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

[N9NWO]

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?

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.

[BTIZ]

you are expecting new at 15-25K?
we don't even get new gliders at that price..
or even a cheap car..

and you want a certified airplane at that price?
I've seen powered parachute trikes run that much..

you will only find used in that price range.. and now even J-3 Cubs are over
$30K

BT

"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?
>
> 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.
>
>

[Omega]

: you are expecting new at 15-25K?
: we don't even get new gliders at that price..
: or even a cheap car..
:
: and you want a certified airplane at that price?
: I've seen powered parachute trikes run that much..
:
: you will only find used in that price range.. and now even J-3 Cubs are
over
: $30K

Here is a 1966 Cessna 150F for $18900
http://www.aso.com/aircraft/86497/

And a 1957 Cessna 172 for $29500
http://www.aso.com/aircraft/85467/

And a 1971 Musketeer B19 Sport for $24500
http://www.aso.com/aircraft/85084/

[Almarz]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:21:12 -0500, "N9NWO" >
wrote:

>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?

You can probably get a Garmin 430, audio panel and transponder for
that. Installed, too! Good start.
>
Seriously, there are many good older planes that are available, and
prices are actually starting to increase for these and will continue
as long as people are willing to pay. Saw a $22,000 Ercoupe the other
day that probably couldn't sell a year ago for $16K. As with
everything else, you need to be very careful now that this new
"feature" has been tagged on an airplane.

[ET]

"N9NWO" > wrote in
:

> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>

For that price, your gonna have to build it, or buy something 50+ years
old, or buy something that the wing fits into a duffle bag <grin>).

With very carefull scrounging you can build a Sonex for $15-$18K
(www.sonex-ltd.com) or a Zodiac 601XL for about 20-25K, but you will also
invest 2-5years of your free time.

ET

[Dude]

>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?
>
> 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".

What sort of up front, and monthly, budget for this activity do you have,
and how much flying fo you plan to do.

[Omega]

: >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?
: >
: > 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".
:
: What sort of up front, and monthly, budget for this activity do you have,
: and how much flying fo you plan to do.

It is called a wife who says no damned way!

Face, most of us do not drive $50K+ cars. Yet that seems to be the starting
point for aircraft. Under $25K is just more "sellable", so to speak.

[Howard Nelson]

"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


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

[Dude]

"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?
> : >
> : > 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".
> :
> : What sort of up front, and monthly, budget for this activity do you
> have,
> : and how much flying fo you plan to do.
>
> It is called a wife who says no damned way!
>
> Face, most of us do not drive $50K+ cars. Yet that seems to be the
> starting
> point for aircraft. Under $25K is just more "sellable", so to speak.
>

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 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.

I bought a new plane, and it hasn't really cost me that much more than if I
had been renting it. Mine was a lot more than 50k. Its much like any other
hobby, it costs to play the best, but you can play for less if you really
want to.

The following is not recommended for everyone:

You might want to point out to your wife the difference between needs and
wants. Then point out what you both bought because you and she wanted it,
rather than needed it. This includes almost everything (start with the big
things, and work down to the convenience foods, alcohol, and cigarettes).
It adds up fast. I wanted, and thought we should buy a house half as
valuable as the one we own that was closer to her workplace (I work out of
the house). She wanted one in this neighborhood. The costs of the taxes
and commute are more than double (I don't even count the interest and
principle). My aviation habit is less than this difference. Discussion
over.

In truth, I didn't need to have this discussion, because I am the tightwad
in the family. But whenever the discussion even moves in that direction, I
quickly chime in about how upset I am about how much money WE spend on "all
sorts of things". The female faction retreats without delay.

[BTIZ]

>
> : you are expecting new at 15-25K?
> : we don't even get new gliders at that price..
> : or even a cheap car..
> :
> : and you want a certified airplane at that price?
> : I've seen powered parachute trikes run that much..
> :
> : you will only find used in that price range.. and now even J-3 Cubs are
> over
> : $30K
>
> Here is a 1966 Cessna 150F for $18900
> http://www.aso.com/aircraft/86497/
>
> And a 1957 Cessna 172 for $29500
> http://www.aso.com/aircraft/85467/
>
> And a 1971 Musketeer B19 Sport for $24500
> http://www.aso.com/aircraft/85084/
>

I do not believe any of these would qualify as NEW
which is what the original poster was looking for..

and I'm sure the Musketeer and 172 would not qualify for a Light Sport
Pilot.. which the original poster was looking for.. because they have 4
seats

BT

[C Kingsbury]

"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.

