New Experimental Turboprop

[gabbett1]

Hello, I am here to find who may have interest in either investing in the company, make an initial purchase at a discount, or would simply be interested in the concept in general.

Highlights of what we would be developing:

-6 passenger composite airframe, pressurized 6.5 psi, slightly larger inside than a PA46
-1000 lb useful full of fuel
-Airstair for easy entry and exit (no squeezing in a small pilot door)
-FAR 23 flight characteristics
-PT6 powered airframe with a multitude of engine options from small to medium form engines
-Cruise speeds of 285-325 ktas (based on choice of engine)
-roughly 7.7 nm/gal with a 1300-1600 nm range
-fits inside most T-hangars (~31 ft long and ~35 ft wing span, roughly)
-Kit to be able to be built for around $1m including build assist (could be built for under $1m depending on choice of engine)
-Allow customer choice and personalization by allowing freedom to chose engine/avionics etc of their choosing, whether you buy from us or not (like a homebuilt is supposed to be)

The gentleman I am working with has extensive experience designing and building this very type of airplane. I can give more information to anyone interested in the project. We have gone over the project at some length and know that the pricing can be done.

Again, we are looking for investors as well as people that would be interested in the kit for purchase once it is developed.

Thank you

[gabbett1]

Wow, not a single response to this yet...

[rwanttaja]

Wow, not a single response to this yet...
My suspicion is that (other than Hal) there aren't a lot of millionaires here. Look how many complaints you see about $100,000 LSAs...

Ron Wanttaja

[gabbett1]

My suspicion is that (other than Hal) there aren't a lot of millionaires here. Look how many complaints you see about $100,000 LSAs...

Ron Wanttaja

Well, as you can see I'm new here so I wasn't sure if this would be a proper place to look for interest or not.

[Floatsflyer]

Well, as you can see I'm new here so I wasn't sure if this would be a proper place to look for interest or not.


Despite what Ron said, there are quite a few well-heeled people that belong to EAA that could be interested in your project. They may not participate on this forum. Try posting on the AOPA forum, probably a better target audience overall. If you have the funds, you should also consider setting up a booth at Oshkosh--the entire aviation community attends the world's biggest general aviation event.

[rwanttaja]

Well, as you can see I'm new here so I wasn't sure if this would be a proper place to look for interest or not.
Five minutes of clicking through the discussions here (hmmm, nobody expresses a wish for a million-dollar crowd killer) and the reaction to your suggestion on other homebuilt forums might have suggested that interest here in your vaporware would be slight. I'd have just let it go...except for your apparent surprise that people hadn't fallen all over your proposal.

If you want to discuss the technical basis of the design, engines, hardware, tools used to design, test plans, experience of the designer, etc., people would be quite happy to oblige you. Post a three-view or artist's concept, and folks will be slavering. But its up to you to supply that information. Asking for investors is just an invitation to a cricket symphony.

Floats is surely right, there ARE people in the industry who could afford something like this. But none will commit on the basis of a half-page dream sheet.

Right now, it looks like you have no idea on how to market your idea. Which kind of limits your chances of success....

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Ron, give the guy a break, you're being too harsh and overly critical. The OP says he would provide more information to those interested. This isn't the place to make a full out pitch presentation.

[gabbett1]

Ron, give the guy a break, you're being too harsh and overly critical. The OP says he would provide more information to those interested. This isn't the place to make a full out pitch presentation.

Thank you, 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.

[Floatsflyer]

Thank you, 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.

If you have a CAD pic I know a lot of us would like to see it.

[Matt Gonitzke]

Thank you, 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.

You asked for people who "may have interest in either investing in the company, make an initial purchase at a discount". If anyone is interested in any of those things, they will expect a business plan, specifications, and drawings.

[gabbett1]

You asked for people who "may have interest in either investing in the company, make an initial purchase at a discount". If anyone is interested in any of those things, they will expect a business plan, specifications, and drawings.

I also said that I would share more info with people one on one. I'm not going to blast our plans and data on the internet.

[gabbett1]

If you have a CAD pic I know a lot of us would like to see it.

I have an initial drawing and we have 3/4 of the airplane modeled in 3D. Those items do not belong to me at this point so I do not have the authority to share them at this time. The engineer that I am partnering up with asked me to keep those to myself and I am going to adhere to his wishes.

[rwanttaja]

If you have a CAD pic I know a lot of us would like to see it.
Don't hold your breath, Floats. He posted the same thing on homebuiltairplanes.com...the thread's up to four pages, and the only thing he's added is more performance claims.

"The gentleman I am working with has extensive experience designing and building this very type of airplane."

Doesn't this sound like Jim Bede?

