A new contender for the 172/170

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

A new contender for the 172/170

Post by ghostflyer »

Just been talking with a Vulcan rep about a new aircraft they are producing. It looks like a Cessna 172 [from a distance with one eye shut and a belly full of bourbon ] and carries 4 adults but with a splash of 170 . It has a tubular frame for forward part of The fuselage. It has a a 180 hp Lycoming . While it has a nose wheel at the moment , but a tail wheel version is on its way . It will not carry what a Cessna will as they ask for 77kg adults . So google “Vulcan V1.0 “.
It’s about time cessna did some research and produced a better 172 with a tail wheel option. At a lower cost due to most of the development costs have been covered with previous models.
It’s a development of P64 Oscar by partnavier .
User avatar
Poncho73
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by Poncho73 »

hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by hilltop170 »

It's probably going to be a good plane for flight schools and pilots who just want a "new" plane but I would buy a C-170 any day before I would spend a quarter million dollars on that one.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
MoonlightVFR
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by MoonlightVFR »

Thanks for sharing

I like what I saw in the slide show. 130 ktas to 149.6 MPH this may be TRUTH.

Three real doors PLUS baggage door. Innovative

Clipped wing C170 36 ft W Span minus 4 Ft chopped yield 32 ft for Vulcan.

What would air speed yield be if you cut off 2 ft each side. How fast the C170?
gradyb, '54 B N2890C
User avatar
bsdunek
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:42 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by bsdunek »

Not sure, but I do wonder, are our companies missing something? The production of airplanes that a person could own has slowed to a crawl here. Of course, we need to promote private flying (which AOPA and EAA are doing) to get customers. But, why Italy? Another thing that's happening in Italy is resurrecting color film. Film is a nitch market these days, yet the old Ferrania company is being resurrected. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum390/135 ... rania.html. On another front in photography, a company is resurrecting Polorid! They started out as "The Impossible Project" and are now Polaroid Originals. https://us.polaroidoriginals.com. Will be interesting to see how this all falls out. I would hope it would inspire Cessna, Piper, etc. to take another look at their marketing.
Bruce
1950 170A N5559C
flyboy122
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by flyboy122 »

bsdunek wrote:Not sure, but I do wonder, are our companies missing something? The production of airplanes that a person could own has slowed to a crawl here. .
I here a lot of comments like this, and they make me wonder. It's not like a new 172 only costs $50k to make, and the rest is pure profit for Textron. Or that there are no engineers or marketing people at Cessna who are middle class private pilots and are saying, "Hey guys, there are a ton of people like me out at the airport flying 40 year old clunkers and if we just reduce the price...." Trust me, if Cessna could build a $50k airplane they would!

I'm not trying to pick on Bruce on here. Like I said, I hear this A LOT. Unfortunately most people just don't realize the cost of building new aircraft today. I used to be one of them. Then I went to work for a small OEM. Small volumes, FAA compliance, etc... the list goes on and on. It's not one thing, but a host of things, which means we can't just "Build more!" or "Fix the FAA!" (Witness Icon, which has plenty of investment, plenty of volume, and minimal FAA oversight due to their LSA status.) None of us are getting rich. In fact most of my coworkers admit that we could all make much more money in our respective disciplines if we worked in different industries. (Our spouses remind us of this constantly.) It really is a labor of love. If you haven't, I would urge you to visit a light aircraft OEM and take a tour.

If you really want a new airplane, convince one or two of your airport neighbors to sell their $50k 170/182/etc... and buy a LSA. There are plenty in the $100k-150k range, and some of these are pretty nice planes. Well built, solid, good performers, good flyers. Yeah, they only have 2 seats and you can't fly IFR, but I'd be willing to bet the average 170 owner spends most of his time flying VFR and alone or with one other person. I'm sure many of you will howl that you absolutely need those 4 seats, or can't stand a partner (a partner would be my hangup, BTW), but the reality is that for the average weekend warrior private pilot a nice LSA in a small club would probably cover 90% of their flying and be available 90% of the time they wanted to go flying.

