VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   The Buck Stops Where? (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=154462)

DonFromTX 10-22-2017 12:56 PM

My original post was not to rehash the screwing we get, but to see if anyone had any ideas WHO is getting rich!
I feel sure if Vans could get these tubes for a lower price, they would pass it on to us, I highly doubt they are paying 3 or 4 dollars for them. Somebody in the middle is simply getting rich off of us. Would be nice to expose them.

VA Maule 10-22-2017 02:35 PM

TSO = technical service order / PMA = parts manufacturing authority. The companies that are paper working with the FAA get to attach an extremely expensive paper tag on a component with one of those abbreviations so evidently the little tags are made of UNATANAMUM which very rare and hard to source.

Mel 10-22-2017 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VA Maule (Post 1213026)
TSO = technical service order / PMA = parts manufacturing authority. The companies that are paper working with the FAA get to attach an extremely expensive paper tag on a component with one of those abbreviations so evidently the little tags are made of UNATANAMUM which very rare and hard to source.

Did you mean "unobtainium" ?

BobTurner 10-22-2017 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VA Maule (Post 1213026)
TSO = technical service order / PMA = parts manufacturing authority. The companies that are paper working with the FAA get to attach an extremely expensive paper tag on a component with one of those abbreviations so evidently the little tags are made of UNATANAMUM which very rare and hard to source.

That?s it, exactly. It?s a double whammy: it makes parts expensive, and, due to the high up-front cost to obtain the TSO, discourages competition.

FasGlas 10-22-2017 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTurner (Post 1213032)
That’s it, exactly. It’s a double whammy: it makes parts expensive, and, due to the high up-front cost to obtain the TSO, discourages competition.

Na, I don't buy that.. There's planes that have been built and all the parts TSO PMA'd centuries ago and part prices is still outrageous. They see us as rich guys flying rich guy toys. In the old days there were lots of parts makers but now there's less than a handful. The parts have different names but the maker is the same. Take Pba batteries for example, there used to be many companies making batteries, now only a few world wide. They call the price and they keep it high. How many tire / tube makers do you really thing there are in this world? I bought a tail wheel tube for my D-17, a tiny 10" tube.. $100!! The little tire is $205.. For a little rubber tire. They don't fool me.

One of the best things of Experimental is that we don't have to use TSO / PMA's part. We can actually use much better and much less expensive parts. But there are some parts we have to get screwed over, like tires. I'd bet dollars to donuts a tube from ACS and the same tube from Wallymart came from the same factory. They cost pennies to make regardless of the name on the box.

Who used to buy Chen tires (11X4) for 14 bucks... Then in one day they went to 35 bucks.. Same tire, same factory. Just open an ADS-B receiver and tell me where a $1000 worth of parts are?? Aviation..

YellowJacket RV9 10-22-2017 05:29 PM

Don't forget the cost of liability insurance to sell anything marketed for aviation use. A single lawsuit could cost the manufacturer of a product millions of dollars, even if it wasn't really their product to blame, and even if they win (usually cheaper just to settle). The same reason other manufacturers will plug their ears and run away as soon as you ask them about using their product in an aircraft.

There isn't a lot of risk in selling inner tubes to wheelbarrow owners. Once you start selling them to airplane owners, you open a huge can of worms. And if you don't think anybody could find a way to implicate an inner tube in an airplane crash, I'm sure there's a lawyer out there who would be happy to try. It only takes one incident to add a lot of money to the cost of a product, especially at the relatively low volumes seen in the aircraft world as opposed to automotive.

Chris

catmandu 10-22-2017 05:38 PM

Lawyers. All the money goes to lawyers.

BobTurner 10-22-2017 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasGlas (Post 1213052)
Na, I don't buy that.. There's planes that have been built and all the parts TSO PMA'd centuries ago and part prices is still outrageous. .

That's exactly correct. Here's how it works: TCM is the only source for valve-train pushrods in an O-470. They cost an outrageous price. Why doesn't Superior or someone else jump into the market? Because getting a PMA or STC would cost them $100k, and they know TCM would respond by lowering their price. TCM could sell them at cost, since the PMA costs were long ago amortized. But Superior can't sell them at cost - they need to make $100K just to break even. TCM would quickly drive them out of business. So they need to be selective, entering only where there's a large market. This did happen in the mid-late (IIRC) 1980s, with cylinders. Almost overnight, new cylinder assemblies (from both the new guys and TCM) dropped from something like $4K to $1K (round numbers). The real losers were cylinder overhaul shops, who suddenly found themselves with little business. Another example is with IFR TSO'd gps. Garmin managed to corner the entry-level market when they acquired Apollo/UPS. Now, any new company faces the challenge of making a profit while paying back the $1M+ upfront TSO costs, while their competition (Garmin), having long ago paid off those development costs, can undercut their price and potentially drive them out of business. So with those risks, no one even tries. And no, neither the price of TSO/PMA'd engine parts, nor TSO'd GPS prices have dropped despite the development costs being paid. Why should they? Companies are in business to maximize profits, not to be nice to pilots.

BobTurner 10-22-2017 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasGlas (Post 1213052)
Just open an ADS-B receiver and tell me where a $1000 worth of parts are?? Aviation..

For low cost items (only in aviation do we call $1K "low cost"!!) the issue is volume, and overhead. When you sell a million tv sets, the cost of engineering, management, advertising, etc., is a nearly negligible fraction of the total cost. When you only sell 1000 ADSBs per year, the cost of those items represent a significant fraction of the total cost. The cost of the parts hardly matters.

sblack 10-23-2017 10:46 AM

I have been trying to find ways around this, where I can. I can't make transponders, ADS-Bs or tires, but the bendix p-lead terminal kit is 2 ferrules, a nut, an AN washer and a small piece of phenolic. It should cost $5 but it costs $113! So I got some phenolic from McMaster and spent a very pleasant evening at the lathe. Done. Next, I ordered a new plastic oil dipstick tube. It is a 10" long piece of molded ABS plastic. $90 US. And lo and behold the cap and dipstick assembly is not a common thread between the 3 different lengths of dipstick tube. They are different, so it will cost another $100 for a new dipstick. No, I will be headed back to the lathe for that.

I guess it is tough to make a profit in aviation, so when companies can, they really go to town. That bendix terminal kit is the biggest ripoff going, and it is a horrible way to attach the shielding to the mag - no straight relief at all. Bad design, horribly over priced. We are better off rolling our own where we can.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:10 AM.