High Cost of Sportplanes

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:48:57 GMT, Evan Carew
wrote:

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

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.

It could only work with quickbuild kits. I don't think the non-LSA
experimental sector would do it. There is no cap on performance.
Ker-rist, look at the glasair III. Too much leway. If your going to
build, you go for some type of performance or look. Why build cookie
cutter? It might happen, but I doubt it.

HOWEVER, the ELSA area is ripe for this type of standardization.
Capped performance specs. And no 51% rule.

It might be interesting to see if the Experimental Avionics deisgners
might standardize on a commumicaitons bus for flight displays,
transponders, XM and such. With ADS-B relased into the wild, I see
this as a solid possiblity.



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

On 2005-09-17 13:48:57 -0400, Evan Carew said:

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.

Already been done.

The Gyrobee gyroplane, developed as a documentation package by Dr Ralph
McTaggart. Parts available from several vendors, notably StarBee Gyros
of Worcester, Massachusetts.

http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/gyro/gbee.htm

There is another UL gyro project, Tim Blackwell's Jyro Deer, that Tim
has promised to open-source when he has it sorted. I'm not aware of any
f/w but it's a really, really good idea, Evan, isn't it?

Fundamental problems with LSA pricing are perception problems, IMHO:

1. existing kit buyers (& wannabees) are mostly cheap charlies, and or
walter mittys.

2. ergo, they will never buy at any price under which a product can be
made. As Bob Kuykendall pointed out, these things are built by hand
(volumes too small for automation, until you're Cirrus size).

3. Economies from US + Euro standardization won't happen. The US market
is already resisting the european JAR VLA designs available under SLSA
because they are cramped for large, fat Americans. (as one vendor told
me, "these planes are built for bony French asses," eh.) . US allows
600 KG, Euros 450 -- that's a difference which will allow (require)
differentiation. Indeed the first designs to US (not Euro) specs are
happening already.

4. You can build a plane for relatively low money now (Fly Baby, Zenith
from plans) and most choose not to. A lot of people still seem to be
looking for the four-seat 200-knot STOL plane they can build for $30k
in 200 hours and power with an old Corvair engine. It never existed and
it's never going to.

5. If LSA succeeds it will be because people who are not in aviation
now come in. Compare what you can do in a high end SLSA and what you
can do in a sailboat. Compare prices new. These planes are not
competing with a stack of wood and a set of Pietenpol plans, they are
competing with boats, snowmobiles and ATVs, and other outdoor
recreations.

6. Some of the statements by the original poster, about Cirrus
specifically, are not true. The unrecoverability from spin is one of
them (Cirrus SR-20 was spun at least once in testing and recovered with
normal inputs, opposite rudder, neutral ailerons and forward stick).
It's true a full spin series was not done, and it's also true a full
spin series is not required by FAR 23. Most of us fly planes that are
placarded against spins -- I daresay all of us have flown a 172, which
is placarded against spins in some conditions (i.e. flaps down -- the
rudder is masked in that case and recovery is compromised). The P-51
Mustang is placarded against spins with the fuselage tank full (many
privately held Mustangs have this tank removed). Remedial action in the
PIF (1940s version of a dash one) is to bail out!

In re Cirrus, salesmen for a competing product were spreading the
"Cirrus has a chute because it is unsafe" canard in 2001-03 and have
been directed to stop by the manufacturer of their product, cause it
ain't true. The chute was part of the very first designs for what
ultimately became the SR-20. It was from the outset a key component of
the Klapmeiers' safety vision for their aircraft.

The VK-30 kit and VK-50 may have had nonstandard spin characteristics
-- I don't know -- but they were withdrawn from the market, and
represent an earlier, and much less mature, vision than the SR series.

7. The entrepreneurs that build kit aircraft or make plans available
are taking immense risks for measly returns. The average kit impresario
would have done better putting his money in Enron stock. I know one guy
who finished his prototype after years of labor, built his production
tooling, then lost the prototype in a ground fire -- meanwhile, people
who looked at his very capable kit aircraft kept telling him he was
charging too much for kits -- the price they wanted to pay was less
than his cost of materials.

