Evan,

Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if the $50,000 sportplane
is feasible.

If I was to offer $10,000 to someone on this list to assemble a Zenith 601,
would I have any takers? I think yes. There are probably guys here who have
built one of these -- or similar -- before and have all the tools and know
what's involved.

The kit from Zenith costs about 15k, let's say the Rotax is another 15k, the
10k mentioned for assembly, and add another 10k for various bits and pieces.
That is $50,000 total.

No there would not be a profit for me, but Zenith, Rotax and everyone else
is still making a profit, including any and all middlemen.

Now if I had my own design and could stamp out the metal myself, instead of
having to buy a kit from someone else, would I be able to make a profit?
Yes. I would make at least as much profit as Zenith makes on the sale of one
of their kits.

So there you have it, the $50,000 sportplane -- without any structural
changes to the industry.

The more I think about, the more this is a no-brainer. I think the people
who doubt the viability of the $50,000 sportplane are simply conditioned by
the marketing propaganda spread by the various commercial interestes and
their mouthpieces, the magazines.


Regards,

Gordon.




"Evan Carew" wrote in message
. ..
Anyone in the fiberglass / aluminum sheet metal industry ( or other
successful enthusiasts ) interested in contributing to some
experimentation. If you are interested, and willing to have the results
released to the public, I think we could make a real contribution to this
debate & perhaps offer some solutions to the small plane industries labor
problem.

What I am thinking of is a bake off to design two reference structures.
One of fiberglass & one of aluminum. Each must be finished (primed &
painted), and each must have an exact tally of labor for construction. A
separate tally should include the cost (tho not labor) involved in the
tooling.

The goal of this bake off is to provide the industry with a method which
could produce an airframe with 500Hrs or less of labor, and a defined
amount of materials. Since there seems to be a kind of religious quality
to preferences for building materials, both general types will be used,
thus providing a gage by which others might choose their preferred
construction method.

To start the bake off, two reference structures, one for each building
method, would have to be designed in CAD. These reference structures would
each have the same structural goals and strength specs. Each reference
structure would not necessarily have to be to scale. Remember, the goal
here is NOT to prove that one construction technique is superior to
another, but rather to provide a choice of feasible methods to the
commercial LSA designer/builder. If designed in a public forum such as
this one, the structure & building techniques would be peer reviewed &
presumably employ the full collection of best construction practices, and
should yield procedures simple and cheap enough to be used by companies of
limited means.

If enough people with the experience and means to volunteer for this first
phase, then the remaining phases would be worth hashing out later.