Paul B. on engines

[asicer]

If Piper can build a PA-28 for $285k, why should Cessna's 182 be over TWICE that cost?

Because low/high wing?

How much is Tecnam asking for a P2010 (an 11 year old design)?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Sorry, sir, really not trying to come off argumentative here but the data you are putting in front of me proves my point instead of yours. Your boat example of 9-10k per year and my example is 26k per year, even if you take out my 4k of upgrades, you still get well over twice the expense. And that's absolute best case scenario numbers here. But you just cant use best case numbers, its a disservice to prospective owners.



You wont have those problems on your boat, because your boat is new, or 10 years old, or whatever. It isn't 50 years old. The average GA airplane owner must do these upgrades and serious repairs just to keep the thing safe and capable of operating the airspace system. And over 5 years or so, your chances of having a 20k day are rather high.

On the topic of the Honeywell chart... I'm being kind here... it is laughable. Show me a 30k airplane that doesn't need 10k of work the day you buy it. And the next year, and the next...

Your aircraft isn't a 172, it's a 182. Two additional cylinders, another 5+gph fuel burn, etc. Apples-and-oranges. It's not a disservice to say that operating/fixed expenses of a C172 and a mid-size boat are within the realm of comparable. The Honeywell article as well as info from AOPA and others make similar claims of sub-$15K/yr all-in planning costs for a mid-70's C172. Your $26K C182 with leaking fuel bladders doesn't make the industry data on a C172 invalid. My boat happens to be a 1976 model, but that's not what we're talking about here. My costs are not comparable to this because I have free storage, do all of my own maintenance, and have access to free covered dock slips and whatnot. There are thousands of small aircraft owners who never had and never will have a $20K day, unless we're just assuming that the engine TBO came as a surprise. It doesn't mean $20K days don't happen, or that major items get discovered at annual every now and then and need to be dealt with for safety. I can't force you to believe the industry data on a C-172, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[SoonerAviator]

If we are comparing the bulk of boat owners, they simply aren’t dry docking or slipping their boats. I guess geographically that can differ but in NC there will be 10 times or more the number of boats trailered to the lake each day than are even docked at the marina. I’m leaving out people who own lake houses or live in Aviation communities because they are in a class that could likely afford both hobbies. The 25’ range came up because they fall under 100k usually fully equipped or right around there which I feel most two income families can afford. You are talking a brand new boat versus a 30-40 year old airplane. The boat will have a 3 year hull warranty if not lifetime and the engine will be 5-6 years usually. There is no warranty on a 30 year old airplane.

Agreed, however I was citing $50K as a potential (in normal markets) purchase of a C-172 or similar airframe (PA28-140/160, whatever). $50K won't buy you a new 25' anything, so I was assuming something outside warranty period for hull/engine. $50K is likely within 10-yr-old time period for sure, however that doesn't mean the engine/outdrive can't eat itself, or that you hit a submerged log and now have a $10K+ repair bill on your hands (while still paying for slip rental). I think you also underestimate the amount of dry dock/wet slip rental in the marine world. While there are a lot of people towing boats on a given weekend, it gets less and less common with 25'+ boats due to size/weight starting to push into HD truck territory. I'd bet it's more than 10% of boaters that rent slips or dry dock space (especially in coastal areas), probably closer to 30% or higher. None of that means that the costs to maintain a 25' boat will be the same as a C-172 over the long-term, but they are within reason. Even if you average $16K/yr compared to $10K with the boat, is that $500/mo really what makes boating "more appealing/more affordable" as a hobby? I doubt it. The costs at that level are probably immaterial in the grand scheme of the buyers, but the utility perceived is still wildly different in favor of the boat.

 

[Bell206]

Right, and by extrapolation, there's nothing that should cause a new 182 to go for something like 600k. It's just not that much 'more' airplane than this iteration of the PA-28. Textron should be ashamed of themselves.

How so? Even at that price Textron/Cessna still out sells Piper every year. Hard for Textron to be ashamed at that performance. But there's zero comparison between Textron/Cessna and Piper. Never was a comparison, never will be and that goes for any aircraft OEM. Too many variables. Even on the liability side Textron doesn't compare to Piper given Textron's liability exposure dwarfs Piper's exposure by a factor of 10. Textron even has exposure on 90%+ of every PA-28. How many Cessna does Piper hold liability exposure on? So trying to compare new PA-28s to new 182s, outside how each performs in flight or how easy they are to maintain, is moot as each OEM operates on 2 different tiers in the industry.

