High Cost of Sportplanes

cut parts from...but that is not a sport plane A metal sport plane can
be built very very well with basic sheet metal tools. The high dollar
stuff would be a waste of money unless you needed production speed of an
automobile assembly line.
I've never built a plastic injection mold, but I've built airplanes


That's exactly the point, we're talking about production speeds. The
equipment you're talking about will not churn out a finished plane every 2
minutes at an affordable price.

I'm talking about CNC machines in cells with robots, and stamping machines,
and injection molds.

Considering most production aircraft workers make from 10 to 15 bucks an
hour I don't see how you come up with 45 an hour.

Most auto workers in the US make closer to $25.00 per hour. By the time you
pay vacation, insurance, taxes and other unseen expenses, $45.00 per hour is
pretty reasonable.

Evan Carew wrote:

Indeed you can't afford to pay your workers what you bill for, but when
the accountant / tax man / insurance man are done singing, the worker
costs the company approximately $45/hr. Oh, yeah, don't forget the down
time as well.

And hopefully there's at least a little bit left over for profit for
the folks who took the risks and did all the hard work to get the
company started.

The main reason I doubt that it's realistically possible to produce GA
or LSA planes a LOT cheaper is simply that "no one is doing it". If
there was a way to crank out quality GA aircraft at a very reasonable
price, someone would be doing it and reaping the rewards (of cornering
the market).

Mark "free market would find a way" Hickey

"W P Dixon" wrote in message

you are correct they do in deed figure in their facility maint. etc into
what they charge for your time. But that is not a cost of you..it is a
cost
of a place to have their airplanes. They could care aless if you stand
outside all day in a blizzard...they probably don't like for some of their
planes doing it all the time though And again...production is not
maintinance. The buildings are there to house tooling, warehouse parts and
such....not for the workers benefit.

Most business figure on billing out at least double on what the average
hourly wage is, for their workforce. There has to be supervisors, quality
control personnel, so that right away, drives up the average.

In construction, I didn't have to worry much about overhead, since most of
the work is done outside. Still, there is workers comp, health insurance,
(a big, big expense) social security contributions, vacation pay, and of
course there will always be some down time, while you are paying, but for
some reason, productivity is not "happening", plus profit on the worker's
wages. Business always figures making money on each employee, and the more
employees, the more profit.

You don't have to agree with how this all sorts out, but it is fact.
Whether it is 35 dollars, or 45 dollars per hour, is not a big deal, since
this is all ballpark figuring, anyway.

So, anyway, you have to figure more than the 10 or 15 bucks you are paying
Joe. It is the laws of business.

It all adds up in a big hurry.
--
Jim in NC

"Lou" wrote

Would you really want as many planes flying as cars are driving? Do you
really want the plane to be so affordable that anyone can get one and
not care about it like a cheap car?
Personaly, I'd like to keep the price up there so the people who own a
plane keeps it up to higher standards.

Bad idea, as far as linking who flies, to who can afford it. That would
mean, that all of the people who have money, are the ones qualified to fly.
So you think that everyone with money is smart, or has common sense? Not
me!

Better off keeping the standards up with high testing qualification, and
strict oversight on those who have accidents/ incidents.

So, there is no reason, still, not to get the cost of LSA down. Now if
wishing were all that was needed to make it so. Sigh.
--
Jim in NC

That may be what Auto production makes, and probably is why they have so
much trouble making money. As I have said Airplane production does not pay
that well.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"LCT Paintball" wrote in message
news:a4qXe.378855$xm3.306281@attbi_s21...


Considering most production aircraft workers make from 10 to 15 bucks an
hour I don't see how you come up with 45 an hour.

Most auto workers in the US make closer to $25.00 per hour. By the time
you pay vacation, insurance, taxes and other unseen expenses, $45.00 per
hour is pretty reasonable.

"W P Dixon" wrote

Well taxes come out of the employees
checks, but you do have to pay the workers comp stuff on them which can be
a
pain in the rear.

Check on that, and you will found to be wrong. Worker's comp must be paid
for anyone who employs more than 3.
--
Jim in NC

"Richard Riley" wrote


I think that with a big enough price drop we could increase the size
of the market. But I'm not at all confidant that we could increase it
greatly. I'd be surprised if we could double it.

I'll bet that we could come close to double it, from just new entries, maybe
more.

How about all the old planes, whose maker's never pictured them plodding on
for 50 years and more, instead of the decade or two that they were designed
for? How many would trade theirs in, to get something new, efficient, not
requiring lots of expensive repair and maintenance?

I'll bet that half of the existing (smaller sized) single engine fleet would
move on to the 2005 model bugsmasher.
--
Jim in NC

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Maybe all that has to do with why our jobs go overseas for production of
parts, etc. Our Unions have a very bad habit of saying gimme gimme gimme
until the company has no profit margain to stay in biz and nothing left to
give but pink slips. Funny how sometimes we can cut our own throats like
that.

I did a research paper on union costs about four years back, there was a
small bit about foriegn shops also. I had to change a lot of my initial
ideas when the data did not support the idea that unions cost more. In the
end with three fellows assisting me we could not prove any significant
difference. Other factors, most notably management decisions, market
changes, technology changes all had far more discernable effects than union
vs non-union labour costs. We ignored the offshore labour market as much as
possible because the whole game is different.

Evan Carew wrote:

An emotional subject for me, so I'm not sure I can provide useful
analysis, but it seems to me that if the companies making these parts
spent as much on reengineering their parts to be cheaper to make as they
did on shipping their operations off shore, we'd have a much more robust
manufacturing base here in the states.

When I was a young engineer, around 1970, I worked in the machine tool
industry. It was an exciting time with many new technologies. The physical
plant was getting ready for replacement, since most of it dated back to the
wartime expansion in the forties. The oil embargo and related problems put
paid to that. Rather than investing in capital equipment, management took
the decision to seek cheaper labor. Rather than designing new equipment,
the firm I was with lasted a few more years rebuilding the forties machines
before they were shipped overseas. I was fortunate; control circuits are
control circuits and the logic of relays and transistors transferred well
to the microprocessors that were coming in; many were not as flexible or
were not in a position to start on a new career path.

You can now drive through the Connecticut river valley, once the home of
many of the US machine tool producers and find poverty and boarded up
factories. It's also a sensitive subject for me.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----