High Cost of Sportplanes

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
It seems a lot of people have been writing letters to Kitplanes magazine
complaining about the unexpectedly steep prices of the new crop of
factory-built sportplanes. So the editor of that publication decided to
respond. His message: Get used to it.

This really infuriated me, not only because the commentary lacked any
substance about why prices are what they appear to be, but also because this
is another example of the shameless pandering to advertisers, or potential
advertisers.

Pandering to advertisers, eh? Did you go into work last week and tell
your boss that he was a dip**** for such-n-such a decision? Naw, I
guess your pandering is acceptable then.


The "yes, boss" attitude toward industry is nothing new in the enthusiast
magazine sector of course (cars, bikes, what have you), but it is really
plumbing new lows lately. Flying, which used to be a decent rag under Dick
Collins, has zero integrity nowadays. A couple of years ago I read with
interest as Collins commented pointedly about the spate of deadly crashes in
Cirrus airplanes. He questioned whether the airplane was dangerous in spins
since it had not been certifed for such -- the parachute being considered as
a kind of substitute by regulators, apparently.

I silently applauded Collins' integrity, but remember thinking that such an
editorial faux pas as daring to criticize an advertiser -- even on something
as crucial as safety -- would not go unpunished. I was right. The very next
month's issue did not have an ad from Cirrus, which had been advertising
every month until the Collins commentary.


Way to go. No need to speak up when someone does the right thing, now
is there? How come you didn't volunteer to replace the lost add revenue
while you were remaining silent?

In fact it was quite a few months until the Cirrus ads reappeared in that
august publication -- with the spineless J. MacLellan , taking every
possible opportunity to gladhand Cirrus in the meantime, with all kinds of
glowing write-ups, cover photos, you name it. I guess the grovelling finally
paid off, and Cirrus decided to start writing checks to Flying again.

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.

Want a magazine that tells the truth and isn't worried about advertisers
(cause they don't have any), the subscribe to "Consumer Reports".

Now back to the issue about the high cost of sportplanes. What should have
been said in this "editorial" but wasn't is that the prices are too high.
Way too high in fact.

Frankly I don't think this price level will hold. I think there is a real
opportunity for enterprising individuals to jump in and build a nice little
sportplane at the $50,000 price point. Only then will this category take
off. If we don't see prices come down to this level, sportplanes will turn
out to be nothing but a marginal part of the aviation scene.


Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.

Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.

So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.

--
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 Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:44:24 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.

This is bordering on troll territotory, but I will bite.

I think he expects what everyone else expects. An honest review.
Anything less than that is just marketing. I have a susbscrition to
Flying, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy the magazine if it's
just a schill for the aviation comanpies.

There are plenty of "Marketing" mags out there for many industries.
All they are is marketing slicks and maybe an occasional fluff
article. They beg you to get a free subscribtion so their demos are
better and advertising revenue goes up. That not what I expect from
Flying. If I pay, I expect information.

The thing you forget about in you money equaiton. Advertising pays
the bills, but without subscribers, their advertising doesn't bring in
squat.

I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine that was pretty good in the
past, but then it really started regurgitating the marketing slicks
that the regulator companies produced. So I stopped subscribing.
They didn't miss me perhaps but that rag is known in the industry as a
hack magazine and I think that the only people that subscribe are
newbies that don't know any better. Their revenue is currently
suffereing.



Want a magazine that tells the truth and isn't worried about advertisers
(cause they don't have any), the subscribe to "Consumer Reports".


Good magazine. Doesn't have a lot to do with aviation.


Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.

Hope your plane turns out well.

And I would expect that most of your equipment is idle while you are
working on one particular part. This is called inefficiency of
production. I'm betting Allegro is using an assembly line concept
that is a little more efficient with their resources.

If not, than that's the problem.


Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.

Agreed, but even toys have to reasonably priced.

So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.


He isn't buying. That's the point.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Jim,

You're right about the troll-like tone of Christley's attack post.

A little background: He's miffed at me because of some past threads where he
didn't appreciate being corrected on some technical points.

Also thanks for pointing out the importance of editorial integrity in
enthusiast magazines. The vast majority of these magazines are nothing but
shills for industry, with the car magazines being the worst.

I buy most of the aviation rags -- but mostly for the entertainment value
and the pictures. There is very little real info to be had in any of them,
with the notable exception of Peter Garrison in Flying who has always
provided very insightful writing. Full props to Dick Collins too, who is
probably the most weather-knowledgable guy out there and can really talk
common sense when it comes to safety.

The most readable and honest aviation journalist I have ever read is John
Deakin who used to write a column for AVweb, but has been on a hiatus
lately. Here is a great storyteller with all kinds of flying adventures from
a long and colorful career. He is one of the most well-rounded pilots you
will ever come across with terrific insight into all aspects of airmanship
and a great technical knowledge of the mechanical side of aircraft as well.
A real airman in the classic sense of the word and a great writer too.