I

 

[PPC1052]

Show me a 30k airplane that doesn't need 10k of work the day you buy it. And the next year, and the next...

Mine's probably a bit more than 30k (1976 C-177B), particularly now that we put in a pair of G5s and a GNX 375, but it's not that much more. Maybe 45k-50k. We don't need to spend nearly 10k a year in up keep, and we fix everything that needs to be fixed. It's more like 2k-4k a year, depending on the year for maintenance.

 

[George Mohr]

Mine's probably a bit more than 30k (1976 C-177B), particularly now that we put in a pair of G5s and a GNX 375, but it's not that much more. Maybe 45k-50k. We don't need to spend nearly 10k a year in up keep, and we fix everything that needs to be fixed. It's more like 2k-4k a year, depending on the year for maintenance.

That's awesome, but yeah you have a 45k airplane that you upgraded with 20k worth of avionics. This is a far cry from a 30k airplane run on an Mx budget of 5300 bucks annually.

 

[Dan Thomas]

EAB exist because a group of people enjoy building and the hobby of EAB. Again, look at the number of kits sold each year, it's not as huge as you may believe.

And the kitmaker doesn't bear anywhere near the liability that the manufacturers of type-certified airplanes, either. That falls on the "builder," or really, the assembler. That removes a big chunk of the airframe cost right there. And the labor the builder puts into it is also gone.

 

[Dan Thomas]

So basically "we chose not to optimize and see continuous improvement because we were doing fine without it and didn't see the need to add efficiencies to our production line" <- it's a narrow mindset. Cirrus started completely differently. Unfortunately Dodge and GM also have pretty narrow mindsets, hence why they nearly went bankrupt while Toyota lived through two potentially catastrophic events

At the end of the day, the only "expensive" thing on a 172/182 should be the engine (and maybe avionics if for some crazy reason you need 787 level avionics in a fair weather plane that goes 100 knots).. it's about 2,000 lbs of meta.. the jigs exist, the skill is there.. how on earth is that expensive to build?

Textron really SUCKS. They're the whole reason we're in this mess. They slowly killed the landscape and decided to build a series of mediocre jets instead.

Cessna has done a lot to reduce the costs. They outsourced a lot of the labor---making of some airframe parts---to Mexico. The assembly is still done by hand because that's what they have to do, and labor in the US tends to be expensive. Cirrus started out with a new design aimed at fitting into a lot of automation, and it's still not cheap.

Have you any experience in manufacturing or building anything? Things look a lot different once you get on the inside and have to do it yourself. There's simply so much that isn't visible to the guy off the street.

Toyota did well because they sold well-built, nicely finished vehicles that performed well. Stuff people wanted. They built them on assembly lines that weren't paying $65 an hour for unionized high-school dropouts. GM spread itself way too thin with all its brands. Dodge? Well I owned a Dodge once. First and last time. Ford didn't take handouts. They built a lot of pickups that sold well then and they still sell more trucks than all their cars put together, IIRC.

 

[Tantalum]

because that's what they have to do

At this point, yes. But there was a time when they did not have to..

Have you any experience in manufacturing or building anything?

Yes. Volumes are different, but there are good and bad examples out there. There's always a way to rationalize behaviors. Dodge and GM build cheap crap (sorry).. Ford didn't have to take a hand out because of the efficiencies they built in

It's quite fascinating to walk around a shop floor, hell even the deli counter at the grocery. There's always a way to make something better or more efficient if the will is there..

The fact that an Archer and a Skylane have such drastically different prices (new) demonstrates some of that well

 

[Tantalum]

Toyota did well because they sold well-built, nicely finished vehicles that performed well. Stuff people wanted. They built them on assembly lines that weren't paying $65 an hour for unionized high-school dropouts. GM spread itself way too thin with all its brands. Dodge? Well I owned a Dodge once. First and last time. Ford didn't take handouts. They built a lot of pickups that sold well then and they still sell more trucks than all their cars put together, IIRC.

