Would this appeal to you?

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,888
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name

Display name:
Ken Ibold
Let's say someone decided to build and certify a very high quality 2-seat airplane that looked and handled like something Sky Captain would fly in the World of Tomorrow. Fast (185-knot cruise on <11 gph), nimble, recreationally aerobatic, IFR capable, and with a "spare no expense" attitude when it came to structure, interior finishings and ergonomics. Further, you could get it as a fair-weather VFR sport airplane or a serious glass-panel traveling machine. With full fuel and two standard souls aboard, you could carry 150 pounds of baggage 870 nm.

Let's say the company involved carried with it one of the most recognizable names in general aviation. And let's also say it came with legitimate safety features not yet found in any other airplane, certified or experimental. Because of the quality and attention to detail, this airplane would not be cheap. But then, neither is a Porsche or a Ferrari. Figure $300K-$325K. Furthermore, let's also assume that you were virtually assured the airplane would not be "orphaned" before at least 1,000 airplanes were in the hands of owners.

The question is: Would this appeal to you?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If it was an amphib-floatable high wing it would. Is it ?
No. Sky Captain was strictly a low-wing guy ... although as I recall in the movie his airplane also worked as a submarine. This does not.
 
Ken Ibold said:
No. Sky Captain was strictly a low-wing guy ... although as I recall in the movie his airplane also worked as a submarine. This does not.

I like a wing over my head for camping and pre-flight, plus shade and rain shield, so that whole project can be scrapped or re-vamped please...
 
Given the quality of the well-kept planes in the used market, I have a hard time paying bucks like that for what is essentially a 'new car' smell.
 
$300+K for two seats? No, not even if I had the money. Cheap, safe two, three, and four seaters is what GA needs, not more unattainable beauties, IMHO.
 
I thought this was available in the Micco SP20...which might be orphaned. But the easiest way to do this is to buy a runout Globe Swift and drop in the 0-320 STC. Jeepers can it move.
 
It was sounding really, really good to me, Ken, until you got to the price. I was thinking, this sounds exactly like the airplane I'm looking for!
 
Furthermore, let's also assume that you were virtually assured the airplane would not be "orphaned" before at least 1,000 airplanes were in the hands of owners.
Orphaned is when the manufacturer stops making them, I guess? What is desirable about having 1,000 in the hands of owners first?
 
Ken:

Sounds interesting, but I do believe you'll run into the four seater market share at that pricing. For not much more, someone could have 4 seats.

I'm primarily looking for a mini airliner; so, this wouldn't appeal to me today. Maybe when I'm not carrying as much around.

Best,

Dave
A-36TN ADS
 
bbchien said:
I thought this was available in the Micco SP20...which might be orphaned. But the easiest way to do this is to buy a runout Globe Swift and drop in the 0-320 STC. Jeepers can it move.
The SP20 suffered from an induction system design flaw that limited HP to about 185 instead of 200, but they didn't discover it until after certification and then didn't feel like paying to fix it. It was a slow airplane, like 140 kts on a 200-hp retract. The SP26 was aerobatic, and was a nice plane, but alas only something like 15 got built before the company went tango uniform.

And now Micco is dead. The company got auctioned, and I heard today the buyer took the TC and moved out all the stuff and yet the $1.5M check he gave for it bounced.
 
Toby said:
Orphaned is when the manufacturer stops making them, I guess? What is desirable about having 1,000 in the hands of owners first?
One of the problems with new models is that product support is difficult years down the road if there aren't enough out there. A largish universe of airplanes gives critical mass that makes it worthwhile for someone to offer product support ... like Fletchair and Tigers.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Sounds interesting, but I do believe you'll run into the four seater market share at that pricing. For not much more, someone could have 4 seats.
Yes, but the same could be said about a roadster from Mercedes or BMW or Porsche, or a Dodge Viper. And yet there they are...

For some people, it ain't all about hauling the most butts for the fewest dollars.

