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.

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.

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.

rec.aviation.HOMEBUILT

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

On 2005-09-17 13:44:06 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut" said:

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.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a new Skyhawk for that
price. Most of them sell with NAVII or NAVIII and some are now selling
with Garmin glass. $$$$$$

Most of the cost of a new Cessna, or Cirrus, for that matter, is
bought-in assemblies and material. Cessna manages to duck some of it
because it buys engines from a corporate partner, but not much.


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 CT's dimensions and weights are constrained by the European
ultralight category. If the designers could work to the larger US
sportplane

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.

The manufacturing cost for the Cessna is probably actually lower, and
most of the design engineering has been amortized. The 172 is a much
more profitable product for both manufacturer and dealer than the CT.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.