More Sportplanes Hype

[Gordon Arnaut]

Well I just came across another piece of advertising masquerading as an
article in Private Pilot magazine.

The author goes up on a short hop in a Sting Sport, another plastic topy
ariplane from the Czech Republic and he's raving about it like it's the
biggest thing since sliced bread. He even managed to paraphrase the famous
Neil Armstrong quote about "small steps for man...giant steps for mankind."
Man oh man.

And this "giant step" of a sportplane has a price that starts at $89,900.

Just for comparison, you can go out an buy a fully certified American
Champion Citabria for $90,900. This is a real airplane with none of the
restrictions that apply to the toy sportplanes. It has a real Lycoming O-235
that has a TBO of 2400 hours. It has a gross weight of 1750 pounds, which is
500 pounds more than this plastic toy sportplane.

Yet this sportplane is supposed to be some kind of bargain? How is it that
American Champion can build a certified airplane in the US at the same price
as a sportplane, if building a small airplane is so expensive?

I rest my case. If anyone really thinks these sportplanes are a great deal
and not way overpriced I have nothing further to say.

Regards,

Gordon.

[[email protected]]

Gordon,

I think that there is alot of price gouging going on around the sport
pilot qualified planes. Have you checked the recent asking price of 415
C ercoupes? Last year you could buy all you wanted for 12 to $15,000.
They have one listed now at Barnstormers for $34,000 most are in the 22
to 27,000 range.

Frank M.Hitlaw
Jakarta,Indonesia

[Jerry Springer]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Well I just came across another piece of advertising masquerading as an
> article in Private Pilot magazine.
>


Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?

Jerry

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gordon,
>
> I think that there is alot of price gouging going on around the sport
> pilot qualified planes. Have you checked the recent asking price of 415
> C ercoupes? Last year you could buy all you wanted for 12 to $15,000.
> They have one listed now at Barnstormers for $34,000 most are in the 22
> to 27,000 range.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw
> Jakarta,Indonesia
>

I think the phrase price gouging may be a little harsh. It's called supply
and demand. If LSA class planes are bringing a premium then the EAA was
right in their belief that there were a bunch of folks out there that didn't
want to or couldn't get physicals and still want to fly.

[Ron Wanttaja]

Hype or not, I think the problem is going to be self-correcting.

Thirty years ago, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "Harrison Bergeron,"
about a future where those with better-than-average capabilities had to be
handicapped to make them no more able than everyone else.

(http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)

This is the situation we're at with SLSAs. The restrictions of the category
limit the abilities of the aircraft so that there's no special difference in
performance between different LSAs.

After all, how are airplanes traditionally marketed?

1. "Our airplane cruises faster than the competition"
2. "Our airplane carries more payload than the competition"
3. "Our airplane has a longer range than the competition"
4. "Our airplane carries more passengers than the competition"

LSA marketers can't use #1...after all, they're limited to 120 knots, flat-out.

LSA marketers will find little use out of #2... gross weights are limited to
1320 pounds. Depending on how they can squirrel down the empty weight, they
might get a 50 or 100 pound improvement over the competition, but that's not
really enough to hang a marketing campaign on

LSA customers aren't likely to use range as a selection criteria. These planes
aren't really intended for long cross-countries.

And LSAs are limited to just two seats.

So...when no plane can exhibit superior performance over its competition, how
are buyers going to chose?

Simple. With little else to choose between competing LSAs, customers are going
to pick the one that sells at the lowest cost. Why buy a $90,000 SLSA when a
$85,000 one gives the same capability? Why buy that $85,000 one, when you can
get practically the same thing from another company for $80,000?

I realize things are slightly more complex. Some planes may be more attractive
in appearance, others might have more cabin room, some purchasers may be willing
to pay more for a more-familiar engine, some may want niche abilities such as
STOL, and there's of course the taildragger/milkstool decision. But my guess is
that a $20,000 lower selling price will overcome any casual preferences.

In short: the LSA market is going to be dominated by price. I suspect we're
going to see some pretty good sales going on by next Sun-N-Fun.

If a company *can* produce a $50,000 SLSA like Gordon insists is possible, they
will *own* the market. Without the ability to show a clear advantage for the
money, competitors will have to either match prices or get out of the business.

Ron Wanttaja

[Gordon Arnaut]

This isn't about me, Springer.

It's about the price-gouging we're seeing in the sportplane business -- and
the cheerleading we see from the magazines.

But since you are interested in me personally -- I strongly considered
buying a new Tecnam. I decided not to because as nice a plane as it is, I
don't think it is worth anywhere near $100,000.

So I will probably build something myself that I can fly from my farm strip
north of Toronto. I've been looking at several different designs and have
spent a bit of time at the drawing board myself.

I have no desire to get involved in any kind of entrepreneurial venture --
airplanes or otherwise. I think there are people out there with viable
businesses and lots of experience who are well-positioned to enter into such
a venture if they desire. I think we will see that happen and I really think
we will see some very attractively priced sportplanes down the road.

I've put this issue up for discussion because I believe there are lots of
people interested in this -- and indeed many here have expressed interesting
opinions and observations. (And only a few sour grapes posts attacking the
messenger).

Regards,

Gordon.





"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Well I just came across another piece of advertising masquerading as an
>> article in Private Pilot magazine.
>>
>
>
> Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?
>
> Jerry

[OtisWinslow]

The Sting is a very nice airplane. But the price has gone up about
$30k since Sport Pilot got approved. It's a case of whatever the market
will bear. And it will apparently bear a lot at this point for those who
wish to continue flying and need SP to do so.

I'm afraid "toy airplanes" are going to be the wave of the future
for those who wish to fly economically. But I think that something
under $40k will be the hot item.



"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Well I just came across another piece of advertising masquerading as an
> article in Private Pilot magazine.
>
> The author goes up on a short hop in a Sting Sport, another plastic topy
> ariplane from the Czech Republic and he's raving about it like it's the
> biggest thing since sliced bread. He even managed to paraphrase the famous
> Neil Armstrong quote about "small steps for man...giant steps for
> mankind." Man oh man.
>
> And this "giant step" of a sportplane has a price that starts at $89,900.
>
> Just for comparison, you can go out an buy a fully certified American
> Champion Citabria for $90,900. This is a real airplane with none of the
> restrictions that apply to the toy sportplanes. It has a real Lycoming
> O-235 that has a TBO of 2400 hours. It has a gross weight of 1750 pounds,
> which is 500 pounds more than this plastic toy sportplane.
>
> Yet this sportplane is supposed to be some kind of bargain? How is it that
> American Champion can build a certified airplane in the US at the same
> price as a sportplane, if building a small airplane is so expensive?
>
> I rest my case. If anyone really thinks these sportplanes are a great deal
> and not way overpriced I have nothing further to say.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Jerry Springer wrote:

>
> Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?
>
----------------------------------------------------

On the AirVW Group, after showing us how much he doesn't know about VW
engines, Gordon said he'd be building an RW-11 (one of Roger Mann's
designs) powered by an O-84 GPU engine... real soon now.

Now he's showing us how much he doesn't know about economics. Lucky us
:-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Gordon Arnaut]

Oh yeah, the "other" Bob Hoover, another sore loser from past disputes about
technical matters. Just like Springer and some of the other heel-nippers who
think it's cute to launch some kind of pathetic little darts at me, rather
than engage in discussion of the topic at hand.

Of course, they're not used to actually engaging in meaningful discussion.
They only come here for pointless banter and adolescent guffaws.

What exactly is your point Hoover? Oh, you don't have one? Gee I didn't
think so.

Regards,

Gordon.




> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>>
>> Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> On the AirVW Group, after showing us how much he doesn't know about VW
> engines, Gordon said he'd be building an RW-11 (one of Roger Mann's
> designs) powered by an O-84 GPU engine... real soon now.
>
> Now he's showing us how much he doesn't know about economics. Lucky us
> :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>

[Lou]

As much as I really hate to find agreement with Gordon, he has a point
of dollar for dollar cost. However, I'd like to take him up on his
last few words of his first post.

[Richard Isakson]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Oh yeah, the "other" Bob Hoover, another sore loser from past disputes
about
> technical matters. Just like Springer and some of the other heel-nippers
who
> think it's cute to launch some kind of pathetic little darts at me, rather
> than engage in discussion of the topic at hand.
>
> Of course, they're not used to actually engaging in meaningful discussion.
> They only come here for pointless banter and adolescent guffaws.
>
> What exactly is your point Hoover? Oh, you don't have one? Gee I didn't
> think so.

Gordon,

The simple fact that shows up through all your writting here on RAH is you
don't know what you're talking about. Like all reporters you merely parrot
the word others have written without any true understanding of them.

Rich

[[email protected]]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:

> What exactly is your point Hoover?

-----------------------------------------------

For those not familiar with the laws of economics, in a free market,
price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
particular item or service.

-R.S.Hoover

[Gordon Arnaut]

Yes, but does it matter how many people are going to buy said item at a
particular price point?

So far, almost nobody is buying these planes at the prices they are seeking
to get. That's pretty much the proof of the pudding right there.

Regards,

Gordon.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>
>> What exactly is your point Hoover?
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> For those not familiar with the laws of economics, in a free market,
> price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
> particular item or service.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

If you don't like what I'm saying, why don't you challenge the substance of
my message?

Can't summon up the wherewithal to do that? I didn't think so.

I remember the "you don't know what you're talking about" retort from
primary school. Very impressive. What are you going to pull out next from
your awsome rheotircal quiver, "you're a big, fat liar," or "I'm going to
tell my mommy."

Keep up the smashing work.

Usually I don't even bother to respond to these substance-free messages, but
I sometimes enjoy swatting pesky flies.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
...
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Oh yeah, the "other" Bob Hoover, another sore loser from past disputes
> about
>> technical matters. Just like Springer and some of the other heel-nippers
> who
>> think it's cute to launch some kind of pathetic little darts at me,
>> rather
>> than engage in discussion of the topic at hand.
>>
>> Of course, they're not used to actually engaging in meaningful
>> discussion.
>> They only come here for pointless banter and adolescent guffaws.
>>
>> What exactly is your point Hoover? Oh, you don't have one? Gee I didn't
>> think so.
>
> Gordon,
>
> The simple fact that shows up through all your writting here on RAH is you
> don't know what you're talking about. Like all reporters you merely
> parrot
> the word others have written without any true understanding of them.
>
> Rich
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

I think you are protesting to much Arnaut, I was merely trying to learn
about your experience of ownership or building experience. Just because
you don't like the price of something does not make it a bad thing. You
have been rambling on here for days now. What is your point? You seem to
have some type of beef. BTW what makes them toy airplane? What is your
definition of "TOY AIRPLANE?" Are they any more of a toy than my RV-6?
Are the any more of a toy than say a Taylorcraft etc.?

Jerry

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Yes, but does it matter how many people are going to buy said item at a
> particular price point?
>
> So far, almost nobody is buying these planes at the prices they are seeking
> to get. That's pretty much the proof of the pudding right there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What exactly is your point Hoover?
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>
>>For those not familiar with the laws of economics, in a free market,
>>price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
>>particular item or service.
>>
>>-R.S.Hoover
>>
>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>
> Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?

You all also might remember gordon's attacks on me, after me saying "bull"
to some of his assertions.

My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:

> You all also might remember gordon's attacks on me, after me saying "bull"
> to some of his assertions.
>
> My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
> won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.

Good advice. However I was beginning to think he was related to zooom.

Tony

[Gordon Arnaut]

Jerry,

You know the restrictions on sportplanes. They cannot provide the same
utility as a certified airplane -- they are for "sport flying" only -- hence
the "toy" descriptor, which, while not complimentary is not unduly unfair
either.

With your RV6, you can fly it IFR if you have the needed equipment. With a
sportplane, you can't even fly after dark.

There is also the sensory aspect. Look at my comments about the Zlin
aerobat. An airplane that has a solidity about it in every part that you
touch gives off a special kind of satisfaction and confidence. A lot of
these sportplanes are quite flimsy especially the tactile items in the
cockpit.

The older airplanes that can fall under the sportplane rules can also be
flown without the sportplane restrictions, as long as you have a medical. So
it is not a direct comparison. But yeah, these are very basic small palnes
that don't exactly overwhelm you with feelings of solidity either.

Nothing wrong with that, but it is a factor. People don't expect to pay
$50,000 for an ultralight, and they don't expect to pay $100,000 for what is
basically an inflated version of the same thing.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>I think you are protesting to much Arnaut, I was merely trying to learn
>about your experience of ownership or building experience. Just because you
>don't like the price of something does not make it a bad thing. You have
>been rambling on here for days now. What is your point? You seem to have
>some type of beef. BTW what makes them toy airplane? What is your
>definition of "TOY AIRPLANE?" Are they any more of a toy than my RV-6?
> Are the any more of a toy than say a Taylorcraft etc.?
>
> Jerry
>
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Yes, but does it matter how many people are going to buy said item at a
>> particular price point?
>>
>> So far, almost nobody is buying these planes at the prices they are
>> seeking to get. That's pretty much the proof of the pudding right there.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gordon.
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What exactly is your point Hoover?
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>For those not familiar with the laws of economics, in a free market,
>>>price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
>>>particular item or service.
>>>
>>>-R.S.Hoover
>>>
>>
>>

[Gordon Arnaut]

Ahh, the little flying flea pops up to throw in his little non-opinion.

As usual he has zero to contribute to the discussion. He just wants his
little flea-like voice to be heard -- so he knows he's still alive.

I suppose there is a pre-school element here that appreciates these
developmentally-challenged attempts at participating in a debate.
Fortunately they are usually quickly pacified after they've had their happy
meal and their nappy time -- so they don't cause a major disruption in the
big scheme of things.

Except for little flying flea here, who has been known to be a persistent
irritant. I think this will be the extent of his participation in this
thread though. He has exhausted his intellectual capacity with that one
sentence.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>>
>> Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?
>
> You all also might remember gordon's attacks on me, after me saying "bull"
> to some of his assertions.
>
> My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
> won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Mark Hickey]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote:

>You know the restrictions on sportplanes. They cannot provide the same
>utility as a certified airplane -- they are for "sport flying" only -- hence
>the "toy" descriptor, which, while not complimentary is not unduly unfair
>either.
>
>With your RV6, you can fly it IFR if you have the needed equipment. With a
>sportplane, you can't even fly after dark.

When I moved to Arizona, I had to get a specialized motorcycle permit
to ride a bike. They have a temporary license that I could get by
just filling out a form, allowing me to ride my motorcycle with
certain exceptions - including avoiding interstates and riding after
dark.

My question is - did my BMW K100RS 1000cc sport touring bike become a
"toy" during the period I had that temporary license?

Mark Hickey

[Gordon Arnaut]

Whether or not a vehicle is a "toy" depends on how it is used. I think most
people would agree that a vehicle can be considered a "toy" if it is used
simply for pleasure and not transportation.

Most motorcylce owners fall into this category -- they go riding simply for
the fun of it -- the destination is secondary. They also usually own a car
for their actual transportation needs. If you use your bike for actual
transportation, then obviously it is a more than a toy for you.

Same thing with a boat -- even a big cabin cruiser or ocean-going yacht.
It's a toy because it's used as one. You don't use it to get to work, take
your kids to school, or make business trips.

