High Cost of Sportplanes

Earlier, john smith wrote:

.... Frank though that he could certify the aircraft quickly for
x-something
dollars because of its similarity to the Super Cub. The FAA, however,
took a totally different approach, and made him certify the Husky as as
a new aircraft design.
This added significantly to the certification costs which were then
added to the original projected costs to come up with the final selling
price...

That's not the way Alfred Scott tells it:

http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html

Quote:

: ...Even as he wrote the original proposal, Christensen was adamant
: that certification costs had almost nothing to do with the
: cost of airplanes. The entire concept, he insists, is based on
: a false premise. The Husky, for example, was designed by 4 men
: over 16 months, and cost about $180,000. Much of that work was
: simply engineering work they would have to do in any case,
: certificated or not. So if you take the entire cost of design,
: testing and certification of the Christen Husky and amortise
: it over 500 airplanes, it comes to about $400...

In article , W P Dixon says...

Maybe one of the things the FAA needs to take a look at is the cost they add
into "making" a new airplane. If the idea was to make sport pilot a more
affordable way to fly, and the certification process keeps it out of reach
..then it isn't doing anything. The common man still will have a hard time
affording it. SNIP

One thing not mentioned in this discussion is the cost for the increased
liability placed on a company selling ready to fly airplanes. I wonder what the
percentage of the cost of these planes is insurance? Experimental airplanes have
a layer of protection in that the customer did the building and is the
manufacturer of the airplane. The fact you have a compliance certificate doesn't
offer much protection.Actually look at certified planes does being certified
keep you as a manufacturer safe from being sued? We all know the answer to that
one.
Insurance just may be another element in the cost of these planes. Just my .02
worth.

See ya

Chuck S

Gordon, There was similar response from Norm Goyer in Private Pilot
magazine, he defended the high cost of sport planes.

What he doesn't seem to realize, is that the local FBO won't buy the
sport planes either if they are so expensive. Then where are people
going to get sport pilot training? not everyone is coming over from the
private pilot level.

the 60-80 grand I saw the average sport plane going for at Oshkosh would
buy a really decent 172, with more capabilities.

So the way I see it, its a catch-22. the FBO won't invest in a sport
plane if there is no intrest, and the public won't learn LSA if there
are no sport planes.

Yeah, there are some certified planes out there that meet LSA, but
realisticaly, trikes are rare (and getting expensive), and taildraggers
aren't very insurable for student solo.

John

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:07:29 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

Maybe one of the things the FAA needs to take a look at is the cost they add
into "making" a new airplane. If the idea was to make sport pilot a more
affordable way to fly, and the certification process keeps it out of reach
..then it isn't doing anything. The common man still will have a hard time
affording it.

Thay have and LSA is the result of that. LSA is an experiment in
deregulation of the aircraft industry. I think someone said the
certifications costs are about 1/100 of old standard category
aircraft.


I will never agree to how much some of these planes cost. I think it has
more to do with greed. I'm not saying the red tape of it all does not add
up,...but I don't know exactly the cost of all the red tape. I do know the
costs of materials and the cost of labor. Union shops definitely have costs
problems ( this seems to hold true in auto and aviation). Unions have a hard
time understanding that when their product cost so much people do not buy it
then they do not have a job.

Labor is a significant factor.

A company usually gets alot better deal buying materials than just you
or I would, because a company is buying in bulk. So I see reasons things
would cost alittle more, and I see things that make it cost less. As for the
FAA red tape..what really is the cost? What does that money go for?
I see alot more planes selling for 20,000 than for 100,000 in the sport
category. All that can afford to buy the high priced (and over priced) LS
planes will be retired docs and lawyers who can't get a medical anymore. How
much of a percent is that of pilots? How much of a percent is it of the
general population that may would be interested in sport pilot? Very small I
would think, and I don't see how they will make money on such slow and
sporadic sales.
Seems to me there are alot of factors , but we most definitely can't
rule out the biggest one....GREED.



Greed isn't an economic factor. People charge what the market will
bear. That's capitalism.

If somone could build them cheaper using their current techniques,
they would have an economic incentive to do so and the prices would
drop. The problem is that the current manufacturers haven't figured
out how to make them cheaper.

It's not materials, It's time and labor. A 'vette is far more complex
than your typical LSA and is cheaper. They have production down to a
science and can capitalize cost over a larger market.

Current composite manufacturing is a slow and expensive process.
Boeing is the only company I know of that has automated the process in
any way and they can only build cylinders. When someone can create a
composite "stamper" that can crank airframe components out and be
affordable, this market will change radically.

IMHO, a supply of cheap planes is what GA needs to break out of it's
rut. It would make them afforadable to a larger cross section of
people. The would increase exposure and make them more mainstream
which would resolve a lot of our political hassles.

The ADIZ doesn't apply to cars. Why? Because everyone has one and
doesn't think they are dangerous.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Jim,

That's a good point about the tiny cost of LSA certification. It adds almost
nothing to the cost of the plane.

