Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?

Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already pilots.

The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.

Consider someone who has never flown before. He's run through golf, and
tennis, and skiing. He has a nice house, with a home theater and possibly a
pool. He has reached the point where there are almost no "toys" left for him
to spend his money on.

Ask this guy if $80,000 dollars is too much to pay for an airplane, and he
will consider the $45,000 he paid for his SUV, and quite probably say that
it IS NOT too much money.

Just as a side note: I'm unable to get a medical, so Sport Pilot is the only
way for me to go. I don't have $80,000, so I'm planning to build an eLSA. So
I have been doing a lot of research on LSA's.

And one thing I have learned is that most of the people in the aviation
business are really lousy at marketing their products to anyone other than
other people in aviation.

When was the last time you saw a Tecnam or Cub Crafters or Legend Cub ad in
the Wall Street Journal, or Time magazine, or your local newspaper?

Just as is happening with this thread, far too many people with a stake in
LSA have simply been preaching to the choir. But the choir has been there,
done that, and isn't going to pay $80K for a "toy" airplane.

There's one other factor at work with "conventional" aircraft, that is also
in play to some extent with LSA's. Consider a non-flyer who gets out of his
car and climbs into a Warrior or a 172. In his car, he's got GPS, he's got
satellite radio, he's got digital everything. But when he climbs into a
light Piper or Cessna, he's got his grandfather's Buick. Why would he want
to fly around in something that clunky looking?

LSA has one big advantage: it can be very nimble. Most of the smarter LSA
manufacturers are offering goodies like the Dynon EFIS ($2,500 +/-) or a
panel-mounted Garmin GPS 296 ($3,000 +/-). No more row after row of
incomprehensible steam gauges, now they have a cockpit with a sports car
feel.

It is quite possible to go out and SELL 10,000 $80,000 airplanes to people
who have never set foot in anything smaller than a 737. But the operative
word is SELL.

Five years from now, you'll have may 1,000 - 1,500 of those people still
flying; all of the rest will have moved on to the next new and hot hobby.

Which means you'll have 8,500 - 9,000 $80,000 airplanes that can be bought
for less than $40,000. And they'll be far better equipped than the airplanes
now rolling out of the doors at Cessna or Piper.

So, the $80,000 airplane model can work, if the manufacturers learn how to
market them properly, to people who are not yet pilots.

And Sport Pilot can work to all of our benefit, because if enough new people
come into GA, it will thrive. But with no new pilots coming in...

Bill,

First of all, the issue is whether these sportplanes are overpriced and
delivering poor value for the buck, not whether there are some people who
will actually pay the artificially high price, regardless.

I agree that the idea is to attract a wider audience to recreational flying,
but $80,000 is too much money for a toy, for most individuals. If you talk
to people on the marketing side of recreational products they will tell you
that $50,000 is a very real psychological barrier. That's why you the vast
majority of boats and other recreational vehicles priced below this point.
As you go over that threshold it becomes a niche market for hardcore
enthusiasts or the very affluent.

Also, I don't believe it is a marketing problem. It is a value problem.
These planes just aren't worth what the manufacturers are asking for them.
No amount of marketing is going to overcome a porr value proposition.

Advertising is not going to change that. It will just add more cost to the
product. Do you know how much it costs to run an ad in a mainstream media
publication? It is a lot more than in the enthusiast magazines -- and is out
of reach for these small, bootstrap companies. Advertizing in the WSJ or
Time is bizjet territory, not LSA.

What might work is advertising in enthusiast magazines other than aviation,
such as boating, skiing, motorcycling, etc. Here you already have the "toy"
demographic who are likely to consider something new.

But the best marketing approach is going to be to provide a good product at
a realistic price. At $80,000 (Really closer to $100,000 if equipped with a
few of those options you suggested), there are very few individuals who will
buy them. Right now the only ones I can think of are those who can't get a
medical, are desperate to fly and don't care about the value they are
getting for their dollar.

I agree with some of the comments that have been made that the first
entrants are pricing high and aiming for just the desperate medical-less
demographic. That market will soon be saturated and then who are they going
to sell these $100,000 toys to? In a few years, I expect prices to be
considerably lower as smart entreprenurs get into this business and begin
offering planes that are better value.

I also expect that the resale value of the planes that are selling now to do
a graveyard spiral. In Canada, we've had what the advanced ultralight
category for a number of years, which is very similar to your Sport Pilot,
and have had the Tecnams and a lot of these other European planes for some
time. Try to sell a used one and see how much you get. As soon as you fly it
off the dealer's field it will have dropped at least a third of its value.

Regards,

Gordon.






"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
> Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?
>
> Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already pilots.
>
> The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
> along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.
>
> Consider someone who has never flown before. He's run through golf, and
> tennis, and skiing. He has a nice house, with a home theater and possibly
> a
> pool. He has reached the point where there are almost no "toys" left for
> him
> to spend his money on.
>
> Ask this guy if $80,000 dollars is too much to pay for an airplane, and he
> will consider the $45,000 he paid for his SUV, and quite probably say that
> it IS NOT too much money.
>
> Just as a side note: I'm unable to get a medical, so Sport Pilot is the
> only
> way for me to go. I don't have $80,000, so I'm planning to build an eLSA.
> So
> I have been doing a lot of research on LSA's.
>
> And one thing I have learned is that most of the people in the aviation
> business are really lousy at marketing their products to anyone other than
> other people in aviation.
>
> When was the last time you saw a Tecnam or Cub Crafters or Legend Cub ad
> in
> the Wall Street Journal, or Time magazine, or your local newspaper?
>
> Just as is happening with this thread, far too many people with a stake in
> LSA have simply been preaching to the choir. But the choir has been there,
> done that, and isn't going to pay $80K for a "toy" airplane.
>
> There's one other factor at work with "conventional" aircraft, that is
> also
> in play to some extent with LSA's. Consider a non-flyer who gets out of
> his
> car and climbs into a Warrior or a 172. In his car, he's got GPS, he's got
> satellite radio, he's got digital everything. But when he climbs into a
> light Piper or Cessna, he's got his grandfather's Buick. Why would he want
> to fly around in something that clunky looking?
>
> LSA has one big advantage: it can be very nimble. Most of the smarter LSA
> manufacturers are offering goodies like the Dynon EFIS ($2,500 +/-) or a
> panel-mounted Garmin GPS 296 ($3,000 +/-). No more row after row of
> incomprehensible steam gauges, now they have a cockpit with a sports car
> feel.
>
> It is quite possible to go out and SELL 10,000 $80,000 airplanes to people
> who have never set foot in anything smaller than a 737. But the operative
> word is SELL.
>
> Five years from now, you'll have may 1,000 - 1,500 of those people still
> flying; all of the rest will have moved on to the next new and hot hobby.
>
> Which means you'll have 8,500 - 9,000 $80,000 airplanes that can be bought
> for less than $40,000. And they'll be far better equipped than the
> airplanes
> now rolling out of the doors at Cessna or Piper.
>
> So, the $80,000 airplane model can work, if the manufacturers learn how to
> market them properly, to people who are not yet pilots.
>
> And Sport Pilot can work to all of our benefit, because if enough new
> people
> come into GA, it will thrive. But with no new pilots coming in...
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gordon,