(Creaking sound as thousands of EAA'ers rock back to put more weight on their wallets....)

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

"The gentleman I am working with has extensive experience designing and building this very type of airplane."

Doesn't this sound like Jim Bede?

Ron Wanttaja

Hope not or any of the other usual suspects from the I Wanna Sell an Airplane Hall of Shame. It could be anybody, maybe even someone legitimate. I know there's a tendency to be cynical in these things(and with good reason for those that have been burned deeply) but we can't paint all new developers/designers/marketers with the same brush or there will be no GA innovation, no investors in GA and nothing new to drool over at Oshkosh.

[rwanttaja]

Hope not or any of the other usual suspects from the I Wanna Sell an Airplane Hall of Shame. It could be anybody, maybe even someone legitimate. I know there's a tendency to be cynical in these things(and with good reason for those that have been burned deeply) but we can't paint all new developers/designers/marketers with the same brush or there will be no GA innovation, no investors in GA and nothing new to drool over at Oshkosh.
Floats, excellent logic as usual. I agree with the need to nurture new developments.

However, the are usually some good signs when a development should be taken seriously. They answer questions, they provide basic drawings of the aircraft. And they say *who they are*.

A positive example is our friend from Germany who's developing the jet-powered strap-on aircraft. A lot of us (including me) were skeptical when he first posted. Some of the questions (including mine) were pointed.

Did he hide who he was? Did he hold back information? Did he complain that people were being too harsh with their questions?

Nope. He told us his name. He posted more information in response to queries. He even posted videos of his flight tests. He was continually cheery and friendly with his responses...even more amazing, when he was answering technical questions in something other than his native language.

He won a lot of people over, including me. I may still have some skepticism about the project, but there's no question in my mind about the developer's sincerity.

In contrast, of course, we've got the new guy. All he uses is a handle... wants customers to buy a million-dollar product, but doesn't want his name made public. He's not even the designer of the aircraft, he's out drumming up sales and looking for investors. Is he a paid shill, does he earns a commission when someone invests in the product? Both are possible.

Want more information on his product? Too bad. Hand over your private contact information. Gee, I wonder how much a mailing list of people with $1,000,000 extra to spend is worth....

Ron Wanttaja

[Infidel]

I have an initial drawing and we have 3/4 of the airplane modeled in 3D. Those items do not belong to me at this point so I do not have the authority to share them at this time. The engineer that I am partnering up with asked me to keep those to myself and I am going to adhere to his wishes.

I envision a bar napkin with a sketch. And positively, a lot of great creations were birthed in that fashion. But to give a direct response to your posting; there's just too many holes and variables with what you are proposing and most importantly, it appears you are "putting the cart before the horse."

Having a dream is a good thing. But having a plan for that dream is even better. By posting your thread on a public forum, you should be well aware and prepared to at least have something to show other than an idea. If you are looking for investors, you need to go to them instead of the contacting you one one approach. There's too many scammers on this internet and I can't think of any business minded person that will even remotely consider your idea/plan. If I understand correctly, you are "partnering" with your engineer friend and what renderings there are, they don't belong to you. Hence, the reluctance to blast the plans and data on the internet. So in a nut shell, there is no Company, Business, Corporation, or anything necessary to bring something like this to fruition.

Good luck to you in your endeavor. Aviation is a tough market.

[Mike M]

"Wow, not a single response to this yet..."

Others have tested the water in that pool, you might want to learn what their considerable experien$e has been. Here is a start point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Aircraft

[gabbett1]

Don't hold your breath, Floats. He posted the same thing on homebuiltairplanes.com...the thread's up to four pages, and the only thing he's added is more performance claims.

"The gentleman I am working with has extensive experience designing and building this very type of airplane."

Doesn't this sound like Jim Bede?

(Creaking sound as thousands of EAA'ers rock back to put more weight on their wallets....)

Ron Wanttaja

No, it is not Jim Bede. I don't even know who that is.

[gabbett1]

Hope not or any of the other usual suspects from the I Wanna Sell an Airplane Hall of Shame. It could be anybody, maybe even someone legitimate. I know there's a tendency to be cynical in these things(and with good reason for those that have been burned deeply) but we can't paint all new developers/designers/marketers with the same brush or there will be no GA innovation, no investors in GA and nothing new to drool over at Oshkosh.

Bingo

[gabbett1]

Floats, excellent logic as usual. I agree with the need to nurture new developments.

However, the are usually some good signs when a development should be taken seriously. They answer questions, they provide basic drawings of the aircraft. And they say *who they are*.

A positive example is our friend from Germany who's developing the jet-powered strap-on aircraft. A lot of us (including me) were skeptical when he first posted. Some of the questions (including mine) were pointed.

