Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 79

Thread: New Experimental Turboprop

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11
    Gabby,

    Well based on your response, I looks like you have it all figured out. I suppose my 20+ years working in the exact industry you are talking about breaking into counts for nothing. Man-o-Man did I ever waste my time, apparently I learned nothing. Good luck, I do sincerely wish you success in your venture. As a pilot since the early 90's I cannot remember one time that I ever gave cost per NM one thought, I don't think most anybody else does. Of the 15+ high performance aircraft that I have built for customers, several turbine, I cannot ever remember a single customer extolling the advantages of cost per NM. You got it all down on paper, you go get em' tiger.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    There are other points re: competition as well. The LSA market is a prime example. Companies bring out spanking-new LSAs priced at $125,000 and expect people to rush their doors waving money. In reality, their customer base is shouting, "Are you nucking FUTS???" and buying equivalent used aircraft for a quarter of that amount.

    And that's where Gabby's Phantasm (he won't give us its name, let's give it one) might run into problems: He's not completing with new airplanes; he's competing with USED airplanes.
    Sorry, the process is too new yet, we don't have a name for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    He'll be standing there in his blue-checked airplane-salesman suit, extolling the superiority of the Phantasm to a potential customer. The customer's eyes will happen to fall on a copy of Trade-A-Plane open to the Malibu/TBM/whatever page.

    "Hmmmm," he'll be thinking. "I can give Gabby $1,000,000 today, pay another $200,000 for an engine, and $100,000 to hired guns to build it for me, wait six months for it to be completed, hope the FAA never detects the fradulent licensing, and forever face difficulties finding someone to annual the airplane for me. Or I can call the number in that ad and fly home tomorrow in a plane with 90% of the performance, none of the legal issues, and have FBOs falling over themselves wanting my business, for about the same money."

    There will always be those who MUST have a Phat ("Gabby's Phantasm" is too long). But is relying on these folks a good business plan?

    Ron Wanttaja
    No, the product will be $1m for the kit, engine and build assistance. Without build assistance it will be somewhere near $800-850k.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    hope the FAA never detects the fradulent licensing
    Your assuming that we would do this practice. It's not fair to me/us and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    "Hmmmm," he'll be thinking. "I can give Gabby $1,000,000 today, pay another $200,000 for an engine, and $100,000 to hired guns to build it for me, wait six months for it to be completed, hope the FAA never detects the fradulent licensing, and forever face difficulties finding someone to annual the airplane for me. Or I can call the number in that ad and fly home tomorrow in a plane with 90% of the performance, none of the legal issues, and have FBOs falling over themselves wanting my business, for about the same money."
    Actually I know of a local shop to me that services a couple Evolutions. It can't be that hard to find people to service kit planes. And if you want to call spending another $500k (1/3 more cost) and $100/hr in fuel (not to mention slower, TBM 700 10%, Meridian 20%) basically the same then ok.
    Last edited by gabbett1; 02-16-2014 at 05:55 PM.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by av-mech View Post
    Gabby,

    Well based on your response, I looks like you have it all figured out. I suppose my 20+ years working in the exact industry you are talking about breaking into counts for nothing. Man-o-Man did I ever waste my time, apparently I learned nothing. Good luck, I do sincerely wish you success in your venture. As a pilot since the early 90's I cannot remember one time that I ever gave cost per NM one thought, I don't think most anybody else does. Of the 15+ high performance aircraft that I have built for customers, several turbine, I cannot ever remember a single customer extolling the advantages of cost per NM. You got it all down on paper, you go get em' tiger.
    I talk on a daily basis with people that do consider cost per NM in the Bonanza community. It is a real part of flying and to say that nobody thinks of it isn't being real to the whole dynamic of aviation. Hell, I'm a well to do individual and I think of the cost per nm all of the time. I don't know why you have to be this defensive simply because someone disagrees with your point of view.

    I'm assuming your getting defensive about the post to do with cost of flying a turbine vs piston and the cost of overhauls etc. What about my post doesn't make sense? I live that example.