Based on my back of the envelope analysis of the theoretical base price
of a 2 place aircraft, I think wishing for a plane costing less than 50K
is nothing more than a pipe dream. If you use the following numbers as a
guide, you'll see what I mean.

Airframe + instruments + basic engine + labor = theoretical base
price
20000 + 4000 + 15000 + ( 500 * 45 ) = 61500

Notice that this price doesn't include any profit, overhead costs or
insurance. Add those in, & you quickly get to a point where $80K looks
reasonable & $100K understandable.

As I've mentioned before, until the structural issues affecting cost
(labor & machined materials) are addressed with better up-front
engineering, these costs won't come down.

Evan

Evan,

I understand the point you are trying to make and your numbers are not
unreasonable.

However, just for the same of argument, what if the airframe parts, ready to
be assembled could be punched out for under $10,000? This is not
unreasonable considering that Van's can sell a kit for $15,000 and still
make a profit.

And what if the engine could be supplied for under $10,000 too? This too is
not unreasonable, considering you could buy a brand new PZL four-banger for
that much money for a number of years.

So now your total figure has dropped by $15,000 to $46,000. True this does
not leave a lot of profit margin, but you are getting very close to the
$50,000 factory-built airplane.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Evan Carew" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon,
>
> Based on my back of the envelope analysis of the theoretical base price of
> a 2 place aircraft, I think wishing for a plane costing less than 50K is
> nothing more than a pipe dream. If you use the following numbers as a
> guide, you'll see what I mean.
>
> Airframe + instruments + basic engine + labor = theoretical base
> price
> 20000 + 4000 + 15000 + ( 500 * 45 ) = 61500
>
> Notice that this price doesn't include any profit, overhead costs or
> insurance. Add those in, & you quickly get to a point where $80K looks
> reasonable & $100K understandable.
>
> As I've mentioned before, until the structural issues affecting cost
> (labor & machined materials) are addressed with better up-front
> engineering, these costs won't come down.
>
> Evan

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:19:54 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> wrote:

>Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?
>
>Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already pilots.
>
>The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
>along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.
>


Maybe, but the bright businessman would understand that existing
pilots are a far more readily available source of funds until the
sportpilots start rolling in. I live in charlotte, #25 in city size
and North Carolina was the birth of powered flight. I don't know of
ANYONE who is offering sportpilot. And the planes are selling now.
Ergo, who are they selling to?

In reality, I see SP as a bust until someone gets the price down. The
potential market isn't that blame rich. They are upper-middle class.
80K is a lot of scratch. 40-50K is an extra SUV.



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

I agree.

There is probably a very big market of existing pilots who are not airplane
owners. I think there are over half a million pilots in the US, but only
about half of them own their own airplane.

I bet that almost every one of those airplane-less pilots would love to
become an owner if it wasn't such a poor value proposition. Notice I'm not
saying "if they could afford it." There are a lot of people who could afford
to own an airplane but refuse to because it is such poor value that it
offends their sensibilities. So they rent instead, or don't even bother
flying anymore.

I think sportplanes are just the thing for a lot of these people -- a nice
little Sunday flyer that is also capable of modest cross-country travel.
Cheap to buy and economical to own.

Well that was the dream anyway. But with people trying to sell you a $50,000
sportplane for $100,000, you get that same old sinking feeling again and say
"why bother?"

Regards,

Gordon.



"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:19:54 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> > wrote:
>
>>Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?
>>
>>Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already pilots.
>>
>>The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
>>along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.
>>
>
>
> Maybe, but the bright businessman would understand that existing
> pilots are a far more readily available source of funds until the
> sportpilots start rolling in. I live in charlotte, #25 in city size
> and North Carolina was the birth of powered flight. I don't know of
> ANYONE who is offering sportpilot. And the planes are selling now.
> Ergo, who are they selling to?
>
> In reality, I see SP as a bust until someone gets the price down. The
> potential market isn't that blame rich. They are upper-middle class.
> 80K is a lot of scratch. 40-50K is an extra SUV.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> I agree.
>
> There is probably a very big market of existing pilots who are not airplane
> owners. I think there are over half a million pilots in the US, but only
> about half of them own their own airplane.
>
> I bet that almost every one of those airplane-less pilots would love to
> become an owner if it wasn't such a poor value proposition. Notice I'm not
> saying "if they could afford it." There are a lot of people who could afford
> to own an airplane but refuse to because it is such poor value that it
> offends their sensibilities. So they rent instead, or don't even bother
> flying anymore.
>
> I think sportplanes are just the thing for a lot of these people -- a nice
> little Sunday flyer that is also capable of modest cross-country travel.
> Cheap to buy and economical to own.
>
> Well that was the dream anyway. But with people trying to sell you a $50,000
> sportplane for $100,000, you get that same old sinking feeling again and say
> "why bother?"
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.

To my knowledge, when I got my current plane and took my BFR, I was the
only functional Sport Pilot in our area (central TX). There may be
others by now, but that was back in June, I believe and the rule had
been in force since the previous sept.