However, I can't picture a scenario other than flight instructing, in which
these sportplanes would be used as anything but strictly pleasure craft.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote:
>
>>You know the restrictions on sportplanes. They cannot provide the same
>>utility as a certified airplane -- they are for "sport flying" only --
>>hence
>>the "toy" descriptor, which, while not complimentary is not unduly unfair
>>either.
>>
>>With your RV6, you can fly it IFR if you have the needed equipment. With a
>>sportplane, you can't even fly after dark.
>
> When I moved to Arizona, I had to get a specialized motorcycle permit
> to ride a bike. They have a temporary license that I could get by
> just filling out a form, allowing me to ride my motorcycle with
> certain exceptions - including avoiding interstates and riding after
> dark.
>
> My question is - did my BMW K100RS 1000cc sport touring bike become a
> "toy" during the period I had that temporary license?
>
> Mark Hickey

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> If you don't like what I'm saying, why don't you challenge the substance
> of my message?
>

I did. You said an 601XL class plane could be built with $10,000 worth of
labor. I said that statement was false and you simply changed the subject.

[ET]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in
:

> Yes, but does it matter how many people are going to buy said item at
> a particular price point?
>
> So far, almost nobody is buying these planes at the prices they are
> seeking to get. That's pretty much the proof of the pudding right
> there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>

All of the sportplanes that are currently on the EAA sLSA list are sold
out through February... (at least the original 12 that were on the list
as of Oshkosh). I know for a fact that Sportplanesusa sold (with a
$18,000 deposit check) 8 StingSports AT Oshkosh, I have no idea how many
they may have added to that list by now.


If you don't believe me, go to http://sportpilot.org/slsa/ , click on
each of the links, and call the each dealer and ask them availability.
Now admittedly, this may mean they only have a backlog of 5 or 6 planes
each, but they are selling as many as they can get over here at current
prices.

We are not really as far from the magic 50K price point as you may
think. The Allegro is/was offered at a base price of $58k, the Festival
was offered at Osh for under $65k;

"I" would love to see higher end sportplanes sold for about $50K, and I
think things will settle down a bit as competition increases, but for
now it's a seller's market.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ET]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in
:

> Jerry,
>
> You know the restrictions on sportplanes. They cannot provide the same
> utility as a certified airplane -- they are for "sport flying" only --
> hence the "toy" descriptor, which, while not complimentary is not
> unduly unfair either.
>
> With your RV6, you can fly it IFR if you have the needed equipment.
> With a sportplane, you can't even fly after dark.
>
> There is also the sensory aspect. Look at my comments about the Zlin
> aerobat. An airplane that has a solidity about it in every part that
> you touch gives off a special kind of satisfaction and confidence. A
> lot of these sportplanes are quite flimsy especially the tactile items
> in the cockpit.
>
> The older airplanes that can fall under the sportplane rules can also
> be flown without the sportplane restrictions, as long as you have a
> medical. So it is not a direct comparison. But yeah, these are very
> basic small palnes that don't exactly overwhelm you with feelings of
> solidity either.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, but it is a factor. People don't expect to
> pay $50,000 for an ultralight, and they don't expect to pay $100,000
> for what is basically an inflated version of the same thing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>


Those restrictions are only on a sport PILOT, not a sport PLANE. An
sLSA can fly at night, IFR, whatever, as long as they have the
appropriate equipment and appropiately rated PILOT....

Your's is a common misconception!


The higher end sportplanse have the speed and range capabilities of a
basic 172 with 1/2 to 2/3 the fuel burn.




--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Oh! Jim, is he the one attacking you on the wood subject?
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> >
> > Gordon, remind us again what it is that you have built or fly or own?
>
> You all also might remember gordon's attacks on me, after me saying "bull"
> to some of his assertions.
>
> My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
> won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Morgans]

"Jean-Paul Roy" > wrote in message
...
> Oh! Jim, is he the one attacking you on the wood subject?

Indeed he was. He still is as clueless as ever.
--
Jim in NC

[GeorgeB]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:46:51 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>With your RV6, you can fly it IFR if you have the needed equipment. With a
>sportplane, you can't even fly after dark.

I don't believe you are correct here. With a Sport PILOT certificate,
you have that restriction, but I don't believe that there is any
restriction on an LSA being IFR equipped and certified, then being
flown at night by one with a Private pilot certificate or in actual
IMC with the IA endorsement.

[Gordon Arnaut]

What the hell is a "free" market?

I guess Enron was operating in a "free" market? Or Worldcom? Or Standard
Oil? Or the entire mutual fund industry which was successfully prosecuted by
the SEC a couple of years ago and forced to pay billions in restitution to
gipped investors, mostly mom and pop folks like you and me.

The laws of economics make fine reading out of some textbook, but it is the
Law of the Jungle that applies in the real world, my naive little friend. I
guess you didn't know that did you?

And in case you haven't been able to understand me clearly, my message is
very simple:

1. The sportplane sellers are pricing their product artificially high in
order to first skim off the low-hanging fruit -- the "desperate"
medical-less pilot who will buy at any price.

2. The stupid magazines are cheerleading whatever the sellers do because
they're used to having their heads stuck neck-deep in the rear-ends of
advertisers.

3. There is no real competition yet and prices will inevitably drop.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On 22 Sep 2005 16:07:16 -0700, wrote:
>
> :
> :Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> :
> :> What exactly is your point Hoover?
> :
> :-----------------------------------------------
> :
> :For those not familiar with the laws of economics, in a free market,
> :price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
> :particular item or service.
>
> And in a competitive market, the price will fall until the suppliers
> are making no more than a normal rate of return - which is to say, the
> risk free rate of return on their investment (typically the rate for
> government bonds) plus a risk premium. The only way to get better
> than that is to have a sustainable competitive advantage - a legal
> monopoly, superior manufacturing that give a lower cost, perceived
> premium quality, etc.
>
> If it were possible for someone to sell a sportplane for $50k, someone
> would do so. If it becomes possible due to changes in regulation or
> technology, someone will.
>
> Personally, I think I should be able to buy a house at the beach (out
> of hurricane country), a Ferrari F-40, an 80' ocean going yacht or the
> latest generation of MRI machine for $50k.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:37:54 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote:

>1. The sportplane sellers are pricing their product artificially high in
>order to first skim off the low-hanging fruit -- the "desperate"
>medical-less pilot who will buy at any price.

"Desperate"? Someone lacking water can be desperate. Someone lacking
prescription medicine can be desperate.

But I don't see how ANYONE can be considered "desperate" because a *luxury item*
is priced above their price range.

Lower cost...MUCH lower cost...alternatives are widely available. A guy doesn't
have to spend $80,000 for a Legacy Cub. He can spend half that for a gen-u-wine
J-3. Or buy a brand-new ready-to-fly CGS Hawk for an eighth of the cost of the
SLSAs.

If they *are* overpriced, SLSA sales will be low and the manufacturers will
lower the price in an effort to stay in business.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ernest Christley]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> What the hell is a "free" market?
>
>>On 22 Sep 2005 16:07:16 -0700, wrote:
>>:
>>:in a free market,
>>:price is determined by the amount someone is willing to pay for a
>>:particular item or service.
>>

Damn, Gordon. If you're going to try to participate in an online
discussion with adults, learn to read.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[[email protected]]

Anthony W wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
> > won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.
>
> Good advice. However I was beginning to think he was related to zooom.
>
----------------------------------------------------

Dear Tony,

Do you need more proof? :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Gordon Arnaut]

So you were running a "sport" airplane manufacturing outfit.

That should qualify you to talk about small business issues -- because these
are typically very small enterprises. Perhaps that's why you have such a
minor-league outlook.


Gordon Arnaut.






