Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes

Evan Carew wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

shrike,

I'm not trying to attract flames here, but this is exactly an
engineering issue. Other issues having to do with entry into the market
are not part of this discussion. There are already other companies in
this market who could choose to use this technology to reduce their
costs for instance. The point is NOT to define a new viable company with
a new process, but rather to inform those already in the business,
or
those just getting started of at least one cheap process. In addition,
since we aren't defining an actual airframe, but rather a process,
liability issues will be minimized.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDQ+FdpxCQXwV2bJARAsU2AKCzM/rbGmp76/rogxrfdDgPE2IXVACaA5b+
WQl/BLqKhUfmFZUno8VstEo=
=gqRd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Did you forget to take your meds today? Your either a troll or your
about 16yo. In either case your playing grabass. I'm sorry I ever tried
to help you.

-Matt

"Evan Carew" wrote:

As a first step, then, lets agree on some realistic commercial
numbers.
...
12000 rent...

Stuck on the very first number. How many sq. feet you figure
there, to build and market 100 planes/year? By golly, at our
airport there's decently sized and appointed hangar bldg for you, a
former bizjet maintenance facility. The annual ground lease the
bldg.owner (would be you if you had built - for $1 mil,) pays to
the airport is $50,000! So, I guess Acme Airplane Co. leases a
bldg. elsewhere. That means you still lease space at the airport
for testbed and demo planes. Since this is a commercial operation,
the airport might charge much extra, not just T-hangar rates.
Figure $20K there. You'll have travel and dead time costs for the
employees shuttling back/forth, and some duplication in staffing to
work on and sell the planes. Like your one busy sales guy has to
go 30 miles to meet a prospect who shows up an hour late.

Remember if 100 units turns out to be a pipe dream, your overhead
don't shrink much. Was that a 5-year bldg lease you signed?

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:
"Evan Carew" wrote:

As a first step, then, lets agree on some realistic commercial
numbers.
...
12000 rent...

Stuck on the very first number. How many sq. feet you figure
there, to build and market 100 planes/year? By golly, at our
airport there's decently sized and appointed hangar bldg for you, a
former bizjet maintenance facility. The annual ground lease the
bldg.owner (would be you if you had built - for $1 mil,) pays to
the airport is $50,000! So, I guess Acme Airplane Co. leases a
bldg. elsewhere. That means you still lease space at the airport
for testbed and demo planes. Since this is a commercial operation,
the airport might charge much extra, not just T-hangar rates.
Figure $20K there. You'll have travel and dead time costs for the
employees shuttling back/forth, and some duplication in staffing to
work on and sell the planes. Like your one busy sales guy has to
go 30 miles to meet a prospect who shows up an hour late.

Remember if 100 units turns out to be a pipe dream, your overhead
don't shrink much. Was that a 5-year bldg lease you signed?

The LSA will be cost-effective when 10,000 units in two or three years
is a realistic goal.

As an aside, look at the way the Germans managed to build airplanes at
the end of the war-or the way huge mine trucks are built today. Most
are built in buildings that the assembled truck could barely fit in and
certainly never be driven out of without dismantling the building. I'd
say you could build a light aircraft designed for manufacturability in
a building roughly the size of a McDonald's and truck them to the
airport with a bread van.

Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane.

In fact, there's a hell of a case for combining such an operation with
either an A&P school or a sheltered workshop-don't laugh, Rosie the
Riveter was only one of the famous nontraditional aircraft workers in
The Big One. Doug the Dwarf, Roger the Retard, Crazy Chuck, and Ollie
the Old F*** were there too!

("Bret Ludwig" wrote)
[snip]
Any mass produced successful sport aircraft today ought to have
folding wings, whether it's trailered or if it goes in a community
hanger. There is a folding wing mod for the venerable Ercoupe (it's
STC'd or their equivalent in Canada, I'm not sure here) and five or six
of them will fit in the hangar footprint of a Skylane.


I started a fresh thread: Folding wing for Ercoupes?


Montblack

"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

The LSA will be cost-effective when 10,000 units in two or three
years
is a realistic goal.


FAA's projection is actually for about 10,000 LSA planes in the
total fleet, but flat at that level thereafter, after a few years.

This includes all types of LSAs, including previous "fat
ultralights" now to be in compliance. If there's a dozen or two
major players to produce the planes we'd prefer -- the top end of
LSA limits-- that's not much annual production for each of the
players, so costs are a real factor. With FAA projection of a
future flat market, what decision does an investor make to design
and produce the best performing LSAs?

Fred F.

Evan Carew wrote:
Section 8,

Interesting use of words there. In my experience, "the tragedy of the
commons" is common jargon for lawyers. I however, work in the computer
science field and am familiar with the Linux OS phenomenon. In that
case, an entire OS & suite of applications was created out of love.
Granted, the cost of such a creation is much lower than for aircraft
structural design, however, I'm guessing that most of us in this news
group have enough tools and materials to put together such reference
structures as we are talking about here.



