{"id":5119,"date":"2026-06-26T09:22:06","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T14:22:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/?p=5119"},"modified":"2026-06-26T09:22:55","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T14:22:55","slug":"5-aircraft-i-wish-would-get-made-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/?p=5119","title":{"rendered":"5 Aircraft I Wish Would Get Made Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have regularly been asked by people considering buying an aircraft, \u201cWhat\u2019s a good plane?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

I half-jokingly respond many times, \u201cThe good ones are the ones they still make.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And there is some truth in this. Planes that were weird, had bad designs, didn\u2019t haul much, had complicated or hard-to-maintain systems often didn\u2019t get continued production runs. But that isn\u2019t the whole truth. There have been some great planes that simply didn\u2019t keep getting built due to economic reasons, factories that got hit by hurricanes, or were simply built at the wrong time for what the market desired.<\/span><\/p>\n

A few of these stick out to me as planes that I really wish were made again, because I think there would be a market for them now if they could be made at an economic price that fits the market.<\/span><\/p>\n

These classics weren’t just machines; they were masterpieces of engineering that struck an exquisite balance between performance, served a specific mission, had reliability, were cost-effective, or simply offered sheer flying pleasure.<\/span><\/p>\n

I can\u2019t help but imagine what updated versions of these proven platforms with modern avionics, maybe some composite materials for lighter weight, or even more efficient engine options to meet contemporary standards, while preserving their core strengths, might look like.<\/span><\/p>\n

With that, here are a few that I wish we could have made again.<\/span><\/p>\n

Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser<\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/h2>\n

Regarded by many as the finest iteration in the storied Cub lineage, the Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser excelled in weight and balance, offering a blend of simplicity and capability that begs for a modern revival. Born in the immediate post-World War II era, production commenced in 1946 as an upgrade to the J-5 Cub Cruiser, incorporating a more powerful 100- to 115-horsepower Lycoming O-235 engine, enclosed cowling for better aerodynamics, and a metal-spar wing design with dual 19-gallon fuel tanks for extended range. Over its short run until 1948, Piper manufactured 3,760 units, with factories in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, and Ponca City, Oklahoma, churning them out to meet booming civilian demand. Many survive today, often retrofitted with floats, skis, or larger propellers, underscoring their adaptability.<\/span><\/p>\n

Key specifications underscore its prowess: a wingspan of 35 feet 5.5 inches, length of 22 feet 10 inches, and propeller ground clearance of 8 inches on standard gear. Empty weight hovered around 950 pounds, with a gross weight of 1,750 pounds, providing a useful load of approximately 800 pounds\u2014impressive for a light utility aircraft. Performance included a cruise speed of 105 mph, maximum speed of 115 mph, and a stall speed as low as 49 mph with flaps, enabling exceptional STOL operations. A good rate of climb and a service ceiling of 15,000 feet, and it was certified for various configurations, including seaplane operations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The PA-12’s weight and balance were masterfully engineered, with a forward center of gravity that enhanced stability during low-speed maneuvers, and the option for solo piloting from the front seat in its three-place configuration (tandem rear bench – realistically two seat, but a big enough back seat to comfortably fit a bigger person in the back). This setup outperformed earlier Cubs like the J-3, which felt cramped and less balanced with passengers, and even the later PA-18 Super Cub, which, while capable, was heavier and more expensive to produce.<\/span><\/p>\n

In today’s backcountry flying boom\u2014fueled by social media adventurers and eco-tourism\u2014a revived PA-12 could shine with modern updates. I consider the PA-12 a representative of the essence of pure flying: uncomplicated, capable, rugged, and joyous.<\/span><\/p>\n

The T41 Mescalero – What the 172 Should Be in Modern Context<\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Cessna T-41 Mescalero, a variant of the Cessna 172 that was made for the U.S. Air Force, primarily to provide improved performance for training operations at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, was essentially an off-the-shelf Cessna 172 with a fuel-injected Continental IO-360 engine producing 210 hp, paired with a constant-speed propeller. This gave the aircraft a far superior power-to-weight ratio compared to contemporary and later 172s. It was also a sweet spot in the Cessna 172 airframe production cycle from the 1960s into the 1970s.<\/span><\/p>\n