[ET]

"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

[Almarz]

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?

[Almarz]

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

>"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

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.

[C Kingsbury]

"Almarz" > wrote in message
...
> 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/unitinfo/4/sbt/10/234/0/yamaha_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.

[Jay Beckman]

"Almarz" > wrote in message
...
> 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)

[AI Nut]

Ouch! That's baad.


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:fpPod.80648$SW3.36229@fed1read01...
> "Almarz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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)
>
>

[psyshrike]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message >...
> "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

[C Kingsbury]

"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 here: 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.

[Leon McAtee]

"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

[Dave Stadt]

"Leon McAtee" > wrote in message
om...
> "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.

Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are available
by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
$30,000.

[Dude]

A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.

Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "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 here: 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]

>
> Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are available
> by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
> $30,000.
>
>

However, the price to maintain and fly them is not all that cheap. In fact,
you are no better off financially in many of those planes unless you count
interest or cost of funds than buying much newer planes at quadruple the
price.

The perception is that a 30k new plane would have less expensive parts, and
need less maintenance. Folding wings would also be a plus for storage
costs.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Dude > wrote:
> A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.

> Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?

Not really.

Personal watercraft and especially motorcycles are produced in the millions.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[Dave Stadt]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Excellent used planes that meet or exceed those requirements are
available
> > by the hundreds and in many cases you will get change back from your
> > $30,000.
> >
> >
>
> However, the price to maintain and fly them is not all that cheap. In
fact,
> you are no better off financially in many of those planes unless you count
> interest or cost of funds than buying much newer planes at quadruple the
> price.
>
> The perception is that a 30k new plane would have less expensive parts,
and
> need less maintenance. Folding wings would also be a plus for storage
> costs.


I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely no
sense.


..

[mindenpilot]

> I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely no
> sense.
>
>

I agree.
If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no reason
that it would cost any more to maintain than a newer one at quadruple the
cost.
I think there are hundreds of these birds out there for $30K.
Why would it be cheaper if I bought a $120K plane?

[C Kingsbury]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
> > I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely
no
> > sense.
>
> I agree.
> If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no
reason

How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the audience
will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you probably
can't afford the ownership costs either.

There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA aircraft
like a C-150, cub, champ, etc. They will be newer so you will presumably
need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any cheaper.
My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P and he
didn't have to get any special training either. Insurance, and storage costs
will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get to use
Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.

Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your own
labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an A&P/IA, but
running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
pretty much the same.

But in the end I think the main significant difference is the elimination of
certification cost. Look at the boating world- that is completely
unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc. are
all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're just
not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll take
both :)

-cwk.

[Roger]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>A good parallel to light sport might be personal watercraft or motorcycles.
>
>Does anyone know what level of automation is used in these instances?
>
>"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "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).
<snip>
>> 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.
>>
It's very clear to me. There isn't enough market, or even potential
market except for very simple aircraft that could be assembled with a
minimum of stamping operations.

On that type of aircraft the automation would have the least impact.

What I do see is the simplified certification process costing less and
making it easier to produce a less costly airplane in the Sport
category.

Still, with product liability I don't see any aircraft as being
inexpensive in the near future except in relative terms.

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

[psyshrike]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message . net>...
> "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 here: 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.

Agreed. Tooling is way expensive. But the costs of those facilities
are comming down. There are a lot of used robots out there.

>
> 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.

Point taken. Though I think the introduction of the cheap A/C would
widen the market a bit, it is more a matter pilot availability than
aircraft availability. So you would quickly run out of customers
domestically.

>
> 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.
>

I would be inclined to reasearch that further if I was going in the
business. My hunch is that emerging markets might represent the larger
customer base. You might end up selling more A/C to foreign buyers
than domestic ones at $25K a pop. Maybe even to some third world
governements. You don't have to be in the Jet age to be involved in an
arms race after all.

> > 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.

Point taken. I don't know enough about this to be able to qualify
accusations of hanky-panky. However, on the surface it seems to me the
price/market issue had to be a factor. At the prices these are
available at, there would be a thousand copies in the USA by now had
they not been certified restricted.