DEM
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by GAHorn »

Development costs are not the reason new 172's cost so much. The basic airframe recovered those costs many decades ago.
But factor in modern labor, materials, and throw in product liability, outrageous corporate shareholders demands and add $100K in glass-cockpit avionics and you'll see why I think a fairly original 1950's-1960's 170 or 172 selling for $40-50K is darn near the perfect airplane.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by ghostflyer »

Well we all could look at the cost of TV,s these days and what they cost 40 years ago . We can look at the cost of the original mobile phone [ cell phones] what they cost in the early days and what they cost now. The cost of the glass cockpit is not that expensive as Garmin would lead you to believe . But the FAA does have a role in the cost structure of aircraft and can do more . There are more efficient ways of riveting a aircraft together also. It doesn’t have to be that labour intensive. Let’s have a look at the car industry how is has evolved in the manufacturing process. It’s all about looking outside of the box and re inventing the wheel.
User avatar
IA DPE
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:46 am

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by IA DPE »

Unfortunately the economies of scale work against us vs. the above examples.

Aviation is just too small a community (and shrinking) to “make it up in volume.”
1955 C170B N2993D s/n 26936
1986 DG-400 N9966C
User avatar
bsdunek
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:42 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by bsdunek »

flyboy122 wrote:
bsdunek wrote:Not sure, but I do wonder, are our companies missing something? The production of airplanes that a person could own has slowed to a crawl here. .
I here a lot of comments like this, and they make me wonder. It's not like a new 172 only costs $50k to make, and the rest is pure profit for Textron. Or that there are no engineers or marketing people at Cessna who are middle class private pilots and are saying, "Hey guys, there are a ton of people like me out at the airport flying 40 year old clunkers and if we just reduce the price...." Trust me, if Cessna could build a $50k airplane they would!

I'm not trying to pick on Bruce on here. Like I said, I hear this A LOT. Unfortunately most people just don't realize the cost of building new aircraft today. I used to be one of them. Then I went to work for a small OEM. Small volumes, FAA compliance, etc... the list goes on and on. It's not one thing, but a host of things, which means we can't just "Build more!" or "Fix the FAA!" (Witness Icon, which has plenty of investment, plenty of volume, and minimal FAA oversight due to their LSA status.) None of us are getting rich. In fact most of my coworkers admit that we could all make much more money in our respective disciplines if we worked in different industries. (Our spouses remind us of this constantly.) It really is a labor of love. If you haven't, I would urge you to visit a light aircraft OEM and take a tour.

If you really want a new airplane, convince one or two of your airport neighbors to sell their $50k 170/182/etc... and buy a LSA. There are plenty in the $100k-150k range, and some of these are pretty nice planes. Well built, solid, good performers, good flyers. Yeah, they only have 2 seats and you can't fly IFR, but I'd be willing to bet the average 170 owner spends most of his time flying VFR and alone or with one other person. I'm sure many of you will howl that you absolutely need those 4 seats, or can't stand a partner (a partner would be my hangup, BTW), but the reality is that for the average weekend warrior private pilot a nice LSA in a small club would probably cover 90% of their flying and be available 90% of the time they wanted to go flying.

DEM
Can't argue with you here. As an engineer with 55 years in industry, I know the costs of low volume production. My thought is in marketing. I just think things could be different there - but - I'm not a marketing guy.
Bruce
1950 170A N5559C
flyboy122
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by flyboy122 »

Bruce,

I am a marketing guy (well, actually I do sales, but we work hand in hand), and I have to agree with you. By and large GA marketing stinks! However, some have managed to break through. Cirrus was/is brilliant. When Alan Klapmeier used to do demo flights, he wouldn't take the customer up and show them stalls, top speed, or cross wind capability. Instead he'd fly their family to the Mall of America for a shopping trip. He wasn't selling a plane, he was selling a lifestyle. And that parachute? If you think that's for safety, well...sorta. What it's really for is to assuage the fears of non aviation savvy spouses. "Honey, don't worry. If anything goes wrong this airplane has a parachute!" Pure marketing genius. Then every year they change something significant on the plane (it's been through 5 wings I think) so that they can go back to those customers and upsell them into a new one. They are going to sell a bazillion of the worst performing jets on the market. These folks know how to get it done.