Wish I was one of those people! :p
 
Ken,

Possibly. :confused: 90-95% of the time, I'm the only one in the plane.

It'll come down to comfort, too. 4 hours better leave some leg, head, and hip room. For me, altitude is key, I want something that will go high.

1000 planes may not be enough to avoid the orphanage down the road. Rockwell and Commander produced something on the order of 1300 - 1500, there are still on the order of 750 on the US registry in flying condition, and a number internationally. Parts support has been OK when the factory was running, but now that it's Tango Uniform parts are more difficult to find (not impossible, but there is no one single support source). I think numbers of 2500 - 5000 make the plane much more sustainable.
 
Not me but maybe to others with more desire for sizzle despite the price. You can certainly get the same speed, load and range in a used Mooney, for example, at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. On the 2-place side, Lancairs and Glasairs are comparable examples of speed, load & range for a great deal less if you want non-certified aircraft. Granted, Ferrari buyers don't factor price as much as other features. It just seems to me like a rather limited market at that price.
 
Ken Ibold said:
One of the problems with new models is that product support is difficult years down the road if there aren't enough out there. A largish universe of airplanes gives critical mass that makes it worthwhile for someone to offer product support ... like Fletchair and Tigers.

Not to mention that the more there are, the more will be in the boneyard for parts later....
 
Ken Ibold said:
The question is: Would this appeal to you?

Not really, and I don't think the market would accept it either. Expensive two seaters just don't seem like a good buy for anything but a purely acro airplane to most potential owneres IMO. Also I'm not too fond of combining acro capabilities with a cross country machine, there are just too many compromises to make, and the stresses of acro tend to dictate a high proportion of maintenance hours to flight hours.
 
Thanks for the feedback. Bruce was close. The airplane I was referring to is the LoPresti Fury, which will soon begin the certification process. Roy was looking for a factory site at the time of his tragic accident, and now, 14 years after it was first unveiled, the family is going forward with the project. Roy had laid most of the certification groundwork before his death, and the family has assembled some serious money to finish the project.

They asked me to join their business advisory board, and I was just curious what this slice of the market thought of the airplane. During the first go-round, they generated 569 firm orders. It will be interesting to see how many of those would-be buyers pony up now, and how the market reacts to the airplane.

For more info: http://www.loprestifury.com
 
bbchien said:
But the easiest way to do this is to buy a runout Globe Swift and drop in the 0-320 STC. Jeepers can it move.


This is true, but how do you get the first 50 hours in it with out killing your self?

Globe Swift -- Squirlly (big time)

There are 3 in a hangar at AWO I offered 50k for, and the guy refused.

There are a few with the TSIO-360-KB 220 horse in them. Owners claim 220Kn with them.

But over sized folks need not apply. :)
 
Ken, the specs say "fully aerobatic." What do they mean by "fully"?
 
I'd be more afraid if it said "partially aerobatic"... what the wings can handle it if you do a loop but the tail falls off? ;-)
 
Greebo said:
I'd be more afraid if it said "partially aerobatic"... what the wings can handle it if you do a loop but the tail falls off? ;-)

Positive G aerobatics versus negative G aerobatics, I think. But I dunno.

-Skip
 
Greebo said:
I'd be more afraid if it said "partially aerobatic"... what the wings can handle it if you do a loop but the tail falls off? ;-)

Partially = Cessna 152 aerobat
Fully = Extra 540?
 
I was wondering because he described it as "recreationally" aerobatic.

This is such a gorgeous plane, carries a lot, goes fast, has safety features, so cute to boot......
 
Speaking of tongue in cheek remarks not being picked up on :rofl:
 
Toby said:
I was wondering because he described it as "recreationally" aerobatic.

This is such a gorgeous plane, carries a lot, goes fast, has safety features, so cute to boot......
It's definitely a work of art. I hope to have a chance to fly the prototype in the next month or two. I talked to Bill Cox on Monday about it -- he's one of six people who have flown it -- and describing the experience makes his eyes sparkle.