A typical T-41B or similar variant offered impressive specs for a four-seat trainer. Gross weight sat around 2,500 lbs (higher than some early 172s but still lean), with strong climb performance, better high-altitude capability, and better climb performance when heavy.<\/span><\/p>\n

The thrust-to-weight advantage shone through in real-world training. Students benefited from stronger climb rates, quicker response in the pattern, and forgiving characteristics for touch-and-gos, cross-country flights, and proficiency building. The IO-360 provided that extra muscle without turning the airplane into a heavy, complex machine. Power loading and wing loading delivered predictable, student-friendly handling\u2014responsive but not twitchy.<\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast to later civilian 172 models that grew heavier with added features (pushing gross weights toward 2,550 lbs or more), the T-41 variants preserved a lighter, more agile airframe. Over 800 T-41s were built across variants. Some are still out there on the used market and get snapped up quickly when savvy buyers find them for sale.<\/span><\/p>\n

In today’s environment of skyrocketing flight training costs and aging fleets, reviving a modernized T-41 Mescalero makes compelling sense. Imagine a clean-sheet or updated production version that stays true to the original’s strengths: a lightweight airframe (targeting useful loads that actually handle four adults with full fuel), paired with a proven IO-360 or equivalent delivering around 180-210 hp. This horsepower ratio would yield excellent performance margins\u2014stronger takeoffs, better density altitude handling, and spirited climb\u2014while avoiding the excess mass of feature-laden modern trainers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Such an aircraft would excel for flight training operations (and personal use buyers).<\/span><\/p>\n

The T-41 Mescalero proved the formula decades ago: take a great basic airframe, added purposeful power, and was a lean aircraft. Bringing it back\u2014with just enough modern updates\u2014would give new generations of pilots a better starting point. I would love to see a version of this simple but highly effective aircraft happen again.<\/span><\/p>\n

Piper Cherokee 235<\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Piper Cherokee 235 injected formidable power into the Cherokee family, boasting an enviable power-to-weight ratio, substantial carrying capacity, and brisk cruise speeds that merit its resurrection. Launched in 1963 as a high-performance variant of the PA-28 series to compete with the Cessna 182 Skylane, it was equipped with a 235-horsepower Lycoming O-540 engine and a constant-speed propeller. Evolution saw it renamed the Charger (1973) and Pathfinder (1974-1978), with fuselage stretches adding cabin space.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specs highlight its muscle: gross weight 2,900-3,000 pounds, empty weight 1,470-1,722 pounds, useful load up to 1,430 pounds\u2014nearly equaling some twins. Wingspan 32 feet, length 23.7-24.7 feet post-stretch. Cruise ranged 135-153 mph, stall 55 mph, climb 825 fpm, ceiling 14,500-15,500 feet, with 84 gallons of fuel for 812 nm range. It did a lot of things really darn well that an average general aviation pilot would love to have in their plane.<\/span><\/p>\n

It hauled like a truck, often called a “flying station wagon” for family trips or utility work, with real-world stories of overloaded bush ops in Africa. Discontinued amid fuel crises, a revival with efficient engines could target cross-country enthusiasts. It is the average owner load-hauling low-wing aircraft that most of us would want today, in the familiar Cherokee style.<\/span><\/p>\n

Piper Seneca I<\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Piper Seneca I, with its counter-rotating props, larger-than-average cabin for its class, and deliberately non-turbocharged design, emerged as a remarkably straightforward and maintainable twin-engine aircraft that would be highly useful in the modern flight training environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduced in late 1971 as the PA-34-200, it served as Piper’s response to the need for an affordable, roomy light twin to replace the aging Twin Comanche while undercutting the more expensive Aztec. Built on the proven PA-32 Cherokee Six airframe, the Seneca I featured a low-wing configuration, a retractable tricycle landing gear, and a spacious cabin accessed via a large left-side rear door, ideal for loading passengers, baggage, or even caskets (yes, they fit in there).<\/span><\/p>\n

