High Cost of Sportplanes

It seems a lot of people have been writing letters to Kitplanes magazine
complaining about the unexpectedly steep prices of the new crop of
factory-built sportplanes. So the editor of that publication decided to
respond. His message: Get used to it.

This really infuriated me, not only because the commentary lacked any
substance about why prices are what they appear to be, but also because this
is another example of the shameless pandering to advertisers, or potential
advertisers.

The "yes, boss" attitude toward industry is nothing new in the enthusiast
magazine sector of course (cars, bikes, what have you), but it is really
plumbing new lows lately. Flying, which used to be a decent rag under Dick
Collins, has zero integrity nowadays. A couple of years ago I read with
interest as Collins commented pointedly about the spate of deadly crashes in
Cirrus airplanes. He questioned whether the airplane was dangerous in spins
since it had not been certifed for such -- the parachute being considered as
a kind of substitute by regulators, apparently.

I silently applauded Collins' integrity, but remember thinking that such an
editorial faux pas as daring to criticize an advertiser -- even on something
as crucial as safety -- would not go unpunished. I was right. The very next
month's issue did not have an ad from Cirrus, which had been advertising
every month until the Collins commentary.

In fact it was quite a few months until the Cirrus ads reappeared in that
august publication -- with the spineless J. MacLellan , taking every
possible opportunity to gladhand Cirrus in the meantime, with all kinds of
glowing write-ups, cover photos, you name it. I guess the grovelling finally
paid off, and Cirrus decided to start writing checks to Flying again.

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.

Now back to the issue about the high cost of sportplanes. What should have
been said in this "editorial" but wasn't is that the prices are too high.
Way too high in fact.

Not too long ago, I went for a hop in a couple of very nice little Tecnam
2-seaters from Italy. Excellent little planes -- but the price of close to
$100,000 gave me pause.

I immediately thought back about ten years earlier when I went up for a very
memorable hop in a beautiful, brand new Zlin, just in from the Czech
Republic. This fully aerobatic airplane left a strong impression, and not
just because the demo pilot pulled enough g's to gray-out my vision. I
remember thinking that this was the most solid-feeling light plane I had
ever flown -- everying tactile, the controls, the knobs, had a substantive,
precise feel that whispered military grade.

The forward-sliding canopy hushed wind noise like the cabin of a good Lexus,
and the six-cylinder, fuel-injected, supercharged LOM engine with CS prop
out front was a buttery smooth powerhouse. A five-point restraint and very
nicely contoured seats rounded out an ergonomic tour de force. Compared to
this very serious airplane, the current sportplanes give a definite toy-kite
impression. Heck even a brand new Skyhawk feels like a chatterbox compared
to the Zlin.

The price of the Zlin? Only $100,000 at the time -- about what you are
expecte to shell out for those LSAs coming from the Czech Republic -- and
elsewhere-- these days.

I remember thinking the Zlin was a bargain at twice the price -- but the
plane apparently did not overcome its North American certification hurdles
and sales never took off. Too bad.

But one has to ask what has changed in ten years that you are now expected
to pay the same amount of money for a little fiberglass, Rotax-powered
putt-putt that you were paying for a top-line aerobat with about ten times
as much substance built in.

Well, the short answer is that the makers of these sportplanes are hoping to
make a killing -- like any good opportunist. They're no fools. They were the
first to jump into this new market niche and they are testing the waters to
see how much people -- suckers? -- are willing to pay.

And yes, the Czech Republic is not the bargain it was then -- now it's a
member of the EU and wages and prices have gone up. I guess under the
current pricing scheme, that Zlin should cost about half a million now?

But saying that $100,000 for one of these sportplanes is justified is just
plain ridiculous and a slap in the face to readers. The cost of certifying a
plane to the sportplane regulations is puny compared to the conventional GA
standards. Basically it's self-certification, similar to what many other
countries have had for quite some time.

True the Rotax engines used in these planes have jumped in price due to the
strong Euro, but even so $100,000 is a lot of money for very little
airplane.

Frankly I don't think this price level will hold. I think there is a real
opportunity for enterprising individuals to jump in and build a nice little
sportplane at the $50,000 price point. Only then will this category take
off. If we don't see prices come down to this level, sportplanes will turn
out to be nothing but a marginal part of the aviation scene.

I'm glad that some magazine editors think $100,000 is a great price for a
very basic little airplane. Personally I would much rather pay an additional
$50,000 and get a brank new Skyhawk -- granted with the basic VFR panel, but
then the sportplanes panels are even less than that.


Regards,

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada.

Five years ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with Gordon. Heck,
three years ago I would have agreed. But these days I have a whole lot
better idea what it takes to develop, tool, and manufacture aircraft
components. At this point I think I qualify for a .org domain on the
basis of non-profit operation.

