![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ron,
That's a good comparison. A Glasair or Lancair kit costs about double what a Van's kit costs and it still takes about the same build time to complete. In fact even the Van's quick-build costs less than a Glasair slow-build and you get probably less than half the build time. And what if the Van's kit were designed to be built with pulled rivets? This would cut build time dramatically and that slow-build kit could be built in about the same time it takes to build one of the composite fast-build kits that cost three times as much. Look at the Zenith 601, and compare its price to some of the sportplane composite kits. The composte kits are usually twice as much money. The conclusion has to be that composites are more expensive because it costs more to make them. No question about it, composite construction involves lots of hands-on labor. Also composite materials are expensive compared to aluminum. So if there is no advantage in labor costs and material costs are higher, how does composite make sense for a cheap airplane? It doesn't. Regards, Gordon. "Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:47:38 -0400, Roger wrote: On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut" wrote: Evan, I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made -- however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be less labor-intensive. Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to making large compound structures as one piece. There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass construction, That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends itself well to putting pieces together. I dunno, Roger. I've been both to the Glastar factory and the Vans factory. At Vans, a guy feeds a big piece of aluminum into a big CNC machine and whango-whango-whango out comes a big pile of RV parts. But then I go see the Glastar's fiberglass fuselage made, and its spray the release agent onto the mold, then the gelcoat, then cut pieces of fiberglass and lay them into the mold, then squeegee on some resin, then apply the foam, then apply another layer of fiberglass and more resin, etc. etc., lather, rinse, repeat, then let the assembly tie up your every expensive mold while the resin cures. Looked to me that manufacturing aircraft parts in fiberglass is a *lot* more effort...though I allow that less-skilled workers can probably be used. Ron Wanttaja P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed "whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Could it happen he The High Cost of Operating in Europe | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 5 | July 14th 03 02:34 AM |