Jim,

That's a good point about the tiny cost of LSA certification. It adds almost
nothing to the cost of the plane.

In fact LSA "certification" bears no resemblance to the conventional
certification we are all familiar with. As I understand it, it simply
involves building a prototype and then filling out a bunch of paperwork
stating that your plane and manufacturing setup complies with the standards.
There is no flight testing, structural testing, or testing of any kind, that
I'm aware. Even the responsibility for devising and administering the
certification standards themselves has been outsourced to a private-sector
entity, the ASTM. It's like the FAA isn't even involved at all.

Someone mentioned liability insurance and that's probably an expense that is
incurred by the manufacturers, although I doubt that this adds up to a whole
lot either.

Others have mentioned the high cost of labor and this too is valid.

However, Cessna has all of these costs -- and more --and is still able to
price a brand new Skyhawk at $155,000. This is a tremendous value when
compared to one of these new LSAs that cost close to $100,000.

Let's look at the CT2K for example. This composite plane carries a list
price of $85,000 and with even a few panel options that most of us would
consider essential, you are close to $100,000. this plane has an empty
weight of under 600 pounds and a gross weight of just over 1200lbs., which
is less than half of the Skyhawk.

The Skyhawk seats four in a well-appointed cabin with 20g seats, full gyro
panel, a decent radio stack and a robust Lycoming powerplant. It has had the
benefit of a rigorous FAR 23 certification process that is comparable to the
standards that business jets have to meet. It is a very substantial, real
traveling airplane -- the CT2K comes off rather toylike by comparison.

Yet somehow Cessna manages to give you all this for a cost of only about 50
percent more than the CT2K. Either Cessna is some kind of manufacturing
genius or the LSA is way overpriced. You are literally getting more than
twice the airplane for only half again as much cost.

Regards,

Gordon.






"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:07:29 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

Maybe one of the things the FAA needs to take a look at is the cost they
add
into "making" a new airplane. If the idea was to make sport pilot a more
affordable way to fly, and the certification process keeps it out of reach
..then it isn't doing anything. The common man still will have a hard time
affording it.

Thay have and LSA is the result of that. LSA is an experiment in
deregulation of the aircraft industry. I think someone said the
certifications costs are about 1/100 of old standard category
aircraft.


I will never agree to how much some of these planes cost. I think it
has
more to do with greed. I'm not saying the red tape of it all does not add
up,...but I don't know exactly the cost of all the red tape. I do know the
costs of materials and the cost of labor. Union shops definitely have
costs
problems ( this seems to hold true in auto and aviation). Unions have a
hard
time understanding that when their product cost so much people do not buy
it
then they do not have a job.

Labor is a significant factor.

A company usually gets alot better deal buying materials than just you
or I would, because a company is buying in bulk. So I see reasons things
would cost alittle more, and I see things that make it cost less. As for
the
FAA red tape..what really is the cost? What does that money go for?
I see alot more planes selling for 20,000 than for 100,000 in the
sport
category. All that can afford to buy the high priced (and over priced) LS
planes will be retired docs and lawyers who can't get a medical anymore.
How
much of a percent is that of pilots? How much of a percent is it of the
general population that may would be interested in sport pilot? Very small
I
would think, and I don't see how they will make money on such slow and
sporadic sales.
Seems to me there are alot of factors , but we most definitely can't
rule out the biggest one....GREED.



Greed isn't an economic factor. People charge what the market will
bear. That's capitalism.

If somone could build them cheaper using their current techniques,
they would have an economic incentive to do so and the prices would
drop. The problem is that the current manufacturers haven't figured
out how to make them cheaper.

It's not materials, It's time and labor. A 'vette is far more complex
than your typical LSA and is cheaper. They have production down to a
science and can capitalize cost over a larger market.

Current composite manufacturing is a slow and expensive process.
Boeing is the only company I know of that has automated the process in
any way and they can only build cylinders. When someone can create a
composite "stamper" that can crank airframe components out and be
affordable, this market will change radically.

IMHO, a supply of cheap planes is what GA needs to break out of it's
rut. It would make them afforadable to a larger cross section of
people. The would increase exposure and make them more mainstream
which would resolve a lot of our political hassles.

The ADIZ doesn't apply to cars. Why? Because everyone has one and
doesn't think they are dangerous.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org