I agree that the bang/buck ratio is the primary difficulty with E/SLSA.
Indeed, those manufacturers have a pretty formidable task on their
plates - convincing all these pilots to pay 80 grand for $30-40K
airplanes and creating an entire industry off doing so. That's a "tough
room" for anyone.....

Now, going back to the local SP statistics again, I know of zero SLSA
that have been bought in the local area. I've not yet seen an ELSA
either, and in fact have not even seen a "gELSA" (an uncertificated
light plane that doesn't meet part 103 that has been granted an AC under
the 'grandfathering' provision good thru 2008). The lion's share are
either already certificated light a/c that fit within the SP LSA
limitations (champs, and so on) or Exp A/B airplanes that also fit in
thos limitations (like my airplane). Well, so far my actual statistic is
only one, me, but among the other prospective SP's that I know, the
intention is to go the same route. None has any intention of buying an SLSA.

So what it really looks like to me is, as a manufacturer, SLSA makes
right at 0.00 sense at the current time. You can do a LOT better by
simply continuing to make your current kits intended for Exp A/B and
selling those to prospective Sport Pilots. Retooling cost == 0.00....

That is apparently exactly what most manufacturers are doing. Those that
don't have kits that meet the SP LSA limitations, such as Vans, seem to
be toying with the idea of kits only, with ELSA or SLSA far down on the
list of priorities.

The only cases I can think of where an SLSA would make any sense at all
would be rental and training. I think a catch-22 in such a thing has
already been noticed by someone in this thread and wrote about it....
And even there, the alternatives still seem to be better, so this isn't
going very well either.

So I think the task at this point to get something like SLSA to be
viable is an onerous one, particularly because only a little research is
needed to really discover how much airplane 80 grand can really buy you.

For sure, if someone put a gun to my head and made me spend 80 grand of
my estate on a flying machine, it dame sure isn't going to be no light
sport aircraft. Medical or no, it's going to be an RV 8 or better.... or
3,4 copies of my plane, or... you get the idea....

As I always say, Caveat Emptor.....

LS
N646F
>
>
> "Jimbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:19:54 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?
>>>
>>>Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already pilots.
>>>
>>>The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
>>>along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Maybe, but the bright businessman would understand that existing
>>pilots are a far more readily available source of funds until the
>>sportpilots start rolling in. I live in charlotte, #25 in city size
>>and North Carolina was the birth of powered flight. I don't know of
>>ANYONE who is offering sportpilot. And the planes are selling now.
>>Ergo, who are they selling to?
>>
>>In reality, I see SP as a bust until someone gets the price down. The
>>potential market isn't that blame rich. They are upper-middle class.
>>80K is a lot of scratch. 40-50K is an extra SUV.
>>
>>
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org
>
>
>

Gordon,

This is exactly how the problem space needs to be framed. The economic
solution to this problem is to rely on donations of high value
engineering skills to jump start the production of aircraft parts with
an eye to minimizing input labor costs.

I own a company here in South-east Michigan that makes filter parts for
oddball filtration systems. Since these parts are all custom, we paid a
local CAD firm to do the designs, then passed those off to a machine
shop that does work for GM. Its amazing how cheaply you can make parts
if you do the up-front engineering on them first. IT also helps that we
have underutilized quality machine shop capacity here surronding the
auto companies.

Should someone in the EAA, familliar with engines, whish to design a new
engine (like the Jibaru) from scratch. This would be a good place to do
it. I say from scratch because the Lycoming/Contenental combo aren't
what I would call engineered for efficient manufacturing. Perhaps
something like a cross between the Rotax & the Jibaru would work.

As for the airframe parts, unless someone comes up with a process to
dramatically reduce the labor in making a fiberglass fuse, I don't think
we will be seing cheap airframe parts any time soon. On the other hand,
if you don't mind assembling yourself, the aluminum option could work
with CNCd parts.

No, until someone comes up with a way to pull a fully primed and painted
fiberglass part from a mold (no trimming/sanding required), we aren't
going to see cheap airframe parts, however, maybe that's not as critical
as it would seem. Looking at my numbers, a well engineered airframe for
20K still might not break the bank if you could get its assembly/surfas
prep/painting labor costs way down. You'd literally have to engineer the
entire process. So lets see...

Time Process descrip cost at $45/hr
20 Airframe assembly $900
5 powerplant install $225
10 airframe surface prep $450
10 airframe painting $450
5 instruments $225
5 interior $225
5 testing $225
----------------------------------------
60 $2700

Now that's getting the price of the airplane down! Combine that with an
engine for ~10K or even a little less & you have something:

Airframe + instruments + basic engine + labor = theoretical base
price
20000 + 4000 + 9000 + ( 60 * 45 ) = 35700

Evan,

I think your analysis is realistic -- and forethought in process engineering
is critical.

In fact, I think a lot of the European manufacturers already have a lot of
these efficiencies in place. Europe and other parts of the world --
including Canada -- have already had special rules for light sport-type
aircraft for a number of years and many of these airplane makers have been
making these light planes for years. That's why they were srping-loaded to
crank out these planes for the US market.

However, there are a couple of factors here that work against a low price,
chief among them being the strong Euro relative to the US greenback. The
Rotax engine is expensive too and combine it with the fairly expensive and
labor-intensive composite manufacturing process you have prices that are not
as good as they could be. Also the European JAR certification is not as
simple as LSA certification -- it more like "real" certification, but not as
rigorous. So these outfits did have some real certification costs that are
built into the planes.

However, having said all that I still believe that there is an element of
opportunism in their pricing -- which is only shooting themselves in the
foot, by overpricing this market before it has even had a chance to flower.

Don't forget that there is also an additional layer here for the US
importer, so there is another middleman taking his cut. This is why you are
seeing the $80,000 sportplane (more like $100,000 with decent panel
options).

In reality these planes already could be $50,000 planes if they were made
here in North America -- Canada is a great manufacturing base, as Diamond
Aircraft, Symphony and others will confirm.

And if you had a good $10,000 engine you could make a nice profit with those
$50,000 sportplanes.

I really belive that aluminum is the way to go, however. Again, look at the
Van's kit. Suppose you wanted to set up a factory to produce sportplanes.
Your business plan would include a CNC facility for machining the metal
pieces and you could stamp out parts with very high efficiency. The cost of
aluminum is quite modest. I doubt there can more than about $1500 worth of
aircraft aluminum in a 1,300 pound gross weight sportplane.