"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:49:12 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Ernest Christley" > wrote
> :
> :> Damn, Gordon. If you're going to try to participate in an online
> :> discussion with adults, learn to read.
> :
> :He isn't worth it, I swear! Plonk him, (everyone else do it, too) and be
> :done with him. He is consistent; a pain in the arse.
>
> Oh, I did. I'm actually replying to other people's replies to him.
>
> I'm in a strange mood these days. I'm finding him and Flavored Coffee
> Guy a refreshing break from reality. Kind of like going to a Marx
> Brothers movie in the middle of the depression. Just don't expect
> them to have any relationship to the real world, and chuckle along
> with the joke.
>

[Morgans]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> Damn, Gordon. If you're going to try to participate in an online
> discussion with adults, learn to read.

He isn't worth it, I swear! Plonk him, (everyone else do it, too) and be
done with him. He is consistent; a pain in the arse.
--
Jim in NC

[Gordon Arnaut]

This is getting ridiculous.

Now you're going to teach me on how to use the word desperate?

What a weenie.

Gordon Arnaut.



"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:37:54 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut" >
> wrote:
>
>>1. The sportplane sellers are pricing their product artificially high in
>>order to first skim off the low-hanging fruit -- the "desperate"
>>medical-less pilot who will buy at any price.
>
> "Desperate"? Someone lacking water can be desperate. Someone lacking
> prescription medicine can be desperate.
>
> But I don't see how ANYONE can be considered "desperate" because a *luxury
> item*
> is priced above their price range.
>
> Lower cost...MUCH lower cost...alternatives are widely available. A guy
> doesn't
> have to spend $80,000 for a Legacy Cub. He can spend half that for a
> gen-u-wine
> J-3. Or buy a brand-new ready-to-fly CGS Hawk for an eighth of the cost
> of the
> SLSAs.
>
> If they *are* overpriced, SLSA sales will be low and the manufacturers
> will
> lower the price in an effort to stay in business.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:51:37 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote:

>This is getting ridiculous.
>
>Now you're going to teach me on how to use the word desperate?

Someone apparently must.

>What a weenie.

And a good day to you, sir.

Ron Wanttaja

[Anthony W]

wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>My advice? Put him in the kill file, quickly, and don't look back. He
>>>won't be missed, nor will his bits of wisdom, or lack thereof.
>>
>>Good advice. However I was beginning to think he was related to zooom.

> Dear Tony,
>
> Do you need more proof? :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

I dunno, he could be another zooom toady like juan...

I do give him one point. I think all aircraft are too expensive but I'm
broke and I'm pretty sure that is coloring my viewpoint. ;o)

Tony

[[email protected]]

Anthony W wrote:
> I think all aircraft are too expensive but I'm
> broke and I'm pretty sure that is coloring my viewpoint. ;o)
>
> Tony
-------------------------------------------------

Investing in yourself returns a remarkably high dividend.

Aluminum fabrication requires mastery of fewer skills than any other
form of airframe construction and Bruce King is about ready to release
the drawings for his BK-1.3, which can be built for about $7k,
including the engine. (Even less if you have a BA in Scrounging :-)

Bruce has a web site (http://www.geocities.com/dbk4939/) Rich source
of information for the thoughtful.

-R.S.Hoover

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> Some other ways to make a higher return on your
> investment are "rob banks," "burn down your competitors' facilities"
> and "sell illegal goods, like drugs or automatic weapons."

Whoa! Back that business model up, RR. While I agree that the prices of
drugs may be a tad high, most of them are legal (with a prescription). :)

As for automatic weapons, last I heard they were legal in something like 37
states. Just subject to tax and needing a nod from your local sheriff. Try
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976548381.htm

Rich S.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>

> ie, marijuana, crystal meth, heroin, etc"?
> :
> :As for automatic weapons, last I heard they were legal in something like 37
> :states. Just subject to tax and needing a nod from your local sheriff. Try
>
> Huh, I've been out of that loop too long. I thought the feds had
> stopped issuing the tax stamp 20 years ago.
>
In 1986 the feds banned the manufacture of of automatic weapons for
sale to the general public. The did not ban the ownership or transfer of
those already in existance. The theory of the ban was it is supposed to
reduce homicide by automatic weapons. The problem is that between 1934
when NFA was passed and 1986 not one person has been illgegally killed
by the lawful owner of a machine gun.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Anthony W]

wrote:

> Investing in yourself returns a remarkably high dividend.
>
> Aluminum fabrication requires mastery of fewer skills than any other
> form of airframe construction and Bruce King is about ready to release
> the drawings for his BK-1.3, which can be built for about $7k,
> including the engine. (Even less if you have a BA in Scrounging :-)
>
> Bruce has a web site (http://www.geocities.com/dbk4939/) Rich source
> of information for the thoughtful.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

I'm currenty dumping every spare dime in my small, struggling but very
promising business. Along the way I'm fidng that several of the tools I
need for the business are also the tools used to build an airplane. I'm
trying to pick up some of the eqipment and skills I'll need for when the
time comes when I have the space and money to start such a project.

Thanks for the link. I was only considering tube and rag construction
but this looks like something I could do.

My dream of flying is alive and well but it's going to take a few more
years to turn it into a reality.


Tony

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Did I really have to say "sell illegal goods, like schedule III drugs,
> ie, marijuana, crystal meth, heroin, etc"?

Nope. That's why I put the smiley behind my smart-ass remark. :)

Rich S.

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Huh, I've been out of that loop too long. I thought the feds had
> stopped issuing the tax stamp 20 years ago.
>
> IIRC marijuana is legal under federal law so long as you have the tax
> stamp. Of course, they've never actually issued a tax stamp. Welcome
> to the wacky world of federal regulation under the commerce clause.

Even Whackier: In Washington State, you *can* legally own a machine gun
(subject to federal regs). But, it has to have a firing rate of less than
600 rpm, which lets out almost all of them. I think an .45 ACP "Grease Gun"
is 450 rpm, but I don't think anyone has tested that clause in state code
yet. You can bet if someone did and got away with it, the bluenoses in
Olympia would change the wording RFN.

Rich S.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:06:13 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
> : In 1986 the feds banned the manufacture of of automatic weapons for
> :sale to the general public. The did not ban the ownership or transfer of
> :those already in existance. The theory of the ban was it is supposed to
> :reduce homicide by automatic weapons. The problem is that between 1934
> :when NFA was passed and 1986 not one person has been illgegally killed
> :by the lawful owner of a machine gun.
>
> Which brings up two questions -
>
> Had anyone been *legally* killed by the lawful owner of a machine gun?
> (civilians only) between 1934 and 1986? I can't imagine many of them
> being handy when the need arose.
>
> and
>
> Has anyone been illegally killed by the etc etc SINCE 1986?
>
> (I suspect the answer to both questions is no.)

