High Cost of Sportplanes

It seems a lot of people have been writing letters to Kitplanes magazine
complaining about the unexpectedly steep prices of the new crop of
factory-built sportplanes. So the editor of that publication decided to
respond. His message: Get used to it.

This really infuriated me, not only because the commentary lacked any
substance about why prices are what they appear to be, but also because this
is another example of the shameless pandering to advertisers, or potential
advertisers.

The "yes, boss" attitude toward industry is nothing new in the enthusiast
magazine sector of course (cars, bikes, what have you), but it is really
plumbing new lows lately. Flying, which used to be a decent rag under Dick
Collins, has zero integrity nowadays. A couple of years ago I read with
interest as Collins commented pointedly about the spate of deadly crashes in
Cirrus airplanes. He questioned whether the airplane was dangerous in spins
since it had not been certifed for such -- the parachute being considered as
a kind of substitute by regulators, apparently.

I silently applauded Collins' integrity, but remember thinking that such an
editorial faux pas as daring to criticize an advertiser -- even on something
as crucial as safety -- would not go unpunished. I was right. The very next
month's issue did not have an ad from Cirrus, which had been advertising
every month until the Collins commentary.

In fact it was quite a few months until the Cirrus ads reappeared in that
august publication -- with the spineless J. MacLellan , taking every
possible opportunity to gladhand Cirrus in the meantime, with all kinds of
glowing write-ups, cover photos, you name it. I guess the grovelling finally
paid off, and Cirrus decided to start writing checks to Flying again.

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.

Now back to the issue about the high cost of sportplanes. What should have
been said in this "editorial" but wasn't is that the prices are too high.
Way too high in fact.

Not too long ago, I went for a hop in a couple of very nice little Tecnam
2-seaters from Italy. Excellent little planes -- but the price of close to
$100,000 gave me pause.

I immediately thought back about ten years earlier when I went up for a very
memorable hop in a beautiful, brand new Zlin, just in from the Czech
Republic. This fully aerobatic airplane left a strong impression, and not
just because the demo pilot pulled enough g's to gray-out my vision. I
remember thinking that this was the most solid-feeling light plane I had
ever flown -- everying tactile, the controls, the knobs, had a substantive,
precise feel that whispered military grade.

The forward-sliding canopy hushed wind noise like the cabin of a good Lexus,
and the six-cylinder, fuel-injected, supercharged LOM engine with CS prop
out front was a buttery smooth powerhouse. A five-point restraint and very
nicely contoured seats rounded out an ergonomic tour de force. Compared to
this very serious airplane, the current sportplanes give a definite toy-kite
impression. Heck even a brand new Skyhawk feels like a chatterbox compared
to the Zlin.

The price of the Zlin? Only $100,000 at the time -- about what you are
expecte to shell out for those LSAs coming from the Czech Republic -- and
elsewhere-- these days.

I remember thinking the Zlin was a bargain at twice the price -- but the
plane apparently did not overcome its North American certification hurdles
and sales never took off. Too bad.

But one has to ask what has changed in ten years that you are now expected
to pay the same amount of money for a little fiberglass, Rotax-powered
putt-putt that you were paying for a top-line aerobat with about ten times
as much substance built in.

Well, the short answer is that the makers of these sportplanes are hoping to
make a killing -- like any good opportunist. They're no fools. They were the
first to jump into this new market niche and they are testing the waters to
see how much people -- suckers? -- are willing to pay.

And yes, the Czech Republic is not the bargain it was then -- now it's a
member of the EU and wages and prices have gone up. I guess under the
current pricing scheme, that Zlin should cost about half a million now?

But saying that $100,000 for one of these sportplanes is justified is just
plain ridiculous and a slap in the face to readers. The cost of certifying a
plane to the sportplane regulations is puny compared to the conventional GA
standards. Basically it's self-certification, similar to what many other
countries have had for quite some time.

True the Rotax engines used in these planes have jumped in price due to the
strong Euro, but even so $100,000 is a lot of money for very little
airplane.

Frankly I don't think this price level will hold. I think there is a real
opportunity for enterprising individuals to jump in and build a nice little
sportplane at the $50,000 price point. Only then will this category take
off. If we don't see prices come down to this level, sportplanes will turn
out to be nothing but a marginal part of the aviation scene.

I'm glad that some magazine editors think $100,000 is a great price for a
very basic little airplane. Personally I would much rather pay an additional
$50,000 and get a brank new Skyhawk -- granted with the basic VFR panel, but
then the sportplanes panels are even less than that.


Regards,

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada.