Thanks for this review. Aside from clearly being a decent way to ascend into the air, nothing about the thing excites me. That seems like a good thing.
Interesting. Competition is good, and I'm a big fan of the Skyhawk and the P68. The Skyhawks have got so expensive I think this will become a real go to trainer. I'd take this over a diamond trainer in my experience. Glad to see they have kept nosewheel steering too. I think the one switch flap system is an oversight and in my instructing days saw many a DA20 sail through max flap speeds due to student's getting carried away. The Cessna system is simple and effective, and generally helps avoid bent wingflaps.
This aircraft will not replace the 172 for the same reason every predecessor has failed. You can buy a FLEET of used 172s for the price of one new Vulcan
Almost 300,000 dollars! Also it has a modern cockpit. Thats great, but students should learn mixtures and flying by hand instead of relying on electronics when they first start out.
You can buy a LARGER FLEET of 172s if you compare the price of a NEW 172. The $100K price difference will get you a couple more N models in okay condition for flight training. If I ran a fight school w/ enough money to by new aircraft I would rather have three of these than two 172s. Only time will tell if it is as durable as a Cessna though. If not the costs may soon equal the Cessna price if more must be spent to maintain it. It appeared to be technically advanced so it can be used for Commercial Training also.
Sub-$100k trainer? Already exists: Pipistrel Alpha. You get the biggest one which is configured for LSA, and you have a great trainer with beefed-up suspension. The biggest problem I can see for operators is that you're going to hit the fuel stand a lot. It may sip Av/Mogas, but the fuel tank is a little on the anemic side.
..the P 64 dates back to the mid 60s..160/180 and 200 hp versions...pretty much a 172 clone..now a 1.0 that was introduced in 2014 ..both with comparable numbers to a skyhawk i'm sure Cessna has been waiting since 1964 to be replaced
"Holy Christ!" Haha! A stall horn is barely necessary in the first place. Making it so loud that it triggers seizures is not real proactive or productive.
god the old timers on here are miserable. put an auto pilot in this and it meets TAA reqs for commercial pilots. this is HUGE for flight schools to streamline their flight instruction to ONE air frame from PPL - IFR - Commercial.
Agreed. Reviews of innovative, new, competitive products always gain the attention of the typical conservative, American GA pilot. Eg. No electric trim please, no glass please, no fuel injection please, etc, etc.
Paul, your seatbelt looked twisted in these shots. I can write you a book about significant injuries due to misapplication of a seat belt! (Retired RN here.) I know this is 2 years old and you’re very much still with us. Just sayin’😉
It's June 2020 and no one wants pilots anymore....! Goes to show just how dramatically things can change in the blink of an eye. Just as sure as in one HOUR the whole world's economy will collapse, according to Revelation. *_"Therefore her plagues will come in one day-death and mourning and famine… For in one hour such great riches came to nothing” Revelation 18:8,17_*
And, Paul, you couldn't edit out the Stall Horn to (oh, I don't know) let's see...One Second ? Kudos for everything else that you do... except for repetitious, unnecessary, intrusive pseudo-music on a few of your videos. I have often quoted your aphorism: "Good Audio makes for Good Video."
Wow that’s a loud stall horn, not a bad thing I guess since I can’t hear the stall horn through my headset in some Cessnas (unless the horn was broken in those rentals?).
First saw these in the late 60's in central Africa, assembled in South Africa it was called the SA200 with an angle valve IO-360 and constant speed prop. At our density altitudes it rapidly became obvious that it did not have enough wing and became effectively an underpowered two seater. Might be a decent trainer but not much use otherwise.
It appears the wing load numbers at the 1:25 time stamp are swapped between the two airplanes... Nearly the same state MTOW but the higher wing area of the Cessna should result in lower wing loading... A quick check with my calculator confirms this...
ezeflierid. 14.41 wing load numbers are reversed in the visual of the magazine. Are useful weight figures usually rounded or was the maths a bit sloppy there too?
Pretty sure there's at least one more error in that table - the wingspan of a 172 is 36 feet, not 26 feet. With visually similar aspect ratios, and the 172 having nearly the same weight, but 4 feet more span, it will have lower wing loading... The wing loading calculation is simple - weight of airplane divided by wing area: V1.0: 2546 lbs / 144 sq-ft = 17.7 lbs / sq-ft Skyhawk: 2550 lbs / 174 sq-ft = 14.7 lbs / sq-ft
Thank you Paul. You do great reviews and test flights. I especially appreciate when you add on screen charts for visual comparisons. I learned a lot about the Vulcanair V1.0 in a short period of time. Wish I could talk to you about gyro copters, I have ignored them for many years and now am taking a second look at them. I would value your opinion so much.
According to your numbers at 1:22: Skyhawk has a 26'1" wingspan. Skyhawk has about 20% more wing area. With almost identical weights the wing loading is higher on the Skyhawk. There are obviously multiple errors on just that one list of dimensions. The wingspan is wrong, but the wing load calculations don't even line up with your own numbers for weight and wing area. I LOVE the updates, but things like this just take a few moments to double check.
Best line of the year.."If you don't hear that then you deserve to die." LOL.. I couldn't agree more. A little too much excitement on the stall warning Vulcan...can you opt for a quiter setting?