    My first airplane that I personally owned was a V-Tail Bonanza. I flew 182 kts true at 16 gph. Now I fly a PT6-21 powered B36TC Bonanza and I fly 252 kts at 33 gph.

    V-Tail:
    182 / 16 = 11.37
    5.64 / 11.37 = $0.49

    Turoprop Bo:
    252 / 33 = 7.6
    4.93 / 7.6 = $0.65

    0.65 - 0.49 = $0.16 difference per NM

    I think I'll pay $0.16 more per NM to go 70 kts faster. These are the things people will have to consider with our product when they see that a new Cirrus or Bo is going to cost them $800k and our turboprop is $1m (especially when you consider how much more reliable a turboprop is, speed difference, pressure, etc.). You can get to your destination a lot faster for a nominal amount of extra fuel cost.

    The real remarkable thing about this comparison is that the -21 actually gets the worst SPC of the PT6 line.
    Last edited by gabbett1; 02-16-2014 at 06:06 PM.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Let me pose this question to the board. What do you think of the Evolution and the Epic? Please list each one out separately.

  5. #55
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by gabbett1 View Post
    I just demonstrated above that it can be close.
    LOL. You ever operate a turbine aircraft? You know how much maintenance and parts cost on those engines? No offense but it sounds like you have no real experience with what you're trying to develop and sell.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    LOL. You ever operate a turbine aircraft? You know how much maintenance and parts cost on those engines? No offense but it sounds like you have no real experience with what you're trying to develop and sell.
    Well, I just posted that I have a turboprop airplane of my own. I've also been in and around a TBM and now a PC-12 that my family owns.

    Did you even read my post of what I was demonstrating? I gave specific numbers for cost per nm. If my math is incorrect, please let me know where.

  7. #57
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by gabbett1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wanttaja
    hope the FAA never detects the fradulent licensing
    Your assuming that we would do this practice. It's not fair to me/us and you know it.
    I do? How? Because I've researched your company? Because I've examined your track record in other business deals?

    Well, no. Don't know who you are. Don't know who you're shilling for (got pretty good idea, but it's not the same as *knowing*). So, how, pray tell, do I "know" I'm being unfair to you?

    Never had much experience with con men, but the way I understand it, they never tell you their real name, and they use phases like "It's better than anything else on the market", and "You won't have to compromise" and "You can trust me." "You're not being fair" sound just like it fits in, don't it?

    You're telling me that a program that doesn't exist, using people who haven't been identified much less hired, provide aid to building an airplane that hasn't flown a prototype, and doesn't even exist on paper, yet (only 75% complete, I believe you said), is going to set up a program that minimizes the wrench-turning required for as-yet-unidentified clients who will probably spend 99% of their time at your as-yet unbuilt facility on their phones running the businesses that made them the money that let them buy a $1,000,000 airplane kit. And when that billionaire customer says, "install that for me or I'll sue," your shop manager is gonna just boot his Armani-clad butt out of the facility?

    Love to see it.

    I saw a recent posting from someone who has visited a couple similar centers. He describes the owners showing up to get their pictures taken with a wrench in their hand, and then they're gone. Paperwork floating around somewhere says they're doing 51%.

    It's a perversion of what Paul Poberezny and the founders of EAA fought to achieve. They wanted a process that'd let every American who wanted to build and fly his own airplane. Not a scam for millionaires to dodge certification processes for their personal propjets.

    And I'll be fair, just this once: It's not your fault, Gabby. But of course, your company is willing to capitalize on it. It's the American way, I guess...if, strictly speaking, it's not illegal, who cares how morally corrupt it is?

    But of course, I'm just an old man, howling on the Internet where nothing really ever happens. Ten years from now, your first customer will make his weekly visit to the shop. They'll wipe a dirty rag across his forehead, hand him a wrench, and he'll grimace over a part until the camera flash fires. He'll wipe off the grease (with sanitizer, of course), and call the New York graphic designer and the paint shop in California about the graphic design and schedule. Two months later, he'll have his pilot fly the plane to Oshkosh. Later that week, he'll step onto the stage to accept his Lindy.

