Model T of Aviation

[AlphaMike]

Has anyone priced a 2,000 ton stamping press lately? How many airplanes would you have to sell to recover the cost of just one press?

It’s about 150M for a decent 5 press tandem line with automation. That will get you a 2,000 ton draw press with cushion, a 1,500 and 3 1,000 ton line-die presses. That’s a ballpark figure and doesn’t include dies, you can definitely spend way more. But, with that setup you could easily stamp everything needed for 200,000 planes a year. Or, you can even sell (rent) some of the press capacity. No way you would need all of that press load for just airplane parts. Most modern tandem lines can run at 15 strokes per minute. Die sets are around 5 minutes from hit to hit if staged correctly. One other thing. You could also buy an old (1940s) vintage tandem line. It wouldn’t be as fast and definitely would not be automated but plenty of those old presses are still running and can be had for little more than there scrap metal value.

I don’t see there ever being a need for that kind of production. It would still not get the prices down enough to get to the “average “ person.

Now what about a lease program?? Now, that makes me think! Lease a new 172 for 4 years for a monthly payment. Then Cessna gets it back and sell it as a used plane after depreciation. That might work? Depression seems pretty low on 172s, same with other piston singles. Lease prices shouldn’t need to be all that bad?

 

[Tom-D]

It’s about 150M for a decent 5 press tandem line with automation. That will get you a 2,000 ton draw press with cushion, a 1,500 and 3 1,000 ton line-die presses. That’s a ballpark figure and doesn’t include dies, you can definitely spend way more. But, with that setup you could easily stamp everything needed for 200,000 planes a year. Or, you can even sell (rent) some of the press capacity. No way you would need all of that press load for just airplane parts. Most modern tandem lines can run at 15 strokes per minute. Die sets are around 5 minutes from hit to hit if staged correctly. One other thing. You could also buy an old (1940s) vintage tandem line. It wouldn’t be as fast and definitely would not be automated but plenty of those old presses are still running and can be had for little more than there scrap metal value.

I don’t see there ever being a need for that kind of production. It would still not get the prices down enough to get to the “average “ person.

Now what about a lease program?? Now, that makes me think! Lease a new 172 for 4 years for a monthly payment. Then Cessna gets it back and sell it as a used plane after depreciation. That might work? Depression seems pretty low on 172s, same with other piston singles. Lease prices shouldn’t need to be all that bad?

Stamping machines are usually contracted to build a certain number of parts. They aren't owned by manufactures building the final product.
The major cost is developing the die.

 

[AlphaMike]

Stamping machines are usually contracted to build a certain number of parts. They aren't owned by manufactures building the final product.
The major cost is developing the die.

Who told you that? Just curious?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Who told you that? Just curious?

I would say it depends. I’ve been to one small ga manufacturing plant and they had their own stamping press. It was used to build the arc but it was right there ... slowly stamping out parts.

 

[Bell206]

They’ve built and sold approximately 10,000 piston helicopters in the post-crash period of GA. And they’ll sell a brand new helicopter for way less than Cessna will sell you a new 172. They’ve definitely got some good ideas on how to make and sell low end GA aircraft.

No comparison. The rotorcraft market is night and day different than the private GA fixed wing market. For one, Robbie, Bell, Airbus H, etc. never stopped/reduced producing aircraft after 1985 like Cessna, Piper, etc. regardless of increased product liability. And in some models line actually increased production. And two, Robbie has a product with no equal save maybe the Cabri G2 but Robbie owns that complete market. Big difference. If Cessna had half the same type market Robbie had/has they would not have stopped producing 172s after 1985 either.

 

[Bell206]

The RV-7/7A and the Cessna 172 aren't directly comparable.

This sums up the entire discussion as there is no comparison outside maybe the performance side. Perhaps compare the 172 to a DA40 or some other similarly produced aircraft and you’ll find the same price point at around the same, $300k. It’s all about the paper trail and accountability of that paper trail which starts and ends with the producer/manufacturer which for the RV is the individual builder vs Textron/Cessna for the 172.

And the one thing not discussed at length is the difference in the cost of that paper trail/accountability/liability between the RV-7 and 172. But before you blame the FAA a majority of that required cost for a 172, i.e., TC’d aircraft, actually starts on the international level via ICAO and various bilateral agreements and treaties. So even the example of outsourcing the 172 to Vietnam to lower production costs would probably end up costing more to import those new aircraft than producing them in the US or other similar country.