With the right process in place and the tooling to crank out parts
pre-finished to a reasonably high degree, the assembly time can be brought
down to quite an efficient level.

I think people like Van's and Murphy Aircraft in Canada, both of whom have
facotries with lots of CNC and other sophisticated tooling already in place,
are going to be thinking seriously about putting together finished
all-aluminum sportplanes. (Their kitplanes are already aluminum-based.)

I think in Europe composites have taken hold because of the vibrant
sailplane industry that has existed there for decades and where composites
have replaced wood construction for quite some time. I think the better ones
are pretty efficieent at it by now.

And once they see a North American company selling $50,000 sportplanes like
hotcakes, you will see them suddenly jumping in with competitive pricing as
well.

And if none of that happens, the kit industry will keep on thriving. A kit
from Van's or Murphy is a good value proposition. (For the really
parsimonious, plans building is even more of a value propostion, as long as
you don't count the TV-couch time that you are sacrificing to your airplane
project).

I think someone mentioned that there are about 20,000 amateur-built
airplanes on the registry rolls now, but an even more impressive statistic I
have heard is that there are actually more homebuilts certified each year
than factory-built GA airplanes. If people vote with their wallets, which
happens to be a good truism, this is a good indicator of what people think
about the "value" of factory-built airplanes -- which is to say not much.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Evan Carew" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon,
>
> This is exactly how the problem space needs to be framed. The economic
> solution to this problem is to rely on donations of high value engineering
> skills to jump start the production of aircraft parts with an eye to
> minimizing input labor costs.
>
> I own a company here in South-east Michigan that makes filter parts for
> oddball filtration systems. Since these parts are all custom, we paid a
> local CAD firm to do the designs, then passed those off to a machine shop
> that does work for GM. Its amazing how cheaply you can make parts if you
> do the up-front engineering on them first. IT also helps that we have
> underutilized quality machine shop capacity here surronding the auto
> companies.
>
> Should someone in the EAA, familliar with engines, whish to design a new
> engine (like the Jibaru) from scratch. This would be a good place to do
> it. I say from scratch because the Lycoming/Contenental combo aren't what
> I would call engineered for efficient manufacturing. Perhaps something
> like a cross between the Rotax & the Jibaru would work.
>
> As for the airframe parts, unless someone comes up with a process to
> dramatically reduce the labor in making a fiberglass fuse, I don't think
> we will be seing cheap airframe parts any time soon. On the other hand, if
> you don't mind assembling yourself, the aluminum option could work with
> CNCd parts.
>
> No, until someone comes up with a way to pull a fully primed and painted
> fiberglass part from a mold (no trimming/sanding required), we aren't
> going to see cheap airframe parts, however, maybe that's not as critical
> as it would seem. Looking at my numbers, a well engineered airframe for
> 20K still might not break the bank if you could get its assembly/surfas
> prep/painting labor costs way down. You'd literally have to engineer the
> entire process. So lets see...
>
> Time Process descrip cost at $45/hr
> 20 Airframe assembly $900
> 5 powerplant install $225
> 10 airframe surface prep $450
> 10 airframe painting $450
> 5 instruments $225
> 5 interior $225
> 5 testing $225
> ----------------------------------------
> 60 $2700
>
> Now that's getting the price of the airplane down! Combine that with an
> engine for ~10K or even a little less & you have something:
>
> Airframe + instruments + basic engine + labor = theoretical base
> price
> 20000 + 4000 + 9000 + ( 60 * 45 ) = 35700

Gordon,

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on your analysis of aluminum
use in commercially built LSA aircraft structures. While it is true that
the aluminum materials costs for an aircraft are lower, the labor costs
(which I have already shown to be the largest cost in building any
plane) are much higher, thus making it a poor choice if you are trying
to build such airplanes for a profit. On the other hand, if you are
trying to sell kit LSA airframes, then the builder assumes the labor
costs, thus making a comparable kit seem less expensive.

Evan,

I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
less labor-intensive.

There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass construction,
unless you go to specialized processes and tooling that are probably out of
reach for a small firm. Even Cirrus and Adam do a lot of their layups by
hand -- granted using pre-pregs.

Now look at a simple little plane like the Zenith 601. They used to build
one of these in a week at Oshkosh, using volunteers from the crowd. It uses
pull-type rivets rather than bucked, so the structure can be assembled quite
quickly. I think the total time to get to the flying plane was about 300 man
hours.

And I don't think the Zenith kit parts are as automated as they could be --
for instance I don't the they are fully precut and pre-punched etc. like the
Van's kits.

My point is that if you purpose-designed a small aluminum airplane for quick
construction and automated the sheet-metal stamping part of the process, you
could make that airplane very cost-effectively.

Perhaps a fiberglass approach could work just as well, but I think more
ingenuity would be required.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Evan Carew" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gordon,
>
> Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on your analysis of aluminum
> use in commercially built LSA aircraft structures. While it is true that
> the aluminum materials costs for an aircraft are lower, the labor costs
> (which I have already shown to be the largest cost in building any plane)
> are much higher, thus making it a poor choice if you are trying to build
> such airplanes for a profit. On the other hand, if you are trying to sell
> kit LSA airframes, then the builder assumes the labor costs, thus making a
> comparable kit seem less expensive.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>Evan,
>
>I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
>however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
>less labor-intensive.
>
Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to
making large compound structures as one piece.

>There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass construction,

That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends
itself well to putting pieces together.

>unless you go to specialized processes and tooling that are probably out of
>reach for a small firm. Even Cirrus and Adam do a lot of their layups by
>hand -- granted using pre-pregs.
>
>Now look at a simple little plane like the Zenith 601. They used to build
>one of these in a week at Oshkosh, using volunteers from the crowd. It uses
>pull-type rivets rather than bucked, so the structure can be assembled quite
>quickly. I think the total time to get to the flying plane was about 300 man
>hours.
>
>And I don't think the Zenith kit parts are as automated as they could be --
>for instance I don't the they are fully precut and pre-punched etc. like the
>Van's kits.
>
>My point is that if you purpose-designed a small aluminum airplane for quick
>construction and automated the sheet-metal stamping part of the process, you
>could make that airplane very cost-effectively.
>
>Perhaps a fiberglass approach could work just as well, but I think more
>ingenuity would be required.