    In the crowd, perhaps, is a man with scars on his forearms. There's grease embedded under his fingernails, and a burn mark on his leg that he just laughs off and refuses to talk about. Parked way out in south 40 is a homebuilt biplane. Maybe a Hatz, maybe a Kelly D, maybe a Starduster. He took welding courses ten years earlier to get ready for the build. His wife helped shape the tubing, his kids were old enough, eventually, to help rib-stitch the wings. He saved for eight years, to be able to afford a old run-out Lycoming. His EAA buddies helped him rebuild it. But the work is meticulous. There's a pile of scrap parts behind the garage, which didn't meet his standards and what HE wanted to fly with. But he got it done; rigging the garage as a paint booth for the simple but clean design which was all he could afford.

    And he'll applaud when your customer takes the Lindy, Gabby. He'll tell his friends what a neat airplane that was. And go home with...perhaps... only a small touch of disappointment.

    When it happens, be proud, Gabby. Be proud.

    Ron Wanttaja

  8. #58
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by gabbett1 View Post
    Well, I just posted that I have a turboprop airplane of my own. I've also been in and around a TBM and now a PC-12 that my family owns.

    Did you even read my post of what I was demonstrating? I gave specific numbers for cost per nm. If my math is incorrect, please let me know where.
    Your math indicates best case scenario at ideal cruise. It does not take into consideration turbine inefficiencies that rear their ugly head on shorter (lower) flights, higher fuel burn during ground ops, not even to mention the higher fixed costs associated with turbine aircraft ownership. Turbines are great, they are powerful, but cheap they are not. How much work and $$$ will be added to the cost of this proposed aircraft, just to install FIKI equipment? Because without that, one will very rarely get to use the aircraft at its optimal altitude.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    I do? How? Because I've researched your company? Because I've examined your track record in other business deals?

    Well, no. Don't know who you are. Don't know who you're shilling for (got pretty good idea, but it's not the same as *knowing*). So, how, pray tell, do I "know" I'm being unfair to you?

    Never had much experience with con men, but the way I understand it, they never tell you their real name, and they use phases like "It's better than anything else on the market", and "You won't have to compromise" and "You can trust me." "You're not being fair" sound just like it fits in, don't it?

    You're telling me that a program that doesn't exist, using people who haven't been identified much less hired, provide aid to building an airplane that hasn't flown a prototype, and doesn't even exist on paper, yet (only 75% complete, I believe you said), is going to set up a program that minimizes the wrench-turning required for as-yet-unidentified clients who will probably spend 99% of their time at your as-yet unbuilt facility on their phones running the businesses that made them the money that let them buy a $1,000,000 airplane kit. And when that billionaire customer says, "install that for me or I'll sue," your shop manager is gonna just boot his Armani-clad butt out of the facility?

    Love to see it.

    I saw a recent posting from someone who has visited a couple similar centers. He describes the owners showing up to get their pictures taken with a wrench in their hand, and then they're gone. Paperwork floating around somewhere says they're doing 51%.

    It's a perversion of what Paul Poberezny and the founders of EAA fought to achieve. They wanted a process that'd let every American who wanted to build and fly his own airplane. Not a scam for millionaires to dodge certification processes for their personal propjets.

    And I'll be fair, just this once: It's not your fault, Gabby. But of course, your company is willing to capitalize on it. It's the American way, I guess...if, strictly speaking, it's not illegal, who cares how morally corrupt it is?

    But of course, I'm just an old man, howling on the Internet where nothing really ever happens. Ten years from now, your first customer will make his weekly visit to the shop. They'll wipe a dirty rag across his forehead, hand him a wrench, and he'll grimace over a part until the camera flash fires. He'll wipe off the grease (with sanitizer, of course), and call the New York graphic designer and the paint shop in California about the graphic design and schedule. Two months later, he'll have his pilot fly the plane to Oshkosh. Later that week, he'll step onto the stage to accept his Lindy.