The ironic thing is they rewrote Part 23 and replaced a lot of the regulatory certification requirements with consensus standards to stimulate the production of small GA aircraft. Yet few smaller producers, like Vans, have attempted to partake in those more flexible requirements and give you, the market, a new TC’d aircraft. So if you were to compare overall production costs I’d bet if Vans was required to have the same level of production oversight/liability costs as Cessna that RV-7 would probably be closer to a new 172 in price to produce an aircraft that meets those same international production standards, as well as those same product liability costs.

 

[Brad Smith]

I worked for Robinson Helicopter in 1985-86 and understand why light aircraft cost so much. They are basically custom built. It’s not like assembling a car on a production line where everything is engineered to fit and keep the line moving. Once the copter is assembled they are rigged they are flight tested and rigged again and flight tested again until all the issues were worked out. When it was all done it was a thing of beauty that sold for $100,000 (1985). I felt like Johnny Cash watching all those shiny new Cadillacs roll off the assembly line and yearning for my own R-22.
I always respected Frank Robinson who designed and built the prototype in his garage and flew it from
his home helipad until the neighbors complained. He was truly a genius that brought to market an affordable 2-place helicopter when no one else could. Current R-22 price is about 3X higher than it was in 1985.

 

[Tom-D]

Who told you that? Just curious?

The tour at the FORD factory. Dearborn Mi.

 

[bnt83]

$1.3 billion to re-tool an existing plant.
https://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/01/ford-super-duty-factory-investment/

New model years can be a giant waste of money and natural resources.

 

[AlphaMike]

The tour at the FORD factory. Dearborn Mi.

.
Lol! They don’t take you to the stamping plant on the rouge toor. Trust me. We have the highest output stamping facility in the world at DSP. That’s. Dearborn Stamping Plant.

 

[GRG55]

They’ve built and sold approximately 10,000 piston helicopters in the post-crash period of GA.

So what? Cessna has produced more than 44,000 172s alone. For both companies that was yesterday. The current result, in both cases, is used and overhauled product is competing with and depressing new production. The downward trending unit production statistics for both Cessna and Robinson are reflecting that.

And they’ll sell a brand new helicopter for way less than Cessna will sell you a new 172...

The R22 in terms of passengers and its useful load of 490 lbs is comparable to my Aviat Husky. The base price for a new R22 today is $312,000, and that doesn't include a cabin heater (among other things). The current base price of the Husky is $331,000 (with a heater )

The R44 passenger and useful load is a closer comparison to a 172. It has a current base price of $412,000. Hardly "way less than Cessna will sell you a new 172".

They’ve definitely got some good ideas on how to make and sell low end GA aircraft.

But the same problem persists that draws every mfg out of the low end; would you rather build 500 150k planes a year or 75 1m planes a year?

No doubt. Robinson builds a great product. But so does Cessna. That's why the 172 is still in production. Unfortunately, both are unable to overcome the inexorable consequences of relentless market trends.

It has nothing to do with what "would you rather build", and everything to do with "what will customers buy"...that allows the enterprise to make a sufficient profit to stay in business. That's the world of light GA aircraft today. If Robinson had built 500 "low end GA" R22 helicopters last year, what they would have to show for it is a parking lot full of unsold inventory.

 

[Tom-D]

.
Lol! They don’t take you to the stamping plant on the rouge toor. Trust me. We have the highest output stamping facility in the world at DSP. That’s. Dearborn Stamping Plant.

WoW! see if I believe the tour guides again.

 

[AlphaMike]

WoW! see if I believe the tour guides again.

Once all this covid stuff is over. If you are in the area and want a real tour, message me. I would be glad to show you around.

 

[Tom-D]

Once all this covid stuff is over. If you are in the area and want a real tour, message me. I would be glad to show you around.

I live in Wa. I travel. I do not expect to see Mi ever again.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Stamping machines are usually contracted to build a certain number of parts. They aren't owned by manufactures building the final product.
The major cost is developing the die.

The last sentence is correct, once you have the rest of the machine. Is it possible you meant the die can only be used to make a certain number of parts? They do wear down. We have them at Teledyne, and they need to be replaced or re-finished periodically.

The sentence below matches my experience. Some places outsource the stamping, but own the dies, or for different processes, the molds. Wheaton Science had a company that normally made cooking products make make our pressed glass products, but we owned the molds. The process and the glass used was the same, the product just looked different.