Toby, I think you and I are kindred spirits on this one.
 
Ken Ibold said:
It's definitely a work of art. I hope to have a chance to fly the prototype in the next month or two. I talked to Bill Cox on Monday about it -- he's one of six people who have flown it -- and describing the experience makes his eyes sparkle.

Toby, I think you and I are kindred spirits on this one.
We are, for sure. Ken, you MUST write a long and detailed post about your flight! I want everything from takeoff to touchdown, and lots of photos. :yes:

Did Bill happen to compare it to any other airplanes (that I might have flown)?

If I win the MegaMillions jackpot, I'm getting one of these. I am suddenly having no problem deciding what kind of airplane I want.
 
Toby said:
Did Bill happen to compare it to any other airplanes (that I might have flown)?
He did not, but he did repeatedly stress that he has flown 359 (or however many) different airplane models, from ultralights to F-15s and his enthusiasm for the Fury broke through his otherwise jaded facade.
 
Ken Ibold said:
He did not, but he did repeatedly stress that he has flown 359 (or however many) different airplane models, from ultralights to F-15s and his enthusiasm for the Fury broke through his otherwise jaded facade.
Oh!! I am choking on my mozzarella stick.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yes, but the same could be said about a roadster from Mercedes or BMW or Porsche, or a Dodge Viper. And yet there they are...

I'll wager that most Viper/Z3/Miata owners have multiple cars at their disposal and the volume on those models doesn't compare with the more popular 4-5 seat models from the same manufacturers (Porsche being an exception there).

I still say you'd be looking at a very small portion of a very small market.
 
Ken Ibold said:
It's definitely a work of art. I hope to have a chance to fly the prototype in the next month or two. I talked to Bill Cox on Monday about it -- he's one of six people who have flown it -- and describing the experience makes his eyes sparkle.

I'd expect it to be a wonderful plane to fly. Since it's so fast, you ought to be able to come up here and give me a demo, right?
 
No, not at that price...

The problem is, you can have 180kts for around that price range with current 4 seaters, such as the Lancair and Cirrus...

Ok, so maybe they don't handle as well, but that's the market you're playing against.

Now you're right that Porshe does sell a lot of 2 seaters, but if you consider the size of the auto market, there is room for those. If you scale the auto market down to the airplane market, then scale Porshe sales down, what number do you come up with? I'll bet it's a small number... :(

Good luck regardless, hopefully they can make it work...
 
NC19143 said:
This is true, but how do you get the first 50 hours in it with out killing your self?

Globe Swift -- Squirlly (big time)

There are 3 in a hangar at AWO I offered 50k for, and the guy refused.

There are a few with the TSIO-360-KB 220 horse in them. Owners claim 220Kn with them.

But over sized folks need not apply. :)

The Swifts aren't that bad, most people just land them too fast, they forget about the leading edge slats. I kinda like them, especially the ones with the stick conversion, Lord knows there's a bunch of good mods for them.

I think the LanceAir 360 fits the initial profile pretty well also.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Let's say someone decided to build and certify a very high quality 2-seat airplane. Fast (185-knot cruise on <11 gph), nimble, recreationally aerobatic, IFR capable, and with a "spare no expense" attitude when it came to structure, interior finishings and ergonomics. Further, you could get it as a fair-weather VFR sport airplane or a serious glass-panel traveling machine. With full fuel and two standard souls aboard, you could carry 150 pounds of baggage 870 nm.

Let's say the company involved carried with it one of the most recognizable names in general aviation. And let's also say it came with legitimate safety features not yet found in any other airplane, certified or experimental. The question is: Would this appeal to you?

Almost. I want: 2 pax RR/Allison 250 powered 350+ kt IFR, +9/-6 Acro, 2250 nm range w/ff & 550lbs in the plane. Airframe has to be composite, panel can be glass or not, doesn't much matter to me, pressurized would be nice.
 
Back
Top