Is it possible....

Is it possible to build a certified plane (cessna or piper) for under 100k in todays environment? Does anyone think this will ever happen or are those days behind us?

 

$ertified should be spelled that way when it comes to aircraft.

Those days were behind us quite a while ago.

 

Engine, prop, and avionics alone puts you over 100k

 

You don't think they could redo the skycatcher and fix the mistakes they made and make it less than 100k? Just wondering why are the garmin avionics half the cost for experimental?

 

It should be noted that the S-LSAs being thrown around in this thread aren’t type certified either. So while they are close to $100k, it’s not a fair discussion.

 

Perhaps, but they'll sell more replacement parts & services to 20 planes than to 10 so the money after the sale will be better. But it might be best to get the money upfront ...

 

Have to think liability cost, concerns, & insurance factor in heavily. It’s similar to making & selling a ladder or a fuel can.

 

I bet you could but nobody would buy it and you'd be out of business shortly after building the first few.

 

I don't think so, because the demand isn't there to get the economies of scale needed. Even though there are more pilots training now than 4 years ago, there are still fewer GA pilots than in the 70's. Far fewer planes being built as a result. Which means instead of economy of scale industry you have essentially a low volume cottage industry. Think of how much a new car would cost you if instead of assembly plants running 24 / 7 you had instead a car being built one at a time.

Heck, in that "golden time for GA" being a GA pilot was everywhere. Elvis made a movie with him being a GA tour pilot, Hertz was thinking of renting planes like cars, and even Aunt Bee took flying lessons. Public sentiment has changed.

https://azpilots.org/commentary/50573-the-roaring-70-s-general-aviation-s-heyday

In the 50’s and 60’s aircraft production was on the rise. The major companies were competing for the business of the public by introducing new models and upgrades to existing models. By the 70’s, General Aviation aircraft production was at its peak. In 1970 there were 7,292 GA airplanes delivered. In 1978 there were 17,811 GA airplanes delivered, and almost 100,000 delivered for the decade from 1970 to 1980. ​

 

The problem is, the market for what you could build for $100K is small. 2 seat planes don't sell as well as 4 seat.

If you could built a modern version of a PA28 or C-172 for $100K with good VFR avionics, I think it would sell well. But you can't. The engine alone is $50K. Even if you think Rotax.

 

Absolutely. I just got the feeling that the OP viewed the S-LSA (skycatcher) as a certified aircraft so I felt it was worth mentioning that it wasn’t.

I think the Cub based TCd aircraft are probably some of the cheapest options. They likely could be cheapened up a bit but I don’t see them going sub $100k, especially when a new engine takes up most of the $100k itself.

 

Given the price of new cars and trucks these days, I’m not optimistic - especially if one compares the economies of scale and the liability risks.

 

I never got why LSAs have any more of a panel than just the required basics. The market has changed. Guys probably just won’t buy an LSA with steam gauges and a single comm and transponder. They want redundant glass, panel-mount GPS and a full-featured autopilot for slow, daytime VFR. Downgrading to old school could probably cut 20 to 30 grand from the price.

 

The only way that could happen is if there were sufficient demand to cause airplanes to be produced in the numbers they were in the 70s. That would allow the aircraft, avionics, and engine manufacturers to recoup development and overhead costs across a much larger number of sold units.

Of course, that would also require that there be more than one real avionics manufacturer. Everything comes with Garmin these days, and there's really nothing else that competes with them, so if they were selling more units they'd merely take the profits to the bank if not even increase prices, because there's not sufficient realistic competition to drive a price war.

Now, the only way you're going to create sufficient demand is to make flying more affordable first, and that would require vastly different economic conditions than we have in this country.



The result of this is that we have more people that can afford jets, but far fewer that can afford the rest of GA. With the shortage of A&Ps, more and more of us are going to get priced out.

 

Nope. Big nope with our inflation outlook.

 

Did I read that the cost of a new Cessna right now has $100k built into for lawsuits?

 

Local A&P situation: To get an appointment for an Annual for this upcoming November, I had to fill out the paperwork this past March.
By the first week in April the shop was booked out through the end of the year.
I bought a VHF antenna in March: $139.00. The same antenna today is $179.00.
I'm glad I did all the expensive repairs last year.
<tongue in cheek
We can't even count on a World War to get cheap airplanes. The days of the $60.00 Jenny and the $5,000.00 Mustang are long gone.
/tongue in cheek>

 

They aren't FAA certified, but they are "compliant". Which is good enough.

 

You'll find those days ended in the late 80s. $100K per unit won't even cover the liability costs for your average new Cessna or Piper. Will it ever happen again? Maybe. If you create a robust consumer market, then get a tort cap law passed in Congress, you may see it again but highly doubtful as the younger generations aren't interested in that type of legacy flying. Now if the eVTOL market takes off without hiccups it could be possible you'll see certified eVTOLs available for $100k or less as shown in various market projections. But the eVTOLs won't be comparable to a conventional aircraft in terms of range and performance. However, it is a market with the protentional to grow exponentially and possibly become larger than the legacy private GA Cessna/Piper market ever was in terms of units sold and flying.

One there is no formal classification for "experimental" parts. Its merely a marketing term used by vendors. Garmin simply chooses to sell those units for a lesser cost. You can also legally install "experimental" parts on a TC'd aircraft, it just may not be economically advantageous in all cases. Most vendors produce comparable parts on the same line where at the end some units get configured a certain way and marked with a TSO tag or associated with other approvals and some are not. Outside of the initial certification cost there is no regulatory reason for them to charge more for the "approved" units.

 

Because people are getting sucked into keeping up with the Joneses. I know of many, many experimental aircraft that are exclusively flown day VFR and rarely stray far from home which have megabuck Garmin panels. Looks good on the ramp and gives the owner bragging rights.

A J3 panel would be adequate for many of those airplanes.

 

That isn’t the way I read the inquiry. The difference in the two will absolutely impact the cost to design and manufacture and ultimately the price of the aircraft.

The S-LSA concept is interesting but ultimately it can be more restrictive than just working with TCd products. Yes there is the E-LSA conversion option (which is where they’ll all likely end up anyway) but that also has its drawbacks.

 

Heck, I’d be comfortable doing most of my flying with just a magnetic compass, sectional, and oil pressure gauge.

 

Yep, windows make a real nice moving map and non-artificial horizon. Look out your wingtip to see your AOA relative to the horizon. When it gets quiet, you know you are getting too slow!

 

I suspect the other piece of the puzzle is the level of manual labor required for a typical PA28 or 172. Lots of rivets, fabrication and not a lot of places for robotics. It's hard to get very basic labor for any reasonable amount these days, never mind the skill sets required for sheet metal work etc.

 

I recall Vans is making their quick build kits in the Philippines to make it somewhat affordable. Lower labor costs.

 

Even still, you’ll be in it for north of 100 grand before the plane is flying.

 

Spot on. Even more than that for an RV 10. Now if they’d get rid of the 51% rule and Vans could make a quick build kit that would cost all in $200k but would be assembled in 3 months - that would be a true game changer.

 

You could help with legacy airplanes by moving to matched hole skins like Van's.

Then, if you could develop a structural blind rivet (no bucking) you could really cut production labor costs.

 

The parts alone for a -10 are gonna take you past $200K. The QB kit is 80+, the engine is 60, prop is 10, FWF kit is 10. That's $160K and you don't have an interior, instruments/radios, paint, or the thousand little things you pick up along the way. Oh, and 2,000 hours of labor plus probably $5K in tools. It ain't for the faint of heart.

 

Just need a big ‘ole 3D printer…