--Existing engine companies win by creating a "wide moat".The big engine companies (Rotax) write the rules to restrict competition.
Right. Because commercial airplanes need a type certificate (part 23)but because the FAA requires any propeller to undergo its own certification as an aircraft propeller... THEN you can apply for an STC to install that certified propeller on some airplane that it wasn't originally TC'd on.
As far as I know, the FAA has been completely unresponsive to an OM category as we have in Canada. Some of my American friends have proposed this but it's gone nowhere.Other changes that may be similar to Canada's owner maintained category (wherein owner can convert to essentially similar limits as AB) without considerable engineering mumbo-jumbo, will likely be considered....mostly the GA piston fleet is disappearing with little replacements, and need ways to keep them flying.
Airplanes and components are certified on a basis of some specific regulations, such as 14 CFR part 23, 33, JAR, EASA, CAR3..... depending on component. Certification basis are specific, but FAA & EASA now consider what's called 'alternative means of compliance', wherein an applicant can propose another set of standards, such as ASTM requirements for a prop, for example....or propose their own set of standards as long as they can show its equivalent to the standard regulation.
Thank you for some hard numbers. But let me make one small correction. NONE OF THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH LIABILITY!!!! The cost of certification is a thing, EVERWHERE. None of the $25k covered one iota of LIABILITY. You paid for the CERTIFICATION PROCESS.I have an FAA certified product that I manufacture, so I can speak here from experience. The overall answer to your question (if you had asked that question to me about my product) is:
"The two years and $25K that it took just to get the finished product certified (after I had designed, tested and set up the manufacture), with all the initial paperwork, plus the money and time it takes to do the paperwork on every one I build from then on."
That's on a $499 retail product with one mechanical moving part, that will not crash an airplane even if every part of it fails at the worst time.
Garmin makes a product that people in an airplane are relying on for their life in some circumstances. Their product has hundreds of separate electronic components which can burn out or go bad, and their product probably cost them $500K to get certified.
Garmin's answer also includes something my answer does not, which is "The enormous cost of an insurance policy that covers the level of liability which comes with a flight-critical aircraft instrument".
If asking questions and having a conversation is being a critic then oh, well. I am not going to give out participation ribbons for something I believe to be incorrect. If I see something that I believe to be incorrect I will ask about it. Now some people will consider being asked a question as a personal attack, but that's really not anything I can solve. The question will still be asked.
What sucks is that GM's QC procedures nowadays are more stringent and more effective than any FAA certification requirements. I work for a company that makes both automotive and aerospace components (we sell bespoke parts to both Boeing and GM, as well as pretty much every other auto and aircraft maker in the world), and we have 100% traceability of every component that goes into our products. But, although GM no doubt could easily deal with the requirements to meet FAA standards, it's just not worth it to them for the miniscule aircraft market... and without their cooperation, certification ain't gonna happen.The other part that will make this all too expensive for certification is that you'd be required to show traceability of all engine components as passing process control and quality control during manufacture unless the FAA will waive that requirement and allow you to use a less stringent ASTM cert as LSA regs allow I believe. Using 3rd party parts here (GM manufactured) probably won't fly with the FAA without a lot of NDT and QC checks to verify part quality and compliance. The certified paper trail required will up the cost substantially.
But I'd bet that certification would substantially reduce the cost of liability protection.I can't believe that you think FAA certification is the same thing as liability protection.
That would be up to the insurance company, right? But the FAA has ZERO liability requirements for certification.But I'd bet that certification would substantially reduce the cost of liability protection.
What is the purpose of the STC for N72CX? Registration now shows type certificate none, Experimental.a lot of incorrect speculation here, fellas, but can only speak to our project. The V8 STC for the C172 was already issued a FAA G1 issue paper, which essentially approves the cert plan and cert basis for the STC.
The links shows Trace as type certificate holder, not STC holder. It takes a type certificate for the engine and an STC for installation.So to install in a certificate airframe, all one needs is an STC. The plane could then be operated like any other type certificated aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate; Part 91, part 135, etc.