It would and it would.

However, in the case of the sport plane specifications, the plane
could be constructed of shells that could be fastened together.
They could be composite shells, with the joggle and two aluminum
strips where they would be pop riveted together with cherry max
rivets.

After all they do not under go any where near the stress of a Cirrus,
Lancair, or Glasair III. Staying within those specs makes both the
metal and composite structures much more simple. OTOH you still have
all the insurance costs.

If and I emphasize the IF the market were there to justify true mass
production then airframes, engines and basic avionics could be
produced at considerably less. If you could sell even 20,000 small
displacement engines like the Jabaru they'd become *relatively* less
expensive compared to now.

Let's face it, even at Cessna's best year, that was a specialized
market and peanuts compared to the automobile.

However, first you have to have the market. You aren't going to do a
lot of high profile advertising for a nitch market that may develop.
Once the potential market is there the advertising can increase, and
production will follow.

It's much like the chicken or the egg. The market has to develop
slowly. The faster it develops the more sensitive it is to upsets.

However, I seriously doubt that we will ever see more than about three
times the number of planes currently flying. Beyond that we'd need a
complete now traffic system even if most of it is local.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>Regards,
>
>Gordon.
>
>
>
>
>"Evan Carew" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Gordon,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on your analysis of aluminum
>> use in commercially built LSA aircraft structures. While it is true that
>> the aluminum materials costs for an aircraft are lower, the labor costs
>> (which I have already shown to be the largest cost in building any plane)
>> are much higher, thus making it a poor choice if you are trying to build
>> such airplanes for a profit. On the other hand, if you are trying to sell
>> kit LSA airframes, then the builder assumes the labor costs, thus making a
>> comparable kit seem less expensive.
>

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:47:38 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:
>
>>Evan,
>>
>>I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
>>however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
>>less labor-intensive.
>>
>Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to
>making large compound structures as one piece.
>
>>There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass construction,
>
>That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends
>itself well to putting pieces together.

I dunno, Roger. I've been both to the Glastar factory and the Vans factory. At
Vans, a guy feeds a big piece of aluminum into a big CNC machine and
whango-whango-whango out comes a big pile of RV parts. But then I go see the
Glastar's fiberglass fuselage made, and its spray the release agent onto the
mold, then the gelcoat, then cut pieces of fiberglass and lay them into the
mold, then squeegee on some resin, then apply the foam, then apply another layer
of fiberglass and more resin, etc. etc., lather, rinse, repeat, then let the
assembly tie up your every expensive mold while the resin cures.

Looked to me that manufacturing aircraft parts in fiberglass is a *lot* more
effort...though I allow that less-skilled workers can probably be used.

Ron Wanttaja

P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed
"whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat."

Ron,

That's a good comparison. A Glasair or Lancair kit costs about double what a
Van's kit costs and it still takes about the same build time to complete. In
fact even the Van's quick-build costs less than a Glasair slow-build and you
get probably less than half the build time.

And what if the Van's kit were designed to be built with pulled rivets? This
would cut build time dramatically and that slow-build kit could be built in
about the same time it takes to build one of the composite fast-build kits
that cost three times as much.

Look at the Zenith 601, and compare its price to some of the sportplane
composite kits. The composte kits are usually twice as much money.

The conclusion has to be that composites are more expensive because it costs
more to make them. No question about it, composite construction involves
lots of hands-on labor.

Also composite materials are expensive compared to aluminum. So if there is
no advantage in labor costs and material costs are higher, how does
composite make sense for a cheap airplane? It doesn't.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:47:38 -0400, Roger
> >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Evan,
>>>
>>>I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
>>>however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
>>>less labor-intensive.
>>>
>>Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to
>>making large compound structures as one piece.
>>
>>>There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass
>>>construction,
>>
>>That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends
>>itself well to putting pieces together.
>
> I dunno, Roger. I've been both to the Glastar factory and the Vans
> factory. At
> Vans, a guy feeds a big piece of aluminum into a big CNC machine and
> whango-whango-whango out comes a big pile of RV parts. But then I go see
> the
> Glastar's fiberglass fuselage made, and its spray the release agent onto
> the
> mold, then the gelcoat, then cut pieces of fiberglass and lay them into
> the
> mold, then squeegee on some resin, then apply the foam, then apply another
> layer
> of fiberglass and more resin, etc. etc., lather, rinse, repeat, then let
> the
> assembly tie up your every expensive mold while the resin cures.
>
> Looked to me that manufacturing aircraft parts in fiberglass is a *lot*
> more
> effort...though I allow that less-skilled workers can probably be used.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
> P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed
> "whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat."

> Based on my back of the envelope analysis of the theoretical base price
> of a 2 place aircraft, I think wishing for a plane costing less than 50K
> is nothing more than a pipe dream.

I don't buy it. When I
was in the Keys, I saw a two-seat UL trainer on floats. It was open
cockpit (very open), and had a Rotax engine and Dacron-sailcloth
covered wing, but it was $25K new. Presumably the manufacturer
was making a profit.

I think all your prices are WAY too high. $15K for an engine? A Rotax
retails for half that. That's RETAIL - if you're a manufacturer you
should be able to get a better deal.

$20K for airframe components? You can buy a quickbuild kit for a
pretty advanced (high-speed all-metal RV) for less. Retail. Prebuilt
and predesigned for home assembly.

$4K for instruments? For an IFR panel with certified components,
maybe. For day-VFR, you need a non-sensitive altimeter, an airpeed
indicator, a compass, and some engine gauges. The retail price on all
this (assuming non-certified stuff) is maybe $1K.

I think everyone pretty much expected that when the LSA rules came out,
the UL trainers (2 seat) would be sold as LSA's for about the same
money they cost as UL trainers - about $20K-$30K ready to fly. This
isn't happening. There really are only two possible reasons. Either
the LSA 'certification' process isn't really all that simple or cheap
(meaning that, as with the recreational pilot and VLA, the FAA has
botched the job again) or the manufacturers figure they can skim the
cream at a higher price.