Are the other certified Russian birds reflective of such a massive
performance/price gap as was the AN-2? If not, then they really don't
reflect on the point I was trying to make. Which was that the
restrictions of the AN-2 may have been driven by it's effect on
domestic competition. (No more need for the C206 or C208 for rural
cargo routes)

>
> 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.

I'd have to disagree here. Too many hands in the cookie jar
domestically. Based on my hunch on overseas markets, I would say being
near an international port would be a requirement.

Foreign construction would be a matter of whether the aircraft was
suitibly designed to be able to go through the finishing stages with
relatively unskilled labor.

I've thought quite a bit about this. The only A/C I've seen that have
been designed to take advantage of modern fabrication techniques are
glass. Material cost for them as well as the time on those
multi-million dollar filiment winding machines probably is what brings
the price to where it is.

I'm thinking more like modernizing 30's style construction, with 90's
style robotics. I think you could make some cheap quality aircraft
that way.

Sufficed to say, I'm no millionaire, and if I was I wouldn't go into
the aviation business. Who was it that said: "The way to make a small
fortune in aviation is to start out with a large one" ?

I still think it could be done. But the risk/reward analysis leaves
much to be desired.

-Thanks
-Matt

[Dude]

>> > I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes absolutely
> no
>> > sense.
>>
>> I agree.
>> If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no
> reason
>

There is plenty of reason. Some folks get lucky, and never have a 5k, 10k
or 20k annual. You can scream all you want about doing diligence, but these
things happen. Many owners I know have this kind of recurrence on a regular
basis. They will tell you that their annuals cost under 2k, they just don't
average in the one in three years when its double or triple that, or worse.

The parts can be really expensive and or hard to find. If you actually
could so accurately screen used aircraft, I suggest you become a broker.
Certainly, you could take over the business with the 3 year warranty you
would be able to offer.


> How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the audience
> will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you probably
> can't afford the ownership costs either.
>
> There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
> dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA
> aircraft
> like a C-150, cub, champ, etc.

No, its not magical, its simple. The parts are not the same. Where Cessna
uses stainless, the sport guys can use aluminum. A new 150 built today would
cost over 100k. This is a reflection of the labor, parts, R&D, etc. The
cost to maintian the planes is usually a reflection of the cost to
manufacture them.

They will be newer so you will presumably
> need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any cheaper.
> My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P and
> he
> didn't have to get any special training either.

Their will likely be less labor, as the planes are simpler and with fewer
parts. Also, what kind of logs will sport planes have? My A+P charges me
for every minute he takes to ensure his repairs and entries are legal.


Insurance, and storage costs
> will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get to
> use
> Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.
>

Insurance will be less. If the plane costs less new, then the insurance is
bound to be cheaper. Folding wings can reduce storage, with or without
bringing it home with you.

> Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your own
> labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
> attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an A&P/IA,
> but
> running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
> pretty much the same.
>

But supposedly, more owners will do more of their own work.

> But in the end I think the main significant difference is the elimination
> of
> certification cost.

No small thing.

Look at the boating world- that is completely
> unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc.
> are
> all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're
> just
> not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
> earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
> recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll take
> both :)
>

Sport pilot will greatly reduce the hassles of getting the license. Boats
will remain more popular. Even if we doubled the pilot population, they
wouldn't notice any loss.

[Dave Stadt]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >> > I don't know where you came up with any of that but it makes
absolutely
> > no
> >> > sense.
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >> If you do your homework, and buy a well maintained plane, there is no
> > reason
> >
>
> There is plenty of reason. Some folks get lucky, and never have a 5k, 10k
> or 20k annual. You can scream all you want about doing diligence, but
these
> things happen. Many owners I know have this kind of recurrence on a
regular
> basis. They will tell you that their annuals cost under 2k, they just
don't
> average in the one in three years when its double or triple that, or
worse.

There is nothing about LSA that will change any of that. My annual costs
for the 6 years I have owned my plane have not exceeded $200.

> The parts can be really expensive and or hard to find. If you actually
> could so accurately screen used aircraft, I suggest you become a broker.
> Certainly, you could take over the business with the 3 year warranty you
> would be able to offer.

No guarantee this will change. If an LSA builder goes belly up where you
gonna get parts?