And you'd be correct. Let's face it, when the local cops and fed know
you have it, you have spent $200 for the tax stamp and been through a
background check on top of spending a chunk of money for the weapon it's
not likely you'll use it criminally. On top of that you need prior state
approval to take it across state lines.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[rpellicciotti]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> Hype or not, I think the problem is going to be self-correcting.
>
> Thirty years ago, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "Harrison Bergeron,"
> about a future where those with better-than-average capabilities had to be
> handicapped to make them no more able than everyone else.
>
> (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)
>
> This is the situation we're at with SLSAs. The restrictions of the category
> limit the abilities of the aircraft so that there's no special difference in
> performance between different LSAs.
>
> After all, how are airplanes traditionally marketed?
>
> 1. "Our airplane cruises faster than the competition"
> 2. "Our airplane carries more payload than the competition"
> 3. "Our airplane has a longer range than the competition"
> 4. "Our airplane carries more passengers than the competition"
>
> LSA marketers can't use #1...after all, they're limited to 120 knots, flat-out.
>
> LSA marketers will find little use out of #2... gross weights are limited to
> 1320 pounds. Depending on how they can squirrel down the empty weight, they
> might get a 50 or 100 pound improvement over the competition, but that's not
> really enough to hang a marketing campaign on
>
> LSA customers aren't likely to use range as a selection criteria. These planes
> aren't really intended for long cross-countries.
>
> And LSAs are limited to just two seats.
>
> So...when no plane can exhibit superior performance over its competition, how
> are buyers going to chose?
>
> Simple. With little else to choose between competing LSAs, customers are going
> to pick the one that sells at the lowest cost. Why buy a $90,000 SLSA when a
> $85,000 one gives the same capability? Why buy that $85,000 one, when you can
> get practically the same thing from another company for $80,000?
>
> I realize things are slightly more complex. Some planes may be more attractive
> in appearance, others might have more cabin room, some purchasers may be willing
> to pay more for a more-familiar engine, some may want niche abilities such as
> STOL, and there's of course the taildragger/milkstool decision. But my guess is
> that a $20,000 lower selling price will overcome any casual preferences.
>
> In short: the LSA market is going to be dominated by price. I suspect we're
> going to see some pretty good sales going on by next Sun-N-Fun.
>
> If a company *can* produce a $50,000 SLSA like Gordon insists is possible, they
> will *own* the market. Without the ability to show a clear advantage for the
> money, competitors will have to either match prices or get out of the business.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Ron,
I agree with everything that you have written here. I would add that
there are a couple of more areas where one LSA aircraft might differ
from another. Safety features and ease of maintenance.

Having been on the inside of this area for sometime, I am fairly
certain that we will never see factory-built, ready-to-fly, certified
S-LSA aircraft with modern engines in the $50,000 price range. The
fact that the engine itself costs $20,000.00 (firewall forward with
equipment and accessories) just about makes it impossible to reach that
price point.

Gordon's comparison to the Part 23 certified American Champion is out
of order. The key point that he missed is that you cannot fly the
Champion without a medical or with a Sport Pilot license.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com

[Jimbob]

On 28 Sep 2005 12:24:08 -0700, "rpellicciotti" >
wrote:
>Ron,
>I agree with everything that you have written here. I would add that
>there are a couple of more areas where one LSA aircraft might differ
>from another. Safety features and ease of maintenance.
>
>Having been on the inside of this area for sometime, I am fairly
>certain that we will never see factory-built, ready-to-fly, certified
>S-LSA aircraft with modern engines in the $50,000 price range. The
>fact that the engine itself costs $20,000.00 (firewall forward with
>equipment and accessories) just about makes it impossible to reach that
>price point.
>


I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?





Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:42:40 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:


>
>So...when no plane can exhibit superior performance over its competition, how
>are buyers going to chose?
>
>Simple. With little else to choose between competing LSAs, customers are going
>to pick the one that sells at the lowest cost. Why buy a $90,000 SLSA when a
>$85,000 one gives the same capability? Why buy that $85,000 one, when you can
>get practically the same thing from another company for $80,000?
>
<lots snipped>
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>

I agree with your thoughts to some extent Ron the reducing prices are
really just a wind back of excessive insurance and liability BS. the
rewards being there for anyone who finds away to remove those costs
from the final sale price.

There is one area you missed. handling quality.

out in my back shed is a half complete wooden single seater which is a
1950's design. it isnt really aerobatic but it is by far and away the
sweetest flying little aeroplane anyone has ever come up with.
it is an absolutely first class little weekend summer flyer with open
cockpit, not much range and bugger all luggage space.
I'm building it as a bit of stress relief because I have wanted to
experience the flying qualities for myself. should finish it next
year.

the poms write really rapturous articles about the flying
characteristics of the turbulents.

It looks like building for less than the price of an Icom A200 radio
using epoxy on Queensland Hoop Pine and hoop pine plywood and a
VW1600cc engine that I'll convert myself. basically spruce
substitutes.

Aerodynamically there are lots of things with the design that everyone
poo pooh's as antiquated but they work really well together.
mine is a Druine D31AT Australian Turbulent btw.

if anyone was to produce an LSA that held to reasonable prices and had
the handling characteristics of either the druine turbulent or the
druine turbi they would have a good solid future ahead of them.
these two old aircraft designs really *do* stand out in the handling
characteristics. I've flown a turbi and have never encountered
anything since as good.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Ernest Christley]

Jimbob wrote:

>
> I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
> using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?
>

Because their not built using consensus standards, they're built using
1930's technology. That is a guy standing in front of a maching,
grinding and cutting parts.

I choked when I read in an AOPA magazine, just a couple years ago, that
Lycoming was harping and stroking themselves for buying some CNC
equipment. That is, arguably the leader in aviation engines is just now
moving up to the quality control and automation that the even the most
basic machine shops expect.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Jimbob]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:17:12 GMT, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Jimbob wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess my question to you is why a 1930's technology engine built
>> using consensus standards is going to cost $20,000?
>>
>
>Because their not built using consensus standards, they're built using
>1930's technology. That is a guy standing in front of a maching,
>grinding and cutting parts.
>
>I choked when I read in an AOPA magazine, just a couple years ago, that
>Lycoming was harping and stroking themselves for buying some CNC
>equipment. That is, arguably the leader in aviation engines is just now
>moving up to the quality control and automation that the even the most
>basic machine shops expect.

Ugh, That's scary.

Without the barriers to entry, i.e. FAA certifcation, I should expect
some competitors to enter the market. More competition means pressure
to use more effective means of manufacturing. These proces should
drop.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

[rpellicciotti]

I was referring to "modern engines". The Rotax 912 S, 100HP engine
along with the exhaust system, radiator, and other bits costs nearly
$20,000.00. That only leaves you $30,000 for everything else. The
materials for a small, 2 place, all metal airplane from the firewall
back costs nearly $20,000.00 (aluminum is going through the roof
prompting Boeing to switch to carbon for the 787). That only leaves
$10,000.00 for labor and profit. Doesn't look likely to be doable.

Rick

[Rich S.]

"rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The materials for a small, 2 place, all metal airplane from the firewall
> back costs nearly $20,000.00

Reference please??? All of Van's two-place kit prices are below that number.
Some artful scrounging should drop it to $10,000. Buying in volume should do
the same.

Rich S.

[Frank van der Hulst]

Rich S. wrote:
> "rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>The materials for a small, 2 place, all metal airplane from the firewall
>>back costs nearly $20,000.00
>
>
> Reference please??? All of Van's two-place kit prices are below that number.
> Some artful scrounging should drop it to $10,000. Buying in volume should do
> the same.

I didn't check the other Vans prices, but the cheapest RV-7 price stacks
up to $17,405 including fuel senders, static system, and crating, but
NOT shipping. That number also includes some stuff that is technically
FW-forward (eg cowling, spinner, engine mount) but I'll leave those in
because they're still part of the airframe kit. Even building it in
Van's front yard and leaving out the FW-forward bits, you aren't going
to get down to $10,000.

And what do you call 'materials'? Does it just include the airframe
parts? How about all the other stuff you actually need that's not
included in Vans price: paint, instruments, electrical system, seat
belts, upholstery, avionics?

Maybe you could buy enough paint for $1,000, and ASI/ALT/Compass for
another $500. Another $500 for a battery, fuses, wire, ignition
switches. Seat belts for $160. Recycle some foam from an old sofa,
handheld radio for $200.

Total price = 17405+2360 = 19765 plus shipping. If you live within 50
miles of Vans factory, you can get the materials for under $20,000...
and spend 5 years of your life to build the crappiest RV-7 in the entire
world.

[Accessory Section 8]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> If a company *can* produce a $50,000 SLSA like Gordon insists is possible, they
> will *own* the market. Without the ability to show a clear advantage for the
> money, competitors will have to either match prices or get out of the business.

