spiriteng.com
$70k for a brand new certified airplane with some ramp appeal. It is what was envisioned when the Light Sport category was first created, but never surfaced. Time will tell, but I see the market. If they get their two seat version for under $100k and can support and sustain it, even better.
Yup, I'm exactly the target market. I have a wonderful, low-time Cherokee 180C that has been upgraded to within an inch of its life. Absolutely fantastic little plane that I'd fly in anything short of icing or a thunderstorm. It's easy to fly, forgiving, and does everything okay and nothing brilliantly. But it's not exciting and no one has ever run across a ramp shouting "oh my god, it's a Piper Cherokee!"
What do mean by “build quality”?
Watching their videos, it's clear that they have put a great deal of thought and pride into how their components are engineered, formed, and assembled. Based on what I saw, I have pretty good confidence that the aircraft is going to be put together a lot of care and with professional attention to detail. With the intent of taking it experimental, it's nice to start with a baseline warranty and then move to experimental when ready. In contrast, buying an RV or a similar aircraft, I'd be well into six figures and the build quality might vary from master-craftsman to dangerously misassembled. I'm aware that "builder assist" exists, but it's still multiples of this aircraft's price for an aircraft that would frankly still be used mostly for what I do now: sunny-day goofing off.
Yeah, but not everyone has the skill set or motivation to build an RV, nor is willing or able to spend the money to buy a completed one. I am in that category.
What do you define as "build quality"? Workmanship as in poor fit, badly set rivets, mismatched edges, etc... I would hope that you wouldn't see that. OTOH, you can have a simple "no frills" design for cheap assembly, but still with good workmanship. It's like a Cub vs. a Staggerwing.
No, it looked well built, just cheap materials and design.
OK, so not poor "build quality", but simple functional design. It's not fancy but it's not intended to be.
Well the materials are”not premium” let’s say.
They don't need to be. If they are it wouldn't be what it's designed to be. Adequate that meets the design is just fine.
And the objective of any engineering task that is aimed at making a profit with the product selling in the target market.
Now *I'm* confused. Wrong alloy of aluminum....? Or is your objection related to the engine, wheels, etc....?
I saw their display at OSH. It is cute and shiny, but it doesn't have the ramp presence of something like a Ryan, which is think it the general vibe they wanted. Just the general "fit and finish" appearance isn't high-level. It isn't bad, at all, just not the level of "artwork" we're used to seeing in classic shiny aluminum planes. They had a price they wanted to meet, and something had to be sacrificed in the process, which is understandable. I wish them all success; it looks like a passion project.
They specifically said at Osh that they were looking at developing a 4 cylinder engine based on the 2 cylinder and the crankshaft was designed for that.
This conveys my thoughts better than I apparently was doing.
I'm sure they don't plan to sell 5000 of them per year. But they might beat the current Cessna 172 production of ~200/year.
The SMA and Continental diesels and Lycoming iE2 were clean-sheet designs with no track records other than test cells and maybe one or two flying prototypes. Do you expect a whole fleet of them of something? Parts and service for brand-new designs will be available for much longer than for obsolete engines like the old Franklins and the Continental A40 and A50 and Lycoming O-145. Just try finding parts for those. Or for Ranger and Menasco engines. Or the deHavilland Gipsy series. And if the new engine goes bust it will be because nobody bought them, and parts won't matter. If they sell a bunch of these airplanes there will be parts available.
So this isn't the place to bring up the clunker of a Lycoming on our plane? Swapping out cylinders after less than 20 hours. All things can break and the time that they have been around is no guarantee of success.
FTFY.
Even better, they kept it pretty much a secret and then surprised everybody by flying 4 examples to Oshkosh.
It looks "budget" because it is budget. I just wish it was aerobatic (it isn't), which would vastly increase its fun factor, at least for me. And though I love the general concept, I can't say I'm crazy about its fuselage shape, I just don't find it visually pleasing... but that's purely my own aesthetic impression; others may find it "just right". (To me, the Ryan STA is perfection along those lines, but Timber Tiger is already offering a Ryan replica kit, though it's a 2 seater and a lot more expensive.)
The engineers are perfectly happy to collect their paychecks.
Aesthetically, I'd raise the pilot and install a higher windscreen. Also, I don't like the angle of the vertical stab. I'd bet both of those choices were made for better roll-over protection.
This, times 1000. I can’t think of any other organization that would have pulled it off without ATLEAST rumors being commonly known that it was coming. This is not a short term project either, this level of what they have already achieved takes years and a lot of people.
The number of people buried in shallow graves around Grand Junction, CO, must be immense.
