make tens of millions on a Citation V sale, but only tens of *thousands *on a 172 sale. Looking only at the bizjet market, the huge untapped market for the next few decades is China. Selling big-time there means making connections and partnerships. Contracting 162 assembly out to Shenyang was a part of that, and it’s paid off in bizjet sales. So the price is high and sales aren’t what they could be for the 162? What would it take to make them care enough to distract them from their main line of business?
The Tomahawk, IIRC, was a cheap (NOT just inexpensive) knock-off of the Beech Skipper.
It was designed and prtotyped/certified in one shop, and then moved to Vero Beach for production.
I’m too lazy, but a quick review of AB’s and SD’s for them would explain a $20K price.
There used to be one derelict at San Carlos - I ased the manager’s office about it - the guy actually bought a Tomahawk to use as an IFR Platform. I can see how that would kill interest real fast.
Speaking of disasters - which of those 3xx cabin twins was it that an engine out would cause a crash. Not Often Results, Causes - Cessna actually set up a camera and had film running when their test pilot simulated engine-out.
Professional pilot, has shut off engines in flight 1000;s of times (it’s one of the things a test pilot does), and it still crashed.