Did he hide who he was? Did he hold back information? Did he complain that people were being too harsh with their questions?

Nope. He told us his name. He posted more information in response to queries. He even posted videos of his flight tests. He was continually cheery and friendly with his responses...even more amazing, when he was answering technical questions in something other than his native language.

He won a lot of people over, including me. I may still have some skepticism about the project, but there's no question in my mind about the developer's sincerity.

In contrast, of course, we've got the new guy. All he uses is a handle... wants customers to buy a million-dollar product, but doesn't want his name made public. He's not even the designer of the aircraft, he's out drumming up sales and looking for investors. Is he a paid shill, does he earns a commission when someone invests in the product? Both are possible.

Want more information on his product? Too bad. Hand over your private contact information. Gee, I wonder how much a mailing list of people with $1,000,000 extra to spend is worth....

Ron Wanttaja

Look, I have no problems saying who I am, but the engineer asked me specifically to not speak of his name because of potential law suit issues with his prior company. I can't say more than that.

You guys aren't posting questions. Your attacking me and being very harsh. There hasn't been discussion, there has been rock throwing and me trying to dodge.

[Floatsflyer]

No, it is not Jim Bede. I don't even know who that is.

This admission confirms that you are either very young and/or have never been associated with the general aviation business. Fair enough, 98% of my friends, acquaintances and family members wouldn't know him if they tripped over him. But you should get to know him and others(e.g Eclipse) who have given GA a black mark and have left many investors and buyers with significant financial losses. I mention Eclipse as an example(so many companies litter the GA graveyard of good intentions and snake oil entrepreneurs) mainly because they occupy the apex as the biggest financial failure in the entire history of GA--well over $1billion.

If you research these people and their companies you will quickly understand all the skepticism and cynicism and you will also get a required education in what NOT to do to be successful and how to properly win over friends and influence people in the aviation community. If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

[rwanttaja]

No, it is not Jim Bede. I don't even know who that is.

Wow. Just....wow.


Look, I have no problems saying who I am, but the engineer asked me specifically to not speak of his name because of potential law suit issues with his prior company. I can't say more than that.

Hmmm...and do you mention this to prospective investors? I mean, if I'm going to invest $10 million or so in a company, I'd think the possibility that chief designer might get his pants sued off for stealing IP from his former company is something I'd like to know. Just sayin'.


You guys aren't posting questions. Your attacking me and being very harsh. There hasn't been discussion, there has been rock throwing and me trying to dodge.

You've been asked nicely for details, but your response was, you can't PROVIDE answers their questions. "I have an initial drawing and we have 3/4 of the airplane modeled in 3D. Those items do not belong to me at this point so I do not have the authority to share them at this time." So far, the only information you've provided is that ownership of the IP might be subject to a lawsuit.

So: What technical information *can* you share?

Ron Wanttaja

[gabbett1]

Hmmm...and do you mention this to prospective investors? I mean, if I'm going to invest $10 million or so in a company, I'd think the possibility that chief designer might get his pants sued off for stealing IP from his former company is something I'd like to know. Just sayin'.

No of course not. But again, I would speak one on one with potential investors. I just don't want to blast info about him over the open internet.



You've been asked nicely for details, but your response was, you can't PROVIDE answers their questions. "I have an initial drawing and we have 3/4 of the airplane modeled in 3D. Those items do not belong to me at this point so I do not have the authority to share them at this time." So far, the only information you've provided is that ownership of the IP might be subject to a lawsuit.

So: What technical information *can* you share?

Ron Wanttaja

I've been asked nicely very little. It's so strong that someone that I don't even know had to step in and defend me, which I greatly appreciate by the way.

He isn't subject to a law suit. It's a very long story and again, not something I want to blast over the open internet. His former employer is looking for any reason at all to try and sue him again, since they lost so badly the first time.

What I can tell you is that he does have a plane that is currently out there and flying, AND the data gathered from that airplane we can use to get a very good idea of what our design will do. Not exact but pretty close.

[gabbett1]

This admission confirms that you are either very young and/or have never been associated with the general aviation business. Fair enough, 98% of my friends, acquaintances and family members wouldn't know him if they tripped over him. But you should get to know him and others(e.g Eclipse) who have given GA a black mark and have left many investors and buyers with significant financial losses. I mention Eclipse as an example(so many companies litter the GA graveyard of good intentions and snake oil entrepreneurs) mainly because they occupy the apex as the biggest financial failure in the entire history of GA--well over $1billion.