> > How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the
audience
> > will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you
probably
> > can't afford the ownership costs either.
> >
> > There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
> > dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA
> > aircraft
> > like a C-150, cub, champ, etc.
>
> No, its not magical, its simple. The parts are not the same. Where
Cessna
> uses stainless, the sport guys can use aluminum. A new 150 built today
would
> cost over 100k. This is a reflection of the labor, parts, R&D, etc. The
> cost to maintian the planes is usually a reflection of the cost to
> manufacture them.

Other than exhaust where is their stainless in a 150? There will be no
significant difference between parts/materials in a LSA and existing two
place aircraft. Take a look at the "new" T-craft if you want an example.

> They will be newer so you will presumably
> > need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any
cheaper.
> > My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P and
> > he
> > didn't have to get any special training either.
>
> Their will likely be less labor, as the planes are simpler and with fewer
> parts. Also, what kind of logs will sport planes have? My A+P charges me
> for every minute he takes to ensure his repairs and entries are legal.

And that's bad? What do you think resale will be on LSA that do not
receive the level of maintenance current certified aircraft receive? Resale
is a significant factor when considering cost of ownership.

>
> Insurance, and storage costs
> > will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get to
> > use
> > Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.
> >
>
> Insurance will be less. If the plane costs less new, then the insurance
is
> bound to be cheaper. Folding wings can reduce storage, with or without
> bringing it home with you.

Insurance rates for expermentals say you are off base. Insurance companies
have a proven affinity to avoid new and not professionally maintained.
Purchase price is only one factor that determines insurance costs and it is
not always a major factor.

> > Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your
own
> > labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
> > attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an A&P/IA,
> > but
> > running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
> > pretty much the same.
> >
> But supposedly, more owners will do more of their own work.


> > But in the end I think the main significant difference is the
elimination
> > of
> > certification cost.
>
> No small thing.

AFAIK LSA still need to be certified unless homebuilt? No?

> Look at the boating world- that is completely
> > unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc.
> > are
> > all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're
> > just
> > not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
> > earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
> > recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll
take
> > both :)
> >
>
> Sport pilot will greatly reduce the hassles of getting the license. Boats
> will remain more popular. Even if we doubled the pilot population, they
> wouldn't notice any loss.

My certified airplane costs less to keep in the air than it did to keep the
boat in the water.

[Robert M. Gary]

"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?
>
> 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.

You aren't likely to see anyone bother to produce anything flyable at
that price range. When I talked to the Sport pilot guys at OSH, even
the little weight-shift planes were more expensive than an older
Cessna 150. There is a guy on the field here that rents out an
ultralight (he was a "certified" ultra light instructor, although he
and his plane recently crashed, killing himself and his student). He
was charging $70/hr for this ultra light.

-Robert

[Dude]

>> There is plenty of reason. Some folks get lucky, and never have a 5k,
>> 10k
>> or 20k annual. You can scream all you want about doing diligence, but
> these
>> things happen. Many owners I know have this kind of recurrence on a
> regular
>> basis. They will tell you that their annuals cost under 2k, they just
> don't
>> average in the one in three years when its double or triple that, or
> worse.
>
> There is nothing about LSA that will change any of that. My annual costs
> for the 6 years I have owned my plane have not exceeded $200.
>

Thou art truly blessed, give thanks to the Lord, and pray for this to
continue. You must be doing much of the labor yourself and having this
signed off?


>> The parts can be really expensive and or hard to find. If you actually
>> could so accurately screen used aircraft, I suggest you become a broker.
>> Certainly, you could take over the business with the 3 year warranty you
>> would be able to offer.
>
> No guarantee this will change. If an LSA builder goes belly up where you
> gonna get parts?
>

No guarantee that your plane won't need 5k next year, become orphaned in a
similar manner, or blow up due to unknown causes. This is a weak argument
at best, and an outright attack on progress by any means.