Detailed specifications paint a picture of balanced capability: a gross weight of 4,200 pounds, with a typical useful load around 1,500 pounds (allowing for full fuel, comfortably at least four occupants, and some baggage in many configurations). The aircraft measured 28 feet 7 inches in length, with a wingspan of 38 feet 11 inches and a height of 9 feet 10 inches. Power came from two 200-horsepower Lycoming IO-360 engines (the right one a counter-rotating LIO-360 variant), each driving a constant-speed propeller. This setup delivered a best cruise speed of about 160 knots true airspeed at 75% power, burning roughly 21 gallons per hour combined, with a range of around 685 nautical miles on standard 152-gallon usable fuel. Performance included a two-engine climb rate of 1,460 feet per minute, a single-engine climb of approximately 230-240 fpm at sea level, a stall speed of 58 knots flaps down, and a service ceiling of 20,000 feet (though single-engine ceiling dropped to about 6,600 feet). Takeoff and landing distances were respectable, at around 750 feet, and were similar for landing over a 50-foot obstacle.<\/span><\/p>\n

The standout feature, and a key reason for its appeal in training, was the counter-rotating propeller arrangement. By having the right engine turn opposite to the left (counter-clockwise from the pilot’s view), the design eliminated the traditional “critical engine” phenomenon. In most light twins, an engine failure on the side producing more asymmetric thrust (usually the left due to P-factor and torque) creates a pronounced yaw toward the failed engine, demanding significant rudder input to maintain control near Vmc. The Seneca I’s symmetric thrust canceled much of this effect, making single-engine operations far more forgiving and predictable. This simplification was a boon for multi-engine instructors and students, reducing the stress of Vmc demonstrations, engine-out maneuvers, and real-world failures. It also enhanced overall safety during takeoff and climb, where asymmetric thrust issues are most pronounced.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the non-turbocharged Lycoming engines contributed to exceptional maintainability. Unlike later Seneca variants (starting with the 1975 Seneca II), which switched to turbocharged Continental TSIO-360 engines for better high-altitude performance, the Seneca I avoided the added complexity of turbo systems\u2014wastegates, intercoolers, exhaust plumbing, and higher cylinder head temperatures. This translated to lower parts costs, simpler inspections, fewer overboost risks, and generally cheaper overhauls. The four-cylinder Lycomings were reliable workhorses with 2,000-hour TBOs, widely available parts, and straightforward fuel injection. Flight schools appreciated these traits in an era when downtime directly impacted revenue; the Seneca I could rack up training hours with minimal unscheduled maintenance compared to turbo twins.<\/span><\/p>\n

The cabin was another training-friendly asset. Derived from the Cherokee Six, it offered true six-place seating (though realistically, only hauling a pilot and 3 passengers with full fuel was more common, but still much better than other smaller light-twin engine aircraft on the market), excellent visibility through large windows, and a roomy feel that reduced claustrophobia during long dual sessions. Short-field performance, aided by 40-degree full flaps and the long-stroke oleo gear, allowed operations from smaller airports common to flight schools.<\/span><\/p>\n

The systems are the true standout in training operations. Hydraulic gear systems that are the same that are in modern Seminole aircraft that are easy to deploy in an emergency, reliably constant speed propellers that actually are easy to get out of feather in training operations (since demonstrating shutting down an engine is required) regularly instead of having to use the starter to get the prop back out of feather like on Twin Comanche aircraft, and simply manual flaps add to the reliability in training operations. And robustness.<\/span><\/p>\n

It isn\u2019t without its detractors, namely that the Seneca I earned criticism for marginal single-engine climb in hot-and-high conditions and somewhat heavier handling than refined later models. I don\u2019t consider that a detractor entirely. Most other light twins don\u2019t perform great on a single engine either, and I am not worried about its lack of comparable speed for cross-country flying with others in the market. Pilots need to log the flight time in training, and faster isn\u2019t always needed. It was a plane that got the job done and did it with minimal extra maintenance costs and complications.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many Seneca Is remain in service today, often in training fleets. Continuing to take a beating year after year and just keeping going. For flight schools facing rising expenses and a demand for accessible twin time, a reborn Seneca I would offer an unbeatable combination of safety, affordability, and real-world utility\u2014proving that sometimes, less turbo is more.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cessna 441 Conquest II<\/span>\"\"<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Cessna 441 Conquest II exemplifies a turboprop that mastered the art of transporting substantial loads over impressive distances, positioning it as an ideal candidate for resurgence in the current aviation landscape. Conceived in the mid-1970s to fill the void between Cessna’s piston twins and emerging jets, the 441 received FAA certification in August 1977 and was later rebranded as the Conquest II in 1983 to distinguish it from the smaller Conquest I (Cessna 425). Production spanned from 1977 to 1986, yielding 362 units, many of which remain operational today, a testament to their rugged build and timeless utility. Drawing on the piston-powered Cessna 404 Titan’s airframe, the 441 incorporated a pressurized cabin, retractable gear, and twin Garrett (now Honeywell) TPE331 turboprop engines, transforming it into a high-performance machine capable of jet-like speeds with turboprop efficiency.<\/span><\/p>\n