If you research these people and their companies you will quickly understand all the skepticism and cynicism and you will also get a required education in what NOT to do to be successful and how to properly win over friends and influence people in the aviation community. If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

I'm fairly young yes, I'm 35. But I didn't follow the who did what of aviation business because that wasn't my interest for a long time. I know about Eclipse and how much of a failure that was. Obviously there is a lot of risk in this business. However, we feel that if done right, it could be a very good product for us to sell to our customers. I'm trying to learn more about what people have done wrong and what not to do, but I have the benefit of having a partner that has already done it for 10 years or more.

[Floatsflyer]

Look, I have no problems saying who I am, but the engineer asked me specifically to not speak of his name because of potential law suit issues with his prior company. I can't say more than that.

Have you ever heard the expression, "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression." With voluntary, naïve statements/admissions like this and in your posting#12, all you're accomplishing is raising more red flags, giving more credence to the skepticism that already abounds and does not endear you to people that could be interested. Too much surreptitiousness and too many negative admissions make your case weaker and weaker and all you're doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself.

What's funny and ironic to me now is that Ron still wants to hear more from you and I'm now convinced you and your partner are so far away from anything resembling a coherent realistic proposal and have come to the market prematurely... to be kind. Stop this immediately and rethink what you don't have at the moment or the restrictions that are preventing an intelligent, cogent and business-like presentation. If you did this on "Shark Tank" or Dragons Den" you would have been skewered beyond imagination. When you are ready come back here, we're a forgiving bunch.

[Floatsflyer]

Look, I have no problems saying who I am, but the engineer asked me specifically to not speak of his name because of potential law suit issues with his prior company. I can't say more than that.

Have you ever heard the expression, "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression." With voluntary, naïve statements/admissions like this and in your posting#12, all you're accomplishing is raising more red flags, giving more credence to the skepticism that already abounds and does not endear you to people that could be interested. Too much surreptitiousness and too many negative admissions make your case weaker and weaker and all you're doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself.

What's funny and ironic to me now is that Ron still wants to hear more you and I'm now convinced you and your partner are so far away from anything resembling a coherent realistic proposal and have come to the market prematurely... to be kind. Stop this immediately and rethink what you don't have at the moment or the restrictions that are preventing an intelligent, cogent and business-like presentation. If you did this on "Shark Tank" or Dragons Den" you would have been skewered beyond imagination. When you are ready come back here, we're a forgiving bunch.

[rwanttaja]

No of course not. But again, I would speak one on one with potential investors. I just don't want to blast info about him over the open internet.

Based on the information you've provided, one of the participants in this forum has already identified your designer. I've seen a picture of the "plane currently out there and flying" (photo taken from the front right quarter, very dark color, plane looks a lot like a Lancair IV, long nose) on the designer's web page, and the web link to his legal defense fund. And the web page the outfit that sued him. And his page about air racing at Reno.

The guy that discovered this is uncomfortable about identifying your designer, and I'm respecting his wishes by being very generic (heck, with his mad skilz, I ain't getting HIM mad at me... :-).

In short, if you're trying to shill up interest in the airplane without revealing information about the designer, you've already failed.

I've worked in the aerospace field for nearly 40 years, most of it on classified or proprietary projects. All that time, the security folks have hammered into us how little snippets of information can be pieced together to reveal the whole. How attempt to "talk around" sensitive data can be harmful, or attempts to be public but mysterious inevitably backfire. We've just seen a classic example of this.

But in any case, Gabby, I'm satisfied. I know the background on the company I know why you're trying to hide him, and from who. To quote the movie "Jurassic Park": "....After some consideration, I've decided not to endorse your park."

Go ahead and post technical information now.

Ron Wanttaja

[Infidel]

Um....yep.

[av-mech]

Designers, investors, lawsuits etc..... Obviously nobody took time to even do a market survey and see how small the potential pool is for this type of aircraft. the Heydays of the late 80's and most of the 90's is well behind us when thinking in terms of people throwing vast amounts of money around in experimental aviation. This aircraft is not a viable product in today's homebuilt market.

[gabbett1]

Based on the information you've provided, one of the participants in this forum has already identified your designer. I've seen a picture of the "plane currently out there and flying" (photo taken from the front right quarter, very dark color, plane looks a lot like a Lancair IV, long nose) on the designer's web page, and the web link to his legal defense fund. And the web page the outfit that sued him. And his page about air racing at Reno.

The guy that discovered this is uncomfortable about identifying your designer, and I'm respecting his wishes by being very generic (heck, with his mad skilz, I ain't getting HIM mad at me... :-).

In short, if you're trying to shill up interest in the airplane without revealing information about the designer, you've already failed.

I've worked in the aerospace field for nearly 40 years, most of it on classified or proprietary projects. All that time, the security folks have hammered into us how little snippets of information can be pieced together to reveal the whole. How attempt to "talk around" sensitive data can be harmful, or attempts to be public but mysterious inevitably backfire. We've just seen a classic example of this.