I think you could build an Ercoupe for that easily if you built them
in pretty good quantity. You would need a powerplant considerably
cheaper than the Continental or Lycoming goes for currently. What are
the engine certification rules under LSA? Can you use general purpose
engine components without traceability back to the raw metal and
fabrication processes? If so then an auto derivative is the only
possible choice. And avionics...

I think the Czech Republic is probably a pretty good place to build,
if you are willing to work metric and learn, if not Czech, at least
German, depending on the whereabouts of the plant. Russia is out,
because they are all stone drunks.

[Bret Ludwig]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> What the hell is a "free" market?
>
> I guess Enron was operating in a "free" market? Or Worldcom? Or Standard
> Oil? Or the entire mutual fund industry which was successfully prosecuted by
> the SEC a couple of years ago and forced to pay billions in restitution to
> gipped investors, mostly mom and pop folks like you and me.
>
> The laws of economics make fine reading out of some textbook, but it is the
> Law of the Jungle that applies in the real world, my naive little friend. I
> guess you didn't know that did you?
>
> And in case you haven't been able to understand me clearly, my message is
> very simple:
>
> 1. The sportplane sellers are pricing their product artificially high in
> order to first skim off the low-hanging fruit -- the "desperate"
> medical-less pilot who will buy at any price.
>
> 2. The stupid magazines are cheerleading whatever the sellers do because
> they're used to having their heads stuck neck-deep in the rear-ends of
> advertisers.
>
> 3. There is no real competition yet and prices will inevitably drop.


Agreed.

If there was a "free market" there would be no such thing as a "light
sport aircraft" in the first place-it is a political, arbitrary
creation.

The rules for type certification of aircraft and certification of
airmen are also political and arbitrary.

The current pricing reflects the profit motive-early entrants price
high because of risk of failure, unanticipated risks, high startup
costs, and aviation-specific issues such as the perception of liability
which makes it VERY tough to get non-aviation-specific vendors to do
work for you. Those vendors are very spoiled by the Boeings and
Lockheed Martins. Also, because all luxury items right now are high
because of the current cheap money climate. Look at the aftermarket
Harley-Davidson based motorcycles that sell for the sums they do
despite totally commoditized engineering, no perceived liability (Big
Dog doesn't carry product liability coverage, therefore is not a
target), and pervasive use of questionably legal immigrant labor.

[Bret Ludwig]

Anthony W wrote:

> My dream of flying is alive and well but it's going to take a few more
> years to turn it into a reality.


It's far cheaper to rent, especially if you live in an area where
something besides Chreokees and Skyhawks are available. If you are not
already an active pilot you are nuts to even thingk of building.

[ET]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in news:1128370779.995558.4350
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Anthony W wrote:
>
>> My dream of flying is alive and well but it's going to take a few more
>> years to turn it into a reality.
>
>
> It's far cheaper to rent, especially if you live in an area where
> something besides Chreokees and Skyhawks are available. If you are not
> already an active pilot you are nuts to even thingk of building.
>
>

Now THAT's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If you don't LIKE building
things your nuts to even think of building. Now, I think your nuts to
build anything that would not qualify for the Sport Pilot catagory if you
are near or over the age of 40, but that's another topic.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[rpellicciotti]

Rich,
To get a true picture of the cost of a Van's kit, you have to add the
price of the kit and the finishing kit together. I have worked closely
with Aerostar in Romania (they also build the Yak-52) to get the
Festival S-LSA built and certified. I have seen the invoices for the
materials that were purchased to build the first 10 airplanes. That is
where my numbers come from.

I attended a meeting at Boeing back in February. There, an official of
the 787 program gave us a briefing on the airplane. He said that they
could build most of the aircraft in carbon fiber for less that it would
cost to build in aluminum.

That said, I encourage anyone who can design, build, certify and market
a $50,000.00 S-LSA while making a profit to do so. It will do nothing
but advance aviation (the intent of the Sport Pilot rule to begin
with). If one only sold these airplanes to the people on this list
that have stated they would buy one if it were $50,000.00, you could
stay busy for a couple of years.

Rick Pellicciotti

[rpellicciotti]

Richard,
I questioned the statement at the time but I did hear the Boeing rep
say it. He stated that a lot of metals used in aircraft construction,
including aluminum, were going through the roof price wise. He stated
that Boeing was the world's largest consumer of carbon fiber and that
they could build parts in composite cheaper than metal.

I nudged the guy from Virgin Atlantic sitting next to me and I asked
him if he heard it and he affirmed what I though he said. I have the
guy's business card in my file, I'll try to dig it out.

Rick Pellicciotti

[Rich S.]

"rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rich,
> To get a true picture of the cost of a Van's kit, you have to add the
> price of the kit and the finishing kit together. I have worked closely
> with Aerostar in Romania (they also build the Yak-52) to get the
> Festival S-LSA built and certified. I have seen the invoices for the
> materials that were purchased to build the first 10 airplanes. That is
> where my numbers come from.

Sounds like you have a good handle on it, Rick. And here I thought Spruce
was expensive! :)

Rich S.

[rpellicciotti]

Its just that there is a lot more that goes into an airplane than just
the stuff listed on the plan's material list. Things like fire
sleeving on the lines forward of the firewall, rod ends, tires, wheels,
brakes, instruments, switches, avionics, and so forth. It really adds
up. Heck, a decent paint job costs $3-5000.00 alone.

I would like nothing more to be able to buy a certified light sport
aircraft for $50,000.00 but it just isn't out there. I am sure that
someone would have done it if they could do it.

The truth is that there are plenty of used airplanes in that price
range. If that is what someone can afford, then they can fly if they
want to. I suspect a lot of the people that are complaining about the
prices don't fly at all or they are the type that complain no matter
what the price is.

Rick

[rpellicciotti]

I have seen a lot of messages comparing the cost of RV kits to S-LSA
aircraft. The problem with these comparisons is that they are apples
and oranges. An RV kit is just a box of parts. A S-LSA airplane is a
factory built, ready to fly, certified airplane. Van's makes great
airplane kits. He designs great airplanes. Still, he does not have to
have an FAA approved quality plan and his airplanes do not have to go
through the certification process. Yes, the ASTM process is simplified
compared to Part 23 certification but still, it is a process and
therefore has costs associated with it.

The other reason that Van's kits are such a good value is quantity.
With over 4000 airplanes flying and who knows how many kits sold, the
RV kits benefit from economies derived from volume. If you put all the
S-LSA aircraft manufactured to date in one pile, they would not number
100. I am certain that we do not get as big a discount on materials as
Van does. We are buying material for batches of 10 aircraft at a time.

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
"rpellicciotti" > wrote:

> We are buying material for batches of 10 aircraft at a time.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> LightSportFlying.com

The point, or at least my point, is that we shouldn't be. We should be
buying them in batches of 1000, once a month. If you want to know how
much an LSA should cost in raw materials and manufactured components
like engines and instruments, then write a letter to the vendors, asking
for a quote.

"Dear Mr. Lycoming,

I would like to purchase 60,000 of your airplane engines over the next
five years, with scheduled deliveries of 1000 per month. Please give me
a quote.

Thank you,
Smitty
CEO, LSA of America"

Now, as soon as someone who has both the brains and the brawn to step up
to the plate with that kind of vision, we WILL have an affordable plane.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "rpellicciotti" > wrote:
>
>> We are buying material for batches of 10 aircraft at a time.
>>
>> Rick Pellicciotti
>> LightSportFlying.com
>
> The point, or at least my point, is that we shouldn't be. We should be
> buying them in batches of 1000, once a month. If you want to know how
> much an LSA should cost in raw materials and manufactured components
> like engines and instruments, then write a letter to the vendors, asking
> for a quote.
>
> "Dear Mr. Lycoming,
>
> I would like to purchase 60,000 of your airplane engines over the next
> five years, with scheduled deliveries of 1000 per month. Please give me
> a quote.
>
> Thank you,
> Smitty

At what price point do you think you would have to be at to have demand for
60,000 airplanes over the next 5 years?
> CEO, LSA of America"
>
> Now, as soon as someone who has both the brains and the brawn to step up
> to the plate with that kind of vision, we WILL have an affordable plane.

