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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes
Anyone in the fiberglass / aluminum sheet metal industry ( or other
successful enthusiasts ) interested in contributing to some experimentation. If you are interested, and willing to have the results released to the public, I think we could make a real contribution to this debate & perhaps offer some solutions to the small plane industries labor problem. What I am thinking of is a bake off to design two reference structures. One of fiberglass & one of aluminum. Each must be finished (primed & painted), and each must have an exact tally of labor for construction. A separate tally should include the cost (tho not labor) involved in the tooling. The goal of this bake off is to provide the industry with a method which could produce an airframe with 500Hrs or less of labor, and a defined amount of materials. Since there seems to be a kind of religious quality to preferences for building materials, both general types will be used, thus providing a gage by which others might choose their preferred construction method. To start the bake off, two reference structures, one for each building method, would have to be designed in CAD. These reference structures would each have the same structural goals and strength specs. Each reference structure would not necessarily have to be to scale. Remember, the goal here is NOT to prove that one construction technique is superior to another, but rather to provide a choice of feasible methods to the commercial LSA designer/builder. If designed in a public forum such as this one, the structure & building techniques would be peer reviewed & presumably employ the full collection of best construction practices, and should yield procedures simple and cheap enough to be used by companies of limited means. If enough people with the experience and means to volunteer for this first phase, then the remaining phases would be worth hashing out later. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Evan Carew wrote: The goal of this bake off is to provide the industry with a method which could produce an airframe with 500Hrs or less of labor 500 hours for just the airframe? Can we work with both hands and use our thumbs? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You can even use your two good typing fingers, so long as you count in
the time it took you to mold the fiberglass parts & or do the CNC work & initial metal forming. Smitty Two wrote: 500 hours for just the airframe? Can we work with both hands and use our thumbs? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Evan,
Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if the $50,000 sportplane is feasible. If I was to offer $10,000 to someone on this list to assemble a Zenith 601, would I have any takers? I think yes. There are probably guys here who have built one of these -- or similar -- before and have all the tools and know what's involved. The kit from Zenith costs about 15k, let's say the Rotax is another 15k, the 10k mentioned for assembly, and add another 10k for various bits and pieces. That is $50,000 total. No there would not be a profit for me, but Zenith, Rotax and everyone else is still making a profit, including any and all middlemen. Now if I had my own design and could stamp out the metal myself, instead of having to buy a kit from someone else, would I be able to make a profit? Yes. I would make at least as much profit as Zenith makes on the sale of one of their kits. So there you have it, the $50,000 sportplane -- without any structural changes to the industry. The more I think about, the more this is a no-brainer. I think the people who doubt the viability of the $50,000 sportplane are simply conditioned by the marketing propaganda spread by the various commercial interestes and their mouthpieces, the magazines. Regards, Gordon. "Evan Carew" wrote in message . .. Anyone in the fiberglass / aluminum sheet metal industry ( or other successful enthusiasts ) interested in contributing to some experimentation. If you are interested, and willing to have the results released to the public, I think we could make a real contribution to this debate & perhaps offer some solutions to the small plane industries labor problem. What I am thinking of is a bake off to design two reference structures. One of fiberglass & one of aluminum. Each must be finished (primed & painted), and each must have an exact tally of labor for construction. A separate tally should include the cost (tho not labor) involved in the tooling. The goal of this bake off is to provide the industry with a method which could produce an airframe with 500Hrs or less of labor, and a defined amount of materials. Since there seems to be a kind of religious quality to preferences for building materials, both general types will be used, thus providing a gage by which others might choose their preferred construction method. To start the bake off, two reference structures, one for each building method, would have to be designed in CAD. These reference structures would each have the same structural goals and strength specs. Each reference structure would not necessarily have to be to scale. Remember, the goal here is NOT to prove that one construction technique is superior to another, but rather to provide a choice of feasible methods to the commercial LSA designer/builder. If designed in a public forum such as this one, the structure & building techniques would be peer reviewed & presumably employ the full collection of best construction practices, and should yield procedures simple and cheap enough to be used by companies of limited means. If enough people with the experience and means to volunteer for this first phase, then the remaining phases would be worth hashing out later. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:58:41 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