My dad had a Aero Commander Darter which was slightly smaller than the Lark. I did part of my private pilot in it. Flew great! It had a lower panel than the 172 so it had much better visibility but felt slightly heaver than the 172 and had a hand brake instead of toe brakes. I I think the P1 resembles the Darter more than the Lark.
Having had a V35TC years ago. I'd train on this Don't really care for all the glass on the dash.. I though GARMIN 430 was more than enough.. Kings and good old slaved HSI to a STec60 was pretty good. I like this center console throttle, trim and headset connect.. Could they make a tail dragger or amphibian version with a bit more power?
Soo...If I were to take 3 of the seats out and strip all unnecessary weight off of it. Then add an another 20 gal. fuel cell...How many pounds of, umm, cargo could I carry?
Skyhawk killer? Not quite, but the competition is a good thing for getting prices down all around. Why do you think everyone likes to compare a plane that is rugged, reliable, easy to fly and maintain and is affordable to the Skyhawk? It's the king. That being said, I wish VulcanAir luck, it looks like they are onto something good.
About the only bad thing I could say about the Skyhawk is, they're not great in icing conditions. (Friend of mine bought it during final when the wings iced up and the engine didn't have the horsepower to get through it.)
I mean if they can get a version with a 6 pack that's IFR capable down to a 100,00k handle then they'll have something on their hands. I don't know how much the G500 adds to the BOM costs at the factory or how much margin they're building in but if they had a stripped trainer model that you could get for 199k it'd sell like crazy.
the higher fuel consumption would need to be offset by maintenance cost being a LOT lower to make it a Skyhawk killer. Fuel and maintenance are the main cost factors for training operations. The total of those decides which is the best option for a school.
It’s still a lycoming. Looking at the clips from beneath the tail of the plane, that empennage access panel looks way bigger than on a skyhawk. The rigging to the control surfaces is most likely just like any other direct-control aircraft. Avionics too. I’d guess it’s just about on par with skyhawk in terms of maintenance cost. It’s still $100k less than a skyhawk, which offsets the fuel burn differences by quite a bit. Most schools charge for fuel anyways. The only things holding them back is production scale, and offsetting how deeply rooted the skyhawk is as a trainer aircraft.
Yeah for somethign the same general size and shape as a skyhawk I can only image that extra burn is coming from not having cleaned up the aero all over the plane like Cessna has for the last 60 years. If they get that fixed in a v2, youu'll be able to pick up v1 planes for a song probably.
I dont see this ever taking down the Sky Hawk, Cessna has such a long background in history with selling 172s to flight schools. They are very reliable and well built planes and parts are all over the place for them. To jump to a new plane is a not easy, figuring out costs and if ADs ever come up of unknown problems. 172s have been around so long pretty much every known problem has been found, with these its uncharted territory.
I'd love a new Skyhawk, but at almost a half million per copy, I'd definitely consider one if these cool looking aircraft, reminds me of the lark commander..
That's an interesting airplane! The stall horn though. My dog was outside on the balcony, deeply asleep, and the moment that sound started blaring from my laptop speakers, she bounced up, and stayed very confused for the duration of the noise :)
Yet another "new aircraft" without a conventional standbye airspeed indicator should elec power fail. I guess they don't want to ruin the looks of an all-glass panel or remind the iPad generation that they are in reality.
@@stephenhart8981 Eh I bet some 141 shops that have aging fleets would be interested in changing over. If their dispatch rates are suffering from mx issues then it makes sense to sell off the old fleet and get these on lease.
I built and Few a Velocity XL. I came to understand why Curtis moved the tail to the back. A canard has a very limited CG range compared to conventional aircraft. Also, high lift devices like flaps are complicated to do because adding lift to the main wing and not the front wing will limit the CG range even more (or you can't get the nose up for landing) the beech Starship required a costly and challenging solution to that problem!
Why bother? The IO 360 is time tested and proven and massively utilized throughout most common trainers, meaning more part commonality for school's maintenance depts. It's meant to be a trainer, it needs to be reliable, not the latest and greatest, most powerful 4 cylinder.
Hi my name is Enrique Pena thank you once again for this informative UA-cam video I had not thought of that we need more pilots for small planes now that you told me of course it makes sense because commercial airlines are laying off Pilots Once again thank you for the information wish I greatly appreciate Maybe someday we might get together with Mel Brooks, Jay Leno and the people at Moody's Air Force but for now it is just a dream but you never know it might come true Thank you and I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart and if you need my help in anything that I can give you I will do that I won't let you down thank you for these great UA-cam videos
Nothing against Cessna, but I'm so tired of the stagnant state of the general aviation industry. There's not enough competition, nobody is innovating, and costs are incredibly discouraging. The light sport industry is a perfect example of what conventional general aviation should be more like. With more than a 100k price difference, I hope the introduction of the V1.0 forces other general aviation companies to be on their toes. That way, competition would be brought back, and we could finally see new aircraft models instead of the same ancient designs that have been around since the 60s.
Wing loading figures don't add up. Cessna has larger wing area and weights are similar but V1.0 has 3lbs lower wing loading? Wing area must be incorrect for one of them.
Cessna needs to do a like throttle set-up! Not a fan of the 2 support arms obstructing forward view. The Vashon Ranger is nice, less the same 2 support arms.
What about parts and service? A flight school wants parts now, not shipped from Italy in three weeks. Try getting parts for a Socata if you don't believe me. Sure, engine parts are Lycoming, but on our three 172S's, they rarely are the cause for AOG situations. Nobody seems to have addressed this in any detail.
