High Cost of Sportplanes

On 2005-09-17 13:48:57 -0400, Evan Carew said:

Interesting economic proposal there. I wonder if its time for the
experimental community to consider something along the lines of a few,
open, i.e. GPLd designs, which manufacturers can build standardized
parts and tooling for.

Already been done.

The Gyrobee gyroplane, developed as a documentation package by Dr Ralph
McTaggart. Parts available from several vendors, notably StarBee Gyros
of Worcester, Massachusetts.

http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/gyro/gbee.htm

There is another UL gyro project, Tim Blackwell's Jyro Deer, that Tim
has promised to open-source when he has it sorted. I'm not aware of any
f/w but it's a really, really good idea, Evan, isn't it?

Fundamental problems with LSA pricing are perception problems, IMHO:

1. existing kit buyers (& wannabees) are mostly cheap charlies, and or
walter mittys.

2. ergo, they will never buy at any price under which a product can be
made. As Bob Kuykendall pointed out, these things are built by hand
(volumes too small for automation, until you're Cirrus size).

3. Economies from US + Euro standardization won't happen. The US market
is already resisting the european JAR VLA designs available under SLSA
because they are cramped for large, fat Americans. (as one vendor told
me, "these planes are built for bony French asses," eh.) . US allows
600 KG, Euros 450 -- that's a difference which will allow (require)
differentiation. Indeed the first designs to US (not Euro) specs are
happening already.

4. You can build a plane for relatively low money now (Fly Baby, Zenith
from plans) and most choose not to. A lot of people still seem to be
looking for the four-seat 200-knot STOL plane they can build for $30k
in 200 hours and power with an old Corvair engine. It never existed and
it's never going to.

5. If LSA succeeds it will be because people who are not in aviation
now come in. Compare what you can do in a high end SLSA and what you
can do in a sailboat. Compare prices new. These planes are not
competing with a stack of wood and a set of Pietenpol plans, they are
competing with boats, snowmobiles and ATVs, and other outdoor
recreations.

6. Some of the statements by the original poster, about Cirrus
specifically, are not true. The unrecoverability from spin is one of
them (Cirrus SR-20 was spun at least once in testing and recovered with
normal inputs, opposite rudder, neutral ailerons and forward stick).
It's true a full spin series was not done, and it's also true a full
spin series is not required by FAR 23. Most of us fly planes that are
placarded against spins -- I daresay all of us have flown a 172, which
is placarded against spins in some conditions (i.e. flaps down -- the
rudder is masked in that case and recovery is compromised). The P-51
Mustang is placarded against spins with the fuselage tank full (many
privately held Mustangs have this tank removed). Remedial action in the
PIF (1940s version of a dash one) is to bail out!

In re Cirrus, salesmen for a competing product were spreading the
"Cirrus has a chute because it is unsafe" canard in 2001-03 and have
been directed to stop by the manufacturer of their product, cause it
ain't true. The chute was part of the very first designs for what
ultimately became the SR-20. It was from the outset a key component of
the Klapmeiers' safety vision for their aircraft.

The VK-30 kit and VK-50 may have had nonstandard spin characteristics
-- I don't know -- but they were withdrawn from the market, and
represent an earlier, and much less mature, vision than the SR series.

7. The entrepreneurs that build kit aircraft or make plans available
are taking immense risks for measly returns. The average kit impresario
would have done better putting his money in Enron stock. I know one guy
who finished his prototype after years of labor, built his production
tooling, then lost the prototype in a ground fire -- meanwhile, people
who looked at his very capable kit aircraft kept telling him he was
charging too much for kits -- the price they wanted to pay was less
than his cost of materials.

I know another fellow who got more magazine covers than you could shake
a stick at with his beautiful, powerful, roomy kit. You can't eat
magazine covers. Or Gold Lindys for that matter. He sold a number of
kits that you can count on your fingers, and decided to build UAVs for
a customer that appreciated his efforts, was straight with him, and
paid well -- the government, of all things -- rather than customers who
disparaged his efforts, lied, and stiffed him. He would love to offer
kits again some day but he has a family that deserves better of him.

The most successful kit companies like Van's and RANS to name two, are
barely getting by, by the standards of modern industry. Exxon made 9.9
percent last quarter. Bank of America, almost 30%. What did Van's make?
Payroll, I would guess. The only people that ever made 30% in this
industry did it by selling stuff they didn't have to sell (we could all
name the names).

8. For those that offer these products in this fickle market, the only
possible explanation is that they have emotional reasons for doing so.
For that, I am grateful. Think about what Richard van Grunsven has done
for our sport, and think about what he could have done for himself if
he had applied that level of effort to working for Bank of America
stacking up someone's gold teeth in a vault, or for Exxon or somebody.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.