Michael

Ron,

& yet, when that part comes out of the mold, it is essentially flyable.
With the aluminum CNC paradyme, you get predrilled holes in aluminum you
then have to bend, & thousands of rivet holes you have to debur. hours,
hours, & hours of deburring...

Gordon,

All I'm saying is that there's more opportunity to do low labor per
square foot of fuse with fiberglass than with aluminum, ans since we are
talking about commercially built structures, that's all that matters
when you are trying to get a basic airplane out the door for less than
80, or even 60K.

As for using pull type rivets... do you really think any commercial
entity is going to roll out insured airplanes with the equivalent of pop
rivets?

Michael,

I've interspersed my data (gleaned from today's online prices)
throughout your message. Add them up yourself.


> I don't buy it. When I
> was in the Keys, I saw a two-seat UL trainer on floats. It was open
> cockpit (very open), and had a Rotax engine and Dacron-sailcloth
> covered wing, but it was $25K new. Presumably the manufacturer
> was making a profit.
We were talking about an enclosed aircraft with a fiberglass or aluminum
body, 4 stroke engine, and 2 seats with a cruse of ~100 knots.
>
> I think all your prices are WAY too high. $15K for an engine? A Rotax
> retails for half that. That's RETAIL - if you're a manufacturer you
> should be able to get a better deal.
<sigh> I just went to a common retail website & found that a rotax 912
(the most commonly used for aircraft of the type we are talking about)
lists for between 16 & 22K. The difference being the options & accessories.
>
> $20K for airframe components? You can buy a quickbuild kit for a
> pretty advanced (high-speed all-metal RV) for less. Retail. Prebuilt
> and predesigned for home assembly.
On the RV site, they do in fact sell the early model RV for 11.7K,
however, the finished cost is listed at 45K. That would be 10K more than
my fiberglass KIS.
>
> $4K for instruments? For an IFR panel with certified components,
> maybe. For day-VFR, you need a non-sensitive altimeter, an airpeed
> indicator, a compass, and some engine gauges. The retail price on all
> this (assuming non-certified stuff) is maybe $1K.
Er, I just bought mine & even my radio cost ~1k. If you would be kind
enough to tell me where you purchase your instruments, I'll start
purchasing mine from your supplier right away!
>
> I think everyone pretty much expected that when the LSA rules came out,
> the UL trainers (2 seat) would be sold as LSA's for about the same
> money they cost as UL trainers - about $20K-$30K ready to fly. This
> isn't happening. There really are only two possible reasons. Either
> the LSA 'certification' process isn't really all that simple or cheap
> (meaning that, as with the recreational pilot and VLA, the FAA has
> botched the job again) or the manufacturers figure they can skim the
> cream at a higher price.
>
> Michael
>

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed
> "whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat."

Your spell checker has the Ted Nugent module? :)

Evan Carew wrote:
> As for using pull type rivets... do you really think any commercial
> entity is going to roll out insured airplanes with the equivalent of pop
> rivets?

The windshields on the Bell Jetranger helicopter are held on by
pulled rivets. I didn't know that until I saw one being replaced.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:12:41 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:47:38 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Evan,
>>>
>>>I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
>>>however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
>>>less labor-intensive.
>>>
>>Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to
>>making large compound structures as one piece.
>>
>>>There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass construction,
>>
>>That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends
>>itself well to putting pieces together.
>
>I dunno, Roger. I've been both to the Glastar factory and the Vans factory. At
>Vans, a guy feeds a big piece of aluminum into a big CNC machine and

Agreed, we'd have to change the way we approach the parts making
process particularly with fiberglass, but I think when it comes to
mass production much could be automated. OTOH when it comes to mass
production, the old automotive approach where one press stamps out a
whole bunch of parts ain't a bad way to go. Maybe that was a poor
choice of words as I worked in a metal stamping plant many years ago
in another life. People left a lot of parts in some of those presses.

>whango-whango-whango out comes a big pile of RV parts. But then I go see the
>Glastar's fiberglass fuselage made, and its spray the release agent onto the
>mold, then the gelcoat, then cut pieces of fiberglass and lay them into the
>mold, then squeegee on some resin, then apply the foam, then apply another layer

Squeegee? They were using really big paint brushes to apply the vinyl
ester resin and moving a lot faster than I do. Slop it on, squeegee
it out, It's no wonder then have the water line 100 off by only a
1/4 inch on the pilot's side and missed the cut out for the horizontal
stab by about three inches on mine. <:-))

Looking at the size of one of those fuselage shells, two layers of
fiberglass, half inch of foam, and two more layers of fiberglass.
Vinyl Ester Resin is not noted for taking a long time to gel and has a
notoriously short pot life, unless you work in a refrigerated room.

>of fiberglass and more resin, etc. etc., lather, rinse, repeat, then let the
>assembly tie up your every expensive mold while the resin cures.
>

Add heat. It really speeds things up<:-))
But, yes, the way we do it now is very time consuming...and expensive.
Metal working is a much more mature field while glass/composite is
still relatively new.
I think "Vans" has done a great deal to speed the production and make
the parts go together faster.

Speaking of Glasair. I have over 1100 hours into those nice looking
parts and they are *almost*, *starting* to look like they *might* be
related to an airplane. There's a reason the "jump start" G-III is
expensive. <sigh>. Of course had I started in and kept at it, mine
would be flying now, or they'd have fitted me for one of those tight
fitting jackets with the long arms that wrap around.

The G-III has a lot of possibilities for streamlining the building
process and not just by having the factory put a bunch of parts
together for the builder. Of course the G-III is one of the most labor
intensive kits out there so it has a *lot* of room for streamlining.

One time consuming area is the firewall along with the engine mount
attach point reinforcements. There are 6 attach points. Between them
you are looking at 96 individual lay-ups.

>Looked to me that manufacturing aircraft parts in fiberglass is a *lot* more
>effort...though I allow that less-skilled workers can probably be used.