Ameravia Inc. Contact OFFICIAL DEALER FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 14299 SW 127th Street. Suite 105 Miami, Florida 33816 (U.S.A.) chris@ameraviainc.com WEB SITE: www.ameraviainc.com
This may be the only issue with this airplane. If parts availability proves to be a non-issue, then you have a winner. If you do have issues, then you no longer have an airplane making money... !
Don't look as good as the 172. There is one that looks as good, the 4 seater Jabiru. Empty weight is like half that of a 172 (350 kg) and has 120 hp. So with such a difference in empty weight, it would work out to be similar capability as the 172. The Jabiru is a "plastic 172" and looks even better cos it's composite (this probably explains the ridiculous empty weight difference).
@@lamberto6405 - Oh well if two mechanics that you know wouldn't fly in a Jabiru, then there obviously unsafe. I mean if two out of the 300,000 A&Ps worldwide won't fly in a Jabiru then clearly you're on to something lol!
@@soconnoriv Please tell me you're kidding... A skyhawk is nearly $400k BASE these days? No wonder GA is dying, you'd have to be off your rocker to spend so much for so little when the used market is full of vastly superior airplanes for less.
Watching this in May 2020, nope we don't have a pilots shortage anymore. Plumbing school is a good go, and you will probably make enough money to buy an airplane for yourself.
Maybe, but tech needs to change abit first. As most Tesla drivers can tell you the battery lifecycle is not 'as advertised' and most have more than 50% cap loss at 1k cycles...with the number of batteries and frequency of charge (Every 1 hour new) that is going to get extremely expensive. Same rules apply as cars, if you want to go electric because of the instant torque and performance, please do. If you want to preen about being green or cost savings over time then its not ready yet. Li-ion/polymer batteries will never be a green answer anyhow.
Fortus Victus Citation needed. Even charging car batteries from a diesel generator is cleaner than a normal engine. But that’s not the point, Electric has one moving part and it spins perfectly balanced. The safety and reliability and cost of electric is already vastly superior to conventional.
@@brucebaxter6923 electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/ Paying particular attention to the lifecycle tests of the 'high mileage' Tesla X 90D and how it also had to have warranty replacement for 'Battery rapidly dropping from 40% to 0%'...a problem not unfamiliar with anyone who has used Li-ion batteries in common use tools before. As for safety, the causes of GA crashes are about equal between engine failures and running out of fuel right now, combined for about 30% of crashes and that is with a century old tech. I am NOT saying electric airplanes will not one day be the viable goto choice for short flights, only that we are not there yet and probably won't be until the next generation of storage after Li cell batteries...they are just too toxic, expensive, and unreliable over time at the moment compared to internal combustion engines though with some performance benefits. As far as Trainers go, it will not be possible to get your rating until after there are so many electric planes they outnumber IC engines, until then all check rides will have to be done in 'traditional' planes so training in an electric would just make the process longer and more confusing for new students.
@@fortusvictus8297 electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/ less than 10% degradation after 1000 cycles of 250 km. if only my high performace car only had 10% power loss after a quater million kays. its common here to get your glider license, ultralight license, then ga then commercial license to make the process much cheaper. I fail to see how one more step with one more motor type could make things worse. and, umm, yes you did say electric planes wont be a thing.
@@brucebaxter6923 If you read the article, you'd have seen that the newer batteries are NOT meeting that level the previous models were advertised at, they are decreasing at a faster rate, also they are currently unreliable to the point that they are under warranty for swapouts on bad cells...that would be unacceptable in large scale electric AC for regular use. Oh, and try not to build strawmen. I literally said 'Maybe, but not with the current generation of Li batteries'. That is not the same as saying it can never happen. For one I really hope it does happen in my lifetime, electrics are already taking over the RC plane community for a reason...but their life also isn't at risk when a battery cell craps out or there is a bad charge capacity...internal combustion systems have had 100+ years to get fuel filters, mixtures, lubes, refined fuels right to even get to where we are (30%ish percent of crashes being motor failure and out of fuel). Given time and some good chemistry I'm sure a better alternative to Li polymers will be found.
110 Knot's & 800 Fpm ! It's 1940 All Over Again ... Absolutely a Backward's Tyme Machine . Add An Extra Door & a DVD Player + 200 K USD $ & U Git What U Git . Air Conditioning Included , Via Window . LOOK How Far We Have Come !!! / Damn Embarrassing I Say , YYZ - Mohawk-Planker / Aviator / Engineer +++ Much More ...With the Wright 1/4 Draft of Windage U Could Probably ask an Auto Commuter 4 Direction's & They Will Probably State ; Follow Me Fly-Boy & Chuck the GPS !?
I'll stick with the Cessna 172 R or SP Thanks, this Airplane was giving them 700-900 ft/min at 24 squared. I get the same from the SP. This V1 burns 10 Us Gals per hour so they have said....That's higher than the SP and the R. I'll also have the lower wing loading too, payload...Pretty much the same....The R model I flew had a cruise of 115-120 kts...Same as this Airplane with a Constant Speed prop...Nice plane, but has big boots to fill competing against the 172's. And that B Pillar is a visibility hazard, I have no desire to fly one if these
They could probably save about $50,000 if they'd do away with those @$#% glass cockpits!!! They are WAY too much for a trainer. Seriously, it's like teaching a teenager with a permit to drive a Ferrari.
