High Cost of Sportplanes

We are talking about a commercially built & sold unit here.

AINut wrote:
Replace that $15,000 for the engine with less than $5,000 for engine and
prop if you use auto engines and build the PSRU yourself.

"rons321" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello Bob!!! I can only agree with you on the cost of design and
manufacturing of todays aircraft of all types. It seams like this
aviation stuff is fast becoming a rich mans sport as with all other
types of transportation vehicles to. Also the cost of fuel , oil, and
parts today are a major problem to. Maybe someday everything will get
back to normal, what ever that is. Take Care. Ron


Back to normal? When was flying not a rich man's, and if not a rich man's at
least a fairly well off man's sport?

No reason the commercial vendors can't use auto engines, too.


Evan Carew wrote:
We are talking about a commercially built & sold unit here.

AINut wrote:

Replace that $15,000 for the engine with less than $5,000 for engine
and prop if you use auto engines and build the PSRU yourself.

"AINut" wrote in message
...
No reason the commercial vendors can't use auto engines, too.


Evan Carew wrote:
We are talking about a commercially built & sold unit here.

AINut wrote:

Replace that $15,000 for the engine with less than $5,000 for engine and
prop if you use auto engines and build the PSRU yourself.

That may or may not be true. I haven't read the standard that LSA planes
have to built to. I'm sure someone here has though. What does it say about
engines that can be used?

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:45:00 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
wrote:

Replace that $15,000 for the engine with less than $5,000 for engine and
prop if you use auto engines and build the PSRU yourself.

We are talking about a commercially built & sold unit here.

No reason the commercial vendors can't use auto engines, too.

That may or may not be true. I haven't read the standard that LSA planes
have to built to. I'm sure someone here has though. What does it say about
engines that can be used?

The engines used in production LSAs must meet the consensus standard for
engines, ASTM F 2339-04. It is greatly simplified over 14CFR Part 33, but there
are definite design criteria the engine must meet, documentation that must be
generated, and endurance testing that must be performed.


Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The engines used in production LSAs must meet the consensus standard for
engines, ASTM F 2339-04. It is greatly simplified over 14CFR Part 33, but
there are definite design criteria the engine must meet, documentation
that must be generated, and endurance testing that must be performed.

Is that standard realistic? I don't mean that as the start of another long
war, just as a general question. At one point we subcontracted to produce
airport lighting systems (the rabbit) and that standard encapsulated 1940's
technology. For instance, the wiring harnesses had to be laced since there
was a suspicion of the new fangled nylon ties, and the sequencing was done
with an electro-mechanical stepper relay.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:16:50 -0600, bowman wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The engines used in production LSAs must meet the consensus standard for
engines, ASTM F 2339-04. It is greatly simplified over 14CFR Part 33, but
there are definite design criteria the engine must meet, documentation
that must be generated, and endurance testing that must be performed.

Is that standard realistic? I don't mean that as the start of another long
war, just as a general question. At one point we subcontracted to produce
airport lighting systems (the rabbit) and that standard encapsulated 1940's
technology. For instance, the wiring harnesses had to be laced since there
was a suspicion of the new fangled nylon ties, and the sequencing was done
with an electro-mechanical stepper relay.

The ASTM engine standard is all of two and a half pages long...about 1/10th the
size of Part 33 (although Part 33 covers stuff like jet engines, too). As far
as I can tell, it does not require specific implementations, such as the lacing
you mention).

Here's an example, from Paragraph 5.6, "Electronic Engine Controllers (EEC)":

"...for protection against radiated EMI/HIRF, the harnesses or cables should be
shielded from each sensor to each end point and electrically bonded to the
engine. Filter pin connectors should be located at the controller housing
interface and shunted to ground on the case. Filter pin connectors should have
40 dB attenuation, minimum."

Nothing on *how* the cables should be shielded, just a requirement to shield
them.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Nothing on how the cables should be shielded, just a requirement to shield
them.

That is better than some of the documents I've worked with. I wonder how
many existing engines would meet the standard as is or with minor
modification -- if the manufacturer were interested in a share in a very
small market. Back to the numbers game...


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:16:50 -0600, bowman wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

The engines used in production LSAs must meet the consensus standard for
engines, ASTM F 2339-04. It is greatly simplified over 14CFR Part 33, but
there are definite design criteria the engine must meet, documentation
that must be generated, and endurance testing that must be performed.

Is that standard realistic?

Probably. Rotax, with their production certificate (do they call it
that for engines?) for the 912, self certified their ULS series, and
Jabiru has done the same for theirs. I've not looked at any of the VW
derivatives (Limbach) to see, but that exhausts my knowldge of engines
intneded by their manufacturers for aircraft use which are not
certified and which might be suitable for LSA. While not absolute,
with the weight limit of 1320 lbs, I'd say there is a realistic limit
at 250 lbs. The 200 or 240 cid Lycoming/Contientals might fit in, but
not the bigger ones. In any event, the new versions being offered by
these for experimental will surely meet ASTM.

I don't mean that as the start of another long
war, just as a general question. At one point we subcontracted to produce
airport lighting systems (the rabbit) and that standard encapsulated 1940's
technology. For instance, the wiring harnesses had to be laced since there
was a suspicion of the new fangled nylon ties, and the sequencing was done
with an electro-mechanical stepper relay.

I've not ehard nor read complaints here. You can buy the standard
from ASTM, I believe. I don't kow the $, but those things tend to be
in the $50-$500 range.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:26:44 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
wrote:

I think a lot of people would buy a new airplane for $50,000.

It is completely possible and feasible to produce a decent two-seat, $50,000
sportplane and make a profit. And I think that will happen in due time -- no
thanks the stupid magazines telling us a what a great deal these $100,000
plastic toys are.

Take the Sonex, for example ... buy the kit, hardware, and a "basic"
instrumentation package for (I'll do some guessing here) $19,000, add
the Jab for $11,000, and you have about $30,000 in material.

An experienced builder can probalby build it and paint it for under
$20,000, so your $50,000 wouldn't seem out of range.

There have been questions asked of Sonex as to whether they were going
to do this; they say no, but there is a veiled hint that there may be
discussions with someone somewhere who is considering it.