In fact LSA "certification" bears no resemblance to the conventional
certification we are all familiar with. As I understand it, it simply
involves building a prototype and then filling out a bunch of paperwork
stating that your plane and manufacturing setup complies with the standards.
There is no flight testing, structural testing, or testing of any kind, that
I'm aware. Even the responsibility for devising and administering the
certification standards themselves has been outsourced to a private-sector
entity, the ASTM. It's like the FAA isn't even involved at all.

Someone mentioned liability insurance and that's probably an expense that is
incurred by the manufacturers, although I doubt that this adds up to a whole
lot either.

Others have mentioned the high cost of labor and this too is valid.

However, Cessna has all of these costs -- and more --and is still able to
price a brand new Skyhawk at $155,000. This is a tremendous value when
compared to one of these new LSAs that cost close to $100,000.

Let's look at the CT2K for example. This composite plane carries a list
price of $85,000 and with even a few panel options that most of us would
consider essential, you are close to $100,000. this plane has an empty
weight of under 600 pounds and a gross weight of just over 1200lbs., which
is less than half of the Skyhawk.

The Skyhawk seats four in a well-appointed cabin with 20g seats, full gyro
panel, a decent radio stack and a robust Lycoming powerplant. It has had the
benefit of a rigorous FAR 23 certification process that is comparable to the
standards that business jets have to meet. It is a very substantial, real
traveling airplane -- the CT2K comes off rather toylike by comparison.

Yet somehow Cessna manages to give you all this for a cost of only about 50
percent more than the CT2K. Either Cessna is some kind of manufacturing
genius or the LSA is way overpriced. You are literally getting more than
twice the airplane for only half again as much cost.

Regards,

Gordon.






"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:07:29 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

Maybe one of the things the FAA needs to take a look at is the cost they
add
into "making" a new airplane. If the idea was to make sport pilot a more
affordable way to fly, and the certification process keeps it out of reach
..then it isn't doing anything. The common man still will have a hard time
affording it.

Thay have and LSA is the result of that. LSA is an experiment in
deregulation of the aircraft industry. I think someone said the
certifications costs are about 1/100 of old standard category
aircraft.


I will never agree to how much some of these planes cost. I think it
has
more to do with greed. I'm not saying the red tape of it all does not add
up,...but I don't know exactly the cost of all the red tape. I do know the
costs of materials and the cost of labor. Union shops definitely have
costs
problems ( this seems to hold true in auto and aviation). Unions have a
hard
time understanding that when their product cost so much people do not buy
it
then they do not have a job.

Labor is a significant factor.

A company usually gets alot better deal buying materials than just you
or I would, because a company is buying in bulk. So I see reasons things
would cost alittle more, and I see things that make it cost less. As for
the
FAA red tape..what really is the cost? What does that money go for?
I see alot more planes selling for 20,000 than for 100,000 in the
sport
category. All that can afford to buy the high priced (and over priced) LS
planes will be retired docs and lawyers who can't get a medical anymore.
How
much of a percent is that of pilots? How much of a percent is it of the
general population that may would be interested in sport pilot? Very small
I
would think, and I don't see how they will make money on such slow and
sporadic sales.
Seems to me there are alot of factors , but we most definitely can't
rule out the biggest one....GREED.



Greed isn't an economic factor. People charge what the market will
bear. That's capitalism.

If somone could build them cheaper using their current techniques,
they would have an economic incentive to do so and the prices would
drop. The problem is that the current manufacturers haven't figured
out how to make them cheaper.

It's not materials, It's time and labor. A 'vette is far more complex
than your typical LSA and is cheaper. They have production down to a
science and can capitalize cost over a larger market.

Current composite manufacturing is a slow and expensive process.
Boeing is the only company I know of that has automated the process in
any way and they can only build cylinders. When someone can create a
composite "stamper" that can crank airframe components out and be
affordable, this market will change radically.

IMHO, a supply of cheap planes is what GA needs to break out of it's
rut. It would make them afforadable to a larger cross section of
people. The would increase exposure and make them more mainstream
which would resolve a lot of our political hassles.

The ADIZ doesn't apply to cars. Why? Because everyone has one and
doesn't think they are dangerous.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Jimbob wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:43:30 GMT, "Dan"
wrote:


[snip]


I agree. The thing I am hoping for is economies of scale kick in.
We've increased the number of potential buyers from Europe to USA +
Europe. I don't think relative demand per unit has increased because
of the prices. I am wondering if someone might be able to turn the
corner and start some form of automation or parts sharing. The trick
here would be some form of modularization or partial automation. It
could drop costs dramatically.

[snip]

Jim,

Interesting economic proposal there. I wonder if its time for the
experimental community to consider something along the lines of a few,
open, i.e. GPLd designs, which manufacturers can build standardized
parts and tooling for.

I can imagine a few such designs, if taken to their extremes, could be
either built out as certified or experimental. In this way, the hurdles
for developing PMAd parts for these few designs could be shared over the
community, and not borne by a single manufacturer.