Biker Mike It's still just a basic airplane, you might be able to special order with basic instruments. I'd say using a Piper Meridian would be like using a Ferrari.
@@earth9531 Right, but I think there would be a market for it. I would like the glass. I'm not a big fan of mounting or having a bunch of handheld or tablets all over the cockpit.
@@earth9531 How expensive are Piper Cubs these days? I know they add the complexity of a taildragger, but once in the air, I hear they do a better job of conveying the "feel" of stick-and-rudder flight, and I doubt they come with anything more than the basic instruments for monitoring the engine. Even better: the fuel consumption on them is minuscule compared to something heavier. :) (This is coming from someone who's done almost zero flying outside of getting his license, so take it with whatever amount of salt seems appropriate :) ).
It's a great option bringing in much needed competition in the trainer market. To those dinosaurs who bitch about glass & modern instruments, eat some data & evidence. It's way safer & it's the future.
Wow nice 100k less then a 172, same engine, and upgradable avionics since it’s running G500 and G600 txi. That’s one thing I hate about the g1000 Cessna, currently you cannot change the avionics in that aircraft so 20 years from now you might get really screwed. Now that the original G1000 is essentially obsolete at garmin due to the new version it could end up being very costly to source parts 10-20 years from now and swapping out the G1000 is prohibited. Not to mention buying a G1000 TXI would be more than the plane is worth even doing the G1000 to G1000 TXI upgrade through garmin is 50k.
Thanks for this review. Aside from clearly being a decent way to ascend into the air, nothing about the thing excites me. That seems like a good thing.
Interesting. Competition is good, and I'm a big fan of the Skyhawk and the P68. The Skyhawks have got so expensive I think this will become a real go to trainer. I'd take this over a diamond trainer in my experience. Glad to see they have kept nosewheel steering too. I think the one switch flap system is an oversight and in my instructing days saw many a DA20 sail through max flap speeds due to student's getting carried away. The Cessna system is simple and effective, and generally helps avoid bent wingflaps.
This aircraft will not replace the 172 for the same reason every predecessor has failed. You can buy a FLEET of used 172s for the price of one new Vulcan
Almost 300,000 dollars! Also it has a modern cockpit. Thats great, but students should learn mixtures and flying by hand instead of relying on electronics when they first start out.
100% correct statement.
You can buy a LARGER FLEET of 172s if you compare the price of a NEW 172. The $100K price difference will get you a couple more N models in okay condition for flight training. If I ran a fight school w/ enough money to by new aircraft I would rather have three of these than two 172s. Only time will tell if it is as durable as a Cessna though. If not the costs may soon equal the Cessna price if more must be spent to maintain it. It appeared to be technically advanced so it can be used for Commercial Training also.
A fleet ? You mean 172s from the 70s right ?
@@klixtrio7760 But they will be flying all glass when they get to work.
When someone figures out how to make a sub $100k trainer we will have a breakthrough.
Bingo. These are simply too high. For this money you could buy a very nice Skylane or even a 210 and be ready to go places.
Sub-$100k trainer? Already exists: Pipistrel Alpha.
You get the biggest one which is configured for LSA, and you have a great trainer with beefed-up suspension. The biggest problem I can see for operators is that you're going to hit the fuel stand a lot. It may sip Av/Mogas, but the fuel tank is a little on the anemic side.
Cessna made them all in the 70s. Buy a 172M for sub $100k
Always enjoy ur commentary Paul.
..the P 64 dates back to the mid 60s..160/180 and 200 hp versions...pretty much a 172 clone..now a 1.0 that was introduced in 2014 ..both with comparable numbers to a skyhawk
i'm sure Cessna has been waiting since 1964 to be replaced
Is completely different AC than 172
I like the throttle quadrant
"Holy Christ!" Haha! A stall horn is barely necessary in the first place. Making it so loud that it triggers seizures is not real proactive or productive.
I assume the lawyers got ahold of that one.
I LOL’d when he said “...you deserve to die”
In a perfect world with perfect pilots, no one would ever hear that alarm. 😁
KTMB baby!!!
hi paul can you do an update on flyecho diesel glenn
Looks like my old Darter
It is...
Doesn’t look like we need lots of pilots anymore...
117VA flew into my local airport one day, I got to talk to the pilot for a few minutes at the FBO😂
And...
god the old timers on here are miserable. put an auto pilot in this and it meets TAA reqs for commercial pilots. this is HUGE for flight schools to streamline their flight instruction to ONE air frame from PPL - IFR - Commercial.
Agreed. Reviews of innovative, new, competitive products always gain the attention of the typical conservative, American GA pilot. Eg. No electric trim please, no glass please, no fuel injection please, etc, etc.
Who has legs that small...children?
Paul, your seatbelt looked twisted in these shots. I can write you a book about significant injuries due to misapplication of a seat belt! (Retired RN here.) I know this is 2 years old and you’re very much still with us. Just sayin’😉
The guy in the right seat talks weird. It's like he doesn't open his mouth all the way or something.
reminded me of Private Pyle hahaha
It's June 2020 and no one wants pilots anymore....! Goes to show just how dramatically things can change in the blink of an eye. Just as sure as in one HOUR the whole world's economy will collapse, according to Revelation.