I would say it depends. I’ve been to one small ga manufacturing plant and they had their own stamping press. It was used to build the arc but it was right there ... slowly stamping out parts.

 

[Firepac]

Is it possible that a low cost GA aircraft, not some light sport or some other light but big like a Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 could be produced. It needs to be produced in large numbers to get the cost down to be affordable by most people. China has invested large amount of money in GA do they have a plan. Chinese companies have steadily increased investment in U.S. aviation by acquiring, merging, or establishing joint ventures with more than a dozen U.S. aviation companies. Including 12 mergers and acquisitions, three joint ventures, and nine other agreements.

Is GA even a thing in China?

 

[hindsight2020]

Is GA even a thing in China?

In short, No. The CCP will never allow the Chinese people that level of discretion and agency writ large.

 

[Firepac]

In short, No. The CCP will never allow the Chinese people that level of discretion and agency writ large.

That article you linked says that China is trying to grow their GA market.

 

[hindsight2020]

That article you linked says that China is trying to grow their GA market.

My ex-wife also told me she loved me....

 

[WWFeldman]

.
Lol! They don’t take you to the stamping plant on the rouge toor. Trust me. We have the highest output stamping facility in the world at DSP. That’s. Dearborn Stamping Plant.

Another stamping guy huh? I worked stamping maintenance for years at Toyota in Georgetown Ky. Now I work on the engineering side installing new equipment in all our stamping shops in North America. Sitting in San Antonio right now doing two sheet feeder replacements.

 

[MarkH]

In short, No. The CCP will never allow the Chinese people that level of discretion and agency writ large.

In the 90s it was said that the CCP would never allow capitalist markets or foreign investments in China. Now, odds are you have at least one thing on your desk that goes against that.

I don't think the CCP wants a GA market. They want flight training. Pre-COVID Chinese demand for flight training was so intense that there were multiple US schools that mostly worked with Chinese students. Demand for pilots is growing so rapidly that China cannot get enough students into flight schools outside of China, so they are trying to build flight schools inside China. An there is a huge economic argument for it. The Chinese government owns a stake in all Chinese Airlines, and (pre-COVID) Chinese Airlines were forced to hire non-Chinese contract pilots for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Hiring Chinese pilots is cheaper, more tax advantageous, and a point of pride for the country.

Regardless of your opinion of the CCP, with the growing air travel market in Asia (and the volume of that going through China), I think China is right to be investing in that right now. Because another thing to keep in mind about China is the residual life of the tooling. Yes, the Cessna 162 went bust, but not after hundreds of Chinese manufacturing workers learned how to operate, maintain and QA an aircraft production facility. If you don't think China is using that knowledge to grow their domestic aviation market, then you are missing the long game completely.

 

[MarkH]

Is it possible that a low cost GA aircraft, not some light sport or some other light but big like a Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 could be produced. It needs to be produced in large numbers to get the cost down to be affordable by most people. China has invested large amount of money in GA do they have a plan. Chinese companies have steadily increased investment in U.S. aviation by acquiring, merging, or establishing joint ventures with more than a dozen U.S. aviation companies. Including 12 mergers and acquisitions, three joint ventures, and nine other agreements.

I think the premise of this question is flawed. The "not some light sport" part specifically. Light sport rules were established to encourage the production of an aircraft like you describe. If the light sport rules are extended to 4 seat planes we will likely see exactly what you are describing.

And if you look at the data, the light sport rules are coming real close to pricing planes at levels from the 60s. For example the first Cessna 150 cost 7940 new, for the Trainer variant, adjusted for inflation that is $71,495 in 2020. You can buy a new SLSA for a price pretty close to that (I think the Bushcat is under $75K fully assembled).

But the problem with this on an economic scale is not the price, it's that real wages have not really risen since the 1970s. So the average working adult has less time and less money to learn something new.

 

[Lowflynjack]

From https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraft/cessna-172-still-relevant/ January 2020:

Newer models still aren’t cheap. You may ask, how much is a new Cessna 172 today? The Skyhawk goes out the door with pricing (from 2018) in the range from $369,000 to $438,000, depending on options—like the Garmin G1000 NXi.

I had a conversation with a Cessna dealer a few years ago. He tried to convince me that buying a new 172 was a great investment and its value would increase a lot faster than an older 172. I've ferried brand new 172s and they're nice inside, nice looking panels, but still a 172.

If I eliminate the three listed on Barnstormers that are over $90K and the ones that don't have pricing listed, I could buy all of the planes listed for the price of 2 new 172s. That's 19 planes.