But in any case, Gabby, I'm satisfied. I know the background on the company I know why you're trying to hide him, and from who. To quote the movie "Jurassic Park": "....After some consideration, I've decided not to endorse your park."

Go ahead and post technical information now.

Ron Wanttaja

I haven't seen anyone state who the designer is and I'm not really sure what airplane your referring to.

I think I'm done here. There is obviously not very many people here that are willing to have a good conversation about a potential product. It's sad that so many of you have been so jaded by past products/people that you have to treat someone trying to do something good with such disdain.

[Kyle Boatright]

I haven't seen anyone state who the designer is and I'm not really sure what airplane your referring to.

I think I'm done here. There is obviously not very many people here that are willing to have a good conversation about a potential product. It's sad that so many of you have been so jaded by past products/people that you have to treat someone trying to do something good with such disdain.

The biggest problem is that all we can tell is you're an anonymous person with an idea and a proposed price. That's the synopsis of what you've shared here and over at the HBA forum.

Regardless of intent, that approach triggers too many images of snake oil salesmen and fly by night operators. In other words, your proclamations fit a pattern that usually has a bad ending, so you're getting a double barreled dose of skepticism.

[av-mech]

Gabbett1,

Your failure on this forum is that you are "fishing with the wrong bait". You should be done here for no better reason that your reputation is shot. Most of the people on this forum have been around this arena for many many years. Most have seen the hundreds of start up's who promised to "save aviation" with their better idea. Many people on this forum, I would bet, have lost some amount of money to concepts like yours. Let me count the ways in which I have personally seen things go bad for experimental start up's:

1: Poor concept
2: No market research
3: Woefully under capatilized
4: One person acting as engineer, manufacturer, marketing agent etc...
5: vast underestimation of work involved and time required
6: Counting on customer builds to provide data for writing manuals and validating parts fit and finish
7: Counting on customer deposits to prop company bank account up
8: Depending on out sourced services to come through on time, every time
9: Delivering products without sufficient flight testing to validate safety and airworthiness
10: Over estimation of performance numbers and willingness to lie to keep sales going
11: Failure to estimate the time and cost involved in providing customer build support. (this is a big one)
12: The gestation period for customer aircraft to be finished and start flying is always long and without flying aircraft your not likely to keep sales going.
13: Cost and time involved in providing customer eval flights
14: Underestimation of facility needed and equipment costs (especially for the size of aircraft you are proposing)
15: Failure to understand your break even point when considering profit ie: how many kits need to go out the door to pay back your investors and start making a profit.
16: What to do when your 3D CAD modeled whiz bang ends up flying like a wet stinky turd? Don't think that happens? It's happend far more times than not.
17: How is the business plan configured to handle the first one of your whiz bangs that pile in and the widow sues the living shit out of you? That happens frequently and you can have a good product. Pilot error does not save you from being sued and having to pay for defense.

I could go on but no need. All of the things above are common issues in aviation start ups. Many people have lost many dollars in this industry and you, simply, are using the "wrong bait".

[gabbett1]

Gabbett1,

Your failure on this forum is that you are "fishing with the wrong bait". You should be done here for no better reason that your reputation is shot. Most of the people on this forum have been around this arena for many many years. Most have seen the hundreds of start up's who promised to "save aviation" with their better idea. Many people on this forum, I would bet, have lost some amount of money to concepts like yours. Let me count the ways in which I have personally seen things go bad for experimental start up's:

1: Poor concept
2: No market research
3: Woefully under capatilized
4: One person acting as engineer, manufacturer, marketing agent etc...
5: vast underestimation of work involved and time required
6: Counting on customer builds to provide data for writing manuals and validating parts fit and finish
7: Counting on customer deposits to prop company bank account up
8: Depending on out sourced services to come through on time, every time
9: Delivering products without sufficient flight testing to validate safety and airworthiness
10: Over estimation of performance numbers and willingness to lie to keep sales going
11: Failure to estimate the time and cost involved in providing customer build support. (this is a big one)
12: The gestation period for customer aircraft to be finished and start flying is always long and without flying aircraft your not likely to keep sales going.
13: Cost and time involved in providing customer eval flights
14: Underestimation of facility needed and equipment costs (especially for the size of aircraft you are proposing)
15: Failure to understand your break even point when considering profit ie: how many kits need to go out the door to pay back your investors and start making a profit.
16: What to do when your 3D CAD modeled whiz bang ends up flying like a wet stinky turd? Don't think that happens? It's happend far more times than not.
17: How is the business plan configured to handle the first one of your whiz bangs that pile in and the widow sues the living shit out of you? That happens frequently and you can have a good product. Pilot error does not save you from being sued and having to pay for defense.