*_"Therefore her plagues will come in one day-death and mourning and famine… For in one hour such great riches came to nothing” Revelation 18:8,17_*
And, Paul, you couldn't edit out the Stall Horn to (oh, I don't know) let's see...One Second ? Kudos for everything else that you do... except for repetitious, unnecessary, intrusive pseudo-music on a few of your videos. I have often quoted your aphorism: "Good Audio makes for Good Video."
Airlines are laying off pilots by the "gazillions"... so we are good. Post Covid-19
Damn, no Ashtray? I thought this was Italian made
Has a 2 wine glass dispensers instead. The french version with 7 ashtrays..
Italians spit the cigarette out, no need for stinking ash trays..
“The world’s gonna need a hexillion pilots next year.”
2020: Are you sure about that?!
Haha!
@@prancer1803 Everything changes quickly
he meant to say 2021. :)
Wow that’s a loud stall horn, not a bad thing I guess since I can’t hear the stall horn through my headset in some Cessnas (unless the horn was broken in those rentals?).
You mean the kazoo stuck in the wing? :D
The on screen specs have the wing loadings for the V 1.0 and Skyhawk exchanged. 17.6 belongs to the Vulcanair, 14.4 to the Cessna.
First saw these in the late 60's in central Africa, assembled in South Africa it was called the SA200 with an angle valve IO-360 and constant speed prop. At our density altitudes it rapidly became obvious that it did not have enough wing and became effectively an underpowered two seater. Might be a decent trainer but not much use otherwise.
It appears the wing load numbers at the 1:25 time stamp are swapped between the two airplanes... Nearly the same state MTOW but the higher wing area of the Cessna should result in lower wing loading... A quick check with my calculator confirms this...
ezeflierid. I look at that but not knowing any of the plane figures is it the wing load or the surface area that is swapped?
ezeflierid. 14.41 wing load numbers are reversed in the visual of the magazine. Are useful weight figures usually rounded or was the maths a bit sloppy there too?
Pretty sure there's at least one more error in that table - the wingspan of a 172 is 36 feet, not 26 feet. With visually similar aspect ratios, and the 172 having nearly the same weight, but 4 feet more span, it will have lower wing loading...
The wing loading calculation is simple - weight of airplane divided by wing area:
V1.0: 2546 lbs / 144 sq-ft = 17.7 lbs / sq-ft
Skyhawk: 2550 lbs / 174 sq-ft = 14.7 lbs / sq-ft
Thank you Paul. You do great reviews and test flights. I especially appreciate when you add on screen charts for visual comparisons. I learned a lot about the Vulcanair V1.0 in a short period of time. Wish I could talk to you about gyro copters, I have ignored them for many years and now am taking a second look at them. I would value your opinion so much.
According to your numbers at 1:22:
Skyhawk has a 26'1" wingspan.
Skyhawk has about 20% more wing area.
With almost identical weights the wing loading is higher on the Skyhawk.
There are obviously multiple errors on just that one list of dimensions. The wingspan is wrong, but the wing load calculations don't even line up with your own numbers for weight and wing area. I LOVE the updates, but things like this just take a few moments to double check.
Seems the 26 is a typo, cessna website says 36'1" or 11m. 1 meter wider than the Vulcanair.
The optional missile system lets you shoot down any skyhawk you come across
Guess I'll just have to install chaff and flare system to my Skyhawk, just in case I need to spoof the missiles.
Lmao
@@sunsetarts Not if they mount a Vulcan Cannon ;-)
Best line of the year.."If you don't hear that then you deserve to die." LOL.. I couldn't agree more. A little too much excitement on the stall warning Vulcan...can you opt for a quiter setting?
Anyone remember the Lark Commander?
Rockwell? I remember the name.
My dad had a Aero Commander Darter which was slightly smaller than the Lark. I did part of my private pilot in it. Flew great! It had a lower panel than the 172 so it had much better visibility but felt slightly heaver than the 172 and had a hand brake instead of toe brakes. I I think the P1 resembles the Darter more than the Lark.
Unfortunately. Good luck finding parts for one.
I have one parked right down from me. Would be great for parts because there is no way it going to fly without a lotta work.
Plane seems great. Those yokes are so ugly though!
Aw, come on, they're really there for their professional opinion, not just as eye candy . . .
@@loddude5706 I've never thought about the opinion of a control yoke. How inconsiderate of me. I also think they're ugly, so there's my opinion.
This one didn't age very well, did it?
Damn I was thinking it was gonna be between $150 and 200k
Thanks for a great review.
Having had a V35TC years ago. I'd train on this Don't really care for all the glass on the dash.. I though GARMIN 430 was more than enough.. Kings and good old slaved HSI to a STec60 was pretty good. I like this center console throttle, trim and headset connect.. Could they make a tail dragger or amphibian version with a bit more power?
I still think that engine options are the Achilles heel of GA.
That an the high market prices, but that is widespread knowledge.
Soo...If I were to take 3 of the seats out and strip all unnecessary weight off of it. Then add an another 20 gal. fuel cell...How many pounds of, umm, cargo could I carry?
Skyhawk killer? Not quite, but the competition is a good thing for getting prices down all around. Why do you think everyone likes to compare a plane that is rugged, reliable, easy to fly and maintain and is affordable to the Skyhawk? It's the king. That being said, I wish VulcanAir luck, it looks like they are onto something good.