 

[SoonerAviator]

My complaint is all of that tooling/molds for the aircraft like a C172/C182 or PA28-series should have already been built and largely streamlined back in the 70's/80's. They should already be able to take aluminum sheets and roll/stamp them into the same da*n shape they've been using for 60+ years and be able to assemble a C172 frame in a day with just 2 guys. Another day to assemble the wings, a day for the empennage, etc. It shouldn't cost THAT much to assemble an aircraft that hasn't changed in DECADES. For a small operation, it would be prohibitively capital-intensive to buy several million in tooling to make such a low volume product, but buying the molds and outsourcing the press labor shouldn't be insurmountable (although tooling molds are VERY expensive, especially if revisions are made and existing molds can't be reused).

The problem with the current GA market, as I see it, is that it WOULD take a Model T aircraft to really shake it up. You'd have to be able to build a C182 / Commander 114 / PA24, etc. for $150K or less to get people to see the value. The number of people who could afford a C172 back in 1970 was a lot greater than those who could afford to buy one today. It was still expensive in 1970 and not affordable for everyone, but the economies of scale worked so that a moderate income could afford a C172 or similar. So you have a large gap in the consumer demand profile, where the manufacturers have painted themselves into a corner (for a number of reasons including regulatory failures) and it's not profitable to try and sell aircraft on low margin/high volume. It's easier to target the Cirrus-lifestyle millionaire that already owns a $200K Porsche and convince him to spend another $500-700K than it is to try and coax the guy who drives a $40K Ford Explorer to spend $350K. Guys like me don't buy $350K C172s, there's just no value in it.

As for no demand because of millennials, etc. I call BS. That's just old people thinking their generation is "better" because they idolized different things. There are plenty of younger people who are interested in flying, even recreationally. The problem (again) is cost and the availability of other suitable hobbies that have far lower time/financial barriers to entry. Want to go boating? At most it's a couple of hours of boater education and quick test, on the low-side it just requires the ability to buy a boat. There are boats for every tax bracket, from the $10K Bass Pro john boats to $100K tournament wakeboard boats, to $500K cruisers. The aviation market doesn't have that spread. It's a certified C172 for $350K+ as a starting point (we'll ignore home-builts because most people don't have that skill set). The meat & potatoes for single-engine piston GA on a pure economic basis is an option that sells for $150K or less, there currently isn't any option available but that's where the "Model T" would likely have to compete in order to gain any traction.

 

[kyleb]

My complaint is all of that tooling/molds for the aircraft like a C172/C182 or PA28-series should have already been built and largely streamlined back in the 70's/80's. They should already be able to take aluminum sheets and roll/stamp them into the same da*n shape they've been using for 60+ years and be able to assemble a C172 frame in a day with just 2 guys.

...Break..

The number of people who could afford a C172 back in 1970 was a lot greater than those who could afford to buy one today.

I picked two points to disagree with:

1) The parts aren't the problem. Cutting and stamping a part is kind of trivial. But fitting thigs, drilling holes, clecoing the whole thing together, and riveting it takes a ridiculous amount of time and there are 10-20k rivets in that 172. It is a huge task and very little of it is automated. In aviation (other than the really high end stuff at Boeing, Airbus, or Lockheed) we're still doing things like it is 1942 and labor is plentiful and cheap. Everything is hand assembled and fitted. That's expensive. You'd have to redesign the whole aircraft to fix that particular problem.

2) I'm not sure about affordability. In 1970, middle class people were happy in a 2,000 SF brick ranch. Today's middle class lives in what would have been mansions 50 years ago and has $60K SUVs and $50K pickups sitting in the garage, plus 11 TV's connected to cable, 4 cell phones, 3 computers, and a boat in the basement. The money is there, people are just spending it on things that are different lifestyle choices and/or which come with instant gratification and more convenience. This is compounded by the fact that our society is becoming "watchers" not "doers". Better to watch an airplane video than to go to the airport. More convenient, you know.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

assemble a C172 frame in a day with just 2 guys

Count the rivets.
A 172 is not designed for rapid assembly.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I picked two points to disagree with:

1) The parts aren't the problem. Cutting and stamping a part is kind of trivial. But fitting thigs, drilling holes, clecoing the whole thing together, and riveting it takes a ridiculous amount of time and there are 10-20k rivets in that 172. It is a huge task and very little of it is automated. In aviation (other than the really high end stuff at Boeing, Airbus, or Lockheed) we're still doing things like it is 1942 and labor is plentiful and cheap. Everything is hand assembled and fitted. That's expensive. You'd have to redesign the whole aircraft to fix that particular problem.

2) I'm not sure about affordability. In 1970, middle class people were happy in a 2,000 SF brick ranch. Today's middle class lives in what would have been mansions 50 years ago and has $60K SUVs and $50K pickups sitting in the garage, plus 11 TV's connected to cable, 4 cell phones, 3 computers, and a boat in the basement. The money is there, people are just spending it on things that are different lifestyle choices and/or which come with instant gratification and more convenience. This is compounded by the fact that our society is becoming "watchers" not "doers". Better to watch an airplane video than to go to the airport. More convenient, you know.

1) Right, but in the modern age of industry, the holes should be able to be drilled via automation for both time savings and consistent output. Cessna didn't adapt the C1X2 lines as technology increased (I have seen their operation in Independence, KS). I'm not saying they needed to go full-on robotics like a modern auto assembly line, but there are a number of tooling options and lean principles that would make it faster/cheaper to produce. They just didn't invest. I'm sure the same thing could be applied to the riveting process. Either way, having a couple of $12/hr workers doing nothing but riveting panels shouldn't be all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't take an A&P to put in cleco fasteners.

2) As far as mansions and $60K SUVs, I agree, but it's still relative when we talk about what people could "afford". Middle class is middle class, doesn't matter whether it's 1970 or 2020 and whether they are buying HiFi systems or cell phones. The cost of a nice vehicle today is about the same as what the cost of a luxury vehicle was back then, inflation adjusted (a late 1970's Lincoln Continental was $55K+ in today's dollars). Home prices have increased a bit, but again, the inflation-adjusted average home price in 1978 is roughly $240K today, so not too far off the current $300K average price. However, if you take a 1978 C172 (sold for roughly $28K), it should cost $112K in current dollars. Well it currently costs 3Xs what the inflation-adjusted value is.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Count the rivets.
A 172 is not designed for rapid assembly.

How many rivets are in the frame? It's mostly tubing and welds. I'm using the C172 as an example, but I don't intend for the comparison to limited JUST to what is needed on a C172. If it's rag/tube, wood spar, whatever, there are things that can be done economically from a manufacturing standpoint that don't need a high $$ employee securing ribs and sheet metal.

 

[kyleb]

How many rivets are in the frame? It's mostly tubing and welds.

It is mostly semi-monocoque. Aluminum stringers, spars, and ribs under a skin of aluminum. Other than the motor mount and landing gear, there is relatively little steel.

We're talking 10K rivets or more in a C-172. By the time you drill the hole, pull the assembly apart to deburr the hole, cleco it back together and rivet it, there's a LOT of labor involved.

 

[Bell206]

It shouldn't cost THAT much to assemble an aircraft that hasn't changed in DECADES.

It has nothing to do with tooling, molds, etc but rather the construction type of the 172. It falls under monocoque construction which is not conducive to volume production. But the factory jigs for the 172 to start the process have been around for decades. And while most of the major structural components may have several pilot holes drilled for initial alignment puposes, every rivet hole must be drilled by hand to ensure the correct assembly, i.e., hand crafted. Composite aircraft can be assembled more to your examples as they are more a "unibody" type construction.

As for no demand because of millennials, etc. I call BS.

Well, from my experience, there is a solid reduction in younger people entering the field, from the maintenance school enrollments to the number of PP enrollments along the GOM. Sure some schools are full, but the number of schools that were out there in the 90s have been cut in half. And not only in aviation is it evident of a shift. For example, hunting and fishing numbers are way down as less young people pursue those hobbies., and instead Geocache or what ever. So it depends a lot on your viewpoint because the numbers in private GA simply aren't there as in the past.

 

[Bell206]

How many rivets are in the frame? It's mostly tubing and welds.

1000s of rivets of many different types, but no tubing/welding is used for the airframe construction. Aircraft like a Piper Cub or Stearman used tubing/welding but each one of those started with jig and a bin of blank 4130 tubing also.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

every rivet hole must be drilled by hand to ensure the correct assembly

Don’t tell this to Zenith or Vans (and many other much smaller companies) as they already have final size match drilled parts for their semi monocoque airplanes.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

1000s of rivets of many different types, but no tubing/welding is used for the airframe construction. Aircraft like a Piper Cub or Stearman used tubing/welding but each one of those started with jig and a bin of blank 4130 tubing also.