An aircraft, even a light sport aircraft, represents a whole lot more
than a pile of aluminum or composite materials. It has to be designed
and developed. And even if it's not certificated, it does have to be
tested. It has to be manufactured. And, for most folks, the designer,
developer, tester, and manufacturer all want to get paid for their
work. As do the companies that supply the materials. As does the
landlord for the facility where the development and manufacturing takes
place. As do the companies that sell the engines, bearings,
transparencies, office supplies, and hardware that it takes to
manufacture the aircraft. As does the bank that rents the money to the
company so that they can buy stuff and generally get by.

It all adds up, and it sure as hell adds up faster than anyone wants it
to. But airplanes are basically hand-built, and will continue to be so
for the forseeable future. Real volume production? That's for consumer
items sold into markets where a walk through the oceans of most souls
would scarcely get your feet wet.

And, Gordon, I wish I had good news, but all signs point the other way:
Aircraft take energy to make, and energy costs are rising acros the
board. For the podunky little glider kit I'm developing, when I cost it
out, about 25% of its price tag is hooked straight to oil. So even if I
can hit its price target of $17,500 Y2K, balanced for inflation and oil
it comes in at about $26000 of today's dollars (16 September 2005). The
signs are that oil will likely (no promises!) tend to plateau out there
for a while, but I don't see it taking any major dives. And the next
time it starts to rise, I'm guessing there will be no reversals until
we're buying French fusion technology and slurrying coal and old
asphalt to make plastic resins.

Sure, if you don't mind investing some effort and taking some risks,
you can likely beat the market by a substantial margin. Just choose out
a reputable design, buy the kit, build it and fly. But don't count the
hours of time it takes to build, and for sure never multiply that
effort by any decent hourly wage. Hand-building stuff never comes
either easy or cheap.

Thanks, and best regards to all

bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
hours of time it takes to build, and for sure never multiply that
effort by any decent hourly wage. Hand-building stuff never comes
either easy or cheap.

A nitpick, about your statement "decent hourly wage," that reinforces
your point-

If the folks putting in the work hand building said aircraft are any
good at it, they'll probably demand (and be able to command as
premium labor) more than just a "decent hourly wage." Meantime they
also need to be trained. With normal turnover the new ones need to
be trained (using use up the time of the old experienced ones).

In a manegerial sense, good people in a workforce cost a lot of money
but are usually a relative bargain when you consider the cost of bad
people (employees who are a net liability). There are a lot of
idiots out there, and some make it through a hiring process.

And so on and so on, like you said hand-building isn't cheap.

In article .com, "Bob Kuykendall" wrote:
Five years ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with Gordon. Heck,
three years ago I would have agreed. But these days I have a whole lot
better idea what it takes to develop, tool, and manufacture aircraft
components. At this point I think I qualify for a .org domain on the
basis of non-profit operation.

snip stuff about increasing costs


As a relative newcomer to (small) aircraft manufacturing who is still
digesting the ramifications of the Sport Pilot rule as it applies to
manufacturers, I unfortunately have to agree with Bob K.

While it very well may be true that some manufacturers (and importers) are
looking to take undue advantage of Sport Pilot as an excuse to raise prices,
for the smaller kit manufacturer there definitely are going to be substantial
costs involved. Couple those with the rising costs of raw materials
(aluminum), and transportation (fuel) and prices are bound to rise.

For those looking to purchase something along the line of a "fat ultralight",
(I can't speak for those 100K jobs) it may be worth thinking about buying
sooner, rather than later, and then converting to E-LSA by the 2008 deadline,
if that works for you.

Realize that even for a manufacturer to produce a from-the-factory E-LSA kit,
that manufacturer must first bear the cost of building and certifying that
exact plane configuration as a ready-to-fly S-LSA.

Ultimately many of us do it as a labor of love, but it will still have to pay
the bills.



Rob S.
www.sport-flight.com

I'll chime in here with my take. Supply and demand will generally take
care of the price of the new light sport aircraft. If people don't buy,
price will come down...if people buy, price will increase. I know I
can't afford $100K for a new plane, so I don't even bother to dream
about a new one of those. I look to my handy Trade-A-Plane and look for
used vintage airplanes that I can afford, such as Taylorcraft, Aeronca
Chief, Luscombe as well as a lot of experimentals. Prices can be as low
as about $15K for the vintage factory jobs and even lower for some of
the experimental types (I bought my FLYING 2 seat Corben Junior Ace in
1998 in the $7K range and still fly it today). Plus, these old classics
are going up in value. A new plane, just like a car, drops in value as
soon as you fly it off the airport lot...

Scott


Gordon Arnaut wrote:

It seems a lot of people have been writing letters to Kitplanes magazine
complaining about the unexpectedly steep prices of the new crop of
factory-built sportplanes. So the editor of that publication decided to
respond. His message: Get used to it.