I was (emphasis on was...we'll get to that in a minute) really excited about Icon's marketing. Again, they sold a lifestyle not a product, and were able to crack open an entirely untapped market segment. However in hindsight equating a seaplane to a jetski may end up with customers treating it with about the same amount of respect. I really, really hope I'm wrong. Still, from a marketing standpoint, it worked!

Pilatus put some stone guards on their new PC-24 bizjet, touted it's "off the pavement" capability, and took some glory shots of it landing on a grass strip. Now, why in the heck would anyone ever need to land your jet on a grass strip? But you could! And instantly they set themselves apart from the white with a swoopy stripe crowd and became cool. If I win the lottery a PC-24 will be in the hanger next to my 170, and I'll look down upon the tarmac bound Citation pilots as I walk from the marble tiled FBO at whatever regional airport with an ILS I landed at this week. Pilatus does not have much trouble selling airplanes.

However, no amount of marketing is going to convince us mere mortals to take out 3 mortgages on his house to buy a new airplane. I really wish we could get back to the glory days of 15,000 new piston airplane sales a year. For a new aircraft salesperson, it must have been a great time!

DEM
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by ghostflyer »

What everybody has said is true. Marketing , design,FAA, costs etc etc, But What has the European manufactures have that the USA has lost. They are getting people excited about flying . Not closing down a factory for a number of years due to a law suit that is false as a wet paper bag. The FAA should have used some muscle and the government should have stepped in also . Lowering taxes , and setting reasonable laws so manufacturing can continue and keep people in work in the country [USA].
Damm, nearly fell off my soap box, hope I haven’t offended anybody. Why I feel so concerned about this subject I have seen and read a paper about the Cessna 177 update done by a aeronautical engineer for Cessna . While Cessna didn’t make any money making the 177 But with the updated design and production methods ,money was going to be made and a better aircraft but it was too revolutionary for the bean counters plus the share holders organisation poo poo the concept.
I could go on but I can hear the sabres rattling.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by GAHorn »

flyboy122 wrote:;;;Pilatus put some stone guards on their new PC-24 bizjet, touted it's "off the pavement" capability, and took some glory shots of it landing on a grass strip. Now, why in the heck would anyone ever need to land your jet on a grass strip? ...
Nothing new there... The 1962 DH-125 was certified for grass and unimproved strips, and I actually landed one on the turf Runway 27 at Gloucestershire in1988.

ARCO operated a couple of Hawker 125's off gravel and dirt strips in Alaska for years. I believe Richard Pulley might recall a few of those flights. Those airplanes had "gravel kits" installed on their landing gear and flaps to handle the FOD. The engines (Bristol-Siddeley/Rolls-Royce Vipers) ate FOD like it was small birds.... no problem.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by hilltop170 »

Yep, made several flights to the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oilfield’s gravel runways in the DH-125, they were flown year-round in the Arctic. Those flights usually were reserved for upper management but us peon supervisors got a ride every now and then. Last person to board was the bartender, southbound flights only! The rest of my 500+ round trips to the Arctic were first in the back of 727s, then later in 737s, all also gravel kit equipped.

An interesting note, all of our company aircraft, including the jets were operated under Part 91 and if you knew the pilots they would let you ride up front in the jump seat. I did that probably 50 times thru the years including my very last trip south from Prudhoe Bay in 2003.

There are still lots of gravel runways in Alaska and Canada and the PC24 should do well there, the PC12 sure has.
Last edited by hilltop170 on Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: A new contender for the 172/170

Post by GAHorn »

Here's another photo of a Hawker (Australian registry..."Look Out, David!).. landing on an "unimproved" runway:
800_10[2].JPG
I was a "Demonstration Pilot" for British Aerospace flying this model, but to be honest, I preferred the old "Viper" powered Hawkers that I jokingly referred to as the "2-stroke" version. (The Viper engines had a total-loss oil system and after the oil was pumped to the last bearing in the engine....it spewed into the last turbine-section, and was burned-up and went out the exhaust. It had to burn a half-quart of oil every hour or something was definitely wrong. With a 9 qt tank, if the pilot failed to replenish the oil ...then by the third re-fueling the engine was starved for oil. So every refueling we'd add a few quarts of Mobil-II.) :lol:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Post Reply