I'm also a lover of Linux, and OS/2 before that. I am deeply inbedded
with the Open Source philosophy. I'm also building an airplane. The
difference here is that on Linux, a single person can design a file
system or a sound driver all by themselves, and it can be integrated
with the whole. You can't design a rudder and stick it on any ol'
airframe. An efficient aircraft has to be designed as a whole. Each
aircraft is a single set of compromises flying in formation, and for the
most part, you can't mix compromises.

The closest you'll get to an Open Source aircraft design is to create
something in its entirety and then present it to the community for them
to tell you what's wrong with it. After spending several thousand hours
on development, most people will push back at the criticism.

Don't be fooled. An Xplane model that says its a high-wing using XYZ
airfoil at position gamma is not a design. What type of rib? How is it
attached? What size is the spar attachment bolt? All the questions are
uniquely answered by a 'brazillion' other considerations, all of which
I, and probably yourself, are uniquely UNqualified to answer. I say the
latter because like yourself, I have a background in computer science
(and just enough aviation knowledge to know that I don't know enough).

--
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)."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ernest Christley wrote:

Don't be fooled. An Xplane model that says its a high-wing using XYZ
airfoil at position gamma is not a design. What type of rib? How is it
attached? What size is the spar attachment bolt? All the questions are
uniquely answered by a 'brazillion' other considerations, all of which
I, and probably yourself, are uniquely UNqualified to answer. I say the
latter because like yourself, I have a background in computer science
(and just enough aviation knowledge to know that I don't know enough).

ARGGGHHH! Ok, no offense here, but this isn't about a design, rather,
its about a process. The question is "How can we reduce the cost?" The
answer isn't "Design it this way", but rather "Build it this way."

To answer this question, I am proposing to build two reference
structures, each a conic section, one of metal & the other of
fiberglass. Both must be finished. Period. The point is to collect
community input on how to complete each one with the least amount of
labor & cost.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRdrQpxCQXwV2bJARAh0UAJ95RIxgib8VDzjtzSlEOp wMgRoZNACfZpzq
xWWLMpwsFUyp/7m83WITnLU=
=TMt4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ernest Christley wrote:
Evan Carew wrote:
Section 8,

Interesting use of words there. In my experience, "the tragedy of the
commons" is common jargon for lawyers. I however, work in the computer
science field and am familiar with the Linux OS phenomenon. In that
case, an entire OS & suite of applications was created out of love.
Granted, the cost of such a creation is much lower than for aircraft
structural design, however, I'm guessing that most of us in this news
group have enough tools and materials to put together such reference
structures as we are talking about here.



I'm also a lover of Linux, and OS/2 before that. I am deeply inbedded
with the Open Source philosophy. I'm also building an airplane. The
difference here is that on Linux, a single person can design a file
system or a sound driver all by themselves, and it can be integrated
with the whole. You can't design a rudder and stick it on any ol'
airframe. An efficient aircraft has to be designed as a whole. Each
aircraft is a single set of compromises flying in formation, and for the
most part, you can't mix compromises.

The closest you'll get to an Open Source aircraft design is to create
something in its entirety and then present it to the community for them
to tell you what's wrong with it. After spending several thousand hours
on development, most people will push back at the criticism.


Almost all homebuilts before the Rutans', and many factory built light
aircraft, were designed by rule of thumb, cookbook, That Looks About
Right, and modelmaking experience, with AC 43.13 and its predecessors
as execution guides.

A "smart CAD" system could be used to be able to generate a number of
designs from certain elements. Keep in mind most successful lightplane
manufacturere used a given assembly, structure or design in multiple
aircraft. The T-34 is a Bonanza, the -34C adds (IIRC) Baron main gear
and structure. The Cessna Bird Dog uses a 195 vertical tail and rudder
(actually, rudders are the most fungible part of subsonic aircraft
design.) The highwing fabric Pipers and their clones the Maules are
basically Chinese menu airplanes.

If you are certifying to a "consesnus standard" such an AI system
could be used to verify a large number of possible configurations.

Evan Carew wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ernest Christley wrote:


Don't be fooled. An Xplane model that says its a high-wing using XYZ
airfoil at position gamma is not a design. What type of rib? How is
it attached? What size is the spar attachment bolt? All the
questions are uniquely answered by a 'brazillion' other
considerations, all of which I, and probably yourself, are uniquely
UNqualified to answer. I say the latter because like yourself, I have
a background in computer science (and just enough aviation knowledge
to know that I don't know enough).

ARGGGHHH! Ok, no offense here, but this isn't about a design, rather,
its about a process. The question is "How can we reduce the cost?" The
answer isn't "Design it this way", but rather "Build it this way."

To answer this question, I am proposing to build two reference
structures, each a conic section, one of metal & the other of
fiberglass. Both must be finished. Period. The point is to collect
community input on how to complete each one with the least amount of
labor & cost.

No offense, but your proposal wont prove anything. I built a tubular
fuselage in about 3months. That was over 3 yrs ago, and I've been
working steadily since. Throwing together the shell is quick and easy.
Getting all the details together takes forever. Building a tail cone
can be done in a day in either glass, aluminum or steel tube.


--
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)."