    In the crowd, perhaps, is a man with scars on his forearms. There's grease embedded under his fingernails, and a burn mark on his leg that he just laughs off and refuses to talk about. Parked way out in south 40 is a homebuilt biplane. Maybe a Hatz, maybe a Kelly D, maybe a Starduster. He took welding courses ten years earlier to get ready for the build. His wife helped shape the tubing, his kids were old enough, eventually, to help rib-stitch the wings. He saved for eight years, to be able to afford a old run-out Lycoming. His EAA buddies helped him rebuild it. But the work is meticulous. There's a pile of scrap parts behind the garage, which didn't meet his standards and what HE wanted to fly with. But he got it done; rigging the garage as a paint booth for the simple but clean design which was all he could afford.

    And he'll applaud when your customer takes the Lindy, Gabby. He'll tell his friends what a neat airplane that was. And go home with...perhaps... only a small touch of disappointment.

    When it happens, be proud, Gabby. Be proud.

    Ron Wanttaja
    You are coming off like a person that has been severely burned by these processes. I'll say it again. You don't know anything about me. Yet your jumping on me like I will without a doubt skirt every corner possible. I came from a heritage that did business by a handshake, when your word meant something and you stood by it. I still believe in that practice, but we all know that the nature of today's business doesn't work that way anymore. Trust me, I understand the want to believe that everyone does business as shady as possible to get ahead. But that is not me. If it was, why would I be trying to bring a product to market that is cheaper than anyone else in the category? I easily could make the airplane I am talking about and charge just a little over what Lancair does for theirs and call it good, and make a killing on each one. But that is not my intent. I actually want to do something that I believe could be good for GA. Maybe you, and a lot of others don't agree that there is a need in this area, but just because someone wants to try, why hammer him at every turn? Give feedback, facts, data, those types of things that show why my idea is bad, or why a certain aspect of it won't work. But the way you and some others are going about it is not the right way. In fact it makes someone like myself look at you as a grumpy old man that wants to take a turd on anything that comes his way.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    Your math indicates best case scenario at ideal cruise. It does not take into consideration turbine inefficiencies that rear their ugly head on shorter (lower) flights, higher fuel burn during ground ops, not even to mention the higher fixed costs associated with turbine aircraft ownership. Turbines are great, they are powerful, but cheap they are not. How much work and $$$ will be added to the cost of this proposed aircraft, just to install FIKI equipment? Because without that, one will very rarely get to use the aircraft at its optimal altitude.
    Well, to be fair, I was referring to cost per nm of fuel. Sure short hops will burn more fuel, etc. But the type of person that is going to purchase this type of airplane isn't going to be doing nothing but short hops. I myself fly about 200 hours a year. Less than 5% of my trips would I consider a short hop.

    You cannot install FIKI on an Experimental. But you can install De-Ice. And my $1m pricing includes De-Ice.

    Typically higher costs of turbine ownership is associated with certified airplanes. An aluminum certified airplane will cost a whole lot more to maintain than a carbon fiber turbine airplane. Let alone if the latter is Experimental. The way my partner explained it to me, parts are much much cheaper on the experimental market, thus annuals and maintenance in general is much less. Typically certified airplanes charge an arm and a leg for components because they can, and in some ways they need to. Perfect example, there was a thread started on Beechtalk a Bonanza owner tried to get a part for his airplane through Beechcraft. Beech wanted to charge him $600 for the part. The gentlemen ended up finding a part manufactured by an aftermarket company and bought it for $70.

    As is, I have put ~450 hours on my turboprop Bonanza, and so far our annuals are pretty close to the cost of a typical Bonanza annual. That suggests to me that the turbine engine hasn't really added much cost for maintenance during annual inspections (I'm not pronouncing myself correct, but just using my own experience as an example), which makes me believe that it has more to do with the pride companies like Socata and Pilatus have in their parts. Which is why an overhaul on landing gear can cost $30-40k. You can't tell me it costs anywhere near that to actually build those parts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •