High Cost of Sportplanes

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:22:23 -0500, Kevin O'Brien
kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name wrote:

On 2005-11-14 12:45:14 -0500, Evan Carew said:

Interesting posts. I wonder if you would agree with me that the
kit/small GA builders have wrung most of the fat out of the building
process

I'm not sure that's the case, because we're in the midst of several
real industrial revolutions -- materials, automation, organizational.
These add up to the possibility that we will see, someday soon,
airplanes assembled on a line-production rather than a bespoke basis.

If you've ever tried to fit a factory airframe part (that cost an arm
and a leg) to a Beech, you know what I mean.

Those parts are custom fit no less:-)) If you replace the cowl, you
have to hunt for one at least as long as the one you want to replace.
I think the tolerance in length is over half an inch.


and that any further gains are in incremental productivity / materials
handling procedures? If so, I wonder what you think could be realized
in savings over the current processes?

I know that everyone who's seen the Eclipse plant (including Dale
Klapmeier) has been agog.

The problem in the kit field is manifold:

1. Barriers to entry are almost nil. You can rivet up some tubes or cut
some foam, blow a couple grand on a booth at Oshkosh and you are a kit
manufactuer. And God help your customers. In fact, you can skip the
tubes or foam and just show up at OSH with a computer rendering or a
shiny model.

Even if you have a degree from a top AeroE program, certified aircraft
makers are not going to be interested in your design ideas. If you
start off in the kit market, no matter how flaky your idea, somebody
will try to buy it from you, if you can support yourself long enough.

2. For many, the kit airplane dream is built on a myth of vastly
lowered cost. Only if you ignore used aircraft, and value your labour
at a factor of zero.

If you stick with a very basic design with a real build time of around
500 hours (there aren't many) you really can save. Build a G-III,
Lancair, or any one of the other high performance birds and you could
easily purchase a really nice F-33 Bo for what you'll have in it, not
counting labor.

Purchase a fast build G-III kit, at roughly 80K, New K1A5 300 HP
IO-540 for another 40 to 50K, (50K might include the prop on special)
and at least another 30K for avionics although you could go with the
Full house Garmin set up with MFDs up to 75K for all the avionics
which brings the total to ... a bit over $200,000 plus labor and there
is a *lot* of that in a G-III. Go with a Lancair IV-P and you can
easily drop a quarter million into it.

Sure you can cut corners, go with an old engine and prop, simple used
avionics, don't go with the fast build options, or find a kit setting
in some ones garage but you can add at least a 1000 hours to the build
time. OTOH the G-III is one of the most labor intensive kits out
there.

But these are planes pilots built to go places or for serious playing.
Like the hybrid cars. They are not economy projects, nor are they
cheap to operate.

We have two Sonex, (one that looks much like a Sonex with a bubble
canopy..for which I've forgotten the name), kit foxes, Jabaru, Long
EZ, and some others that did not require a fortune, and are VFR only.
The build times vary widely but most with the exception of the LongEZ
had relatively short build times. They have various missions, but all
are relatively economical to own and operate.


3. Some companies try to drive the labor cost down towards zero by
doing work offshore. Van's does this, and Bearhawk frames are welded-up
in Mexico (which combines Third World wages with easy transportation to
US and Canadian first-world destinations). Do that, and you wind up
hoping that Mexico stays corrupt so that desperate Mexicans will work
for pennies on the dollar... there is no material reason prosperity
should stop hard at the Rio Grande, but it does; it's Mexican
government and elite policies that cause that. That's an unstable
situation that may last 50 or 100 years but won't last forever.

But the irreducible problem with lowering labor costs on the kit side
is that by law, you only get half of the benefit, because the ultimate
registrant must (under the law, must) do 51% of the work.

I keep hearing that, but I've never found it. It's not the ultimate
registrant either unless he, or she is after the repairman's
certificate. The project is supposed to be educational and a learning
experience and they figure if you build one aileron you know how to do
the other one. If you figure the actual labor there are a number of
kits that the FAA considers acceptable where you do not do 51% of the
work, particularly with the builder assist programs.


4. Many people in the kit field want to build, but my impression is
that more want to fly. Hence the popularity of "builder-assist"
programs, which are now getting a hairy eyeball from the FAA after
about a decade of abuses. One vendor rubbed the FAA's nose in his
disdain for the law, which is never really smart, and now a bunch of
people who were minding their own business and making for safe aircraft
and happy customers are at risk.

5. Many of the designers out there have a design bug or three that they
have to get out of the system, so they don't mind working for nothing
but job satisfaction. You can even build a small team of like-minded
volunteers. But you reach the point where this structure does not
scale... you run out of True Believers sooner rather than later.

To return to your question -- I do not think productivity in this
industry is anywhere near where it could be, but the economics haven't
been compelling enough to make anyone chase higher productivity, with
the couple of exceptions noted.

There is a lot of room to speed things up with advanced composites but
although that may speed things up and reduce labor it may not make
things less expensive. More use of Pre-preg is one place, fast curing
on assembly lines. "spinning" fuselages and other parts.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Sometimes people have mistaken getting wrapped around the axle of CAD,
for increasing productivity. Two projects that were going to
revolutionize the sport via CAD were the Prescott Pusher, and the
DreamWings Valkyrie. Worth a search through the back threads of this
group. I presume the CAD files of those two ghastly projects are still
sitting in somebody's closet... for the sake of pilots yet unborn I
pray that the guy's mother throws them out next time she cleans.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.