Diving into its specifications reveals why it was a standout: a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 9,925 pounds, with a basic empty weight around 5,692 pounds, allowing for a useful load often surpassing 3,000 pounds when configured optimally. Each TPE331-8-406S engine delivered 575 shaft horsepower, propelling the aircraft to a maximum cruise speed of 295 knots true airspeed (KTAS) at 25,000 feet, with economical long-range cruise at 260 KTAS burning about 70 gallons per hour combined. The wingspan measured 49 feet 4 inches, overall length 39 feet 1 inch, and height 13 feet 3 inches. Its pressurized cabin maintained a sea-level environment up to 25,100 feet, with a certified ceiling of 35,000 feet, enabling it to overfly weather systems that grounded lesser aircraft. Range varied from 1,200 nautical miles with maximum payload to over 2,200 nautical miles with lighter loads and auxiliary fuel tanks.<\/span><\/p>\n

The 441’s hauling credentials were legendary; it could transport up to 10 people (including pilots) or equivalent cargo across continents, making it a favorite for regional airlines, corporate shuttles, air ambulance services, and even government surveillance roles. Its short takeoff and landing (STOL) capabilities requiring just 2,200 feet for takeoff over a 50-foot obstacle at sea level. Many pilots routinely operated (and continue to do so) these aircraft out of 3500-foot strips fully loaded, something they wouldn\u2019t do with many other aircraft of the size that suck up much more runway in their takeoff and landing operations.. In terms of weight and balance, the design featured a generous center-of-gravity envelope and power loading that facilitated single-engine performance exceeding 1,000 feet per minute of climb at sea level.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the 441’s journey wasn’t without turbulence. Early models encountered tail flutter issues, prompting a fleet-wide grounding from 1977 to 1979 for inspections and modifications, including strengthened horizontal stabilizers and revised control surfaces. These fixes solidified its reputation for safety, but production ceased in 1986 as Cessna pivoted toward jet production amid market shifts. Today, with the rise of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and a need for cost-effective alternatives to jets in a post-pandemic world, reviving the 441 makes strategic sense. Compared to contemporaries like the Beechcraft King Air 200, the 441 offered superior range and payload at lower acquisition costs\u2014around $1.5 million new in the 1980s, equivalent to about $4 million today\u2014potentially undercutting modern equivalents if reproduced with economies of scale.<\/span><\/p>\n

In an era where operators seek to minimize operational expenses while maximizing versatility, the Conquest II could thrive in cargo feeder roles for e-commerce giants or as executive transports in developing regions with limited jet infrastructure. Its proven track record in harsh environments, coupled with potential noise-reduction updates to comply with stricter regulations, positions it as a bridge between vintage reliability and future-proof innovation.<\/span><\/p>\n

To me, these five aircraft, the Cessna 441, the Piper PA-12, the Cessna T41, the Cherokee 235, and the Seneca I, embody aviation’s golden era. If we had them again, they could blend nostalgia with modernity, meeting current needs for efficiency and versatility. As markets evolve, perhaps manufacturers will revisit these legends, or develop new aircraft that leverage the strengths these discontinued examples leave us now in legacy, and a few remaining airframes that many operators cling to without a real replacement for any of them truly available.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have regularly been asked by people considering buying an aircraft, \u201cWhat\u2019s a good plane?\u201d I half-jokingly respond many times, \u201cThe good ones are the ones they still make.\u201d And there is some truth in this. Planes that were weird, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aviation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5119"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5119\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5127,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5119\/revisions\/5127"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonblair.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}