New Experimental Turboprop

[rwanttaja]

You are coming off like a person that has been severely burned by these processes.

Who *I* am is pretty easy to discover. I've put my name on every Internet posting for the past 30 years.

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.

Sorry: I say again, we don't know who you are. Your first posting in this forum was an attempt to find investors for a company that you won't even identify. Just like you won't identify yourself.

I don't know who Floatsflyer is, nor Infidel, nor av-mech. But they haven't tried to hit me up for money, either. I've crossed swords with Floats a time or two, but he argues with logic, not claims of knowledge or experience that he refuses to back up to protect his anonymity.

If it was, why would I be trying to bring a product to market that is cheaper than anyone else in the category?

You're trying? Prove it. Show an aircraft diagram, give the qualifications of your designer, post a development schedule.

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.

Oooh, scatological comment. Momma must be so proud.

Are you sure you're cut out for this? I've been working in the homebuilt world off-and-on for 25 years or so, and have met a lot of sales folks from various homebuilt companies. They've all been incredibly level-headed men (haven't met any female ones yet). You dispute something with them, and they stay cool and calm. Try argue with them, and the deflect the conversation back to the topics they want to cover. See if you can spot the common theme from these quotes you've made over the last couple of days.

"I didn't realize that I had to have a full blown business plan with drawings and technical data just to bounce an idea off of a group of people."

"I'm not going to blast our plans and data on the internet."

"No, it is not Jim Bede. I don't even know who that is." [they don't have Wikipedia in Indiana?]

"There hasn't been discussion, there has been rock throwing and me trying to dodge."

"I've been asked nicely very little."

"I think I'm done here." [Well, apparently not]

"But I don't see how my inability to share intimate details on the internet automatically labels me as having a bad rap or a snake oil salesmen?"

Pick it out, yet?

The words "I" and "me".

None of these very good salesmen who I've worked with would allow their egos to arise, in a business situation. Their focus was on the product they were marketing, and nothing would distract them. Nor would they say things that would perpetuate the unwanted exchange...which, of course, you have been doing all along. "...your jumping on me..." "a grumpy old man that wants to take a turd" "It's sad that so many of you have been so jaded by past products/people".

I repeat, are you sure you're cut out for this? It's likely to get nastier when you actually start having meetings with investors. These people are likely to be a bit abrupt. You are definitely the inferior in these situations and they'll make sure you know it.. Can you subsume your ego enough to work with them? Look at those quotes of yours in the last paragraph...are you REALLY going to say those kinds of things to potential investors?

Kids these days....

Ron Wanttaja

[gabbett1]

Who *I* am is pretty easy to discover. I've put my name on every Internet posting for the past 30 years.


Sorry: I say again, we don't know who you are. Your first posting in this forum was an attempt to find investors for a company that you won't even identify. Just like you won't identify yourself.

I don't know who Floatsflyer is, nor Infidel, nor av-mech. But they haven't tried to hit me up for money, either. I've crossed swords with Floats a time or two, but he argues with logic, not claims of knowledge or experience that he refuses to back up to protect his anonymity.


You're trying? Prove it. Show an aircraft diagram, give the qualifications of your designer, post a development schedule.

Oooh, scatological comment. Momma must be so proud.

Are you sure you're cut out for this? I've been working in the homebuilt world off-and-on for 25 years or so, and have met a lot of sales folks from various homebuilt companies. They've all been incredibly level-headed men (haven't met any female ones yet). You dispute something with them, and they stay cool and calm. Try argue with them, and the deflect the conversation back to the topics they want to cover. See if you can spot the common theme from these quotes you've made over the last couple of days.

"I didn't realize that I had to have a full blown business plan with drawings and technical data just to bounce an idea off of a group of people."

"I'm not going to blast our plans and data on the internet."

"No, it is not Jim Bede. I don't even know who that is." [they don't have Wikipedia in Indiana?]

"There hasn't been discussion, there has been rock throwing and me trying to dodge."

"I've been asked nicely very little."

"I think I'm done here." [Well, apparently not]

"But I don't see how my inability to share intimate details on the internet automatically labels me as having a bad rap or a snake oil salesmen?"

Pick it out, yet?

The words "I" and "me".

None of these very good salesmen who I've worked with would allow their egos to arise, in a business situation. Their focus was on the product they were marketing, and nothing would distract them. Nor would they say things that would perpetuate the unwanted exchange...which, of course, you have been doing all along. "...your jumping on me..." "a grumpy old man that wants to take a turd" "It's sad that so many of you have been so jaded by past products/people".