[Bret Ludwig]

ET wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in news:1128370779.995558.4350
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Anthony W wrote:
> >
> >> My dream of flying is alive and well but it's going to take a few more
> >> years to turn it into a reality.
> >
> >
> > It's far cheaper to rent, especially if you live in an area where
> > something besides Chreokees and Skyhawks are available. If you are not
> > already an active pilot you are nuts to even thingk of building.
> >
> >
>
> Now THAT's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If you don't LIKE building
> things your nuts to even think of building. Now, I think your nuts to
> build anything that would not qualify for the Sport Pilot catagory if you
> are near or over the age of 40, but that's another topic.

How old is the Bush crony, who is rebuilding FIVE F-106s? Now THAT is
a project....and it sure as hell will not qualify under LSA!

Building an RV, that is just like every other RV with a new museum
piece Lyc under its cowl, is not creativity. It's makework. That's not
what Amateur-Built was created for. If you aren't experimenting, you
should be restoring, or get a job in Sedgwick County if any are left.

[Morgans]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote

> Building an RV, that is just like every other RV with a new museum
> piece Lyc under its cowl, is not creativity. It's makework. That's not
> what Amateur-Built was created for. If you aren't experimenting, you
> should be restoring, or get a job in Sedgwick County if any are left.

Here I go again, saying the "B" word, but,

BULLCRAP

Experimenting, or creativity has nothing to do with Amateur-Built.

If you are not building it for hire, you are an amateur. It is educational,
and enjoyable, and that is what the category was designed for. It is true
that if you do not enjoy it, you should probably not undertake it.
--
Jim in NC

[Smitty Two]

In article <OkT0f.12620$b65.12550@okepread01>,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>
> At what price point do you think you would have to be at to have demand for
> 60,000 airplanes over the next 5 years?

I don't know. But it's obscene and absurd that airplanes cost as much as
they do. People here are talking about breaking the 50k barrier for a
stripped down LSA. Nuts. The 172 ought to sell for that. An LSA should
top out at 35k. Price *creates* volume. Operate at a loss for a few
years. So what. Sell thousands of copies, not tens.

You don't rent a building on an airport. You buy a hunk of Kansas and
make your own building. Use some scrap corrugated tin. If the roof
leaks, send an accountant up there with a bucket of tar and a putty
knife to patch the holes.

It isn't full of carpeting and showrooms. The pencil pushers get a
pencil and a desk from eBay and they work out on the shop floor where
they can see what the hell is going on and help when needed. Make 'em
buy their own paper. There's no advertising department. You won't need
one.

Grade yourself a dirt strip. If you can't afford to rent a grader, then
tell the engineers and all the other pencil pushers to bring in their
shovels and rakes on Saturday. Give 'em free lemonade. Start bringing in
the sheet metal and the presses. Ford can stamp out a pair of truck
doors in something like fifteen seconds, IIRC.

If Lycoming can't make a goddamn four cylinder engine for seven thousand
dollars, then get Toyota to do it. Lemme see, what was the difference
between an airplane engine and a car engine again? Some of the parts are
a little beefier? Wow, that ought to quintuple the price. Not.

Electronics are dirt cheap these days, and avionics are nothing but
electronics. The glass panel should be about one tenth the price of
steam gauges.

If I can make a gluing machine that puts out 81 drops of glue
simultaneously, I can make a riveting machine that rivets 81 rivets at a
time. And I don't need an engineer and a draftsman and an accountant and
nine hundred hours worth of meetings to get it done. Just give me a
pencil and the back of envelope and I'll scribble down some notes and
then go in the shop and start making it.

I swear, this whole topic reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes. It's
an airplane, for christ's sake. It's just sheet metal and an engine. No
eight way adjustable heated leather seats, no twelve speaker Bose sound
system, no transmission, no drive train, no suspension, no power
windows, doors, locks, security system. No sunroof. No wipers on the
lights. No electric defogger built into the window. No five hundred
dollar wheels with two hundred dollar tires.

Oh yeah -- the job application asks whether you can empty a wastebasket,
change a light bulb, and operate a plunger. Because mommy doesn't work
here.

I do get worked up, don't I? Well, if you disagree, remember, at least I
didn't call anyone a bad name.

[rpellicciotti]

So, when are you going to get started? Sounds like you have a plan.

Rick Pellicciotti

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
> In article <OkT0f.12620$b65.12550@okepread01>,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>>
>> At what price point do you think you would have to be at to have demand
>> for
>> 60,000 airplanes over the next 5 years?
>
> I don't know. But it's obscene and absurd that airplanes cost as much as
> they do. People here are talking about breaking the 50k barrier for a
> stripped down LSA. Nuts. The 172 ought to sell for that. An LSA should
> top out at 35k. Price *creates* volume. Operate at a loss for a few
> years. So what. Sell thousands of copies, not tens.
>
<Massive Rant Deleted>

Ok Smitty, when will Smitty Aircraft Corp. be starting production?

[revdmv]

Well there is a difference between manufacturing cost and retail price.

I'm involved in the automotive manufacturing automation systems, and
the price points to create an efficient assembly line process are
fairly high. I think a line to assembly small planes would make great
sense and I can envison a current car company taking on that task and
making it work. I would expect a volume of 10k/year to be a minimum to
get the whole thing going. Automotive shops already have the stamping
and weilding rigs which would be high cost of entry items. They are
also experts at sub-assebly processes, something I just don't see being
down well at the current aircraft companies.

Toyota certified one of their engines, which brings that high ticket
item down to a profitable level. I think you'll know someone is close
to trying something when you hear about an automotive company making
some moves in the aviaonics industry. It's the next high dollar
compoenent that could be preice correct by being brought into the
supply chain.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"revdmv" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well there is a difference between manufacturing cost and retail price.
>
> I'm involved in the automotive manufacturing automation systems, and
> the price points to create an efficient assembly line process are
> fairly high. I think a line to assembly small planes would make great
> sense and I can envison a current car company taking on that task and
> making it work. I would expect a volume of 10k/year to be a minimum to
> get the whole thing going. Automotive shops already have the stamping
> and weilding rigs which would be high cost of entry items. They are
> also experts at sub-assebly processes, something I just don't see being
> down well at the current aircraft companies.
>
> Toyota certified one of their engines, which brings that high ticket
> item down to a profitable level. I think you'll know someone is close
> to trying something when you hear about an automotive company making
> some moves in the aviaonics industry. It's the next high dollar
> compoenent that could be preice correct by being brought into the
> supply chain.
>

10,000 sounds about right. If you add up ALL annual GA sales world wide are
we anywhere close to that now? So for one company to produce an aircraft in
an automated system they would have to not only take over ALL current GA
sales but they would have to increase demand by several times.

I just don't see it happening.

[Ernest Christley]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>
>
>>My dream of flying is alive and well but it's going to take a few more
>>years to turn it into a reality.
>
>
>
> It's far cheaper to rent, especially if you live in an area where
> something besides Chreokees and Skyhawks are available. If you are not
> already an active pilot you are nuts to even thingk of building.
>

Some of us are building so that we can be an 'active pilot'.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

rpellicciotti wrote:
> Its just that there is a lot more that goes into an airplane than just
> the stuff listed on the plan's material list. Things like fire
> sleeving on the lines forward of the firewall, rod ends, tires, wheels,
> brakes, instruments, switches, avionics, and so forth. It really adds
> up. Heck, a decent paint job costs $3-5000.00 alone.
>

AMEN, Rick. I'm in the 'little pieces' phase of building. I bought
$1200 worth of steel tube 3.5yrs ago, and that has been most of what has
kept the building process going with minor outlays here and there. I
just got a small box (1/2 the size of a shoebox) from ACS yesterday. It
had some cable fittings, a few bolts, and such as that. You could hold
all of it in one hand (I did). $120...And I'm going to have quite a few
more of those type orders before everything is done.