Hahaha.. love the candor. I grew up in a Chevy household but the quality of GM products is shockingly bad..

 

[Dan Thomas]

At this point, yes. But there was a time when [Cessna] did not have to..
The fact that an Archer and a Skylane have such drastically different prices (new) demonstrates some of that well

And when was that time when Cessna didn't have to do it the old way? That CNC automation stuff came out in the '80s, right when Cessna was losing money through lawsuits against its singles due to stupid pilots, mostly. They gave up altogether in '86, and when they went back to work in '96 they didn't see the volumes needed to automate it. Still don't have it. If they came up with a design that they could automate, you'd still be paying for their amortization on that fancy machinery. Works for Ford, building over a million trucks alone per year; not so well for Cessna even at their peak numbers from the '70s.

An Archer has 180 HP and a fixed-pitch prop. The 182 has 230 HP and a constant-speed prop. Its empty weight is less than a 180-HP 172's, for Pete's sake. The 182 has 50 more horses, carries more, climbs and cruises faster, and grosses higher, so it needs more structure than the Archer. Apples to oranges.

I repeat: Have you ever built anything? Rebuilt anything? Gotten inside an airplane (REALLY inside) and looked at the details? Ever cut some sheet metal, formed it, drilled and deburred holes, and bucked some rivets? Replaced a bunch of wiring? Changing oil or cleaning sparkplugs is not valuable, enlightening experience. Taking apart an airplane and putting it back together is much better.

Whining about it won't change anything. Competing with Cessna is the way to go. Should be a piece of cake.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

And when was that time when Cessna didn't have to do it the old way? That CNC automation stuff came out in the '80s, right when Cessna was losing money through lawsuits against its singles due to stupid pilots, mostly. They gave up altogether in '86, and when they went back to work in '96 they didn't see the volumes needed to automate it. Still don't have it. If they came up with a design that they could automate, you'd still be paying for their amortization on that fancy machinery. Works for Ford, building over a million trucks alone per year; not so well for Cessna even at their peak numbers from the '70s.

An Archer has 180 HP and a fixed-pitch prop. The 182 has 230 HP and a constant-speed prop. Its empty weight is less than a 180-HP 172's, for Pete's sake. The 182 has 50 more horses, carries more, climbs and cruises faster, and grosses higher, so it needs more structure than the Archer. Apples to oranges.

I repeat: Have you ever built anything? Rebuilt anything? Gotten inside an airplane (REALLY inside) and looked at the details? Ever cut some sheet metal, formed it, drilled and deburred holes, and bucked some rivets? Replaced a bunch of wiring? Changing oil or cleaning sparkplugs is not valuable, enlightening experience. Taking apart an airplane and putting it back together is much better.

Whining about it won't change anything. Competing with Cessna is the way to go. Should be a piece of cake.

I manufacture for a living and there is always a lot of efficiency to be gained. I saw the video of the Cessna factory (recent, don’t know the year) and the way they build is so out of date it is pitiful. It took them something like 20 years to finally figure out that they should wait to put the prop on until later in the process. There should be a full time position just watching every employee and at the very least changing little parts of the build to streamline the process. If a small startup company like Vashon can produce the Ranger, then Cessna could be doing much better.

It is no wonder everything moves to China when they know exactly how to extract the value out of every human movement and turn it into valuable production. You don’t see people tripping over tool boxes or power cords over there. Unless it is in a really poor factory environment, and even then, those guys with basically no money or tools will still produce 10x the amount of stuff (at comparable quality) as an American worker in a Cessna Factory. Hell, a guy with no shoes and only a sharpened piece of leaf spring can lathe turn wooden bowls faster than an automated CNC lathe in Germany. Maybe not quite at the same quality, but there is no million dollar amortization to worry about.

 

[Bell206]

I manufacture for a living and there is always a lot of efficiency to be gained.

If a small startup company like Vashon can produce the Ranger, then Cessna could be doing much better.