Mike Busch is also an honest and very readable writer and can also be found
on AVweb. For anyone who hasn't discovered these guys yet, go to AVweb and
read every one of their back columns. Yuu will get more real honest info
than reading the newstand aviation magazines for a hundred years.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:44:24 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept
under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.

This is bordering on troll territotory, but I will bite.

I think he expects what everyone else expects. An honest review.
Anything less than that is just marketing. I have a susbscrition to
Flying, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy the magazine if it's
just a schill for the aviation comanpies.

There are plenty of "Marketing" mags out there for many industries.
All they are is marketing slicks and maybe an occasional fluff
article. They beg you to get a free subscribtion so their demos are
better and advertising revenue goes up. That not what I expect from
Flying. If I pay, I expect information.

The thing you forget about in you money equaiton. Advertising pays
the bills, but without subscribers, their advertising doesn't bring in
squat.

I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine that was pretty good in the
past, but then it really started regurgitating the marketing slicks
that the regulator companies produced. So I stopped subscribing.
They didn't miss me perhaps but that rag is known in the industry as a
hack magazine and I think that the only people that subscribe are
newbies that don't know any better. Their revenue is currently
suffereing.



Want a magazine that tells the truth and isn't worried about advertisers
(cause they don't have any), the subscribe to "Consumer Reports".


Good magazine. Doesn't have a lot to do with aviation.


Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.

Hope your plane turns out well.

And I would expect that most of your equipment is idle while you are
working on one particular part. This is called inefficiency of
production. I'm betting Allegro is using an assembly line concept
that is a little more efficient with their resources.

If not, than that's the problem.


Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.

Agreed, but even toys have to reasonably priced.

So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.


He isn't buying. That's the point.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Gordon, I'm gonna have to take out an AOL account because this is a
"met too" post

Right there with you about auto magazines. Fun to read, but they are
primarily marketing (Motor Trend is the worst, some of their picks
for Car of the Year turned out to be the worst lemons- Chevy Vega,
Renault Alliance...). I enjoy the same authors you do- Garrison,
Collins, Deakin- for the same reason- substance. The same reason I
sift through the entertainment, flame wars, and occasional troll on
this group, because there's real substance to be found.

Jim,

I have an idea for the auto magazines and the other enthusiast magazines who
are falling over themselves to be marketing glossies for manufacturers. Why
don't they offer to sell themselves to an industry consortium, say the big
automakers for the car magazines, the airplane makers for the aviation mags,
etc?

That way there would be none of this charade about "separation" between
advertising and editorial, and readers would know clearly who is standing
behind the message that they are reading. This way there would be no need
for advertising. The editorial content would be advertising enough (not that
it isn't already). Plus they would probably give away subscriptions to
anyone who wants them, because the point is not to make money but to market
their products.

I think this would be a much more sensible and honest solution. And what
would be the difference? At least one person here has said he is okay with
the fact that advertisers call the shots and effectively muzzle this
so-called "press" from reporting anything negative --such as dangerous
safety issues with products. Since they pay the bills they have a right to
get only positive press, even if their product will kill or maim you.

So at least with the magazines being owned outright by industry, there would
be an element of honesty that is not present now, where readers in fact
think that the "press" is free and independent and don't realize that it is
de facto "owned" by the advertisers.

And if this trend continues we could see the mainstream national media going
in this direction. Before long that news magazine that you trusted to inform
you honestly and truthfully about about important matters of politics, life
and death, covering up information that is negative to their advertisers. So
what if that consumer product can kill you or your baby? You will never hear
about it because the news magazine editor is saying "yes, boss" to the
advertiser that makes the product.

That's why people care about such a stupid thing as a free press -- which
doesn't mean just free of government control, but free of any outside
control, especially from powerful groups with lots of money. The role of the
fourth estate in any civilized society is an important one, but I guess some
people think that you should still be able to own the free and independent
press as long as you write the checks.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Gordon, I'm gonna have to take out an AOL account because this is a "met
too" post

Right there with you about auto magazines. Fun to read, but they are
primarily marketing (Motor Trend is the worst, some of their picks for Car
of the Year turned out to be the worst lemons- Chevy Vega, Renault
Alliance...). I enjoy the same authors you do- Garrison, Collins, Deakin-
for the same reason- substance. The same reason I sift through the
entertainment, flame wars, and occasional troll on this group, because
there's real substance to be found.

I'm not buying one either until the price for a new one is about $30k or
less for these toys. I equate them with upgraded ultralights which are
now around $15-20k these days --- and still too high priced.

When I can build a Mustang II for less than $25k with adequate avionics,
and it seats 2 and cruises around 200 kts --- their is my basis for
comparison. No, labor is not included in that, but I bought a used one
for next to nothing.

David M.


Jimbob wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:44:24 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:


This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.


This is bordering on troll territotory, but I will bite.