I repeat, are you sure you're cut out for this? It's likely to get nastier when you actually start having meetings with investors. These people are likely to be a bit abrupt. You are definitely the inferior in these situations and they'll make sure you know it.. Can you subsume your ego enough to work with them? Look at those quotes of yours in the last paragraph...are you REALLY going to say those kinds of things to potential investors?

Kids these days....

Ron Wanttaja

Ok, after reading this I've realized something. First I want to apologize. I have been rude a few times and it is not appropriate, and in some ways I realized that I may be taking responses to me out of context. I also believe that a lot of what you quoted above is taken out of context. I'm not a jerk, but I can see how, if read in a certain way, many of those quotes can be taken the wrong way. Some of them are straight out rude, and like I said, I apologize for them, however most of them I am being genuine and asking a serious question. The wording could be better, and is a large reason why things can be taken out of context, and that is partly my fault.

I have no reason to hide. My name is Gerry Abbett (gabbett1). I'm not here to hustle, steal, whatever people have done in the past that is shady. I'm here to talk about the subject of the OP and get feedback. I will be passionate at times and can come across as a know it all, but my intent is not to put anyone off.

I agree that I'm a poor salesman. That's why I would let someone else do the sales part, lol. I merely am a passionate person that when I believe in something, can take things a little too far trying to convince others. It's a fault and I'm working on it.

[rwanttaja]

Gerry, spoken like a true gentleman.

i realize you're restricted in what details you can share, but do you have a rough timeline yet? E.g., approximate dates when a drawing might be released, when the configuration will be locked down, etc.

Also, most of the discussion has centered around a PT-6. IIRC, your original post mentioned alternative engines. Can you give us any insights as to what alternatives the designer might be considering?

Ron Wanttaja

[gabbett1]

Gerry, spoken like a true gentleman.

i realize you're restricted in what details you can share, but do you have a rough timeline yet? E.g., approximate dates when a drawing might be released, when the configuration will be locked down, etc.

Also, most of the discussion has centered around a PT-6. IIRC, your original post mentioned alternative engines. Can you give us any insights as to what alternatives the designer might be considering?

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,

I'm sorry, but I do not have a timeline on those items. We are sort of in a holding pattern until we are sure we can get the necessary investments. There are some things that we need to do before we can expect to procure these investments, however, I am currently looking into some sources on my end, and he on his end, but most of the work done so far (drawings, 3D models) have been done by the engineer in his free time.

I'd be happy to discuss the engine topic.

First off, one reason why he felt the -42 is the right engine to start with is because of a few reasons:
1. It is an 850 shp medium form engine that actually gets better fuel specifics than the 750 hp -135A small form engine Lancair uses.
2. The -42 is an engine that has been in service for quite some time, thus giving our customers the option of: a. finding a used fresh hot sectioned engine at the cost of $250k, b. an overhauled engine for $450k, or c. a brand new engine for $565k. This gives the customer a lot of control of how much money they want to put out up front.

This is not the case with the -135A. People are pretty much forced to only buy new.

I have also done calculations that show that the money saved by getting the fresh hot sectioned engine (250k) vs the overhauled engine (450k) if invested properly, the difference in cost of those two engines will pay for the overhaul when the time comes (I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense). However, some people will simply want the brand new engine simply for the peace of mind of having a new engine.

The -52 is also a medium form engine that would bolt right up to the engine mounts, has a higher thermal horsepower rating, allowing the customer the option to fly faster if that is what they seek.

We would then design a secondary firewall forward for small form engines that would allow the customer to use a -135A, -34, or even a -21. These options have a very wide range in price, again allowing the customer to drastically control the overall cost of their kit.

So, long and short of it, we want to give our customers as many options as possible, which we believe is a big benefit of the kit builder market. Choice and custom-ability.

What are your thoughts?

[gabbett1]

Gerry, spoken like a true gentleman.

i realize you're restricted in what details you can share, but do you have a rough timeline yet? E.g., approximate dates when a drawing might be released, when the configuration will be locked down, etc.

Also, most of the discussion has centered around a PT-6. IIRC, your original post mentioned alternative engines. Can you give us any insights as to what alternatives the designer might be considering?

Ron Wanttaja

Thank you by the way for this statement. I hope we can move forward and have a good conversation. Cheers.

[Bob Dingley]

Just asking. What do you think of the Walter 601. GE owns it now and calls it the 80 or 800. Many are used in EAB and after market modifications. Looks like a PT-6. I've flown the PT-6s and I'm a fan.

Bob

[gabbett1]

Just asking. What do you think of the Walter 601. GE owns it now and calls it the 80 or 800. Many are used in EAB and after market modifications. Looks like a PT-6. I've flown the PT-6s and I'm a fan.