I assume your experience is not with aircraft manufacturing or the use of riveted monocoque structures? Perhaps look to Boeing who attempted to automate the riveting process. After millions/billions spent, depending on who you talk to, they went back to hand riveting. Fact. Why? Because full automation failed to produce a quality product. So while most stuff goes to China due to cost, most aviation assembly processes do not. As you stated, it's not the same quality. So for those who think they can actually streamline the processes Cessna or Piper or Bell or any other aircraft manufacture uses, I'll guarantee they would love to talk to you and probably pay you rather well because it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I always hear about the cost of liability, but how exactly is that priced into the aircraft and passed on to the buyer? Higher insurance? Higher ROI to justify risk?

 

[Bell206]

I always hear about the cost of liability, but how exactly is that priced into the aircraft and passed on to the buyer? Higher insurance? Higher ROI to justify risk?

Every entity has their own method. If you can find a copy of the background information documents for the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) from the early 90s it had a very detailed explanation of those costs and how it affected the the bottom line. It was the best example available in the public domain.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I assume your experience is not with aircraft manufacturing or the use of riveted monocoque structures? Perhaps look to Boeing who attempted to automate the riveting process. After millions/billions spent, depending on who you talk to, they went back to hand riveting. Fact. Why? Because full automation failed to produce a quality product.

Yup. Too many pilots see other manufacturing processes and think they belong in aviation too. The problem is that airplanes must be light but strong, and you can't simplify a structure for automated assembly by reducing the parts count using heavier stuff, as is commonly done elsewhere. You can't for instance, mill a fuselage half from a huge block of aluminum; the waste alone would make it obscenely expensive, and the thing would still be heavy. The "skin" would have to be thicker, since milling something down to .025" over a large area just means it will flex and get destroyed by the cutter. And the whole thing would have to be the same alloy, giving up the advantages of the various alloys for different purposes. So, for strength the entire thing would have to be 2024, which is much more expensive than the 6061 often used for internal stringers and whatnot. 2024 is expensive, and 2024 sheet is made with a thin coating of pure aluminum (Alclad) to protect it from corrosion. Pure aluminum quickly forms a thin layer of oxide that discourages further corrosion of the copper-alloyed metal underneath it. Copper adds tremendous strength but it also causes rapid corrosion if exposed to the air and contaminants. Milling a fuselage half out of 2024 means it doesn't have that protection.

Ladislao Pazmany, a famous homebuilt designer and engineer, said that simple structures were heavier than complex structures, and his airplanes were fairly complex and light. Many small pieces riveted together to get the strength exactly where it was needed, and no metal where it wasn't needed. His PL-2 was adopted and built by some foreign countries as a primary Air Force trainer. In contrast, the composite airplanes I've worked on, wing and fuselage halves formed in big molds, sure look nice and are quicker to build, but they're heavy. The SR20, a four-place, fixed-gear 200 HP airplane, has an empty weight 400 pounds higher than a 172SP, and the only difference is a constant-speed prop. Engine is the same basic IO-360. That structure is simple, but it's heavy.

Pazmany's PL-2:



Two seats. It had an O-320, 150 HP, and an empty weight of 904 pounds, and a gross of 1609. Useful 700 pounds, for a two-seater! Performance was similarly awesome. That's entirely due to a complex, light structure. A Cessna 150's empty weight is over 200 pounds higher even though it has a much smaller engine, and has less range.

Yes, Cessna could likely clean up their shop practices and make every move count, but they'll still have an expensive airplane. That's the nature of that sort of construction. Until we can 3D print an airplane, using appropriate materials in appropriate places, we either have simple and heavy airplanes, or complex and light ones. The resident critics here need to come up with some useful ideas, and for that they need to understand aircraft structures and their construction. No armchair quarterbacking.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I bought a 21’ Tri toon boat brand new. I’ve had it for three years and have spent less than $500 on maintenance. I can’t afford an airplane and have never owned one.

 

[asicer]

Ladislao Pazmany, a famous homebuilt designer and engineer, said that simple structures were heavier than complex structures, and his airplanes were fairly complex and light. Many small pieces riveted together to get the strength exactly where it was needed, and no metal where it wasn't needed. His PL-2 was adopted and built by some foreign countries as a primary Air Force trainer. In contrast, the composite airplanes I've worked on, wing and fuselage halves formed in big molds, sure look nice and are quicker to build, but they're heavy. The SR20, a four-place, fixed-gear 200 HP airplane, has an empty weight 400 pounds higher than a 172SP, and the only difference is a constant-speed prop. Engine is the same basic IO-360. That structure is simple, but it's heavy.

