Cheap Airplane

[Phil]

Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.

I assume that the reason an airplane like a trike is so cheap is that
it is structurally simple and easy to manufacture. If that is the
case, then to make a cheap airplane that can cruise fast enough to go
somewhere, and do so in reasonable comfort, you need to simplify the
structure.

Which made me remember the article I read about the Facetmobile. For
those of you unfamiliar with this airplane, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile

It seems like someone could manufacture a pretty inexpensive airplane
if they used this type of design. If someone could manufacture a
cross-country-capable airplane for around 30 thousand, I would think
they could sell a lot of them.

Making a cheaper airplane would certainly go a long way toward helping
general aviation to grow.

[Peter Dohm]

"Phil" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
> prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
> to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
> an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.
>
> I assume that the reason an airplane like a trike is so cheap is that
> it is structurally simple and easy to manufacture. If that is the
> case, then to make a cheap airplane that can cruise fast enough to go
> somewhere, and do so in reasonable comfort, you need to simplify the
> structure.
>
> Which made me remember the article I read about the Facetmobile. For
> those of you unfamiliar with this airplane, here is a link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile
>
> It seems like someone could manufacture a pretty inexpensive airplane
> if they used this type of design. If someone could manufacture a
> cross-country-capable airplane for around 30 thousand, I would think
> they could sell a lot of them.
>
> Making a cheaper airplane would certainly go a long way toward helping
> general aviation to grow.
>

I believe that the designer still posts in rec.aviation.homebuilt and the
Facetmobile does at least appear to mitigate one of the major costs of
traditional aircraft--the excessively large hangar/garage space normally
required. Personally, I am a little too much of a traditionalist to fall in
love with it, but it is certianly an intriguing concept and appears to make
a lot of sense in terms of both manufacturing and storage costs.

Peter

[James Sleeman]

On Aug 28, 12:33 pm, Phil > wrote:
> an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.

Depends what you think of an Ultralight as, if you're thinking
traditional US Legal Ultralight, then sure I'll agree that it is
realistically local flying. But if you consider the rest of the
world's comparable ultralight definitions, which is basically what the
US has now with LSA, then it's a different matter.

Take the XAir-H for example, http://www.xairusa.com/XAir%20H.html ,
$20,000 should get you flying one behind a Rotax 582, you'll have to
assemble yourself but I have it from somebody who has built one
recently, that it's a doddle even for an office worker like him,
unpack box, follow the step by step instructions basically. Take a
couple weeks off work and go at it, what better vacation ;-)

For something a little more proven (and much better looking IMHO) a
RANS S6 Coyote (http://www.rans.com/3S6ES.htm) or Kitfox (http://
www.kitfoxaircraft.com/) won't hit that much higher, it might take a
bit more work and skill to build though.

I think that for $20,000 you really can't expect anything other than a
kit aircraft in a box. If you want to spend $30,000, buy a kit
aircraft and pay somebody to build it (or just buy a nice used one
which already has the teething trouble worked right out of it).

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Phil wrote:
> Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
> prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
> to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
> an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.

Or convince your life insurer to cover you.

My life policy has three exclusions:

Skydiving
Hangliding
Ultralights

Flying as a crew member is no big deal to them.

[Ross]

Phil wrote:
> Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
> prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
> to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
> an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.
>
> I assume that the reason an airplane like a trike is so cheap is that
> it is structurally simple and easy to manufacture. If that is the
> case, then to make a cheap airplane that can cruise fast enough to go
> somewhere, and do so in reasonable comfort, you need to simplify the
> structure.
>
> Which made me remember the article I read about the Facetmobile. For
> those of you unfamiliar with this airplane, here is a link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile
>
> It seems like someone could manufacture a pretty inexpensive airplane
> if they used this type of design. If someone could manufacture a
> cross-country-capable airplane for around 30 thousand, I would think
> they could sell a lot of them.
>
> Making a cheaper airplane would certainly go a long way toward helping
> general aviation to grow.
>

But, wasn't that what light sport aircraft were supposed to do?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Phil wrote:
> Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
> prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
> to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
> an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.
>
> I assume that the reason an airplane like a trike is so cheap is that
> it is structurally simple and easy to manufacture. If that is the
> case, then to make a cheap airplane that can cruise fast enough to go
> somewhere, and do so in reasonable comfort, you need to simplify the
> structure.
>
> Which made me remember the article I read about the Facetmobile. For
> those of you unfamiliar with this airplane, here is a link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile

Wow, thats an innovative concept. I don't think to many wifes would agree to
go up in one, though :-)

As far as "cheap aircraft to go places" are concerned, there is quite a
number of planes around in the european "ultralight" class (max MTOW 470 kg)
that could well do this. Most of them even look like planes and cruise
speeds of >100 kts are not uncommon. Most of them could be registered in
the LSA class with a somewhat higher MTOW which means they could even carry
two people AND some fuel...

regards,
Friedrich

[Blueskies]

"Phil" > wrote in message ups.com...
> Making a cheaper airplane would certainly go a long way toward helping
> general aviation to grow.
>

Cheap airplane...now that is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one...