The devil (and large price tag) is in the details.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Smitty Two wrote:

> It isn't full of carpeting and showrooms. The pencil pushers get a
> pencil and a desk from eBay and they work out on the shop floor where
> they can see what the hell is going on and help when needed. Make 'em
> buy their own paper. There's no advertising department. You won't need
> one.

No the pencil pushers (at least the ones that know what they're doing)
will get their pencils from the supply closet of the other company. The
one that pays them. Because they sure as hell won't be working for
Smitty Airplane works, where pencil pushers work in the heat on an eBay
desk and buy their own paper 8*)

Gotta give it to you, though. That was a funny rant. Thanks.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Ernest Christley > wrote:


>
> No the pencil pushers (at least the ones that know what they're doing)
> will get their pencils from the supply closet of the other company. The
> one that pays them. Because they sure as hell won't be working for
> Smitty Airplane works, where pencil pushers work in the heat on an eBay
> desk and buy their own paper 8*)
>
> Gotta give it to you, though. That was a funny rant. Thanks.

Glad you like my humor. Here's an encore:

No, the pompous arrogant airhead pencil pushers will work for the other
company. You know the ones. The pseudo-engineers who make drawings of
parts that can't be made, because they've never gotten their hands dirty
actually making things.

Like the drawing I got two days ago. A post that stands up from the
floor of a pocket. The edge of the post is 0.020 away from the wall of
the pocket. Sure. Just go to the tool store and tell them you need to
pick up a 0.020 diameter end mill with 1/4 inch flutes.

The ones who want to build airplanes, the really brilliant, dedicated,
hard-working ones who'd rather make a contribution than suck latte, will
work at Smitty. The kinds of people who built the Spirit of St. Louis.
The kinds of people who built Liberty Ships in three days. They aren't
extinct, are they?

Have you ever heard of Bridgeport? The best damn milling machines in the
world at any price? A machine shop without Bridgeport mills was a
laughingstock. Well, Bridgeport is gone. Bankrupt. Why? Because someone
with vision came along and said, there's no goddamn reason in the world
that a single-tool, 2-axis CNC with clumsy programming should cost forty
thousand dollars. And they started making machining centers - that is, a
machine that is about fifty times as automated and sophisticated as a
Bridgeport EZ-trak, and selling them for thirty thousand.

Paradigm shift. You might have to wait a while to see it, but when it
happens, it might as well have been instantaneous.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. (insert emoticon of your choice
here)

[rpellicciotti]

No, 10000 airplanes per year won't happen. Why? Because airplanes are
not like cars, disposable after 3 or 4 years. They stay around forever
due to good maintenance and being built well to begin with. There is
just not enough turnover to reach that kind of volume.

Even in their heyday in the 70's, Cessna took about 250 man hours to
assemble a 172. I don't know what the man hours are in say a Ford
Focus but I would be suprised if it was more than a tenth of that.
Airplanes are labor intensive to make and don't lend themselves to mass
production. If they did, someone smarter than me would be doing it
already.

Rick

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:11:18 -0700, Smitty Two
> > wrote:
> :
> :Like the drawing I got two days ago. A post that stands up from the
> :floor of a pocket. The edge of the post is 0.020 away from the wall of
> :the pocket. Sure. Just go to the tool store and tell them you need to
> :pick up a 0.020 diameter end mill with 1/4 inch flutes.
>
> You don't have any .020 EDM scraps lying around?

I love this group almost as much as the EAA guys I drive 280 miles every
month to hang out with for an hour and a half. Sure, we could've sent it
out for that. But there isn't any reason that the post can't be blended
into the wall instead of being a separate feature, so I got out my #2
pencil and created rev A., because I know what mounts on the mounting
post and what it needs to be and what it doesn't need to be. And I
didn't sit down in a meeting for two hours with six people to talk about
it. The guy making the part asked me if he could blend it in, I looked
at it, said sure, and it's a done deal.

It's the kind of clumsy engineering that makes things expensive beyond
reasonable comprehension. Do you know how many custom screws we crank
out on the old Brown and Sharpe screw machines? Custom screws. There
must be, what, fifty million stock screws in the world? And these guys
sit around drawing the parts without any consideration of the fastener,
and then they invent a custom screw to put the widget together. It isn't
cleverness, it's ignorance.

[W P Dixon]

Could not agree more Smitty, ...common sense is a mighty powerful thing!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ernest Christley > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> No the pencil pushers (at least the ones that know what they're doing)
>> will get their pencils from the supply closet of the other company. The
>> one that pays them. Because they sure as hell won't be working for
>> Smitty Airplane works, where pencil pushers work in the heat on an eBay
>> desk and buy their own paper 8*)
>>
>> Gotta give it to you, though. That was a funny rant. Thanks.
>
> Glad you like my humor. Here's an encore:
>
> No, the pompous arrogant airhead pencil pushers will work for the other
> company. You know the ones. The pseudo-engineers who make drawings of
> parts that can't be made, because they've never gotten their hands dirty
> actually making things.
>
> Like the drawing I got two days ago. A post that stands up from the
> floor of a pocket. The edge of the post is 0.020 away from the wall of
> the pocket. Sure. Just go to the tool store and tell them you need to
> pick up a 0.020 diameter end mill with 1/4 inch flutes.
>
> The ones who want to build airplanes, the really brilliant, dedicated,
> hard-working ones who'd rather make a contribution than suck latte, will
> work at Smitty. The kinds of people who built the Spirit of St. Louis.
> The kinds of people who built Liberty Ships in three days. They aren't
> extinct, are they?
>
> Have you ever heard of Bridgeport? The best damn milling machines in the
> world at any price? A machine shop without Bridgeport mills was a
> laughingstock. Well, Bridgeport is gone. Bankrupt. Why? Because someone
> with vision came along and said, there's no goddamn reason in the world
> that a single-tool, 2-axis CNC with clumsy programming should cost forty
> thousand dollars. And they started making machining centers - that is, a
> machine that is about fifty times as automated and sophisticated as a
> Bridgeport EZ-trak, and selling them for thirty thousand.
>
> Paradigm shift. You might have to wait a while to see it, but when it
> happens, it might as well have been instantaneous.
>
> That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. (insert emoticon of your choice
> here)

[[email protected]]

>>Do you know how many custom screws we crank
out on the old Brown and Sharpe screw machines? Custom screws. There
must be, what, fifty million stock screws in the world? And these guys
sit around drawing the parts without any consideration of the fastener,

and then they invent a custom screw to put the widget together. It
isn't
cleverness, it's ignorance.<<

Then out in the field the new guy looses the screw in the dirt, and
because:

a bolt from the hardware store won't fit the threads

or we don't have the tamper proof Torx socket - with one tooth milled
off - to fit the special screw head

and the foreman says that widget has to be back in service before we
can get a new screw red labled in.........

We just weld it on and let the next guy worry about it :-)
====================
Leon McAtee
I really hate it when I'm "the next guy"

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:
>>>Do you know how many custom screws we crank
>
> out on the old Brown and Sharpe screw machines? Custom screws. There

> Then out in the field the new guy looses the screw in the dirt, and
> because:
>
> a bolt from the hardware store won't fit the threads
>

Which is the reason the manager instructed the engineer to custom design
a screw in the first place?



--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."