More Sportplanes Hype

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

Did I really have to say "sell illegal goods, like schedule III drugs,
ie, marijuana, crystal meth, heroin, etc"?

Nope. That's why I put the smiley behind my smart-ass remark.

Rich S.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

Huh, I've been out of that loop too long. I thought the feds had
stopped issuing the tax stamp 20 years ago.

IIRC marijuana is legal under federal law so long as you have the tax
stamp. Of course, they've never actually issued a tax stamp. Welcome
to the wacky world of federal regulation under the commerce clause.

Even Whackier: In Washington State, you *can* legally own a machine gun
(subject to federal regs). But, it has to have a firing rate of less than
600 rpm, which lets out almost all of them. I think an .45 ACP "Grease Gun"
is 450 rpm, but I don't think anyone has tested that clause in state code
yet. You can bet if someone did and got away with it, the bluenoses in
Olympia would change the wording RFN.

Rich S.

Richard Riley wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:06:13 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:


: In 1986 the feds banned the manufacture of of automatic weapons for
:sale to the general public. The did not ban the ownership or transfer of
:those already in existance. The theory of the ban was it is supposed to
:reduce homicide by automatic weapons. The problem is that between 1934
:when NFA was passed and 1986 not one person has been illgegally killed
:by the lawful owner of a machine gun.

Which brings up two questions -

Had anyone been *legally* killed by the lawful owner of a machine gun?
(civilians only) between 1934 and 1986? I can't imagine many of them
being handy when the need arose.

and

Has anyone been illegally killed by the etc etc SINCE 1986?

(I suspect the answer to both questions is no.)

And you'd be correct. Let's face it, when the local cops and fed know
you have it, you have spent $200 for the tax stamp and been through a
background check on top of spending a chunk of money for the weapon it's
not likely you'll use it criminally. On top of that you need prior state
approval to take it across state lines.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Hype or not, I think the problem is going to be self-correcting.

Thirty years ago, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "Harrison Bergeron,"
about a future where those with better-than-average capabilities had to be
handicapped to make them no more able than everyone else.

(http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

This is the situation we're at with SLSAs. The restrictions of the category
limit the abilities of the aircraft so that there's no special difference in
performance between different LSAs.

After all, how are airplanes traditionally marketed?

1. "Our airplane cruises faster than the competition"
2. "Our airplane carries more payload than the competition"
3. "Our airplane has a longer range than the competition"
4. "Our airplane carries more passengers than the competition"

LSA marketers can't use #1...after all, they're limited to 120 knots, flat-out.

LSA marketers will find little use out of #2... gross weights are limited to
1320 pounds. Depending on how they can squirrel down the empty weight, they
might get a 50 or 100 pound improvement over the competition, but that's not
really enough to hang a marketing campaign on

LSA customers aren't likely to use range as a selection criteria. These planes
aren't really intended for long cross-countries.

And LSAs are limited to just two seats.

So...when no plane can exhibit superior performance over its competition, how
are buyers going to chose?

Simple. With little else to choose between competing LSAs, customers are going
to pick the one that sells at the lowest cost. Why buy a $90,000 SLSA when a
$85,000 one gives the same capability? Why buy that $85,000 one, when you can
get practically the same thing from another company for $80,000?

I realize things are slightly more complex. Some planes may be more attractive
in appearance, others might have more cabin room, some purchasers may be willing
to pay more for a more-familiar engine, some may want niche abilities such as
STOL, and there's of course the taildragger/milkstool decision. But my guess is
that a $20,000 lower selling price will overcome any casual preferences.

In short: the LSA market is going to be dominated by price. I suspect we're
going to see some pretty good sales going on by next Sun-N-Fun.

If a company *can* produce a $50,000 SLSA like Gordon insists is possible, they
will *own* the market. Without the ability to show a clear advantage for the
money, competitors will have to either match prices or get out of the business.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,
I agree with everything that you have written here. I would add that
there are a couple of more areas where one LSA aircraft might differ
from another. Safety features and ease of maintenance.

Having been on the inside of this area for sometime, I am fairly
certain that we will never see factory-built, ready-to-fly, certified
S-LSA aircraft with modern engines in the $50,000 price range. The
fact that the engine itself costs $20,000.00 (firewall forward with
equipment and accessories) just about makes it impossible to reach that
price point.