I think they were training a new one when they did the shells for
mine. As far as skill though, I think the only reason that is possible
is the tremendous excess strength built into the designs which make
them tolerant of far less than perfect construction technique. After
all, I'm building one... OTOH I may never get it finished.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed
>"whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat."

I find mine often fails on relatively common terms. It thinks Gelcoat
should be gel-coat.<:-))

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:43:10 GMT, Evan Carew >
wrote:

>Ron,
>
>& yet, when that part comes out of the mold, it is essentially flyable.
>With the aluminum CNC paradyme, you get predrilled holes in aluminum you
>then have to bend, & thousands of rivet holes you have to debur. hours,
>hours, & hours of deburring...

Yah, but I've never spent much time "block sanding" on Aluminum
airplanes.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:43:10 GMT, Evan Carew > wrote:

>Ron,
>
>& yet, when that part comes out of the mold, it is essentially flyable.
>With the aluminum CNC paradyme, you get predrilled holes in aluminum you
>then have to bend, & thousands of rivet holes you have to debur. hours,
>hours, & hours of deburring...

I think deburring isn't quite that much of a time hog. I've never heard an RV
or Murphy or Zenith builder complain about the time needed for deburring, while
I have heard a lot of whines about sanding from the composite crowd (but many of
those are building moldless composites, not molded). If deburring were that
much of an impact, outfits like Cessna, Piper, and Boeing would have come up
with an alternative 50 years ago.

Those rare times where I'm bashing something from aluminum, I just keep an old
battery-powered drill handy with a countersink chucked up. Drill the holes,
disassemble the part, go zzzz-zzzz-zzzz with the countersink, then start pulling
rivets.

I think your point is valid in a way, as a metal-airplane builder spends a lot
of time assembling the part with clecos, drilling it, disassembling it,
deburring it, priming it, RE-assembling it, then driving rivets. But, geeze,
4,000 RV completions. Obviously it isn't that much of a hassle.

Ron Wanttaja

> We were talking about an enclosed aircraft with a fiberglass or aluminum
> body, 4 stroke engine, and 2 seats with a cruse of ~100 knots.

We were? In that case, forget it. You can't sell that for under $60K
and make a profit in anything less than quanities of 10,000. Anyway,
what's the purpose of that speed? You can't go anywhere anyway. You
are limited to daytime flying only, and only in good weather. That's
not a practical traveling machine, that's a toy.

> Er, I just bought mine & even my radio cost ~1k.

Portable aviation radios start at $200. And they're not required
anyway.

See, what we've got here is a mismatch in expectations. LSA's are not
supposed to be C-150 lookalikes/workalikes. There's a reason the C-150
and similar modern 2-seat trainers don't fit into the LSA category -
they're not supposed to. These are not supposed to be planes that
provide utility. They're supposed to be sport aircraft - stuff you fly
for the fun of flying.

We're not talking aerial Mercedes here - we're talking aerial Harley.
So where are they? Where are the UL's and UL trainers being sold as
LSA's? When we can make one that sells new for what a Harley costs,
we'll be getting somewhere.

Michael

Hello Bill. I hope you know that if you have been denied a medical, you
will probably not be able to get a sport pilot certificate. Anyway,
this is what I have been told. Good Luck to you. Ron

Also, aren't most of these birds made offshore, where labor and parts
are "so much lower than the US?"

David M.


ls wrote:

> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> There is probably a very big market of existing pilots who are not
>> airplane owners. I think there are over half a million pilots in the
>> US, but only about half of them own their own airplane.
>>
>> I bet that almost every one of those airplane-less pilots would love
>> to become an owner if it wasn't such a poor value proposition. Notice
>> I'm not saying "if they could afford it." There are a lot of people
>> who could afford to own an airplane but refuse to because it is such
>> poor value that it offends their sensibilities. So they rent instead,
>> or don't even bother flying anymore.
>>
>> I think sportplanes are just the thing for a lot of these people -- a
>> nice little Sunday flyer that is also capable of modest cross-country
>> travel. Cheap to buy and economical to own.
>>
>> Well that was the dream anyway. But with people trying to sell you a
>> $50,000 sportplane for $100,000, you get that same old sinking feeling
>> again and say "why bother?"
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gordon.
>
>
> To my knowledge, when I got my current plane and took my BFR, I was the
> only functional Sport Pilot in our area (central TX). There may be
> others by now, but that was back in June, I believe and the rule had
> been in force since the previous sept.
>
> I agree that the bang/buck ratio is the primary difficulty with E/SLSA.
> Indeed, those manufacturers have a pretty formidable task on their
> plates - convincing all these pilots to pay 80 grand for $30-40K
> airplanes and creating an entire industry off doing so. That's a "tough
> room" for anyone.....
>
> Now, going back to the local SP statistics again, I know of zero SLSA
> that have been bought in the local area. I've not yet seen an ELSA
> either, and in fact have not even seen a "gELSA" (an uncertificated
> light plane that doesn't meet part 103 that has been granted an AC under
> the 'grandfathering' provision good thru 2008). The lion's share are
> either already certificated light a/c that fit within the SP LSA
> limitations (champs, and so on) or Exp A/B airplanes that also fit in
> thos limitations (like my airplane). Well, so far my actual statistic is
> only one, me, but among the other prospective SP's that I know, the
> intention is to go the same route. None has any intention of buying an
> SLSA.
>
> So what it really looks like to me is, as a manufacturer, SLSA makes
> right at 0.00 sense at the current time. You can do a LOT better by
> simply continuing to make your current kits intended for Exp A/B and
> selling those to prospective Sport Pilots. Retooling cost == 0.00....
>
> That is apparently exactly what most manufacturers are doing. Those that
> don't have kits that meet the SP LSA limitations, such as Vans, seem to
> be toying with the idea of kits only, with ELSA or SLSA far down on the
> list of priorities.
>
> The only cases I can think of where an SLSA would make any sense at all
> would be rental and training. I think a catch-22 in such a thing has
> already been noticed by someone in this thread and wrote about it....
> And even there, the alternatives still seem to be better, so this isn't
> going very well either.
>
> So I think the task at this point to get something like SLSA to be
> viable is an onerous one, particularly because only a little research is
> needed to really discover how much airplane 80 grand can really buy you.
>
> For sure, if someone put a gun to my head and made me spend 80 grand of
> my estate on a flying machine, it dame sure isn't going to be no light
> sport aircraft. Medical or no, it's going to be an RV 8 or better.... or
> 3,4 copies of my plane, or... you get the idea....
>
> As I always say, Caveat Emptor.....
>
> LS
> N646F
>
>>
>>
>> "Jimbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:19:54 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Start with this: How many people do you know who own a $45,000 SUV?
>>>>
>>>> Light Sport Aircraft are not intended for people who are already
>>>> pilots.
>>>>
>>>> The whole purpose of the Light Sport Certificate is to draw new people,
>>>> along with new money, into the sport side of aviation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, but the bright businessman would understand that existing
>>> pilots are a far more readily available source of funds until the
>>> sportpilots start rolling in. I live in charlotte, #25 in city size
>>> and North Carolina was the birth of powered flight. I don't know of
>>> ANYONE who is offering sportpilot. And the planes are selling now.
>>> Ergo, who are they selling to?
>>>
>>> In reality, I see SP as a bust until someone gets the price down. The
>>> potential market isn't that blame rich. They are upper-middle class.
>>> 80K is a lot of scratch. 40-50K is an extra SUV.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org
>>
>>
>>
>>