SR20 is a Continental IO360 (6cyl). 172SP is a Lycoming IO360 (4cyl).

Also, the Tecnam P2010 has the same Lycoming injected parallel valve 4cyl engine as the 172SP, same empty weight and same gross weight but is composite.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Don't forget tube and fabric for strong and light. My Decathlon with 180 hp and CS prop weighs 1300 pounds empty. The max gross of 1800 is not much more than a 172 weighs empty, and that is with a structure rated to +6/-5G.

The downfalls of tube and fabric are 1) labor intensive to cover and paint, and 2) deteriorates with exposure to the elements. Maybe modern technology will come up with a UV stable covering that slips over and shrinks on. Oratex is a step in that direction. A more efficient covering process, combined with 3D printing of carbon fiber frames, could revive T&F as a modern construction method one day.

 

[Dan Thomas]

SR20 is a Continental IO360 (6cyl). 172SP is a Lycoming IO360 (4cyl).

Retired too long already. I had forgotten that. Anyway, the 172SP's IO-360-L2A weighs 268 pounds dry. The SR20's IO-360-ES weighs 320 pounds dry, 52 pounds more. The constant-speed prop and governor will add 20 pounds, maybe. So there's a little over 70 of the extra 400 pounds. Where's the rest? Somewhere in that airframe.

I ran into the same sort of thing between the 185 and the Corvalis. Same power, but the Corvalis was a lot heavier. Some of that would be beefier structure to take the higher gust loads at the higher cruising speeds, but it still only carried four people. An empty Corvalis weighs 750 pounds more than a 185. You sure know it when you're pushing it around on the ground.

 

[asicer]

Retired too long already. I had forgotten that. Anyway, the 172SP's IO-360-L2A weighs 268 pounds dry. The SR20's IO-360-ES weighs 320 pounds dry, 52 pounds more. The constant-speed prop and governor will add 20 pounds, maybe. So there's a little over 70 of the extra 400 pounds. Where's the rest? Somewhere in that airframe.

Again. SR20 vs 172 isn't a very good comparison. Tecnam P2010 vs 172 is a better comparison. Same engine, same gross weight, same empty weight but the Tecnam is composite.

But you already ignored the Tecnam once. If you choose to ignore it a second time, there's also the DA40. Same engine, same useful load but is only 66lbs heavier empty. Some of that is the constant speed prop, some of that is the extra long wing and some of that is because it was built for crashworthiness.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Yes, Cessna could likely clean up their shop practices and make every move count, but they'll still have an expensive airplane. The resident critics here need to come up with some useful ideas, and for that they need to understand aircraft structures and their construction. No armchair quarterbacking.

That is exactly what I was saying. The "factory" looks more like a crowded hangar with poor flow. The biggest improvement over the past 30 years they can point to is installing the engine and prop last! Wow, amazing (sarcasm).

They also acknowledge that they have such low volumes that they have to train every employee on how to build every single aircraft, with little to no specialization. It is no secret that someone who has been solely riveting as their job for 20 years (/has the opportunity) will be better and faster than someone who does riveting this week, then installs some wiring on another model, then puts the gear on another model.

Cessna is not some new player that has to rent a brand new space that is not designed for building aircraft. If they haven't figured out how to make the process faster and cheaper over the years, then they should die out and let another manufacturer like Vashon replace them.

I am not saying that you have to machine the aircraft out of billet aluminum.

 

[Bell206]

let another manufacturer like Vashon replace them.

Curious. Given Vashon vs Cessna is an apples vs oranges comparison, what specifically makes you think Vashon could produce an aircraft "faster and cheaper" than Cessna if they both manufactured under the same rules?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Curious. Given Vashon vs Cessna is an apples vs oranges comparison, what specifically makes you think Vashon could produce an aircraft "faster and cheaper" than Cessna if they both manufactured under the same rules?

How different are the rules in reality? Is the Vashon aircraft somehow less safe? Less strong? Heavier? It is 200 pounds lighter than a C150, with the same engine. The $126,000 model comes standard with advanced everything (electric trim, LEDs, 10" touchscreen Dynon avionics, 5 point harnesses, defrost, USB ports, autopilot, ADSB, AOA, engine monitor, etc).