Gordon's comparison to the Part 23 certified American Champion is out
of order. The key point that he missed is that you cannot fly the
Champion without a medical or with a Sport Pilot license.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com

On 28 Sep 2005 12:24:08 -0700, "rpellicciotti"
wrote:
Ron,
I agree with everything that you have written here. I would add that
there are a couple of more areas where one LSA aircraft might differ
from another. Safety features and ease of maintenance.

Having been on the inside of this area for sometime, I am fairly
certain that we will never see factory-built, ready-to-fly, certified
S-LSA aircraft with modern engines in the $50,000 price range. The
fact that the engine itself costs $20,000.00 (firewall forward with
equipment and accessories) just about makes it impossible to reach that
price point.



I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?





Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:42:40 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:



So...when no plane can exhibit superior performance over its competition, how
are buyers going to chose?

Simple. With little else to choose between competing LSAs, customers are going
to pick the one that sells at the lowest cost. Why buy a $90,000 SLSA when a
$85,000 one gives the same capability? Why buy that $85,000 one, when you can
get practically the same thing from another company for $80,000?

lots snipped

Ron Wanttaja


I agree with your thoughts to some extent Ron the reducing prices are
really just a wind back of excessive insurance and liability BS. the
rewards being there for anyone who finds away to remove those costs
from the final sale price.

There is one area you missed. handling quality.

out in my back shed is a half complete wooden single seater which is a
1950's design. it isnt really aerobatic but it is by far and away the
sweetest flying little aeroplane anyone has ever come up with.
it is an absolutely first class little weekend summer flyer with open
cockpit, not much range and bugger all luggage space.
I'm building it as a bit of stress relief because I have wanted to
experience the flying qualities for myself. should finish it next
year.

the poms write really rapturous articles about the flying
characteristics of the turbulents.

It looks like building for less than the price of an Icom A200 radio
using epoxy on Queensland Hoop Pine and hoop pine plywood and a
VW1600cc engine that I'll convert myself. basically spruce
substitutes.

Aerodynamically there are lots of things with the design that everyone
poo pooh's as antiquated but they work really well together.
mine is a Druine D31AT Australian Turbulent btw.

if anyone was to produce an LSA that held to reasonable prices and had
the handling characteristics of either the druine turbulent or the
druine turbi they would have a good solid future ahead of them.
these two old aircraft designs really *do* stand out in the handling
characteristics. I've flown a turbi and have never encountered
anything since as good.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

Jimbob wrote:


I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?


Because their not built using consensus standards, they're built using
1930's technology. That is a guy standing in front of a maching,
grinding and cutting parts.

I choked when I read in an AOPA magazine, just a couple years ago, that
Lycoming was harping and stroking themselves for buying some CNC
equipment. That is, arguably the leader in aviation engines is just now
moving up to the quality control and automation that the even the most
basic machine shops expect.

--
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 Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:17:12 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

Jimbob wrote:


I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?


Because their not built using consensus standards, they're built using
1930's technology. That is a guy standing in front of a maching,
grinding and cutting parts.

I choked when I read in an AOPA magazine, just a couple years ago, that
Lycoming was harping and stroking themselves for buying some CNC
equipment. That is, arguably the leader in aviation engines is just now
moving up to the quality control and automation that the even the most
basic machine shops expect.

Ugh, That's scary.

Without the barriers to entry, i.e. FAA certifcation, I should expect
some competitors to enter the market. More competition means pressure
to use more effective means of manufacturing. These proces should
drop.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

I was referring to "modern engines". The Rotax 912 S, 100HP engine
along with the exhaust system, radiator, and other bits costs nearly
$20,000.00. That only leaves you $30,000 for everything else. The
materials for a small, 2 place, all metal airplane from the firewall
back costs nearly $20,000.00 (aluminum is going through the roof
prompting Boeing to switch to carbon for the 787). That only leaves
$10,000.00 for labor and profit. Doesn't look likely to be doable.

Rick

"rpellicciotti" wrote in message
oups.com...
The materials for a small, 2 place, all metal airplane from the firewall
back costs nearly $20,000.00

Reference please??? All of Van's two-place kit prices are below that number.
Some artful scrounging should drop it to $10,000. Buying in volume should do
the same.

Rich S.