[Phil]

On Aug 28, 12:32 pm, Ross > wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > Recent discussions about whether or not general aviation is dying
> > prompted me to start thinking about why it doesn't seem to be possible
> > to build a really cheap airplane. I know that you can buy a trike or
> > an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> > country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> > convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.
>
> > I assume that the reason an airplane like a trike is so cheap is that
> > it is structurally simple and easy to manufacture. If that is the
> > case, then to make a cheap airplane that can cruise fast enough to go
> > somewhere, and do so in reasonable comfort, you need to simplify the
> > structure.
>
> > Which made me remember the article I read about the Facetmobile. For
> > those of you unfamiliar with this airplane, here is a link:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile
>
> > It seems like someone could manufacture a pretty inexpensive airplane
> > if they used this type of design. If someone could manufacture a
> > cross-country-capable airplane for around 30 thousand, I would think
> > they could sell a lot of them.
>
> > Making a cheaper airplane would certainly go a long way toward helping
> > general aviation to grow.
>
> But, wasn't that what light sport aircraft were supposed to do?
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The light sport license is cheaper to acquire than the PPL. But a new
light sport airplane is still too expensive for most people. In
looking at the Facetmobile, I am guessing that if it were made from
composites, the top and bottom of the aircraft could each be formed as
a single piece, including the vertical stabilizers. That seems like
it should be pretty inexpensive to manufacture. And it wouldn't have
to have flat surfaces, so it could be even more efficient than the
original. I would guess that with this design you could make a very
competitive light-sport 2-place aircraft with as little as 65
horsepower pulling it. That would make it inexpensive to operate.

[Phil]

On Aug 28, 1:09 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote:

> Wow, thats an innovative concept. I don't think to many wifes would agree to
> go up in one, though :-)
>

You may be be right. But she wouldn't have to wear a helmet, and
there aren't a bunch of wires bracing it. So I would think it would
be an easier sell than most ultralights.

[Phil]

On Aug 27, 11:52 pm, James Sleeman > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 12:33 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> > an ultralight for around $20,000. But you can't really go cross
> > country in one of those, and you would probably have a hard time
> > convincing most wives to even consider going up in one at all.
>
> Depends what you think of an Ultralight as, if you're thinking
> traditional US Legal Ultralight, then sure I'll agree that it is
> realistically local flying. But if you consider the rest of the
> world's comparable ultralight definitions, which is basically what the
> US has now with LSA, then it's a different matter.
>
> Take the XAir-H for example,http://www.xairusa.com/XAir%20H.html,
> $20,000 should get you flying one behind a Rotax 582, you'll have to
> assemble yourself but I have it from somebody who has built one
> recently, that it's a doddle even for an office worker like him,
> unpack box, follow the step by step instructions basically. Take a
> couple weeks off work and go at it, what better vacation ;-)
>
> For something a little more proven (and much better looking IMHO) a
> RANS S6 Coyote (http://www.rans.com/3S6ES.htm) or Kitfox (http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/) won't hit that much higher, it might take a
> bit more work and skill to build though.
>
> I think that for $20,000 you really can't expect anything other than a
> kit aircraft in a box. If you want to spend $30,000, buy a kit
> aircraft and pay somebody to build it (or just buy a nice used one
> which already has the teething trouble worked right out of it).

I don't doubt that you could do that, but I think that most people
wouldn't be interested in arranging to have an airplane built. A used
kitplane would be more of a possibility, but I would bet that there
are a lot people who wouldn't want to buy an amateur-built airplane.
I am talking about a manufacturer producing a ready-to-fly airplane
for way less than the current crop of LSAs. I am guessing that labor
costs are the biggest expense in building an airplane. If you can
make an airplane simple enough to construct, it should cost a lot less.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Phil wrote:
> On Aug 28, 1:09 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> > wrote:
>
>> Wow, thats an innovative concept. I don't think to many wifes would
>> agree to go up in one, though :-)
>>
>
> You may be be right. But she wouldn't have to wear a helmet, and
> there aren't a bunch of wires bracing it. So I would think it would
> be an easier sell than most ultralights.

from my understanding there is a different usage of the term "ultralight" in
Europe and the US. While in the US "ultralight" refers to trikes and the
like, in Europe it's closer to LSA and could also be something like this:

http://www.fluginformation.info/ILA_2002/Kleinflugzeuge/Impulse_100/impulse_100.html

or this:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Ultraleicht.jpg

no helmets required there.

The only problem is, that at 470 kg MTOW (including a recovery system) they
have barely enough payload to carry two people. If you want to carry fuel
for any range, you still have to go without the wife...

regards,
Friedrich

[Phil]

On Aug 28, 11:22 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 1:09 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Wow, thats an innovative concept. I don't think to many wifes would
> >> agree to go up in one, though :-)
>
> > You may be be right. But she wouldn't have to wear a helmet, and
> > there aren't a bunch of wires bracing it. So I would think it would
> > be an easier sell than most ultralights.
>
> from my understanding there is a different usage of the term "ultralight" in
> Europe and the US. While in the US "ultralight" refers to trikes and the
> like, in Europe it's closer to LSA and could also be something like this:
>
> http://www.fluginformation.info/ILA_2002/Kleinflugzeuge/Impulse_100/i...
>
> or this:
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Ultraleicht.jpg
>
> no helmets required there.
>
> The only problem is, that at 470 kg MTOW (including a recovery system) they
> have barely enough payload to carry two people. If you want to carry fuel
> for any range, you still have to go without the wife...
>
> regards,
> Friedrich

What you refer to as an ultralight I think would be a very nice
personal airplane. I am currently doing my training in a Flight
Design CT, and I think it is very comfortable and more than adequate
for cross-country flight. But in order to grow the general aviation
market, I think LSAs like this are still too expensive.