I could go on but no need. All of the things above are common issues in aviation start ups. Many people have lost many dollars in this industry and you, simply, are using the "wrong bait".

All of these things are very understandable. 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? What happened to people of similar interest being able to discuss such idea's without jumping to conclusions? That in essence is all I was looking for. I made the comment about investors for the off chance someone might be interested, but the point was to discuss the idea and see if there need to be tweaks, such as, we don't need 6 seats, or we need 8 seats, or whatever it is that people are looking for. I guess that is the naive part of me to think that I would actually find someone interested in investing. But to be honest, that is one of my weak points. I try to be as honest and straight forward as I can. I dislike dishonest and deceptive people. It isn't in my nature to be either of those and I often think that most everyone else is the same.

BTW, my experience in life and business is to never make a judgement on someone based off of first impressions. They often are wrong.

[Kyle Boatright]

What happened to people of similar interest being able to discuss such idea's without jumping to conclusions?


The problem is that you aren't discussing your ideas. "I can't share this, that, or the other thing." makes for a bad discussion.

[gabbett1]

The problem is that you aren't discussing your ideas. "I can't share this, that, or the other thing." makes for a bad discussion.

Specifics and technical data, no. But what is in my OP is an idea.

Maybe I just need to be more clear.

I want to discuss:

The size of the plane
The speed of the plane
The range of the plane
The number of seats of the plane
etc

We aren't dead set on our design, so I want to get opinions and input from people as to what they believe it should be. We have some work done on my original proposed idea, but it isn't set in stone.

[rwanttaja]

I haven't seen anyone state who the designer is and I'm not really sure what airplane your referring to.

You haven't seen anyone state who the designer is, because the guy who figured it out is a decent human being who didn't want to publicize someone who apparently does not want publicity.

If he's wrong about the company, there are a lot of incredible coincidences...

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Gabbett1,

Your failure on this forum is that you are "fishing with the wrong bait". You should be done here for no better reason that your reputation is shot. Most of the people on this forum have been around this arena for many many years. Most have seen the hundreds of start up's who promised to "save aviation" with their better idea. Many people on this forum, I would bet, have lost some amount of money to concepts like yours. Let me count the ways in which I have personally seen things go bad for experimental start up's:

1: Poor concept
2: No market research
3: Woefully under capatilized
4: One person acting as engineer, manufacturer, marketing agent etc...
5: vast underestimation of work involved and time required
6: Counting on customer builds to provide data for writing manuals and validating parts fit and finish
7: Counting on customer deposits to prop company bank account up
8: Depending on out sourced services to come through on time, every time
9: Delivering products without sufficient flight testing to validate safety and airworthiness
10: Over estimation of performance numbers and willingness to lie to keep sales going
11: Failure to estimate the time and cost involved in providing customer build support. (this is a big one)
12: The gestation period for customer aircraft to be finished and start flying is always long and without flying aircraft your not likely to keep sales going.
13: Cost and time involved in providing customer eval flights
14: Underestimation of facility needed and equipment costs (especially for the size of aircraft you are proposing)
15: Failure to understand your break even point when considering profit ie: how many kits need to go out the door to pay back your investors and start making a profit.
16: What to do when your 3D CAD modeled whiz bang ends up flying like a wet stinky turd? Don't think that happens? It's happend far more times than not.
17: How is the business plan configured to handle the first one of your whiz bangs that pile in and the widow sues the living shit out of you? That happens frequently and you can have a good product. Pilot error does not save you from being sued and having to pay for defense.

I could go on but no need. All of the things above are common issues in aviation start ups. Many people have lost many dollars in this industry and you, simply, are using the "wrong bait".

Excellent, well thought out, comprehensive outline that should be mandatory reading for all wannabe Kit and certified producers. You should turn this into a detailed published curriculum available for sale.

I would add one more caution: Failure to meet with Vans to pick his brain on how to do things right and create a highly successful aviation enterprise.

[rwanttaja]

I want to discuss:

The size of the plane
The speed of the plane
The range of the plane
The number of seats of the plane
etc

We aren't dead set on our design, so I want to get opinions and input from people as to what they believe it should be. We have some work done on my original proposed idea, but it isn't set in stone.

Unstructured discussion like this is difficult for folks to answer, and difficult for the person looking for data to collate the results. Everybody wants more; more range, more speed, more seats. If someone says, "I'll give up 200 nm of range to be able to carry 2 extra people" and someone ELSE says, "I want 2' shorter wingspan and 20 knots more in cruise," how do you reconcile that?

