![]() |
| 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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 01:56 AM |
| Enjoy High Quality incredible low cost PC-to-phone and broadband phone services | John | Home Built | 0 | May 19th 05 03:58 PM |
| Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 03:39 AM |
| Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 08:28 PM |
| Could it happen he The High Cost of Operating in Europe | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 5 | July 14th 03 03:34 AM |