High Cost of Sportplanes

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

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
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.
[snip]

Gordon,

Some time ago, a friend of mine graphed the cost of increasingly large
hard drives for computers. As luck would have it, the graph was a
straight line. My friend then went on to explaine that if you extended
the low end of the line until it crossed the x axis, this was the base
cost of producing & delivering any hard drive. I wonder if such an
analysis makes any sense in the light plane market? Given the nature of
todays technologies for assembling composite/legacy structures, labor,
realestate, profit, etc. Is there a cost associated with this class of
ariplane (LSA or not) below which a commercial plane can't be delivered
without structural changes to how we assemble airplanes?

Evan

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:44:06 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
wrote:

Jim,



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,



You have a good point. I haven't priced a skyhawk recently. All I
have seen are Ovations and Cirruses (Cirri?) which are ridiculously
priced.

What we could be looking at also is short term economic profit. A new
economic sector opened up and very few competitors are in the market
(in the US). In the short term, these companies make an excess profit.
When other companies figure this out, they enter the market,
competition increases and prices go down.

It will take a year or two to for the market settle if this is the
case. I really have my finger crossed.

In reference to your origional post, these little planes are cool, but
overpriced for you, I and the general market. I'd buy a reasonaly
optioned Tecnam Sierra for about $40-50,000.

However, to a pilot with a potential busted medical, these planes are
cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if this is 99% of the market right
now. When these guys all get theirs, then the sellers might start
having a fire sell.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:44:06 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
wrote:

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.

Without considering whether of not I disagree on the overpricing of
the modern crop of (LSA legal) craft in general, one question that
comes to mind is how much it costs to make it lighter. Yes, the 172
has 4 seats, but it is 1600+ lbs empty. A new (2 place) Katana is
about $135k in basic form and weighs about 1150 empty. The Symphony
160, another 2 place, is 1450 empty. The Liberty XL2 is about 1050
empty; this is a unit convreted to certified from an experimental
design.

If any of these were rolling in the dough, they would, it seems,
lighten them up and get LSA compliant; one ASSUMES they could meet the
standards.

Maybe making something sturdy and light takes either money or time?
Maybe it takes both?

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.

What does Cessna/Piper/Diamond/Symphony/Liberty get to leave off to
save money? I intuitively feel that if they could make it lighter
they would, because weight is the enemy. The only disadvantage that
comes to mind is lower wing loading would make it less smooth in
flight.

All are handmade, a real issue. The ones who have done more to cut
costs are the Cirrus folks, and they are no cheaper.

While I have no source of even guesses to back this up, look at "18
wheeler" tractors ... MUCH higher volume, and still lots of $$$. I
bet the commonly used engines number in the same range as that of
Continentals and Lycomings, and that they build MANY more ... how much
$? The only creature comforts are in the seat; beyond that, there is
little beauty. How about off-road equipment ... that is not
inexpensive, either.

I _DO_ believe that Toyota (or Ford/GM/Chrysler/VW/Honda/whoever)
could build 50,000 a year of a similar model (one production line) at
a much lower price. They need to "know" that this market would
continue to buy for 5+ years to justify the tooling / plant / design.
Recall that automakers kinda look at 50,000 as the minimum number of a
product to be profitable. I found one statistic that 48,000,000 per
year are built.

We (collectively) probably average keeping a new automobile 4 years
(I'm guessing) and sell it for 30% of what we bought it for.

When we even APPROACH that kind of saturation, costs will fall. Wrecks
will go up, repairs will go up, the economy will grow sarcastic mode
was on.

I think that the prices being charged are fair at this stage of the
market cycle. They are probably making FAR less on investment than
Intel, or Merck, or Pierre Cardin.

I cannot afford one. If I could, I would use it as a toy, not a tool.
When some large number of the world's driving population needs one as
a tool, the price will drop. I predict that won't happen. I WISH IT
WOULD.

There is some of the chicken egg syndrome, but I don't think that if a
Cessna (172/182/206) could be sold for (40k/50k/70k), that there would
be a combined market of 100,000 per year, EVERY YEAR. That's what it
would take.