This really infuriated me, not only because the commentary lacked any
substance about why prices are what they appear to be, but also because this
is another example of the shameless pandering to advertisers, or potential
advertisers.

The "yes, boss" attitude toward industry is nothing new in the enthusiast
magazine sector of course (cars, bikes, what have you), but it is really
plumbing new lows lately. Flying, which used to be a decent rag under Dick
Collins, has zero integrity nowadays. A couple of years ago I read with
interest as Collins commented pointedly about the spate of deadly crashes in
Cirrus airplanes. He questioned whether the airplane was dangerous in spins
since it had not been certifed for such -- the parachute being considered as
a kind of substitute by regulators, apparently.

I silently applauded Collins' integrity, but remember thinking that such an
editorial faux pas as daring to criticize an advertiser -- even on something
as crucial as safety -- would not go unpunished. I was right. The very next
month's issue did not have an ad from Cirrus, which had been advertising
every month until the Collins commentary.

In fact it was quite a few months until the Cirrus ads reappeared in that
august publication -- with the spineless J. MacLellan , taking every
possible opportunity to gladhand Cirrus in the meantime, with all kinds of
glowing write-ups, cover photos, you name it. I guess the grovelling finally
paid off, and Cirrus decided to start writing checks to Flying again.

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept under
the carpet by editorial apologists.

Now back to the issue about the high cost of sportplanes. What should have
been said in this "editorial" but wasn't is that the prices are too high.
Way too high in fact.

Not too long ago, I went for a hop in a couple of very nice little Tecnam
2-seaters from Italy. Excellent little planes -- but the price of close to
$100,000 gave me pause.

I immediately thought back about ten years earlier when I went up for a very
memorable hop in a beautiful, brand new Zlin, just in from the Czech
Republic. This fully aerobatic airplane left a strong impression, and not
just because the demo pilot pulled enough g's to gray-out my vision. I
remember thinking that this was the most solid-feeling light plane I had
ever flown -- everying tactile, the controls, the knobs, had a substantive,
precise feel that whispered military grade.

The forward-sliding canopy hushed wind noise like the cabin of a good Lexus,
and the six-cylinder, fuel-injected, supercharged LOM engine with CS prop
out front was a buttery smooth powerhouse. A five-point restraint and very
nicely contoured seats rounded out an ergonomic tour de force. Compared to
this very serious airplane, the current sportplanes give a definite toy-kite
impression. Heck even a brand new Skyhawk feels like a chatterbox compared
to the Zlin.

The price of the Zlin? Only $100,000 at the time -- about what you are
expecte to shell out for those LSAs coming from the Czech Republic -- and
elsewhere-- these days.

I remember thinking the Zlin was a bargain at twice the price -- but the
plane apparently did not overcome its North American certification hurdles
and sales never took off. Too bad.

But one has to ask what has changed in ten years that you are now expected
to pay the same amount of money for a little fiberglass, Rotax-powered
putt-putt that you were paying for a top-line aerobat with about ten times
as much substance built in.

Well, the short answer is that the makers of these sportplanes are hoping to
make a killing -- like any good opportunist. They're no fools. They were the
first to jump into this new market niche and they are testing the waters to
see how much people -- suckers? -- are willing to pay.

And yes, the Czech Republic is not the bargain it was then -- now it's a
member of the EU and wages and prices have gone up. I guess under the
current pricing scheme, that Zlin should cost about half a million now?

But saying that $100,000 for one of these sportplanes is justified is just
plain ridiculous and a slap in the face to readers. The cost of certifying a
plane to the sportplane regulations is puny compared to the conventional GA
standards. Basically it's self-certification, similar to what many other
countries have had for quite some time.

True the Rotax engines used in these planes have jumped in price due to the
strong Euro, but even so $100,000 is a lot of money for very little
airplane.

Frankly I don't think this price level will hold. I think there is a real
opportunity for enterprising individuals to jump in and build a nice little
sportplane at the $50,000 price point. Only then will this category take
off. If we don't see prices come down to this level, sportplanes will turn
out to be nothing but a marginal part of the aviation scene.

I'm glad that some magazine editors think $100,000 is a great price for a
very basic little airplane. Personally I would much rather pay an additional
$50,000 and get a brank new Skyhawk -- granted with the basic VFR panel, but
then the sportplanes panels are even less than that.


Regards,

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada.

Thanks Gordon, it needed to be said. I have had the same feelings for some
time. I too was a little put off by the tone of the editorial in this months
KITplanes. the editor completely ignores some pretty healthy and real costs
when he trashes an older aircraft in favour of the new plastic fantastics.
Depreciation comes screaming to mind. Some of the characteristics of aging
plastic give me pause also.

Since I would not buy a $100,000 depreciating asset even if I could the new
aircraft hold little interest for me.