Even the "reimagined" 150/152 aircraft for sale from Aviat Aircraft start at $165,000 for a restored, but old airframe with much lower specs (no glass panel, autopilot, 5 point harness, etc). I can't find the numbers for what the most recent 152 cost, adjusted for similar price increases compared to the 172, but I can't see Cessna pricing a 152 for less than $250,000 new. At that price, how is it TWICE as "good" as a Vashon Ranger?

 

[asicer]

Curious. Given Vashon vs Cessna is an apples vs oranges comparison, what specifically makes you think Vashon could produce an aircraft "faster and cheaper" than Cessna if they both manufactured under the same rules?

Glasair Sportsman says "two weeks to taxi". Given that they both have 4 seats and share the same Lycoming parallel valve 180hp IO-360 what does part 23 add to that? (serious question)

And while we're on the topic of Glasair, what was the price difference between the Glastar and its certified version the Symphony SA-160?

 

[NordicDave]

Not sure how you are figuring that "Textron should be ashamed of themselves".

How many new 182's have been sold? These are low production and labor intensive machines to build. Should Textron "do the right thing" and produce each 182 at a substantial loss "for the good of General Aviation"?

Textron 2020 production numbers were:

172SP - 241
182T - 27
T206H -26
Bo A36 - 12

I was told by a Cessna executive a couple of years ago when they made the decision to cut the piston manufacturing facility in half to also manufacture small jets in the same building, they substantially raise the prices of the piston aircraft to balance demand with their ability to supply with the reduced manufacturing capability.

 

[Bell206]

How different are the rules in reality?

About as black and white as you can get in aviation. One of the reasons the LSA category came into being was to reduce production costs vs TC aircraft.

Is the Vashon aircraft somehow less safe? Less strong? Heavier?

how is it TWICE as "good" as a Vashon Ranger?

That is part of the problem with that type of comparison where you only compare aircraft to aircraft. Actually that comparison has the least impact on the cost per unit. There are a number of other drivers to the cost. The simple fact Cessna requires a FAA Production certificate and Vashon does not starts the cost increase. And from a purely numbers view using the Textron 2020 totals above do you think Vashons $126k cost would remain the same if they had to produce 300 units per year?

 

[Bell206]

Given that they both have 4 seats and share the same Lycoming parallel valve 180hp IO-360 what does part 23 add to that? (serious question)

Depends. From what point are you referencing? Construction process, certifications, mission flexibilty????

what was the price difference between the Glastar and its certified version the Symphony SA-160?

Dont know. But isnt the 160 certified and built in Canada?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

About as black and white as you can get in aviation. One of the reasons the LSA category came into being was to reduce production costs vs TC aircraft.


That is part of the problem with that type of comparison where you only compare aircraft to aircraft. Actually that comparison has the least impact on the cost per unit. There are a number of other drivers to the cost. The simple fact Cessna requires a FAA Production certificate and Vashon does not starts the cost increase. And from a purely numbers view using the Textron 2020 totals above do you think Vashons $126k cost would remain the same if they had to produce 300 units per year?

You like to call out others for not providing concrete examples on this topic, so list all the ways that the Vashon Ranger aircraft would be inferior to a Cessna 152. Are ASTM standards that lax that an RV is a death trap?

The entire difference in cost is due to the piece of FAA paper? If not, what material (not actual material, but substantial) difference is there in terms of strength, safety, or features that make a Cessna 152 worth/cost twice or more than a Vashon Ranger?

And how do you assume that producing more aircraft will increase the costs per unit? They purchase materials in greater quantity, run their CNC machines longer in each setup reducing change over times, develop more efficient manufacturing techniques over time (unlike Cessna). All of these things decrease costs. Sure, they need more people and a larger facility, but that is part of a growing business and can be carefully managed with realistic growth projections.

 

[asicer]

Depends. From what point are you referencing? Construction process, certifications, mission flexibilty????

Construction process, since that's what we were most recently discussing.

Dont know. But isnt the 160 certified and built in Canada?

Yes, but I thought it also met the requirements of FAR 23.