What I suggest, instead, is to present notional configurations and invite people to express a preference between different design points. "1200 lb pax and baggage with full fuel, 1000 nm range, 250 kt cruise, and 6 seats," vs. "900 lb pax/baggage, 1500 nm range, 275 knots" vs. "Pressurized to 35,000 feet, four seats, 300 knot cruise for 2000 miles." Might get a bit more discussion going on it.

BTW, I'd drop "size" from the conversation. No one buying a $1,000,000 airplane is going to be concerned about fitting it into an old open T-hangar because the rent is cheaper.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

Wow, not a single response to this yet...

And of course, this startup protype proposal will compete with a proven profitable (read: credible) company's products.

http://www.compairinc.com/

[gabbett1]

Unstructured discussion like this is difficult for folks to answer, and difficult for the person looking for data to collate the results. Everybody wants more; more range, more speed, more seats. If someone says, "I'll give up 200 nm of range to be able to carry 2 extra people" and someone ELSE says, "I want 2' shorter wingspan and 20 knots more in cruise," how do you reconcile that?

What I suggest, instead, is to present notional configurations and invite people to express a preference between different design points. "1200 lb pax and baggage with full fuel, 1000 nm range, 250 kt cruise, and 6 seats," vs. "900 lb pax/baggage, 1500 nm range, 275 knots" vs. "Pressurized to 35,000 feet, four seats, 300 knot cruise for 2000 miles." Might get a bit more discussion going on it.

BTW, I'd drop "size" from the conversation. No one buying a $1,000,000 airplane is going to be concerned about fitting it into an old open T-hangar because the rent is cheaper.

Ron Wanttaja

The size is important for a few reasons.

1. It will allow us to hit our performance numbers much easier. The goal is 300+ KTAS at ~42gph. We believe that this can be done it a -42 PT6 with the size we are considering. If you go much bigger then you suddenly find yourself in a much larger engine and you sacrifice your travel efficiency we are shooting for.

2. With carbon fiber, we can maintain larger internal spaces while having not as large external structure like an aluminum airplane.

3. A large portion of the customer base we are shooting for already uses such T-hangars for their Bonanza or Cirrus. Thus they wouldn't have to search for a new place to store their airplane.

We believe that #1 and #3 are very important to making this product that much more interesting to our potential customers, #1 especially because it would keep their cost of flying the airplane relatively close to what it costs them to fly their Bonanza or Cirrus.

[av-mech]

Gabby,

As a professional IA who owns a shop doing maintenance on Bonanza's I feel qualified to make the following statement. You are out of your mind if you think your going to match (or even come close) to the operating cost of a Bonanza.

1. 42 gph vs. 14-17 gph at the moment that's roughly a difference of 25 gph @ 6.00 gallon (my airport) so right there is $150.00 per hour difference
2. Ask operators of Turbine Legends, Lancair IV-PT, Comp-air Turbines, Lancair Evolution's what the insurance cost (if they can get it) is. Let me clue you in, it's a huge difference. Many insurance companies will not even write policies on experimental turbine powered aircraft.
3. Engine overhaul cost of PT-6 is in another universe compared to overhauling say.....IO-540 or IO-550 varient
4. Finding qualified maintenance to work on the airplane becomes much more difficult as does parts sourcing for an aircraft where the company is small and resources limited.
5. Pilot qualifications, who will train pilots and at what cost? how often will they require re-current training?


the possibility of being "relatively close" on operating cost is a fantasy. Of course "relative" is......well, relative. there is a moon that orbits a planet why out in the solar system the "warms" to -450 deg f on a good day. Astrophysicists study this planet for its "relative warmth".

[av-mech]

Excellent, well thought out, comprehensive outline that should be mandatory reading for all wannabe Kit and certified producers. You should turn this into a detailed published curriculum available for sale.

I would add one more caution: Failure to meet with Vans to pick his brain on how to do things right and create a highly successful aviation enterprise.

Thanks Floats,
I spent a lot of my youth working with a number of well know experimental companies during the 90's and early 2000's and got to see some mega flame outs and a few success. I also spent time at companies like Adam Aircraft who had all the money they could ever want and still screwed it up. The Adam product did fit in a good market it was too big for smaller operators and too amaturish for large operators. I came to the conclusion that having a successful aircraft manufacturing company is a lot like marriage, you gotta go through a couple before you really figure out how to do it right.

[av-mech]

Gabby,

What do you think your going to bring to the market that other aircraft like the Epic or Evolution don't already bring to an already cramped market? Does your engineer have some new manufacturing technique or design feature that is ground breaking? That's what it's going to take to bring your concept to market and make money. Business is about making money, not fulfilling somebodies fantasy. Now I will agree that it takes a certain amount of fantasy to get ideas started but there also has to be a gigantic amount of reality if the venture is going to be a success. A successful aircraft business is NOT one that leaves their customers high and dry several years down the road.