About the only bad thing I could say about the Skyhawk is, they're not great in icing conditions. (Friend of mine bought it during final when the wings iced up and the engine didn't have the horsepower to get through it.)
+Dennis Powell ...who flys a 172 into ice?..or doesn't divert when it's reported?...
Name an airplane that is not equipped for flight into icing that IS great in icing.
Hooknspkt
I mean if they can get a version with a 6 pack that's IFR capable down to a 100,00k handle then they'll have something on their hands. I don't know how much the G500 adds to the BOM costs at the factory or how much margin they're building in but if they had a stripped trainer model that you could get for 199k it'd sell like crazy.
the higher fuel consumption would need to be offset by maintenance cost being a LOT lower to make it a Skyhawk killer.
Fuel and maintenance are the main cost factors for training operations. The total of those decides which is the best option for a school.
It’s still a lycoming. Looking at the clips from beneath the tail of the plane, that empennage access panel looks way bigger than on a skyhawk. The rigging to the control surfaces is most likely just like any other direct-control aircraft. Avionics too. I’d guess it’s just about on par with skyhawk in terms of maintenance cost.
It’s still $100k less than a skyhawk, which offsets the fuel burn differences by quite a bit. Most schools charge for fuel anyways.
The only things holding them back is production scale, and offsetting how deeply rooted the skyhawk is as a trainer aircraft.
Yeah for somethign the same general size and shape as a skyhawk I can only image that extra burn is coming from not having cleaned up the aero all over the plane like Cessna has for the last 60 years. If they get that fixed in a v2, youu'll be able to pick up v1 planes for a song probably.
Nope. Are you forgetting intial costs. A cessna 172 is almost $200,000 more...
Same engine as newer cessna172s but they show higher fuel burn, wonder if this comparison is to older 172 with the O-320 150 hp?
Must be that it has a constant speed prop
I dont see this ever taking down the Sky Hawk, Cessna has such a long background in history with selling 172s to flight schools. They are very reliable and well built planes and parts are all over the place for them. To jump to a new plane is a not easy, figuring out costs and if ADs ever come up of unknown problems. 172s have been around so long pretty much every known problem has been found, with these its uncharted territory.
I'd love a new Skyhawk, but at almost a half million per copy, I'd definitely consider one if these cool looking aircraft, reminds me of the lark commander..
I never expected to severely compromise my hearing watching a UA-cam aviation video ......dang !!!
Paul, I love the videos.
I have never understood why people dislike videos that just give a review, essentially an informed review....
Maybe a Bargain, but the Cessna beats it in style by far. Interior looks like a plastic bottle in my opinion.
Even in comparison to this, I wouldn't call a 172 remotely stylish. It's as dull as dishwater in the air and in the eyes.
1:23 Miss-print on the Cessna wingspan, it's 36'1".
Unvaccinated pilots that won't have heartache wilst in flight ✈️
I have a question about the trim wheel, how easy it it to see the takeoff setting on the trim wheel?
Great review, love the airplane. When is it coming to the Kansas City area for demonstration ?
That's an interesting airplane! The stall horn though. My dog was outside on the balcony, deeply asleep, and the moment that sound started blaring from my laptop speakers, she bounced up, and stayed very confused for the duration of the noise :)
Yet another "new aircraft" without a conventional standbye airspeed indicator should elec power fail. I guess they don't want to ruin the looks of an all-glass panel or remind the iPad generation that they are in reality.
At that price the flight schools will put this bird on backorder.
I've yet to see a school buy a new skyhawk everything is used.
@@stephenhart8981 Eh I bet some 141 shops that have aging fleets would be interested in changing over. If their dispatch rates are suffering from mx issues then it makes sense to sell off the old fleet and get these on lease.
So far one school has bought ten...don't hold your breath
@@mattf49006 If they bought ten, thats a million dollar saved..
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC ...fair enough..but i've flown one...you pay for what you get
When will we see rear wing plus canard aircraft become mainstream?
I built and Few a Velocity XL. I came to understand why Curtis moved the tail to the back. A canard has a very limited CG range compared to conventional aircraft. Also, high lift devices like flaps are complicated to do because adding lift to the main wing and not the front wing will limit the CG range even more (or you can't get the nose up for landing) the beech Starship required a costly and challenging solution to that problem!
Boy wouldn't it be great if they fitted a modern engine in this thing.....
Why bother? The IO 360 is time tested and proven and massively utilized throughout most common trainers, meaning more part commonality for school's maintenance depts. It's meant to be a trainer, it needs to be reliable, not the latest and greatest, most powerful 4 cylinder.
Hi my name is Enrique Pena thank you once again for this informative UA-cam video I had not thought of that we need more pilots for small planes now that you told me of course it makes sense because commercial airlines are laying off Pilots Once again thank you for the information wish I greatly appreciate Maybe someday we might get together with Mel Brooks, Jay Leno and the people at Moody's Air Force but for now it is just a dream but you never know it might come true Thank you and I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart and if you need my help in anything that I can give you I will do that I won't let you down thank you for these great UA-cam videos
Nothing against Cessna, but I'm so tired of the stagnant state of the general aviation industry. There's not enough competition, nobody is innovating, and costs are incredibly discouraging. The light sport industry is a perfect example of what conventional general aviation should be more like. With more than a 100k price difference, I hope the introduction of the V1.0 forces other general aviation companies to be on their toes. That way, competition would be brought back, and we could finally see new aircraft models instead of the same ancient designs that have been around since the 60s.
