New Fully Equipped LSA for under $85,000--The promise fullfilled!!??

[Frank Giger]

And then there's those who feel the LSA thing was meant to make cheaper airplanes.

Precisely.

One can't have it all!

I trained in the FlightDesign CTLS, one of the two most popular "modern" LSA's out there. It goes for around 100K (starting; keep adding options for more!), and I can see why.

Composite construction.
Glass panel.
Auto pilot.
Trim on every control.
Uber GPS setup.
Top of the gross weight for LSA (I always smirk when I see an exact 1,320 pounds gross in a POH).
Top of the allowable max continuous speed for LSA (slowed by prop, but remember it's the POH recommended Vh, not the top speed, also perfectly matching the limit set forth by the LSA rules).

It's a two seat little hot rod. The owner has a PPL and uses it for serious cross the country cross-countries (and defrays some of the cost by making it available for training when he doesn't use it) for business and it suits his needs perfectly. It's also great for weekend get-aways for him and his wife.

It is not a very good "goofing about" plane, as it's typical cruise is 72-85 knots....too fast for me to really enjoy looking at the scenery.

But for it's design purpose - the tricked out Mercedes Coupe of the skies - it would be a good seller if LSA rules didn't exist.

The price tag matches.

I'm inclined towards the bottom end of the LSA design parameters - low and slow two seaters built for purely recreational flying, and actually prefer steam gauges. 100K is rediculous for such a plane IMHO, but the Carbon Cub guys seem to have found quite a few people that disagree with me.

I really didn't understand the different endorsements for Sport Pilots for aircraft with a Vh greater than 87 knots and those with one below that, but when one thinks about how the designs have shaken out it makes sense. It's also a sort of cost line.

[Joe LaMantia]

Guys,
There's a nice article on the CTLS in the December issue of AOPA pilot, beautiful little airplane with a "base price" of $139800, the price "as tested" was $160165. If you have the $$ and it fits your mission then it may be your solution. It always comes down to knowing your mission before you start dreaming, then looking at your budget and narrowing down to what's available. All new aircraft are pricy, but most hold their value well over time as long as they're maintained. Frank and I have the same mission type and budgets so the used market is still a good value for us. I have been club flying for years, it's cheap and I have access to two different mission types, but I still dream of owning my own slow flyer some day.

Joe

[Floatsflyer]

Exactly. But people believe that they are entitled to a shiny new airplane for the same money. People don't understand that there are costs involved with building an airplane. And then there's those who feel the LSA thing was meant to make cheaper airplanes.

It has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement(really!) but rather the intuitiveness and knowledge of knowing the cost differences between FAA standard certification and LSA certification. The former is an onerous and obscenely expensive undertaking. The certified manufacturers set acquisition prices at high levels in order to recoup the $multi, multi-millions they are forced/obligated to spend to certify and produce. The ASTM LSA certification model/requirements are a pittance comparatively. It was a far more economical and time-saving model used by design to dramatically bring down costs. LSA, like their older brothers, have the same right to recoup, but such costs must be reflective of the actual costs incurred and in my opinion, I don't believe that's the case.

[Floatsflyer]

Exactly. But people believe that they are entitled to a shiny new airplane for the same money. People don't understand that there are costs involved with building an airplane. And then there's those who feel the LSA thing was meant to make cheaper airplanes.

It has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement(really!) but rather the intuitiveness and knowledge of knowing the cost differences between FAA standard certification and LSA certification. The former is an onerous and obscenely expensive undertaking. The certified manufacturers set acquisition prices at high levels in order to recoup the $multi, multi-millions they are forced/obligated to spend to certify and produce. The ASTM LSA certification model/requirements are a pittance comparatively. It was a far more economical and time-saving model used by design to dramatically bring down costs. LSA, like their older brothers, have the same right to recoup, but such costs must be reflective of the actual costs incurred and in my opinion, I don't believe that's the case.

[Joe LaMantia]

Floatsflyer,

I will agree with your statement that the ASTM LSA certification is less costly, but I don't think it is a large piece of the price. Here's my thumbnail cost analysis using Van's RV-12. The Standard Kit is priced a tad over 63K. That covers everything but paint and Van says it takes between 700 hours to 900 hours to complete. I'll use 800 hours for this estimate and $60/hr, a fairly low ball variable mfg rate. That adds $48K to the value without paint, so the RV-12 is now sitting at $111K. The base CTLS is just under $139K, that $28K difference has to cover not only the investment in LSA certification, but all the molds and tooling required to build the airframe. In Van's case he can spread his investment in equipment over all his kits; RV's 7,8,9,10, & 12. He's been in business for a long time and has made a big investment in CAD/CAM that has paid big dividends. The RV-12 gets a big benefit from previous investments, something that FlightDesign doesn't have. Yes, $28K is a big difference, but the economic reality of aircraft mfg. makes $100K plus products normal in this market. Let's not forget that all business ventures have to make a profit to stay in business, and despite high prices there have been a lot of "mergers", "re-organizations", and bankruptcies within the aviation world. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Joe