I know another fellow who got more magazine covers than you could shake
a stick at with his beautiful, powerful, roomy kit. You can't eat
magazine covers. Or Gold Lindys for that matter. He sold a number of
kits that you can count on your fingers, and decided to build UAVs for
a customer that appreciated his efforts, was straight with him, and
paid well -- the government, of all things -- rather than customers who
disparaged his efforts, lied, and stiffed him. He would love to offer
kits again some day but he has a family that deserves better of him.

The most successful kit companies like Van's and RANS to name two, are
barely getting by, by the standards of modern industry. Exxon made 9.9
percent last quarter. Bank of America, almost 30%. What did Van's make?
Payroll, I would guess. The only people that ever made 30% in this
industry did it by selling stuff they didn't have to sell (we could all
name the names).

8. For those that offer these products in this fickle market, the only
possible explanation is that they have emotional reasons for doing so.
For that, I am grateful. Think about what Richard van Grunsven has done
for our sport, and think about what he could have done for himself if
he had applied that level of effort to working for Bank of America
stacking up someone's gold teeth in a vault, or for Exxon or somebody.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

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.

Jim,

I don't think the Rotax is much of a bargain at all. Mattituck will sell you
a brand new uncertified O200 for about $15000, which is about what the Rotax
costs.

There used to be a very good engine bargain in the Polish PZL Franklin, but
they are no longer being made, thanks to the company's acquisition by a
European aerospace concern. Too bad -- these were fully FAA-certified
engines that you could buy brand new for about $8000.

The fact that the company that bought the PZL plant immediately stopped
production tells you a lot about the business model of the aerospace
industry. It is based on low production volume and high profit margin. A lot
of the business comes from government contracts and that's the way the
industry likes it, as the government is the best customer you can have --
never any complaints about price.

So we couldn't well have a cheap, certified airplane engine spoiling the fun
now could we? So close the plant. We can see this to some extent in the
Rolls Royce acquisition of Walter engines in the Czech Republic. You can be
sure we won't be sseing any of the good Walter turbines or LOM piston
engines at cheap prices ever again. That is history.

It tells you a lot that these companies were bought simply to extinghuish
their cheap manufacturing capability. So much for supply and demand and all
of the meaningless crap that's always brought up as an excuse for corporate
greed.

However, when it comes to light plane manufacturing, it is really more of a
cottage industry than a corporate thing. The companies building the LSAs are
small concerns with very little connection to the commercial aerospace
industry -- with the possible exception of Tecnam, which builds components
for regional airliners and such.

Still, the engine is a major cost of the airplane and it's too bad that the
excellent Eastern European manufacturers have been swallowed up and taken
out of comission. Perhaps other options will emerge -- like a rotary or
auto-based engines. These should be doable under the LSA rules.

As far as the cost of materials goes, sheet aluminum is probably the best.
The total cost of metal in a Van's kit is probably no more than a couple of
thousand bucks. Of course that metal needs to be cut and shaped and bent
into shape, and this is in fact where mass production and technologies like
CNC come into play.

And speaking of Van's, they are probably the best value going in the kit
market. You can buy the entire airframe ready to assemble for $15,000 -- and
this leaves the company a good profit margin. If you hired someone at $20 an
hour to build that airplane, that's only $30,000 if you figure 1500 hours
build time. (This is legal in Canada and is spawning something of a
mini-industry as people look for alternatives to the high cost of airplane
ownership).

If you add $20,000 for the cost of an engine and firewall-forward
installation, you will have invested about $65,000 -- this is less than the
cost of new LSAs, but you are getting a heck of a lot more airplane by any
measure.

The idea that the pricing of LSAs realistically reflects cost conditions is
pure nonsense. But leave it to the magazines to try to pull the wool over
our eyes.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Dan wrote:

I think the future for many of us must center on kits and plans, many
magazines have sprung up touting back to grassroots philosophies, only to
change course as they chase advertising revenue.


What magazines are those?

--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

About 20 years ago, Frank Christiansen proposed to build and sell the
Husky for $50,000. The final product came out of the factory at $65,000
(I am working from memory on this price, it may be low).
Why the big price jump?
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.
One of the aviation rags (FLYING?) had an interview with Frank which has
the whole story.

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.
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.
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.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" wrote in message
...
About 20 years ago, Frank Christiansen proposed to build and sell the
Husky for $50,000. The final product came out of the factory at $65,000
(I am working from memory on this price, it may be low).
Why the big price jump?
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.
One of the aviation rags (FLYING?) had an interview with Frank which has
the whole story.

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

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