Wing loading figures don't add up. Cessna has larger wing area and weights are similar but V1.0 has 3lbs lower wing loading? Wing area must be incorrect for one of them.
Cessna needs to do a like throttle set-up!
Not a fan of the 2 support arms obstructing forward view. The Vashon Ranger is nice, less the same 2 support arms.
Looks good so far. Let's see how it holds up after it gets bounded in on bad landings a few thousand times.
Italian.. Breaks down a lot, and Expensive to fix
That plane has been used for training since the early 70s, me included.
Paul you are very clever well done , what will be the resale value? Wouldn’t you stick to Tecnam much nicer looking plane and easy to sell ?
That’s a stall horn
What about the Discovery XL2? That trainer would be fantastic if they made a few changes to improve handling quality and nose gear strength.
24 squared?
There are some wrong numbers! Do you say that Skyhawk has 26 feet span? Maybe 36!
What about parts and service? A flight school wants parts now, not shipped from Italy in three weeks. Try getting parts for a Socata if you don't believe me. Sure, engine parts are Lycoming, but on our three 172S's, they rarely are the cause for AOG situations. Nobody seems to have addressed this in any detail.
Ameravia Inc.
Contact
OFFICIAL DEALER FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
14299 SW 127th Street. Suite 105
Miami, Florida 33816 (U.S.A.)
chris@ameraviainc.com
WEB SITE: www.ameraviainc.com
This may be the only issue with this airplane. If parts availability proves to be a non-issue, then you have a winner. If you do have issues, then you no longer have an airplane making money... !
Whose watching this in 2020 during the plague? Holy cow.
Uhhhh, no.
The specs that show in the video comparing it to the 172 are wrong, I suppose...
They are not wrong. The wing loading figures are transposed.
So the wingspan of a Cessna 172 has been chopped down to 26 feet?
When did that happen?
You're correct. Sb 36
N117VA is at Ogden UT now. Not a bad little flyer
The spec sheet lists the Cessna wingspan as 26‘1“. 😂
Don't look as good as the 172. There is one that looks as good, the 4 seater Jabiru. Empty weight is like half that of a 172 (350 kg) and has 120 hp. So with such a difference in empty weight, it would work out to be similar capability as the 172. The Jabiru is a "plastic 172" and looks even better cos it's composite (this probably explains the ridiculous empty weight difference).
Two mechanics I know would not fly in the Jabiru. That engine has tremendous issues.
@@lamberto6405 - Oh well if two mechanics that you know wouldn't fly in a Jabiru, then there obviously unsafe. I mean if two out of the 300,000 A&Ps worldwide won't fly in a Jabiru then clearly you're on to something lol!
You may be right, but I never heard any A&P say that regarding a Lycoming, for example. @@droge192
$390,000 172 ? I got a quote from airmart at $495K , I believe it was loaded.
390k for the base model with everything stripped. Most likely all steam gauges
@@soconnoriv Please tell me you're kidding... A skyhawk is nearly $400k BASE these days? No wonder GA is dying, you'd have to be off your rocker to spend so much for so little when the used market is full of vastly superior airplanes for less.
@@yucannthahvitt251 You could find a nice fairly new & much more capable Maule for that kind of money.
@@johnnyboythepilot4098 With the big training wheel in front? LOL..
You answered your own question. $390k is *base* ... $495 is fully loaded.
Looks like a Cessna but more ugly. I would skip both and buy a Diamond. Thanks for the good video. Entertaining as always.
Admitting the price point is pretty good.
I’ll take the Skyhawk, thanks..
Skyhog?
Cool
1:23 the wing load calculations are transposed.
My 1978 172XP makes 130 TAS for 9gph with 4 up
Nice.
Skyhawk = proven reliability! Priceless for a trainer aircraft.
Wing loading is backwards
Struts behind the doors seems like a safety hazard in the event of an emergency egress as it keeps occupants towards the propeller.
The 172 looks better.
I like the 3rd door! The steel cage is safer. It's faster and amost $200,000 less. Looks only go so far...
The Vulcanair is cheaper because it does not come, like the Skyhawk, with trial lawyers...yet.
How much? $278k? We need tort reform, NOW.
Great review!
5
Watching this in May 2020, nope we don't have a pilots shortage anymore.
Plumbing school is a good go, and you will probably make enough money to buy an airplane for yourself.
08:19 Good. Electric Trim have caused many accidents.
Stall warning so irritating that it makes you crash because of distraction.
those electric trainer planes are going to be the norm
Maybe, but tech needs to change abit first. As most Tesla drivers can tell you the battery lifecycle is not 'as advertised' and most have more than 50% cap loss at 1k cycles...with the number of batteries and frequency of charge (Every 1 hour new) that is going to get extremely expensive.
Same rules apply as cars, if you want to go electric because of the instant torque and performance, please do. If you want to preen about being green or cost savings over time then its not ready yet. Li-ion/polymer batteries will never be a green answer anyhow.
Fortus Victus
Citation needed.
Even charging car batteries from a diesel generator is cleaner than a normal engine.
But that’s not the point,
Electric has one moving part and it spins perfectly balanced.
The safety and reliability and cost of electric is already vastly superior to conventional.