Evan

Jimbob wrote:
I agree. The thing I am hoping for is economies of scale kick in.
We've increased the number of potential buyers from Europe to USA +
Europe. I don't think relative demand per unit has increased because

snip

plane. # seats, stall and max speed are all fixed. Powerplant size
can only vary so much otherwise you're shooting youself in the foot.

I think the economy of scale kicked in a few years ago for
powerplants. The Rotax 912 nearly dominates this segment. Here is
an engine whose weight and power are ideal for a 2 seat LSA. It is
also modern, light weight, efficient, and about 3/4 the cost of an
O-200. The next closest competitors seem to be a mix of O-200,
O-235, Continental C-xx, Subaru (if you count non cert).

A lot of people think Rotax 2 strokes "saved" the ultralight
movement, and the 912 series is the next logical step in that line of
engines.

Hopefully something similar could evolve with airframes, but other
than a few parts like wheels, hardware, paint, instruments,
avionics... which are already mass produced, I doubt it. Airframes
and engines are like apples and oranges.

I'm going to hang my nuts out here for you guys to stomp on, because I
don't have any first hand knowledge of the cost of airplane
manufacturing. But I do have 30 years experience in manufacturing, and
I've seen the inefficiencies with which many organizations operate. You
buy a brand new building in an upscale town and fill it with 20
engineers, 10 office personnel, 6 salesman, two janitors, a couple of
maintenance people, four or five managers, three purchasing agents, four
warehouse workers, five quality control technicians, a roomful of PR
people, and six people actually building the airplanes, then you're
going to have an expensive product. Put me in charge, and you'd have one
pencil pusher for every five assembly workers, absolute max.

Go look at a new car lot, and then go look at some new airplanes, and
give me ONE reason why an airplane costs ten times as much as a car. If
Henry Ford were alive today, he'd be saying, "man, you're some kind of
sinner." He once fired the entire third floor, the accounting
department. Damn pencil pushers were getting in the way of building cars.

China, hell. Give the Cessna plant to Toyota, and we'll be buying 172s
for $40k.

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
Jim,

That's a good point about the tiny cost of LSA certification. It adds almost
nothing to the cost of the plane.

In fact LSA "certification" bears no resemblance to the conventional
certification we are all familiar with. As I understand it, it simply
involves building a prototype and then filling out a bunch of paperwork
stating that your plane and manufacturing setup complies with the standards.
There is no flight testing, structural testing, or testing of any kind, that
I'm aware. Even the responsibility for devising and administering the
certification standards themselves has been outsourced to a private-sector
entity, the ASTM. It's like the FAA isn't even involved at all.

Someone mentioned liability insurance and that's probably an expense that is
incurred by the manufacturers, although I doubt that this adds up to a whole
lot either.

Others have mentioned the high cost of labor and this too is valid.

However, Cessna has all of these costs -- and more --and is still able to
price a brand new Skyhawk at $155,000. This is a tremendous value when
compared to one of these new LSAs that cost close to $100,000.

Let's look at the CT2K for example. This composite plane carries a list
price of $85,000 and with even a few panel options that most of us would
consider essential, you are close to $100,000. this plane has an empty
weight of under 600 pounds and a gross weight of just over 1200lbs., which
is less than half of the Skyhawk.

The Skyhawk seats four in a well-appointed cabin with 20g seats, full gyro
panel, a decent radio stack and a robust Lycoming powerplant. It has had the
benefit of a rigorous FAR 23 certification process that is comparable to the
standards that business jets have to meet. It is a very substantial, real
traveling airplane -- the CT2K comes off rather toylike by comparison.

Yet somehow Cessna manages to give you all this for a cost of only about 50
percent more than the CT2K. Either Cessna is some kind of manufacturing
genius or the LSA is way overpriced. You are literally getting more than
twice the airplane for only half again as much cost.

Regards,

Gordon.
[snip]

Gordon,

Some time ago, a friend of mine graphed the cost of increasingly large
hard drives for computers. As luck would have it, the graph was a
straight line. My friend then went on to explaine that if you extended
the low end of the line until it crossed the x axis, this was the base
cost of producing & delivering any hard drive. I wonder if such an
analysis makes any sense in the light plane market? Given the nature of
todays technologies for assembling composite/legacy structures, labor,
realestate, profit, etc. Is there a cost associated with this class of
ariplane (LSA or not) below which a commercial plane can't be delivered
without structural changes to how we assemble airplanes?

Evan

John T wrote:

What he doesn't seem to realize, is that the local FBO won't buy the
sport planes either if they are so expensive. Then where are people
going to get sport pilot training? not everyone is coming over from the
private pilot level.

I had worked towards PP certification about 20 years ago and had lost
interest. This summer, I'd flown in a light plane for the first time since
then, and found I still enjoyed it. Hitting the internet, I quickly found a
reference to the sport pilot certification, read the limitations, and
found, for me, they were not limitations but a description of exactly the
sort of flying I would want to do.

Unfortunately, this is the exact problem I ran into. It would require a leap
of faith for a small FBO in this area to purchase a new LSA when they are
barely making it giving PP instruction in elderly, paid off aircraft that
do not qualify as LSA.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----