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

"N9NWO" wrote in message
...
A lot of us can not afford the $100K+ aircraft. Even Taylor is a bit too
expensive at $54K. When can we expect to see something in the $15 to 25K
range?


Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money will
barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding economies of
scale.

What you may have to look forward to will be the used sportplanes that cost
50-100k new. Assuming production keeps ramping up, used light-sport planes
will decline in resale valu steadily, just like boats. A 5-year old T-craft
should sell for a lot closer to your price point, and will be far fresher
than a 1957 Cessna or 70's C-150.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in
ink.net:


"N9NWO" wrote in message
...
A lot of us can not afford the $100K+ aircraft. Even Taylor is a bit
too expensive at $54K. When can we expect to see something in the
$15 to 25K range?


Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money
will barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding
economies of scale.

What you may have to look forward to will be the used sportplanes that
cost 50-100k new. Assuming production keeps ramping up, used
light-sport planes will decline in resale valu steadily, just like
boats. A 5-year old T-craft should sell for a lot closer to your price
point, and will be far fresher than a 1957 Cessna or 70's C-150.

-cwk.




It is my prediction that they will practically be giving away those 30
year old 150's, and many will just hit the junkyard as the avionics,
engine cores, etc, will be worth more than anyone is willing to pay for
the airplane itself.

Who wants to pay 20K for a 30+yr old plane that may or may not cost you
another 15k at the next annual, when you can have a new Zodiac XL, or
equivelent, take a weekend class to do your own maintainance, and the
plane doesn't have to have "certified" parts, just parts that meet the
"consensus standards"!

3 to 5 years, ... remember you heard it here.

ET

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:39:37 GMT, "C Kingsbury"

Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money will
barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding economies of
scale.

How much are those pigs expected to be selling for? Any avionics
included?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:43:51 GMT, ET wrote:

"C Kingsbury" wrote in
link.net:


"N9NWO" wrote in message
...
A lot of us can not afford the $100K+ aircraft. Even Taylor is a bit
too expensive at $54K. When can we expect to see something in the
$15 to 25K range?


Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money
will barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding
economies of scale.

What you may have to look forward to will be the used sportplanes that
cost 50-100k new. Assuming production keeps ramping up, used
light-sport planes will decline in resale valu steadily, just like
boats. A 5-year old T-craft should sell for a lot closer to your price
point, and will be far fresher than a 1957 Cessna or 70's C-150.

-cwk.




It is my prediction that they will practically be giving away those 30
year old 150's, and many will just hit the junkyard as the avionics,
engine cores, etc, will be worth more than anyone is willing to pay for
the airplane itself.

Who wants to pay 20K for a 30+yr old plane that may or may not cost you
another 15k at the next annual, when you can have a new Zodiac XL, or
equivelent, take a weekend class to do your own maintainance, and the
plane doesn't have to have "certified" parts, just parts that meet the
"consensus standards"!

3 to 5 years, ... remember you heard it here.

ET

Wow, you're correct. It's the same vision that Old Paul Poberesny
(sp?) had some years ago. Now his son's salary for running that club
is over $500,000 per year.

"Almarz" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:39:37 GMT, "C Kingsbury"

Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money will
barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding economies of
scale.

How much are those pigs expected to be selling for? Any avionics
included?


$15-25K right now gets you a box full of tubes, cables, nylon fabric, a
lawnmower engine, and a photocopied book titled "Build Your Own Ultralight."
Under part 103 none of this is certified and it's pretty simple to
manufacture (just cut a bunch of tubes, cable, fabric, and bag up some
hardware) so there's not much fat left to cut on prices.

Look at boats if you prefer. Here's a 21' fiberglass molded boat with a
3-cylinder engine. No fancy instruments, pretty basic:
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products...amaha_lx210_.a
spx

$22,000 MSRP, trailer not included. Guess what? Yamaha will probably build
more of these next month than the entire LSA industry will make in the next
two or three years. They can spread the R&D costs of the engine across god
knows how many product lines.

What will it take for a LSA to hit at this price level? Volume, volume,
volume. And it isn't going to happen that way. Up and down the East coast
every nook and cranny of every river and bay is filled with marinas. There
are 16 million registered recreational boats, and that number doesn't
include canoes, hobie cats, etc. Sport Aviation has a long way to go before
it can even bark at these numbers let alone exhibit similar economies of
scale.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about the whole light-sport concept and
could easily see myself taking part in it someday, even though I'm a
part-owner of a 172 and instrument-rated and thus fully-invested in the
"traditional" way of doing things.

The best parts of this are the reduced certification requirements for
aircraft and mechanics. A lot of pilots would and will go through a 120-hour
course to get a full repairman's certificate and another 16 hours to get the
inspector rating. A traditional A&P is an 18-month full-time program and
that works only for the idle rich and people who actually want to work as a
mechanic. All of these things augur well for much lower ownership costs,
which are the real kicker to owning and operating an airplane. $50-100k to
buy a plane is nothing big when you amortize it over ten or twenty years.

-cwk.

"Almarz" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:39:37 GMT, "C Kingsbury"

Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money will
barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding economies of
scale.

How much are those pigs expected to be selling for? Any avionics
included?


Single comm radio...but it tends to squeal...

;O)

Ouch! That's baad.


"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fpPod.80648$SW3.36229@fed1read01...
"Almarz" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:39:37 GMT, "C Kingsbury"

Pigs will fly first. As others have mentioned that amount of money will
barely buy you a car, and they are working off of astounding economies
of
scale.

How much are those pigs expected to be selling for? Any avionics
included?


Single comm radio...but it tends to squeal...

;O)

"Howard Nelson" wrote in message .com...
"Omega" wrote in message
news:wrsod.133446$HA.7798@attbi_s01...


: A lot of us can not afford the $100K+ aircraft. Even Taylor is a bit
too
: expensive at $54K. When can we expect to see something in the $15 to
25K range?

Very Unlikely
:
: I will note that I am seeing a lot of used aircraft in that range. I
: gather that the market is a bit depressed still.
:
:
: I gotta ask, what makes it so you cannot "afford it".

#1 Lack of economy of scale. Less of a problem for making the hardware but a
big problem in dealing with:
#2. Regulatory costs
#3. Liability costs.

Howard
Howard


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).
The question remains whether they would be able to certify and sell
it.

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.

If I was considering such an endeavor, I would look at certification
in another ICAO state, Brazil or Argentina perhaps. Not sure how all
the regulatory BS works with this, but I don't see any reason why you
couldn't build an Argentine (is that correct?) aircraft in a free
trade zone, certify it there with an Argentine inspector, and then
ship it to the US for sale. The aircraft could be tarriffed, but I
don't think certification could be denied without effecting
international trade agreements.

Or something.

-Thanks
-Matt

"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.

"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.

Sport may or may not give it to us. You're right about the "bottom
line" as it now exists but that is what we aim to change.

===============================
Leon McAtee
ASTM F-37