 

[Bell206]

You like to call out others for not providing concrete examples on this topic, so list all the ways that the Vashon Ranger aircraft would be inferior to a Cessna 152.

There’s one. It’s called a Type Certificate.

Are ASTM standards that lax that an RV is a death trap?

No.

The entire difference in cost is due to the piece of FAA paper?

Yes. And there are several pieces of FAA paper involved. I actually have a working knowledge of what the costs are to certify products and articles under the FARs. You appear not to.

And how do you assume that producing more aircraft will increase the costs per unit?

As the aircraft production increases so do the certification costs as you are required to document more steps. LSA aircraft do not have such requirements.

They purchase materials in greater quantity,

And must provide increased traceability in greater quantity. The FAA system is a closed system. Everything in is documented.

run their CNC machines longer in each setup reducing change over times,

Provided the CNC machines and their extended use is approved through the FAA production Certificate process.

develop more efficient manufacturing techniques over time (unlike Cessna).

Provided those “more efficient” techniques go through the appropriate approval steps and are added to the Production Certificate process. For example, additive manufacturing/machining has a very involved approval process when compared to subtractive manufacturing/machining.

All of these things decrease costs.

Not necessarily in a certified environment which is something Vashon does not work in.

But my question is why are you comparing Vashon to Cessna when you should be comparing it to Cirrus?

Cirrus came to be from NASA’s AGATE program which incorporated all the latest technologies available to produce new aircraft. AGATE was the poster child of what you state Cessna should be doing. Yet Cessna wasn’t invited to participate in AGATE. Hmmm.

So here is Cirrus, a type certified aircraft, that had NASA’s assistance, using all the “latest” techniques to produce aircraft… yet the Cirrus based price for an SR22 is almost double what a new Cessna 172 base price is. So when compared to your equally outfitted Vashon Ranger at $126k makes the SR22 around $800k. That’s roughly $400K more than a new 172. And no I don't know when Cirrus installs the engine and prop. So how about them apples.

And for a concrete example to back up the Cirrus numbers…..
https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2021-SR22-International-Pricelist.pdf

 

[Bell206]

Construction process, since that's what we were most recently discussing.

Part 23 and CAR 3 gave/gives a greater level of accountability over the construction than an ASTM standard does. But at a cost. That is one of the drivers that shifted a number of “regulatory” construction requirements down a notch to ASTM standards with the Part 23 rewrite several years ago. Which was all done to reduce costs and “stimulate” new small aircraft development. But as of yet there’s been few takers. So it appears it’s not the reduced cost that is the problem with OEMs at present to give the flying public new TC aircraft.

Yes, but I thought it also met the requirements of FAR 23.

It does but only by a bi-lateral agreement/treaty with Canada. I don't know if 523 is an exact duplicate of FAR 23. But Canada does not have the product liability issues, tort laws, union costs, etc. that we do in the aviation industry which all drive up domestic costs.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I still think the biggest problem is getting the engines into legacy airframes. When my Luscombe's A65 gives up, it would make so much sense to drop a Rotax in it, but at what cost for an STC?

And, there is the problem.
From a practical standpoint, a Rotax is purd near a no-brainer swap. You could do it in your garage. New mount based on the old for tube sizes etc., new cowl (at least the front end), new exhaust, radiator mount, not much more. WAY less work (and potential for problems) than, say, a big block in a T-bucket roadster. Put some hours on it to be sure you don't have a cooling problem, and that's about it.
From a safety and reliability standpoint, a new Rotax vs. 70 year old scrounged / reworked parts with a stupid number of hours on them? Yea.
But, from an FAA standpoint, the sky is falling.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

All Bell206 can list is administrative paper differences between Vashon and Cessna.

No mention about strength, safety, equipment, construction techniques. I highly doubt that the per-unit costs of the FAA documentation on aircraft certified 60 years ago amounts to $200,000 (my guess at the price difference between a Vashon 172 clone and the 172). How can they justify that? That amounts to $48,000,000 per year at current Cessna production. Where do they spend $48 million on certification for a single airframe they have been producing for 60 years?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

And, there is the problem.
From a practical standpoint, a Rotax is purd near a no-brainer swap. You could do it in your garage. New mount based on the old for tube sizes etc., new cowl (at least the front end), new exhaust, radiator mount, not much more. WAY less work (and potential for problems) than, say, a big block in a T-bucket roadster. Put some hours on it to be sure you don't have a cooling problem, and that's about it.
From a safety and reliability standpoint, a new Rotax vs. 70 year old scrounged / reworked parts with a stupid number of hours on them? Yea.
But, from an FAA standpoint, the sky is falling.