@@brucebaxter6923 electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/
Paying particular attention to the lifecycle tests of the 'high mileage' Tesla X 90D and how it also had to have warranty replacement for 'Battery rapidly dropping from 40% to 0%'...a problem not unfamiliar with anyone who has used Li-ion batteries in common use tools before.
As for safety, the causes of GA crashes are about equal between engine failures and running out of fuel right now, combined for about 30% of crashes and that is with a century old tech.
I am NOT saying electric airplanes will not one day be the viable goto choice for short flights, only that we are not there yet and probably won't be until the next generation of storage after Li cell batteries...they are just too toxic, expensive, and unreliable over time at the moment compared to internal combustion engines though with some performance benefits. As far as Trainers go, it will not be possible to get your rating until after there are so many electric planes they outnumber IC engines, until then all check rides will have to be done in 'traditional' planes so training in an electric would just make the process longer and more confusing for new students.
@@fortusvictus8297
electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/
less than 10% degradation after 1000 cycles of 250 km.
if only my high performace car only had 10% power loss after a quater million kays.
its common here to get your glider license, ultralight license, then ga then commercial license to make the process much cheaper.
I fail to see how one more step with one more motor type could make things worse.
and, umm, yes you did say electric planes wont be a thing.
@@brucebaxter6923 If you read the article, you'd have seen that the newer batteries are NOT meeting that level the previous models were advertised at, they are decreasing at a faster rate, also they are currently unreliable to the point that they are under warranty for swapouts on bad cells...that would be unacceptable in large scale electric AC for regular use.
Oh, and try not to build strawmen. I literally said 'Maybe, but not with the current generation of Li batteries'. That is not the same as saying it can never happen. For one I really hope it does happen in my lifetime, electrics are already taking over the RC plane community for a reason...but their life also isn't at risk when a battery cell craps out or there is a bad charge capacity...internal combustion systems have had 100+ years to get fuel filters, mixtures, lubes, refined fuels right to even get to where we are (30%ish percent of crashes being motor failure and out of fuel). Given time and some good chemistry I'm sure a better alternative to Li polymers will be found.
110 Knot's & 800 Fpm ! It's 1940 All Over Again ... Absolutely a Backward's Tyme Machine . Add An Extra Door & a DVD Player + 200 K USD $ & U Git What U Git . Air Conditioning Included , Via Window . LOOK How Far We Have Come !!! / Damn Embarrassing I Say , YYZ - Mohawk-Planker / Aviator / Engineer +++ Much More ...With the Wright 1/4 Draft of Windage U Could Probably ask an Auto Commuter 4 Direction's & They Will Probably State ; Follow Me Fly-Boy & Chuck the GPS !?
I'm still stuck on the fact that you spelled the word "time" as "tyme".
@@droge192 Tyme & Ryde is Proper 1940/ 50's English ; Yeah , I'm That Young !!! YYZ , Mohawk-Planker . 5 by 5 & Fly On !!!
No parachute options?
I'll stick with the Cessna 172 R or SP Thanks, this Airplane was giving them 700-900 ft/min at 24 squared. I get the same from the SP. This V1 burns 10 Us Gals per hour so they have said....That's higher than the SP and the R. I'll also have the lower wing loading too, payload...Pretty much the same....The R model I flew had a cruise of 115-120 kts...Same as this Airplane with a Constant Speed prop...Nice plane, but has big boots to fill competing against the 172's. And that B Pillar is a visibility hazard, I have no desire to fly one if these
They could probably save about $50,000 if they'd do away with those @$#% glass cockpits!!! They are WAY too much for a trainer. Seriously, it's like teaching a teenager with a permit to drive a Ferrari.
Biker Mike Better reliability on the avionics, and the planes they will move up to are going to be glass panel.
@@earth9531 Good luck with finding zero avionics. You'll just have to turn them off.
Biker Mike It's still just a basic airplane, you might be able to special order with basic instruments. I'd say using a Piper Meridian would be like using a Ferrari.
@@earth9531 Right, but I think there would be a market for it. I would like the glass. I'm not a big fan of mounting or having a bunch of handheld or tablets all over the cockpit.
@@earth9531 How expensive are Piper Cubs these days? I know they add the complexity of a taildragger, but once in the air, I hear they do a better job of conveying the "feel" of stick-and-rudder flight, and I doubt they come with anything more than the basic instruments for monitoring the engine. Even better: the fuel consumption on them is minuscule compared to something heavier. :) (This is coming from someone who's done almost zero flying outside of getting his license, so take it with whatever amount of salt seems appropriate :) ).
Now I'm tone deaf.. o_o
Nop !! Not a 172 equal.
It's a great option bringing in much needed competition in the trainer market. To those dinosaurs who bitch about glass & modern instruments, eat some data & evidence. It's way safer & it's the future.
Wow nice 100k less then a 172, same engine, and upgradable avionics since it’s running G500 and G600 txi. That’s one thing I hate about the g1000 Cessna, currently you cannot change the avionics in that aircraft so 20 years from now you might get really screwed. Now that the original G1000 is essentially obsolete at garmin due to the new version it could end up being very costly to source parts 10-20 years from now and swapping out the G1000 is prohibited. Not to mention buying a G1000 TXI would be more than the plane is worth even doing the G1000 to G1000 TXI upgrade through garmin is 50k.
How much is this airplane?
290k fully equipped go get you a used Cirrus sr20 it is faster for the same price
I'll stick with my Cherokee. :)