[Floatsflyer]

[QUOTE=Joe LaMantia;6879]Floatsflyer,

I will agree with your statement that the ASTM LSA certification is less costly, but I don't think it is a large piece of the price. Here's my thumbnail cost analysis using Van's RV-12. The Standard Kit is priced a tad over 63K. That covers everything but paint and Van says it takes between 700 hours to 900 hours to complete. I'll use 800 hours for this estimate and $60/hr, a fairly low ball variable mfg rate. That adds $48K to the value without paint, so the RV-12 is now sitting at $111K. The base CTLS is just under $139K, that $28K difference has to cover not only the investment in LSA certification, but all the molds and tooling required to build the airframe. In Van's case he can spread his investment in equipment over all his kits; RV's 7,8,9,10, & 12. He's been in business for a long time and has made a big investment in CAD/CAM that has paid big dividends. The RV-12 gets a big benefit from previous investments, something that FlightDesign doesn't have. Yes, $28K is a big difference, but the economic reality of aircraft mfg. makes $100K plus products normal in this market. Let's not forget that all business ventures have to make a profit to stay in business, and despite high prices there have been a lot of "mergers", "re-organizations", and bankruptcies within the aviation world. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Joe
[/QUO



Thanks for your analysis, Joe. I can appreciate the thought process that went into it. But I'm not sure that using the RV-12 is a good example because it's not a factory built S-LSA. If it was, perhaps economies of scale, assembly line methodologies and Vans accumulated manufacturing expertise as well as technology investments in place might all come into play to offer it at a lower cost. At the end of the day, aircraft manufacturers like all companies who provide a product or service have their own cost structures to contend with. Lower the costs, lower the price point for the consumer or so the theory/practice goes. Pipistral has obviously done just this. This is what creates competition, eliminates collusion and anti-trust. Example: How does Southwest Airlines almost always offer airfares far lower than United? Their cost structure is less. Wouldn't it be great if the big oil companies actually competed with one another!

[kscessnadriver]

Example: How does Southwest Airlines almost always offer airfares far lower than United? Their cost structure is less. Wouldn't it be great if the big oil companies actually competed with one another!

They don't. They used to and have people conditioned to think the continue to do so.

In any case, the search for an LSA that people want under $60K is a never ending one. Materials are never going to be cheap enough for that to happen.

[Bill Greenwood]

KS, that's baloney. Southwest is almost always going to be cheaper than United. I often fly from Denver to Texas, two of the choices are United and Southwest, so I compare and know the fares. There are adds on prices that really run up the United fare also, for instance the $25 to check even one bag, and the $150 penalty if you need to change the date of your flight or even the time of day on United. On Southwest you get full credit, and no charge for the changed time unless the fare has gone up.
There are two other factors that favor SWA, they people that work for them are nicer, seem to like their jobs better, and their safety record is better, there has never been a single fatality to a passenger on SWA all these years( they did have one to a person on the ground, not a passenger).
I don't work for either airline, but I do have stock in SWA, used to be a great investment, not so good anymore, but still better than many airlines.

[Joe LaMantia]

Floatsflyer,

My initial post on this thread tried to point out that the $85K "target" offering on the Alpha is just hype. I agree that comparing an E-LSA with a S-LSA is apples and oranges, but it does offer some insight into the cost structures and provokes some thought. Here's a bit more, check-out the Virus SW model on their web-site, this is not some design concept rendering, but an actual product they are currently producing. It is offered as a turn key model with an 80HP engine for 73K EUROS, that's $103K using $1.40 exchange. This aircraft looks very similar to the Alpha with a wing span thats about 7 inches longer. Since we don't have access to their actual mfg costs, or detailed specs on the two models I am forced to "jump" to the conclusion that the Alpha will be priced in that ballpark.

Yes, competition is generally a good thing, and SW Airlines has been used as a case study for years. When Pipistral starts delivering the "Alpha" model to customers in the US for $85K, I'll become a believer.

Joe

[Floatsflyer]

When Pipistral starts delivering the "Alpha" model to customers in the US for $85K, I'll become a believer.

Joe
[/QUOTE]

Me too Joe, me too. Pipistral says they'll have the Alpha at Osh next year. Let's meet up at their booth to see if promises do come true.