If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
High Cost of Sportplanes
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:22:23 -0500, Kevin O'Brien
kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name wrote: On 2005-11-14 12:45:14 -0500, Evan Carew said: Interesting posts. I wonder if you would agree with me that the kit/small GA builders have wrung most of the fat out of the building process I'm not sure that's the case, because we're in the midst of several real industrial revolutions -- materials, automation, organizational. These add up to the possibility that we will see, someday soon, airplanes assembled on a line-production rather than a bespoke basis. If you've ever tried to fit a factory airframe part (that cost an arm and a leg) to a Beech, you know what I mean. Those parts are custom fit no less:-)) If you replace the cowl, you have to hunt for one at least as long as the one you want to replace. I think the tolerance in length is over half an inch. and that any further gains are in incremental productivity / materials handling procedures? If so, I wonder what you think could be realized in savings over the current processes? I know that everyone who's seen the Eclipse plant (including Dale Klapmeier) has been agog. The problem in the kit field is manifold: 1. Barriers to entry are almost nil. You can rivet up some tubes or cut some foam, blow a couple grand on a booth at Oshkosh and you are a kit manufactuer. And God help your customers. In fact, you can skip the tubes or foam and just show up at OSH with a computer rendering or a shiny model. Even if you have a degree from a top AeroE program, certified aircraft makers are not going to be interested in your design ideas. If you start off in the kit market, no matter how flaky your idea, somebody will try to buy it from you, if you can support yourself long enough. 2. For many, the kit airplane dream is built on a myth of vastly lowered cost. Only if you ignore used aircraft, and value your labour at a factor of zero. If you stick with a very basic design with a real build time of around 500 hours (there aren't many) you really can save. Build a G-III, Lancair, or any one of the other high performance birds and you could easily purchase a really nice F-33 Bo for what you'll have in it, not counting labor. Purchase a fast build G-III kit, at roughly 80K, New K1A5 300 HP IO-540 for another 40 to 50K, (50K might include the prop on special) and at least another 30K for avionics although you could go with the Full house Garmin set up with MFDs up to 75K for all the avionics which brings the total to ... a bit over $200,000 plus labor and there is a *lot* of that in a G-III. Go with a Lancair IV-P and you can easily drop a quarter million into it. Sure you can cut corners, go with an old engine and prop, simple used avionics, don't go with the fast build options, or find a kit setting in some ones garage but you can add at least a 1000 hours to the build time. OTOH the G-III is one of the most labor intensive kits out there. But these are planes pilots built to go places or for serious playing. Like the hybrid cars. They are not economy projects, nor are they cheap to operate. We have two Sonex, (one that looks much like a Sonex with a bubble canopy..for which I've forgotten the name), kit foxes, Jabaru, Long EZ, and some others that did not require a fortune, and are VFR only. The build times vary widely but most with the exception of the LongEZ had relatively short build times. They have various missions, but all are relatively economical to own and operate. 3. Some companies try to drive the labor cost down towards zero by doing work offshore. Van's does this, and Bearhawk frames are welded-up in Mexico (which combines Third World wages with easy transportation to US and Canadian first-world destinations). Do that, and you wind up hoping that Mexico stays corrupt so that desperate Mexicans will work for pennies on the dollar... there is no material reason prosperity should stop hard at the Rio Grande, but it does; it's Mexican government and elite policies that cause that. That's an unstable situation that may last 50 or 100 years but won't last forever. But the irreducible problem with lowering labor costs on the kit side is that by law, you only get half of the benefit, because the ultimate registrant must (under the law, must) do 51% of the work. I keep hearing that, but I've never found it. It's not the ultimate registrant either unless he, or she is after the repairman's certificate. The project is supposed to be educational and a learning experience and they figure if you build one aileron you know how to do the other one. If you figure the actual labor there are a number of kits that the FAA considers acceptable where you do not do 51% of the work, particularly with the builder assist programs. 4. Many people in the kit field want to build, but my impression is that more want to fly. Hence the popularity of "builder-assist" programs, which are now getting a hairy eyeball from the FAA after about a decade of abuses. One vendor rubbed the FAA's nose in his disdain for the law, which is never really smart, and now a bunch of people who were minding their own business and making for safe aircraft and happy customers are at risk. 5. Many of the designers out there have a design bug or three that they have to get out of the system, so they don't mind working for nothing but job satisfaction. You can even build a small team of like-minded volunteers. But you reach the point where this structure does not scale... you run out of True Believers sooner rather than later. To return to your question -- I do not think productivity in this industry is anywhere near where it could be, but the economics haven't been compelling enough to make anyone chase higher productivity, with the couple of exceptions noted. There is a lot of room to speed things up with advanced composites but although that may speed things up and reduce labor it may not make things less expensive. More use of Pre-preg is one place, fast curing on assembly lines. "spinning" fuselages and other parts. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Sometimes people have mistaken getting wrapped around the axle of CAD, for increasing productivity. Two projects that were going to revolutionize the sport via CAD were the Prescott Pusher, and the DreamWings Valkyrie. Worth a search through the back threads of this group. I presume the CAD files of those two ghastly projects are still sitting in somebody's closet... for the sake of pilots yet unborn I pray that the guy's mother throws them out next time she cleans. cheers -=K=- Rule #1: Don't hit anything big. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Enjoy High Quality incredible low cost PC-to-phone and broadband phone services | John | Home Built | 0 | May 19th 05 02:58 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 07:28 PM |
Could it happen he The High Cost of Operating in Europe | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 5 | July 14th 03 02:34 AM |