Bob

I don't know enough about it to comment honestly.

[rwanttaja]

Ron,

I'm sorry, but I do not have a timeline on those items. We are sort of in a holding pattern until we are sure we can get the necessary investments. There are some things that we need to do before we can expect to procure these investments, however, I am currently looking into some sources on my end, and he on his end, but most of the work done so far (drawings, 3D models) have been done by the engineer in his free time.

No problem. Don't forget us when you DO have a picture you can release, though... :-)

I'd be happy to discuss the engine topic.

Gerry, I have to apologize, I didn't word my question clearly. I was wondering if you were considering any NON-turbine engine options. However, I think your answer pretty much covered it...not a lot of 750-850 HP recips out there.

(Hey, I fly a wooden open-cockpit airplane with 85 asthmatic horses. What do I know about turbines?)

So, long and short of it, we want to give our customers as many options as possible, which we believe is a big benefit of the kit builder market. Choice and custom-ability.

I guess it boils down into the business model. You attract more customers with wider choices, but it probably raises your costs. No doubt some of your customers will be familiar enough with the dash numbers to have an opinion, but most will probably just be happy enough that there's a spinny-burnie thing mounted up front. Might make more sense financially to standardize on one engine, and charge cost-plus for changes.

Avionics is different, of course, since you're probably just producing the panels and turning them over to a contractor to install the gizmos.

Speaking of options, I was wondering whether the builder assist program will be included in the price, or whether it's a separate, optional item? For something this size and complexity, I kind of doubt there'll be a lot of takers to try build it on their own. Ultimately, making builder assist part of the sale would save you from having to write a consumer-level construction manual. Crating and shipping the kit would come to a pretty penny, too....

Ron Wanttaja

[gabbett1]

No problem. Don't forget us when you DO have a picture you can release, though... :-)

Most definitely. I will gladly share the info when we get to that point.

Gerry, I have to apologize, I didn't word my question clearly. I was wondering if you were considering any NON-turbine engine options. However, I think your answer pretty much covered it...not a lot of 750-850 HP recips out there.

(Hey, I fly a wooden open-cockpit airplane with 85 asthmatic horses. What do I know about turbines?)


I guess it boils down into the business model. You attract more customers with wider choices, but it probably raises your costs. No doubt some of your customers will be familiar enough with the dash numbers to have an opinion, but most will probably just be happy enough that there's a spinny-burnie thing mounted up front. Might make more sense financially to standardize on one engine, and charge cost-plus for changes.

Avionics is different, of course, since you're probably just producing the panels and turning them over to a contractor to install the gizmos.

Speaking of options, I was wondering whether the builder assist program will be included in the price, or whether it's a separate, optional item? For something this size and complexity, I kind of doubt there'll be a lot of takers to try build it on their own. Ultimately, making builder assist part of the sale would save you from having to write a consumer-level construction manual. Crating and shipping the kit would come to a pretty penny, too....

Ron Wanttaja

Ah yes, I misunderstood what you were asking. We would not be offering a piston version, however if someone really wanted one enough and wanted to cover the cost, they are more than welcome. Personally I think that Lancair is wasting their time with a piston on the Evolution, but that's my opinion.

Avionics we are thinking we would outsource for the time being, and allow the customer to have the panel made up with whatever avionics suite they choose.

The builder assist program is included in the pricing we have drawn up, but it does not have to be used. So, if someone was up to it, they could purchase and build their airplane for well under $1m without build assist and a cheaper engine option. So I supposed that was a long way to say no, it isn't built in to the price, it is an option, lol.

From how it was explained to me, a customer construction manual will be made up during the build of the first flying prototype. I do not have any knowledge in this area whatsoever though, so I don't want to say for sure how this gets done.

I think I answered everything. Did I miss anything?

Edit: I did want to touch on the added cost by giving more options. Yes, you are absolutely correct it will add cost to have more than one firewall forward for us to offer true options. The nice thing is that the -42 and -52 uses the same mounting pattern, and the -135A, -34, -21, -20 all use the same mounting pattern, so we should only need two different firewall forward options. I'm sure it isn't quite that simple, but I think you may gather where I'm going with that.

[Ylinen]

Gerry,
This is a very limited market with significant competitors. Do a very detailed market research. The number of people that can afford to buy, own, and operate a 6 pax turbine aircraft are very limited. Those that can are usually not interested in A/B aircraft. They would rather buy a used certified one.

You have another competitor trying to enter the market as well. check out raptor aircraft. Also Synergy Aircraft.

You are going to have to enter the market with a superior product to what Lancair is doing.

Now if you can deliver a product like those for 1/2 their cost, then you might make a dent.

Good luck and keep us posted.