What is the status on cheaper aircraft for the Sports pilot?

"Leon McAtee" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
"Omega" wrote in message
news:wrsod.133446$HA.7798@attbi_s01...

Yes, but a 25,000 car costs more than a 50,000 airplane. Cars are
expendables, but planes are more like a house. In fact, you can likely
afford a small plane by going cheaper on cars, and eliminating other
hobbies.

The only thing that makes a 172 non expedable, like an automobile, is
the cost of a new one. Same for houses.


The bottom line is that if you can afford to fly the plane based on what
they cost to own and operate, you can likely afford 50,000. If you
cannot
afford what it costs to fly it regularly, you were better off renting or
sharing, or something else anyway.

And here is the problem he is trying to overcome. He and lots of us
can't afford a used 172 at ~8GPH and hangar rent but we would still
like to fly and don't really want the hassle that comes with a club or
share. And lots of us would settle for something quite a bit less
than a 172 - if we could get it for under $30K and either bring it
home or have reasonable hangar rent. (I'm lucky. My hangar rent is
reasonable) There is a market out there for a modest 2 place with
limited cross country ability for an - expendable - $30K , or less,
plane.

Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are available
by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
$30,000.

A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.

Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...

I concur with Howards evaluation.

Though I think modern robotic manufacturing probably _could_ turn out
a 25K$ 172 class aircraft on an assembly line (with minimal avionics).

Clearly. A modern AWD car is considerably more complex than your
run-of-the-mill 172. The AHRS that is the heart of the G1000 is actually
derived from automotive units used in stability control systems.

BUT there is a big catch he a "modern robotic manufacturing" facility
costs astounding amounts of money that can be recouped only by massive
production volume. Increasingly you see manufacturers like Audi/VW and GM
working off a "platform" strategy so that more of the production can be
standardized across different models as well to further amortize these
costs.

There are what, 30,000 Cessna 172s out there? That's the number of cars
that
might come off the line *per year* for a small-run model on an advanced
production line. It's not clear to me that the market is there to sustain
this kind of production year after year.

In any case, it would seem that the best target for this type of
production
would be light-sport, which promises to become a much larger market at
least
initially. I suspect many sport pilots would eventually transition to
Private certificates.

If a company successfully did it, they would devistate the market.
Emagine the guy with 100k$ to go on his Cessna financing. If you
consider the AN-2 an example of how the FAA would react to such a
rapid change in the market, it is unlikely that such an aircraft would
ever get certified (for any practical use) domestically.

I'd be leery of reading too much into the AN-2 case. There have been a
number of Russian planes certified more recently (c.f. Beriev amphibs for
example) that are very cost-competitive with the C/P/B offerings so I
don't
think it's an absolute at all.

Second, my guess is that your best protection from this would in fact be
to
produce the airplane as US-certified right here in the US. Then at the
very
least you have two senators and a congressman on your side from wherever
you
locate the plant. If you're really smart you put it somewhere like Ohio
and
then you'll get the President behind you as well.

-cwk.

Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are available
by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
$30,000.



However, the price to maintain and fly them is not all that cheap. In fact,
you are no better off financially in many of those planes unless you count
interest or cost of funds than buying much newer planes at quadruple the
price.

The perception is that a 30k new plane would have less expensive parts, and
need less maintenance. Folding wings would also be a plus for storage
costs.

In rec.aviation.owning Dude wrote:
A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.

Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?

Not really.

Personal watercraft and especially motorcycles are produced in the millions.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are
available
by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
$30,000.



However, the price to maintain and fly them is not all that cheap. In
fact,
you are no better off financially in many of those planes unless you count
interest or cost of funds than buying much newer planes at quadruple the
price.

The perception is that a 30k new plane would have less expensive parts,
and
need less maintenance. Folding wings would also be a plus for storage
costs.


I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely no
sense.


..

I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely no
sense.



I agree.
If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no reason
that it would cost any more to maintain than a newer one at quadruple the
cost.
I think there are hundreds of these birds out there for $30K.
Why would it be cheaper if I bought a $120K plane?

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely
no
sense.

I agree.
If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no
reason

How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the audience
will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you probably
can't afford the ownership costs either.

There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA aircraft
like a C-150, cub, champ, etc. They will be newer so you will presumably
need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any cheaper.
My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P and he
didn't have to get any special training either. Insurance, and storage costs
will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get to use
Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.

Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your own
labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an A&P/IA, but
running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
pretty much the same.

But in the end I think the main significant difference is the elimination of
certification cost. Look at the boating world- that is completely
unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc. are
all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're just
not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll take
both

-cwk.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.

Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...

I concur with Howards evaluation.

Though I think modern robotic manufacturing probably _could_ turn out
a 25K$ 172 class aircraft on an assembly line (with minimal avionics).
snip
There are what, 30,000 Cessna 172s out there? That's the number of cars
that
might come off the line *per year* for a small-run model on an advanced
production line. It's not clear to me that the market is there to sustain
this kind of production year after year.

It's very clear to me. There isn't enough market, or even potential
market except for very simple aircraft that could be assembled with a
minimum of stamping operations.

On that type of aircraft the automation would have the least impact.

What I do see is the simplified certification process costing less and
making it easier to produce a less costly airplane in the Sport
category.

Still, with product liability I don't see any aircraft as being
inexpensive in the near future except in relative terms.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message hlink.net...
"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...

I concur with Howards evaluation.

Though I think modern robotic manufacturing probably _could_ turn out
a 25K$ 172 class aircraft on an assembly line (with minimal avionics).

Clearly. A modern AWD car is considerably more complex than your
run-of-the-mill 172. The AHRS that is the heart of the G1000 is actually
derived from automotive units used in stability control systems.

BUT there is a big catch he a "modern robotic manufacturing" facility
costs astounding amounts of money that can be recouped only by massive
production volume. Increasingly you see manufacturers like Audi/VW and GM
working off a "platform" strategy so that more of the production can be
standardized across different models as well to further amortize these
costs.

Agreed. Tooling is way expensive. But the costs of those facilities
are comming down. There are a lot of used robots out there.


There are what, 30,000 Cessna 172s out there? That's the number of cars that
might come off the line *per year* for a small-run model on an advanced
production line. It's not clear to me that the market is there to sustain
this kind of production year after year.

Point taken. Though I think the introduction of the cheap A/C would
widen the market a bit, it is more a matter pilot availability than
aircraft availability. So you would quickly run out of customers
domestically.


In any case, it would seem that the best target for this type of production
would be light-sport, which promises to become a much larger market at least
initially. I suspect many sport pilots would eventually transition to
Private certificates.


I would be inclined to reasearch that further if I was going in the
business. My hunch is that emerging markets might represent the larger
customer base. You might end up selling more A/C to foreign buyers
than domestic ones at $25K a pop. Maybe even to some third world
governements. You don't have to be in the Jet age to be involved in an
arms race after all.

If a company successfully did it, they would devistate the market.
Emagine the guy with 100k$ to go on his Cessna financing. If you
consider the AN-2 an example of how the FAA would react to such a
rapid change in the market, it is unlikely that such an aircraft would
ever get certified (for any practical use) domestically.

I'd be leery of reading too much into the AN-2 case. There have been a
number of Russian planes certified more recently (c.f. Beriev amphibs for
example) that are very cost-competitive with the C/P/B offerings so I don't
think it's an absolute at all.

Point taken. I don't know enough about this to be able to qualify
accusations of hanky-panky. However, on the surface it seems to me the
price/market issue had to be a factor. At the prices these are
available at, there would be a thousand copies in the USA by now had
they not been certified restricted.

Are the other certified Russian birds reflective of such a massive
performance/price gap as was the AN-2? If not, then they really don't
reflect on the point I was trying to make. Which was that the
restrictions of the AN-2 may have been driven by it's effect on
domestic competition. (No more need for the C206 or C208 for rural
cargo routes)


Second, my guess is that your best protection from this would in fact be to
produce the airplane as US-certified right here in the US. Then at the very
least you have two senators and a congressman on your side from wherever you
locate the plant. If you're really smart you put it somewhere like Ohio and
then you'll get the President behind you as well.

-cwk.

I'd have to disagree here. Too many hands in the cookie jar
domestically. Based on my hunch on overseas markets, I would say being
near an international port would be a requirement.

Foreign construction would be a matter of whether the aircraft was
suitibly designed to be able to go through the finishing stages with
relatively unskilled labor.

I've thought quite a bit about this. The only A/C I've seen that have
been designed to take advantage of modern fabrication techniques are
glass. Material cost for them as well as the time on those
multi-million dollar filiment winding machines probably is what brings
the price to where it is.

I'm thinking more like modernizing 30's style construction, with 90's
style robotics. I think you could make some cheap quality aircraft
that way.

Sufficed to say, I'm no millionaire, and if I was I wouldn't go into
the aviation business. Who was it that said: "The way to make a small
fortune in aviation is to start out with a large one" ?

I still think it could be done. But the risk/reward analysis leaves
much to be desired.

-Thanks
-Matt

I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely
no
sense.

I agree.
If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no
reason


There is plenty of reason. Some folks get lucky, and never have a 5k, 10k
or 20k annual. You can scream all you want about doing diligence, but these
things happen. Many owners I know have this kind of recurrence on a regular
basis. They will tell you that their annuals cost under 2k, they just don't
average in the one in three years when its double or triple that, or worse.

The parts can be really expensive and or hard to find. If you actually
could so accurately screen used aircraft, I suggest you become a broker.
Certainly, you could take over the business with the 3 year warranty you
would be able to offer.


How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the audience
will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you probably
can't afford the ownership costs either.

There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA
aircraft
like a C-150, cub, champ, etc.

No, its not magical, its simple. The parts are not the same. Where Cessna
uses stainless, the sport guys can use aluminum. A new 150 built today would
cost over 100k. This is a reflection of the labor, parts, R&D, etc. The
cost to maintian the planes is usually a reflection of the cost to
manufacture them.

They will be newer so you will presumably
need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any cheaper.
My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P and
he
didn't have to get any special training either.

Their will likely be less labor, as the planes are simpler and with fewer
parts. Also, what kind of logs will sport planes have? My A+P charges me
for every minute he takes to ensure his repairs and entries are legal.


Insurance, and storage costs
will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get to
use
Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.


Insurance will be less. If the plane costs less new, then the insurance is
bound to be cheaper. Folding wings can reduce storage, with or without
bringing it home with you.

Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your own
labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an A&P/IA,
but
running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
pretty much the same.


But supposedly, more owners will do more of their own work.

But in the end I think the main significant difference is the elimination
of
certification cost.

No small thing.

Look at the boating world- that is completely
unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc.
are
all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're
just
not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll take
both


Sport pilot will greatly reduce the hassles of getting the license. Boats
will remain more popular. Even if we doubled the pilot population, they
wouldn't notice any loss.