|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

04-28-2012, 09:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: La Center,wa
Posts: 210
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrnixonjr
No way could you build an aircraft or any other 100-180 hp engine for $5,000.00. You are not considering the cost of start up design, manufacturing, labor, testing, etc. Tort law doesn't have anything to do with that. The cost of a start up would be large and have to be included in the cost per engine. It costs more than $5000.00 to simply rebuild a 0-320 Lycoming for a kit built plane, an engine already paid for. Rotax has their costs down because they have paid off their loans, and aren't designing new engines, but starting up a new manufacturing site would be high.
|
I don't disagree with what you are saying. But what I am saying is, whatever happened in about 1978 through 1983 that caused the GA piston market to go from 17,000 per year to less than 2,000 per year is what caused the problem. Volume changed, then prices changed. It did not happen the other way around.
How many parts are in a 4cyl Lycoming? We are talking here about an engine with:
- Aluminum case - 2 machined castings
- Forged steel crank
- 4 cylinder castings
- 4 head castings, with 8 valves and associated rocker arms, sprins, etc.
- cam and pushrods
- 4 forged alminum pistons and rods
- Then a dead simple carb or fuel injection system and a couple of magnetos
Yes I know there are more parts, but these are the majors and there is not more than about $3,500 worth of parts, retail. I know they actually cost more, but that is what their value is. Max.
The cost drivers are not technical or manufacturing related, it is elsewhere, as others have said. If these roadblocks were removed, a company could profitably sell a Lycoming-like engine (if not clone) for way less than $10k. Period.
At that point GA would be thriving, not dying, and technology would be advancing faster than it is now. This would apply to avionics and props as well.
The greatest side benefit issafety. This would cause overall flying to be cheaper, which means more flight hours for pilots, which means more experience and practice and currency, and higher levels of safety.
Tim
|

04-28-2012, 04:54 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 589
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjo
...Yes I know there are more parts, but these are the majors and there is not more than about $3,500 worth of parts, retail. I know they actually cost more, but that is what their value is. Max.
|
Sounds like a great opportunity for you! Start making your engines, and if they're worth having, people will buy them.
Thanks, Bob K.
__________________
Bob Kuykendall
HP-24 kit sailplane
EAA Technical Counselor
|

04-28-2012, 05:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: La Center,wa
Posts: 210
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Kuykendall
Sounds like a great opportunity for you! Start making your engines, and if they're worth having, people will buy them.
Thanks, Bob K.
|
Somehow I am not communicating well, which is not unusual. I am not saying that you can do that in today's regulated, litigous environment. I am not even saying that know exactly what the (refulatory or litigous) problem is. I am not a lawyer or a polititian. What I am saying is, if you are of the "you get what you pay" for camp, then you like payng for frivilous lawsuits and over-regulation. I AM saying that IFthese things were fixed, THEN the engines could be built for one forth of what we are currently paying. There is no technical barrier to doing so. Until these things are fixed, though, that is what we will be paying for. I am NOT saying that the opportunity exists for me or anyone else currently.
Tim
|

04-28-2012, 06:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,061
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjo
Yes I know there are more parts, but these are the majors and there is not more than about $3,500 worth of parts, retail. I know they actually cost more, but that is what their value is.
|
I think the accepted way to establish the value of an item is to see what it's selling for.
__________________
Steve Zicree
Fullerton, Ca. w/beautiful 2.5 year old son 
RV-4 99% built  and sold 
Rag and tube project well under way
paid =VAF= dues through June 2013
|

04-28-2012, 06:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 88
|
|
Tim and Wolfpack you have found the missing link.
How do we fix this problem?
Is it tort law reform? regulation reform?
but just imagine what would happen to the aviation economic industry if we could sell an engine ~ $5K. Should be worth a million new jobs. Why not sell it with a liability waiver that can't be sued?
ajay
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjo
Somehow I am not communicating well, which is not unusual. I am not saying that you can do that in today's regulated, litigous environment. I am not even saying that know exactly what the (refulatory or litigous) problem is. I am not a lawyer or a polititian. What I am saying is, if you are of the "you get what you pay" for camp, then you like payng for frivilous lawsuits and over-regulation. I AM saying that IFthese things were fixed, THEN the engines could be built for one forth of what we are currently paying. There is no technical barrier to doing so. Until these things are fixed, though, that is what we will be paying for. I am NOT saying that the opportunity exists for me or anyone else currently.
Tim
|
|

04-28-2012, 06:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 88
|
|
automotive aviation revolution or hoax?
I still like this guy's claims;
LP1
http://www.woodward-aerospace.com/lp1.html
$200K build cost (similar to rv-10)
334 ktas on 14.5 gph
designed around the corvette v8 engine block
which makes it faster than a lot of these multi-million $$ turbine/jets at a fraction the cost and fuel burn:
Diamond D-Jet 315 ktas 70 gph
Epic LT 350 ktas 70 gph
Evolution Turbine 320 ktas 40 gph
Cessna Mustang 340 ktas 120 gph
Piper Meridian 260 ktas 45 gph
Propjet DLX 250 ktas 35 gph
TBM 850 320 ktas 65 gph
Can anyone explain how this is possible if even believable?
|

04-28-2012, 07:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Big Sandy, WY
Posts: 2,567
|
|
Ajay, I guess it must be that all those companies are just bad at building airplanes. Whaddya think? Do they suck at their jobs?
__________________
Actual repeat offender.
|

04-28-2012, 07:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,061
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay
Why not sell it with a liability waiver that can't be sued
|
Such a thing does not exist, at least not in America.
__________________
Steve Zicree
Fullerton, Ca. w/beautiful 2.5 year old son 
RV-4 99% built  and sold 
Rag and tube project well under way
paid =VAF= dues through June 2013
|

04-28-2012, 07:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,219
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay
I still like this guy's claims;
LP1
<snip>
Can anyone explain how this is possible if even believable?
|
This is a single point design - it is designed to do one thing well. Carry 4 people very fast. It is a composite, retractable gear airplane with about 75% of the wing area of an RV-6. It should have very low drag. The offset is that the stall speed will be extremely high, and an engine out situation would be ugly.
The RV series don't make huge compromises in any one area. They are all relatively fast, relatively roomy, relatively docile, etc.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

04-28-2012, 08:09 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 182
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bret
All I am saying is, why are we still in the dark ages? Is everyone afraid to try something new, and no, I am not talking about car engines in planes, I am talking about aviation engines and stepping up to the plate with all this technology available..
|
The guys at UL Power sure seem to have "stepped up to the plate". They stayed with a largely traditional air-cooled aircraft engine layout but incorporated lots of modern features. I've been seeing more and more coverage of them in the last year or so and most of it seems positive.
I saw on their FB page that they are working a FWF installation of their 6 cylinder 200hp engine for an RV-8. Strictly fixed pitch right now though as they haven't worked through a CS solution.
But...as is the case with the Rotax, this is not an inexpensive proposition. I'm betting that the R&D costs, lawyer retainers, and insurance is what drives the UL price up just as it does for all the other major players.
__________________
Scott
Happy to be a 2012 and 2013 VAF supporter
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 AM.
|