>> > How many times can we say this and still a certain portion of the
> audience
>> > will never listen. If you can't afford the acquisition costs you
> probably
>> > can't afford the ownership costs either.
>> >
>> > There is nothing magical about Light-Sport aircraft that will make them
>> > dramatically cheaper to own and operate than existing comparable GA
>> > aircraft
>> > like a C-150, cub, champ, etc.
>>
>> No, its not magical, its simple. The parts are not the same. Where
> Cessna
>> uses stainless, the sport guys can use aluminum. A new 150 built today
> would
>> cost over 100k. This is a reflection of the labor, parts, R&D, etc. The
>> cost to maintian the planes is usually a reflection of the cost to
>> manufacture them.
>
> Other than exhaust where is their stainless in a 150? There will be no
> significant difference between parts/materials in a LSA and existing two
> place aircraft. Take a look at the "new" T-craft if you want an example.
>

Sorry, stainless was just one example among thousands on your plane (my bad
for not being clearer) Every nut, bolt, washer, wire, etc. has to be
certified on your plane, or even on a Tcraft unless they change that. OTOH,
Fat ultralights and new designs do not appear to meet this criteria. This
is why a wise certified manufacturer will NEVER build an uncertified sport
plane. Think of the inevitable lawsuit. "Mr. Cessna, could you please
explain why the part that caused this failure was allowed on this design
when you could have used a better tested part that you have on other
models?"

>> They will be newer so you will presumably
>> > need fewer parts and they will be cheaper, but labor won't be any
> cheaper.
>> > My neighborhood auto mechanic charges pretty much the same as my A&P
>> > and
>> > he
>> > didn't have to get any special training either.
>>
>> Their will likely be less labor, as the planes are simpler and with fewer
>> parts. Also, what kind of logs will sport planes have? My A+P charges me
>> for every minute he takes to ensure his repairs and entries are legal.
>
> And that's bad? What do you think resale will be on LSA that do not
> receive the level of maintenance current certified aircraft receive?
> Resale
> is a significant factor when considering cost of ownership.
>

The masses just do not get this at all, they just don't understand it.
Besides, less value is less insurance cost which is less overall cost. If
you are only putting $200 per year in maintenance on your plane, I expect
the insurance bill looks pretty big by comparison.

>>
>> Insurance, and storage costs
>> > will be the same, while fuel may be somewhat cheaper since you'll get
>> > to
>> > use
>> > Mogas, but that's not such a huge difference at 4-5 gallons per hour.
>> >
>>
>> Insurance will be less. If the plane costs less new, then the insurance
> is
>> bound to be cheaper. Folding wings can reduce storage, with or without
>> bringing it home with you.
>
> Insurance rates for expermentals say you are off base. Insurance
> companies
> have a proven affinity to avoid new and not professionally maintained.
> Purchase price is only one factor that determines insurance costs and it
> is
> not always a major factor.
>

Your experience is contrary to mine in this regard. Unless you do not mean
original purchase price. If you get a Citation for a quarter, and want to
ensure it for that, I think you find the insurance is much more than it is
for a similar price Cirrus.


>> > Now if you get your Repairman and Inspector's certificates and do your
> own
>> > labor, you will definitely save some real money. This is a lot more
>> > attainable now since the requirements are much lower than for an
>> > A&P/IA,
>> > but
>> > running a shop won't be any cheaper so professionals will still charge
>> > pretty much the same.
>> >
>> But supposedly, more owners will do more of their own work.
>
>
>> > But in the end I think the main significant difference is the
> elimination
>> > of
>> > certification cost.
>>
>> No small thing.
>
> AFAIK LSA still need to be certified unless homebuilt? No?
>

No. Incorrect, not true. The standards are much lower, and IIRC the
manufacturer simply signs off on much of it themselves. I am no expert, but
this is how it was explained to me.

>> Look at the boating world- that is completely
>> > unregulated and yet in the end mechanics, marinas, insurance costs etc.
>> > are
>> > all in the same ballpark as planes. People have money to spend, they're
>> > just
>> > not chosing to spend it on airplanes. Part of that is the difficulty of
>> > earning a pilot's license and part of it is that you can do a lot more
>> > recreationally with a $300k boat than a $300k plane. Personally I'll
> take
>> > both :)
>> >
>>
>> Sport pilot will greatly reduce the hassles of getting the license.
>> Boats
>> will remain more popular. Even if we doubled the pilot population, they
>> wouldn't notice any loss.
>
> My certified airplane costs less to keep in the air than it did to keep
> the
> boat in the water.
>

Again, you are certainly not the regular owner that I speak with. You are
getting by on a tiny budget. Please share your secrets.