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

[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.

[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.
>
>

[[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.

[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