wrote: If I was to offer $10,000 to someone on this list to assemble a Zenith 601, would I have any takers? I think yes. There are probably guys here who have built one of these -- or similar -- before and have all the tools and know what's involved. What is the required hours for assembly for the kits you mentioned? Lets say they did it in a month. That would be a gross salary of $120K. But I don't think that is even close. Other hours assuming std 40 hour work week and national holidays observed.. Hours to Build Gross Salary 250 $80K (Nice entrepreneur salary) 500 $40K (OK salary, lower middle class) 750 $26,666 (Eh, some people might bite) 1000 $20K (Not a chance) 1000 Poverty Level I will ignore business overhead until the hours are locked down. Then I can give you specific #'s. Jim http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon Arnaut" wrote in message ... Evan, Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if the $50,000 sportplane is feasible. If I was to offer $10,000 to someone on this list to assemble a Zenith 601, would I have any takers? I think yes. There are probably guys here who have built one of these -- or similar -- before and have all the tools and know what's involved. The kit from Zenith costs about 15k, let's say the Rotax is another 15k, the 10k mentioned for assembly, and add another 10k for various bits and pieces. That is $50,000 total. No there would not be a profit for me, but Zenith, Rotax and everyone else is still making a profit, including any and all middlemen. Now if I had my own design and could stamp out the metal myself, instead of having to buy a kit from someone else, would I be able to make a profit? Yes. I would make at least as much profit as Zenith makes on the sale of one of their kits. So there you have it, the $50,000 sportplane -- without any structural changes to the industry. The more I think about, the more this is a no-brainer. I think the people who doubt the viability of the $50,000 sportplane are simply conditioned by the marketing propaganda spread by the various commercial interestes and their mouthpieces, the magazines. Regards, Gordon. I think you have one huge failure in you calculation. The labor cost. $10,000 is way to low. If you take an employee or employees and only pay them ONLY $10.00 per hour when you load all the costs of taxes, insurance and other associated B.S. you are looking at $22.50/hour. That only gives you 444.44 man hours to build the plane. Even Zenith quotes higher than that for the airframe only. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sure if you took your figures down to your local venture capitalist they
would embrace you with open arms and give you all the up front money you needed to get your project going. After you became wildly successful you could tell those nasty magazine editors how they knew nothing about the industry. Jim The more I think about, the more this is a no-brainer. I think the people who doubt the viability of the $50,000 sportplane are simply conditioned by the marketing propaganda spread by the various commercial interestes and their mouthpieces, the magazines. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RST Engineering wrote:
I'm sure if you took your figures down to your local venture capitalist they would embrace you with open arms and give you all the up front money you needed to get your project going. After you became wildly successful you could tell those nasty magazine editors how they knew nothing about the industry. Jim The more I think about, the more this is a no-brainer. I think the people who doubt the viability of the $50,000 sportplane are simply conditioned by the marketing propaganda spread by the various commercial interestes and their mouthpieces, the magazines. And after he did that, he could start his own magazine where he reviewed other manufacturer's aircrafts, saying whatever he damn well pleased. Giving 'unbiased' reviews, and telling any advertiser he didn't like to ****-off. Looks to me like Gordon has a very bright future ahead. Maybe he'll get so busy that his post will have less drivel. -- 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)." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This particular thread was for volunteers interested in exploring and
reducing the actual costs incured in building aircraft structures. Since the issues have already been hashed out in previous threads, if there are any takers, please let me know off line at . Evan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:30:12 GMT, Evan Carew
wrote: This particular thread was for volunteers interested in exploring and reducing the actual costs incured in building aircraft structures. Since the issues have already been hashed out in previous threads, if there are any takers, please let me know off line at . Evan maybe so, but I'd think any additional information would be of interest to all of us. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Cost of Sportplanes | Gordon Arnaut | Home Built | 110 | November 18th 05 10:02 AM |
Enjoy High Quality incredible low cost PC-to-phone and broadband phone services | John | Home Built | 0 | May 19th 05 02:58 PM |
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 |
Talk about the high cost of aviation! | C J Campbell | Piloting | 15 | August 12th 03 04:09 AM |
Could it happen he The High Cost of Operating in Europe | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 5 | July 14th 03 02:34 AM |