Just my 2 cents worth ... well, not worth that.

George,

The sportplanes are so light because it costs less to build with less
material. Any material costs money, including aircraft aluminum, composites,
wood, steel tube, fabric, or anything else. And if you have more material
you also have more work in shaping and fitting it.

There is no magic in this. None of the sportplane makers set out to take a
2000 pound plane and whittle it down to a 1000 pound plane. They started out
trying to make a small basic plane. By design, such an airplane can be very
light.

To assume that building light actually costs more is wrong. It weighs less
because you are getting a lot less airplane.

Regards,

Gordon.






"GeorgeB" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:44:06 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
wrote:

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.

Without considering whether of not I disagree on the overpricing of
the modern crop of (LSA legal) craft in general, one question that
comes to mind is how much it costs to make it lighter. Yes, the 172
has 4 seats, but it is 1600+ lbs empty. A new (2 place) Katana is
about $135k in basic form and weighs about 1150 empty. The Symphony
160, another 2 place, is 1450 empty. The Liberty XL2 is about 1050
empty; this is a unit convreted to certified from an experimental
design.

If any of these were rolling in the dough, they would, it seems,
lighten them up and get LSA compliant; one ASSUMES they could meet the
standards.

Maybe making something sturdy and light takes either money or time?
Maybe it takes both?

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.

What does Cessna/Piper/Diamond/Symphony/Liberty get to leave off to
save money? I intuitively feel that if they could make it lighter
they would, because weight is the enemy. The only disadvantage that
comes to mind is lower wing loading would make it less smooth in
flight.

All are handmade, a real issue. The ones who have done more to cut
costs are the Cirrus folks, and they are no cheaper.

While I have no source of even guesses to back this up, look at "18
wheeler" tractors ... MUCH higher volume, and still lots of $$$. I
bet the commonly used engines number in the same range as that of
Continentals and Lycomings, and that they build MANY more ... how much
$? The only creature comforts are in the seat; beyond that, there is
little beauty. How about off-road equipment ... that is not
inexpensive, either.

I _DO_ believe that Toyota (or Ford/GM/Chrysler/VW/Honda/whoever)
could build 50,000 a year of a similar model (one production line) at
a much lower price. They need to "know" that this market would
continue to buy for 5+ years to justify the tooling / plant / design.
Recall that automakers kinda look at 50,000 as the minimum number of a
product to be profitable. I found one statistic that 48,000,000 per
year are built.

We (collectively) probably average keeping a new automobile 4 years
(I'm guessing) and sell it for 30% of what we bought it for.

When we even APPROACH that kind of saturation, costs will fall. Wrecks
will go up, repairs will go up, the economy will grow sarcastic mode
was on.

I think that the prices being charged are fair at this stage of the
market cycle. They are probably making FAR less on investment than
Intel, or Merck, or Pierre Cardin.

I cannot afford one. If I could, I would use it as a toy, not a tool.
When some large number of the world's driving population needs one as
a tool, the price will drop. I predict that won't happen. I WISH IT
WOULD.

There is some of the chicken egg syndrome, but I don't think that if a
Cessna (172/182/206) could be sold for (40k/50k/70k), that there would
be a combined market of 100,000 per year, EVERY YEAR. That's what it
would take.

Just my 2 cents worth ... well, not worth that.

Along the lines of my previous posting regarding the theoretical base
price of any LSA plane produced commercially, I've provided the
following numbers for comparison. Note that the single biggest cost is
labor ( even at the ridiculously low rate I specified):

Airframe + avionics + engine + labor
kit basic O235
20000 + 4000 + 15000 + ( 500 * 45 ) = 61500

Note that labor costs 22500 and that the above number doesn't specify
any profit or liability insurance. Adding these two in easily puts the
base price over $80.00.