I think the future for many of us must center on kits and plans, many
magazines have sprung up touting back to grassroots philosophies, only to
change course as they chase advertising revenue.

The makers and marketers should welcome honest discourse on the shortcomings
of their product, far better to have the questions asked in an enthusiast
forum than a courtroom full of liability lawyers.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:43:30 GMT, "Dan"
wrote:


Thanks Gordon, it needed to be said. I have had the same feelings for some
time. I too was a little put off by the tone of the editorial in this months
KITplanes. the editor completely ignores some pretty healthy and real costs
when he trashes an older aircraft in favour of the new plastic fantastics.
Depreciation comes screaming to mind. Some of the characteristics of aging
plastic give me pause also.

Since I would not buy a $100,000 depreciating asset even if I could the new
aircraft hold little interest for me.



I agree. The thing I am hoping for is economies of scale kick in.
We've increased the number of potential buyers from Europe to USA +
Europe. I don't think relative demand per unit has increased because
of the prices. I am wondering if someone might be able to turn the
corner and start some form of automation or parts sharing. The trick
here would be some form of modularization or partial automation. It
could drop costs dramatically.

I know a lot of people will dismiss this because they think the
numbers are not there, but we aren't talking a Detroit level system
off the bat. The playing field just changed drastically For the
first time, we have a quick method of certification for a standardized
plane. # seats, stall and max speed are all fixed. Powerplant size
can only vary so much otherwise you're shooting youself in the foot.

These can all be achieved with a known airframe. Yes, some people
would want to design their plane to look distinctive or reduce fuel
consumption, but there would be a serious economic incentive to
standardize. Several companies could work with a cookie cutter
airframe, say a Thorp, and focus on ergonimics. Maybe tweak it a bit
for their own purposes.

The 800 lb gorilla in all this might be china. They have the
capability to squash all LSA manuafacturing in one fail swoop with
their cheap labor and manufacturing capabilities. If they could get
the price low enough, they could swallow the trainer market whole.
This market is ripe for the taking. You price a good LSA about
$40-$45K and you'd sell one to nearly every flight school on the
planet.

I am expecting the LSA to depreciate over the next few years, so I
wont touch them. Sportpilot will never materialize until the price
point goes under well under 50K.



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Dan wrote:

I think the future for many of us must center on kits and plans, many
magazines have sprung up touting back to grassroots philosophies, only to
change course as they chase advertising revenue.


What magazines are those?

--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

About 20 years ago, Frank Christiansen proposed to build and sell the
Husky for $50,000. The final product came out of the factory at $65,000
(I am working from memory on this price, it may be low).
Why the big price jump?
Frank though that he could certify the aircraft quickly for x-something
dollars because of its similarity to the Super Cub. The FAA, however,
took a totally different approach, and made him certify the Husky as as
a new aircraft design.
This added significantly to the certification costs which were then
added to the original projected costs to come up with the final selling
price.
One of the aviation rags (FLYING?) had an interview with Frank which has
the whole story.

Maybe one of the things the FAA needs to take a look at is the cost they add
into "making" a new airplane. If the idea was to make sport pilot a more
affordable way to fly, and the certification process keeps it out of reach
...then it isn't doing anything. The common man still will have a hard time
affording it.
I will never agree to how much some of these planes cost. I think it has
more to do with greed. I'm not saying the red tape of it all does not add
up,...but I don't know exactly the cost of all the red tape. I do know the
costs of materials and the cost of labor. Union shops definitely have costs
problems ( this seems to hold true in auto and aviation). Unions have a hard
time understanding that when their product cost so much people do not buy it
then they do not have a job.
A company usually gets alot better deal buying materials than just you
or I would, because a company is buying in bulk. So I see reasons things
would cost alittle more, and I see things that make it cost less. As for the
FAA red tape..what really is the cost? What does that money go for?
I see alot more planes selling for 20,000 than for 100,000 in the sport
category. All that can afford to buy the high priced (and over priced) LS
planes will be retired docs and lawyers who can't get a medical anymore. How
much of a percent is that of pilots? How much of a percent is it of the
general population that may would be interested in sport pilot? Very small I
would think, and I don't see how they will make money on such slow and
sporadic sales.
Seems to me there are alot of factors , but we most definitely can't
rule out the biggest one....GREED.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" wrote in message
...
About 20 years ago, Frank Christiansen proposed to build and sell the
Husky for $50,000. The final product came out of the factory at $65,000
(I am working from memory on this price, it may be low).
Why the big price jump?
Frank though that he could certify the aircraft quickly for x-something
dollars because of its similarity to the Super Cub. The FAA, however,
took a totally different approach, and made him certify the Husky as as
a new aircraft design.
This added significantly to the certification costs which were then
added to the original projected costs to come up with the final selling
price.
One of the aviation rags (FLYING?) had an interview with Frank which has
the whole story.