I hope that by the time my C150 needs a new engine the EASA C150 Rotax STC will be approved over here. 35 pounds lighter, constant speed prop, lower fuel burn, no carb heat issues like the O-200.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Vashon has delivered all of 12 airframes in 3 years.

If this is such a great airplane at a great price, why aren’t they selling faster than they can be produced?

 

[kyleb]

Vashon has delivered all of 12 airframes in 3 years.

If this is such a great airplane at a great price, why aren’t they selling faster than they can be produced?

‘Cause it is butt ugly. There is an element of passion involved in GA. The Ranger doesn’t inspire anyone from a looks perspective or a performance perspective. It’s only positive attributes are “New and relatively cheap!.”

 

[jrcox19]

I hope that by the time my C150 needs a new engine the EASA C150 Rotax STC will be approved over here. 35 pounds lighter, constant speed prop, lower fuel burn, no carb heat issues like the O-200.

Is anyone actually working on getting that FAA approved? Last I heard there was no plan for that to happen

 

[Bell206]

All Bell206 can list is administrative paper differences between Vashon and Cessna.

And that’s the point you miss as do others who don’t work in highly regulated industries. Those administrative differences come at a cost to every unit produced. Does Vashon have a type certificate? No. Production Certificate? No. ODA? No. And so on. Vashon has none of these costs which all get applied to the unit cost.

For an admin cost example, if Vashon had wanted to produce a type certificated aircraft 172 clone, their upfront regulatory costs would easily have been $50M before they would have built the 1st production aircraft. And I’m being very generous on the 50. So how would you amortize the $50M cost into your estimated $200k cost for a 172 clone?

No mention about strength, safety, equipment, construction techniques.

As I’ve mentioned several times, comparing aircraft to aircraft instead of process to process is moot. But since you continue to bring it up, name 1 or 2 specific “construction techniques” that you believe would drop Cessna’s costs on producing a monocoque riveted structure.

I highly doubt that the per-unit costs of the FAA documentation on aircraft certified 60 years ago amounts to $200,000 (my guess at the price difference between a Vashon 172 clone and the 172).

As I’ve mentioned in other posts, unit cost differences are not only regulatory. Matter of fact, based on older data from GARA, it was product liability that took up a larger portion of unit cost than production costs. In 1990 money, the product liability cost per unit on Cessna 100 series type aircraft was stated to be $100k per unit. Now add in labor cost (union shop) and good old profit margins, you can easily see where the 200k difference is when compared to Vashon as they are not on the same scale as Cessna.

But I’m still waiting for your comparison to Cirrus which would be more in line with Vashon than Cessna since Cirrus uses all the latest construction techniques and materials in aircraft construction... just like Vashon.

How can they justify that?

Justify it to who? The regulations state if you want a type certificated aircraft you follow these rules. If you don’t, no type certificated aircraft. Simple. Vashon only needs to follow several rules and none have to do with aircraft production.

I hope that by the time my C150 needs a new engine the EASA C150 Rotax STC will be approved over here. 35 pounds lighter, constant speed prop, lower fuel burn, no carb heat issues like the O-200.

Why hope? You can legally install that ROTAX today! All you need to do is get the approval. A One-Time STC would be the ticket. Cheaper than a Standard STC or AML-STC. I can forward you all the guidance documents this weekend if you like to give you a head start… and save you some money. This would be a great example to prove your points from above: modern techniques, cost saving processes, etc. And based on your comparisons above, you should be able to get this approved for what… $10k -$15k to include the cost of the engine?

 

[Bell206]

Is anyone actually working on getting that FAA approved? Last I heard there was no plan for that to happen

FYI: as long as the EASA STC isn't for a Reims-built Cessna 150, most EASA STCs get FAA approved by bi-lateral agreement/treaty just as type certificates are done. That is provided the EU STC holder wants FAA approval as some do not.