"rons321" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello Bill. I hope you know that if you have been denied a medical, you
> will probably not be able to get a sport pilot certificate. Anyway,
> this is what I have been told. Good Luck to you.

Ron, if you were denied one time, and are able to get the medical back
again, that is all that counts. You can get it back, and not try to get it
again, then you can do the sport plane flying. No problem; just don't get
turned down, -then- try to fly under sport rules.

Clear?
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:37:16 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>Ron,
>
>That's a good comparison. A Glasair or Lancair kit costs about double what a
>Van's kit costs and it still takes about the same build time to complete. In
>fact even the Van's quick-build costs less than a Glasair slow-build and you
>get probably less than half the build time.

Ahhh... The Glasair takes a *lot* longer in build time. You are
looking at 4000 plus hours for a G-III or Super II.

>
>And what if the Van's kit were designed to be built with pulled rivets? This
>would cut build time dramatically and that slow-build kit could be built in
>about the same time it takes to build one of the composite fast-build kits
>that cost three times as much.

I think the Vans series are faster, more powerful, and more highly
stressed than the Zenith. It's kinda like apples and oranges.

>
>Look at the Zenith 601, and compare its price to some of the sportplane
>composite kits. The composte kits are usually twice as much money.

There are a few planes out there designed around the simplicity of
construction with build times on the order of 500 or so hours. OTOH I
understand the Jabaru has a relatively short build time and is a
combination of composite and metal.

>
>The conclusion has to be that composites are more expensive because it costs
>more to make them. No question about it, composite construction involves
>lots of hands-on labor.

The way we do it now certainly takes a lot of labor. But the way the
parts are made, the individual lay-ups, there is a lot of room for
simplification (speeding up the construction). Even die cut foam for
the bulkheads and firewall would reduce the build time and increase
the accuracy.

>
>Also composite materials are expensive compared to aluminum. So if there is
>no advantage in labor costs and material costs are higher, how does
>composite make sense for a cheap airplane? It doesn't.

Again, were we to use a couple layers of fiberglass over a steel tube
frame it would be much faster and easier and a lot cheaper than the
advanced composite. . When you get into the advanced composite using
layers of fiberglass, foam, more fiberglass and resin it can get
complicated and messy.

In addition, if you've ever worked with fiberglass cloth cut on the 45
degree bias the stuff is like working with a bucket full of worms. You
need an outline or form to which it needs to be fitted. Draw the
shape on the cloth, cut on the line and then when you wet it with
resin fit it to a shape where it goes. The stuff can easily change
length and width by as much as 30%. Of course when cut on the 90 or 0
bias the stuff has a tendency to come unraveled with loose threads all
over the place. On top of that the thickness varies. The leading
edge of the horizontal stab is made up of at least 6 layers of roughly
16 pieces. The are about 2 1/2 inches wide, various lengths, and the
ends are cut on a 45. Even with care a straight edge along the
leading edge shows many variations, so you fill and sand, fill and
sand, fill and sand...

Prepreg OTOH costs more, but the thickness is uniform, it uses a
minimum of resin, and holds its shape. It doesn't have that annoying
tendency to come unraveled either.

If you want expensive, the horizontal stab is constructed using foam
and carbon fiber. Look that stuff up by the cost per yard<:-))


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Regards,
>
>Gordon.
>
>
>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:47:38 -0400, Roger
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:37:30 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Evan,
>>>>
>>>>I don't want to drag this out, I think some good points ahve been made --
>>>>however, I don't see why fiberglass airframe construction is going to be
>>>>less labor-intensive.
>>>>
>>>Once you have the moulds constructed, fiberglass lends itself well to
>>>making large compound structures as one piece.
>>>
>>>>There is almost zero opportunity for automation in fiberglass
>>>>construction,
>>>
>>>That depends on your thinking. Fiberglass composite also lends
>>>itself well to putting pieces together.
>>
>> I dunno, Roger. I've been both to the Glastar factory and the Vans
>> factory. At
>> Vans, a guy feeds a big piece of aluminum into a big CNC machine and
>> whango-whango-whango out comes a big pile of RV parts. But then I go see
>> the
>> Glastar's fiberglass fuselage made, and its spray the release agent onto
>> the
>> mold, then the gelcoat, then cut pieces of fiberglass and lay them into
>> the
>> mold, then squeegee on some resin, then apply the foam, then apply another
>> layer
>> of fiberglass and more resin, etc. etc., lather, rinse, repeat, then let
>> the
>> assembly tie up your every expensive mold while the resin cures.
>>
>> Looked to me that manufacturing aircraft parts in fiberglass is a *lot*
>> more
>> effort...though I allow that less-skilled workers can probably be used.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> P.S. Wanna hear something *really* scary? My spell checker passed
>> "whango-whango-whango" but hiccuped on "gelcoat."
>

Just the labor.

AINut wrote:
> Also, aren't most of these birds made offshore, where labor and parts
> are "so much lower than the US?"
>
> David M.
>
>