And now all the tubing can be perfectly cut and coped by CNC machines and welded using a single Kuka-style robot. Two robots, a jig, and a CNC tubing cutter could cut, assemble in a jog, and weld frames with no person touching the tubing.

These robots are so widely used that some small European wood shops with less than 10 employees use them. If a company that small has robots, Cessna could have 100s easily.

 

[kyleb]

Don’t tell this to Zenith or Vans (and many other much smaller companies) as they already have final size match drilled parts for their semi monocoque airplanes.

Even if they are prepunched, they still have to be deburred. Deburring a hole that will be used to join a rib and skin means you've got to deburr 2 sides of both pieces.

So you have to fit the assembly, possibly drill it, disassemble it, deburr it, prime it (maybe), fit it back together, and then rivet it. Lots of steps for one tiny little fastener. This is where robots and things like friction stir welding come in and save the day, but that hasn't exactly paid off yet either.

Another option is to do what Republic did with the Seabee and use corrugated stampings for the skins, which eliminates a lot of the internal structure. Adds weight and wetted volume (drag), though.

 

[SoonerAviator]

It has nothing to do with tooling, molds, etc but rather the construction type of the 172. It falls under monocoque construction which is not conducive to volume production. But the factory jigs for the 172 to start the process have been around for decades. And while most of the major structural components may have several pilot holes drilled for initial alignment puposes, every rivet hole must be drilled by hand to ensure the correct assembly, i.e., hand crafted. Composite aircraft can be assembled more to your examples as they are more a "unibody" type construction.

Well, from my experience, there is a solid reduction in younger people entering the field, from the maintenance school enrollments to the number of PP enrollments along the GOM. Sure some schools are full, but the number of schools that were out there in the 90s have been cut in half. And not only in aviation is it evident of a shift. For example, hunting and fishing numbers are way down as less young people pursue those hobbies., and instead Geocache or what ever. So it depends a lot on your viewpoint because the numbers in private GA simply aren't there as in the past.

I get that, but it again falls back to Cessna not innovating and adapting their lineup. They should be able to have an AutoCad layout that pre-drills/punches anything needed, then it gets fastened into place. Having to custom-build every one of them is ridiculous. I get that there will be some items that don't make sense to automate or have to be hand-drilled, but it shouldn't be the majority of the work involved, and it should've been figured out over the course of 70+ years of production in Cessna's case. That's where the whole "model T" came into play, so that it took some of the custom-build nature out of the equation making for easier assembly line work. For modern-built composite aircraft, it's obviously a completely different process for layups and such, but again I wouldn't expect them to hand-lay every inch of fabric with resin and a squeegee, lol. Using techniques like vacuum-forming, resin infusion and such offer increased manufacturing consistency and quality control.

 

[Doc Holliday]

For those who think there is the vast untapped market for GA airplanes, I suggest you go buy a type certificate, let's say for a 4 place fixed gear (one of the TC holders would be glad to sell it to you) and go raise the capital and get with it.

We'll all anxiously await that brand new 4 place airplane that can be bought for the same as the toyota corolla.

 

[kyleb]

I get that, but it again falls back to Cessna not innovating and adapting their lineup.

Point to a riveted construction "house" that has found a way to truly make a difference in the labor required to build an airplane. Honestly, I think the technology (aluminum semi-monocoque) drives you to an assembly method which is labor intensive. Now, Grumman with its glued construction might have had something, but that didn't work out either. I never understood why, but the advantage must not have been big enough to make a difference.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Is it possible that a low cost GA aircraft, not some light sport or some other light but big like a Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 could be produced. It needs to be produced in large numbers to get the cost down to be affordable by most people. China has invested large amount of money in GA do they have a plan. Chinese companies have steadily increased investment in U.S. aviation by acquiring, merging, or establishing joint ventures with more than a dozen U.S. aviation companies. Including 12 mergers and acquisitions, three joint ventures, and nine other agreements.

no.

Hence the birth of the Sport Plane market...

Has anyone priced a 2,000 ton stamping press lately? How many airplanes would you have to sell to recover the cost of just one press?

Why buy it? Building the tooling and let someone else do the stamping would be a lot cheaper... I am sure there are some folks in Detroit hungry for some work.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Hence the birth of the Sport Plane market...
.

And how has that worked out?

 

[Ventucky Red]

And how has that worked out?

My point exactly...