Of particular note, if the quantity of labor could be reduced by half on
both the production of the airframe parts and assembly, you might
conceivably squeeze out 20K from the base price. I'm not sure if your
average LSA/kit manufacturer is up to the task of tackling all the
required process/materials/FEA engineering necessary to realise those
savings, but I have a feeling a community effort might succeed if the
information were pooled.

I've seen other kit manufacturers attempt to recover these costs the
easy way over the last few years by moving operations to places such as
south america or south east asia. This however, seems to me to be a
short sighted way to recover assembly costs, particularly with the costs
of oil these days. If only these manufacturers would spend the money
they are going to spend on moving operations off shore on better
engineered products, then not only would we have better airplanes, but
they would be made at home.

Evan Carew

Evan Carew wrote:

I've seen other kit manufacturers attempt to recover these costs the
easy way over the last few years by moving operations to places such as
south america or south east asia. This however, seems to me to be a
short sighted way to recover assembly costs, particularly with the costs
of oil these days.

It may well be short sighted, but have you looked at the labels on any of
your recent purchases? I recently read an essay by G.K. Chesterton where he
questions the advisability of exploiting the cheap labor in the Far East;
the book I was reading was rather fragile, since it was published in 1912.
He, too, considered it short sighted.



----== 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 =----

bowman wrote:
Evan Carew wrote:



It may well be short sighted, but have you looked at the labels on any of
your recent purchases? I recently read an essay by G.K. Chesterton where he
questions the advisability of exploiting the cheap labor in the Far East;
the book I was reading was rather fragile, since it was published in 1912.
He, too, considered it short sighted.

An emotional subject for me, so I'm not sure I can provide useful
analysis, but it seems to me that if the companies making these parts
spent as much on reengineering their parts to be cheaper to make as they
did on shipping their operations off shore, we'd have a much more robust
manufacturing base here in the states.

Evan Carew wrote:

An emotional subject for me, so I'm not sure I can provide useful
analysis, but it seems to me that if the companies making these parts
spent as much on reengineering their parts to be cheaper to make as they
did on shipping their operations off shore, we'd have a much more robust
manufacturing base here in the states.

When I was a young engineer, around 1970, I worked in the machine tool
industry. It was an exciting time with many new technologies. The physical
plant was getting ready for replacement, since most of it dated back to the
wartime expansion in the forties. The oil embargo and related problems put
paid to that. Rather than investing in capital equipment, management took
the decision to seek cheaper labor. Rather than designing new equipment,
the firm I was with lasted a few more years rebuilding the forties machines
before they were shipped overseas. I was fortunate; control circuits are
control circuits and the logic of relays and transistors transferred well
to the microprocessors that were coming in; many were not as flexible or
were not in a position to start on a new career path.

You can now drive through the Connecticut river valley, once the home of
many of the US machine tool producers and find poverty and boarded up
factories. It's also a sensitive subject for me.



----== 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 =----

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.



Evan Carew wrote:

Along the lines of my previous posting regarding the theoretical base
price of any LSA plane produced commercially, I've provided the
following numbers for comparison. Note that the single biggest cost is
labor ( even at the ridiculously low rate I specified):

Airframe + avionics + engine + labor
kit basic O235
20000 + 4000 + 15000 + ( 500 * 45 ) = 61500

Note that labor costs 22500 and that the above number doesn't specify
any profit or liability insurance. Adding these two in easily puts the
base price over $80.00.

Of particular note, if the quantity of labor could be reduced by half on
both the production of the airframe parts and assembly, you might
conceivably squeeze out 20K from the base price. I'm not sure if your
average LSA/kit manufacturer is up to the task of tackling all the
required process/materials/FEA engineering necessary to realise those
savings, but I have a feeling a community effort might succeed if the
information were pooled.

I've seen other kit manufacturers attempt to recover these costs the
easy way over the last few years by moving operations to places such as
south america or south east asia. This however, seems to me to be a
short sighted way to recover assembly costs, particularly with the costs
of oil these days. If only these manufacturers would spend the money
they are going to spend on moving operations off shore on better
engineered products, then not only would we have better airplanes, but
they would be made at home.

Evan Carew