I think he expects what everyone else expects. An honest review.
Anything less than that is just marketing. I have a susbscrition to
Flying, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy the magazine if it's
just a schill for the aviation comanpies.

There are plenty of "Marketing" mags out there for many industries.
All they are is marketing slicks and maybe an occasional fluff
article. They beg you to get a free subscribtion so their demos are
better and advertising revenue goes up. That not what I expect from
Flying. If I pay, I expect information.

The thing you forget about in you money equaiton. Advertising pays
the bills, but without subscribers, their advertising doesn't bring in
squat.

I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine that was pretty good in the
past, but then it really started regurgitating the marketing slicks
that the regulator companies produced. So I stopped subscribing.
They didn't miss me perhaps but that rag is known in the industry as a
hack magazine and I think that the only people that subscribe are
newbies that don't know any better. Their revenue is currently
suffereing.



Want a magazine that tells the truth and isn't worried about advertisers
(cause they don't have any), the subscribe to "Consumer Reports".



Good magazine. Doesn't have a lot to do with aviation.


Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.


Hope your plane turns out well.

And I would expect that most of your equipment is idle while you are
working on one particular part. This is called inefficiency of
production. I'm betting Allegro is using an assembly line concept
that is a little more efficient with their resources.

If not, than that's the problem.



Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.


Agreed, but even toys have to reasonably priced.


So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.



He isn't buying. That's the point.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Jimbob wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:44:24 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:


This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.


This is bordering on troll territotory, but I will bite.

I think he expects what everyone else expects. An honest review.
Anything less than that is just marketing. I have a susbscrition to
Flying, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy the magazine if it's
just a schill for the aviation comanpies.

It's not meant to be a troll, and if you are expecting anything but
marketing glitz is magazines with paid advertisements, then you are
either very young or very naive.

I finally grew up in that regard when Windows95 was released. One of
the Ziff-Davis magazines did a review of Win95 vs Mac vs OS/2. The Mac
and OS/2 won handily in every technical category they listed. Then they
gave their buy recommendation to Win95. ("Oh! So that's how it works," I
says to myself). Even our own "Sport Aviation" is not immune. (Though,
I think it has gotten better recently.)

If I pay, I expect information.

And you'll get some. In nice, glossy, full-color reviews, and lots and
lots of advertisements. All the specs and claims will be professionally
laid out. But if you want the other side of the information, you better
crank up the internet connection or talk to your friends. The magazines
are useful for nothing more that learning all the buzzwords of the industry.


The thing you forget about in you money equaiton. Advertising pays
the bills, but without subscribers, their advertising doesn't bring in
squat.

And there are plenty of people lined up behind you that will buy the
magazine (and the products with the raving reviews) after you have grown
wiser and moved on. But like I said, the subscriber does count for
something...about $4.50/magazine.


I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine that was pretty good in the
past, but then it really started regurgitating the marketing slicks
Their revenue is currently
suffereing.


They'll 'redesign' the magazine to add more glitz or shut it down and
restart the game under a different name. Just look at the number of
magazines that have the same publisher (different name, same schill).

But you totally bypassed my point. Mr. Arnaut stated that he REMAINED
SILENT when a magazine did what he considered "the right thing", but
then was upset when the magazine tried to do what business are meant to
do, make money. I won't work for free. I'm willing to bet that you
expect a paycheck from employment. Why are the magazine editors
supposed to work for silent kudos?

Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.


Hope your plane turns out well.

And I would expect that most of your equipment is idle while you are
working on one particular part. This is called inefficiency of
production. I'm betting Allegro is using an assembly line concept
that is a little more efficient with their resources.

If not, than that's the problem.


I see what I think is a flaw in your perception there. Your thinking
that these planes will be rolled out on assembly lines that look like
the Ford factories that you see in the black-n-white clips on the
History Channel. The reality is very, VERY different.

How much of an assembly line can you have with 3 people (two
Scandinavians and American representative for the company, if I'm
remembering correctly). When the production volume is a handful a year,
there won't ever be an assembly line. A few more jigs...and people
who've made the part more than once...but still hand assembly...one at a
time. And with dozens of designs and a very limited market, no one
design will ever sell more than a handful per year.



Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.


Agreed, but even toys have to reasonably priced.

First, who gets to define 'reasonably priced'?

Second, Why do they? Where is that law written? The only 'have to' I
know of, is that the buyer and seller have to agree on the price. If
the seller can't find enough buyers at the price he is asking, and he'd
be selling at cost for any less, then the seller needs to find another
line of business. If the buyer isn't willing to pay the seller's price,
he might want to consider a different product, crochet, or maybe chess.

Personally, I was shocked at the cost of certified ships. I found a
4-seater that I could build from plans. The cost of certified engines
snowed me under. I'm doing an auto conversion of a Mazda 13B. I didn't
'have to' buy anything. No one is, or should be, required to sell me a
toy at what I think is a resonable price.



So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.



He isn't buying. That's the point.

And he's not producing, either. That's my point.

--
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)."