[rwanttaja]

The size is important for a few reasons.

1. It will allow us to hit our performance numbers much easier. The goal is 300+ KTAS at ~42gph. We believe that this can be done it a -42 PT6 with the size we are considering. If you go much bigger then you suddenly find yourself in a much larger engine and you sacrifice your travel efficiency we are shooting for.

2. With carbon fiber, we can maintain larger internal spaces while having not as large external structure like an aluminum airplane.

3. A large portion of the customer base we are shooting for already uses such T-hangars for their Bonanza or Cirrus. Thus they wouldn't have to search for a new place to store their airplane.

We believe that #1 and #3 are very important to making this product that much more interesting to our potential customers, #1 especially because it would keep their cost of flying the airplane relatively close to what it costs them to fly their Bonanza or Cirrus.
As for #1 and #2, size is not important as the input from a consumer survey. No reason to ask potential purchasers what size they think the airplane should be; that stems from the required performance parameters.

As for #3, your potential customers have more than a million dollars ready to drop; if they do, they're likely to be living in a metropolitan area and can just rent or buy a bigger hangar. If the plane has equivalent performance to a Malibu, TBM, or something of that ilk, the form factor won't be an issue. Buyers will expect something the size of these other airplanes. Limiting your design for the one or two who can't change hangars doesn't make sense.

Restricting performance or settling for inferior handling characterisitics for non-operational considerations often ends in inferior airplanes. The designers of the original DC-4 limited vertical stabilizer height to fit in the hangars of the day; only one was built (and an ugly SOB it was) and it was sold to Japan just prior to WWII. The redesign said, "### the hangars" and produced a good airplane.

The original Fly Baby prototype didn't have very good pitch stability; the contest rules regarding roadability resulted in restricted horizontal stabilizer width. After the fuel-exhaustion crash, Bowers extended the fuselage to improve pitch stability. And you know, it *still* isn't that great... a 50-year-old legacy of non-operational limitations. Lets us get by without trim systems, at least...

If you *do* limit wingspan to fit in some notional idea of a hangar, it'll impact the low-speed capability of the airplane...higher stall speed, possibly poorer stall characteristics. You can gain some of this back with mechanical devices (Fowler flaps, slats, etc.) but that raises the ultimate cost of the airplane, since the owner has to pay more money for the hired guns to construct those items.

Ron Wanttaja

[Flyfalcons]

We believe that #1 and #3 are very important to making this product that much more interesting to our potential customers, #1 especially because it would keep their cost of flying the airplane relatively close to what it costs them to fly their Bonanza or Cirrus.

No one with an ounce of common sense believes they can operate a turbine for near what a B or C costs to operate.

[rwanttaja]

Gabby,

What do you think your going to bring to the market that other aircraft like the Epic or Evolution don't already bring to an already cramped market?

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.

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

[gabbett1]

Gabby,

As a professional IA who owns a shop doing maintenance on Bonanza's I feel qualified to make the following statement. You are out of your mind if you think your going to match (or even come close) to the operating cost of a Bonanza.

1. 42 gph vs. 14-17 gph at the moment that's roughly a difference of 25 gph @ 6.00 gallon (my airport) so right there is $150.00 per hour difference
2. Ask operators of Turbine Legends, Lancair IV-PT, Comp-air Turbines, Lancair Evolution's what the insurance cost (if they can get it) is. Let me clue you in, it's a huge difference. Many insurance companies will not even write policies on experimental turbine powered aircraft.
3. Engine overhaul cost of PT-6 is in another universe compared to overhauling say.....IO-540 or IO-550 varient
4. Finding qualified maintenance to work on the airplane becomes much more difficult as does parts sourcing for an aircraft where the company is small and resources limited.
5. Pilot qualifications, who will train pilots and at what cost? how often will they require re-current training?


the possibility of being "relatively close" on operating cost is a fantasy. Of course "relative" is......well, relative. there is a moon that orbits a planet why out in the solar system the "warms" to -450 deg f on a good day. Astrophysicists study this planet for its "relative warmth".


1. You can't look at two airplanes and say, well that one is 42 gph and the other one is 17 gph, so obviously the 17 gph one costs way less to fly. If I can fly 300 kts at 42 gph, that's 7.14 nm/gal. A bonanza will fly 175 kts at 17 gph which is 10.29 nm/gal. Then you take the difference in the price of Jet A vs Avgas. Local to me Jet A is $4.93 and Avgas is $5.64. $4.93 / 7.14 = $0.69 per nm for the turboprop. $5.64 / 10.29 = $0.55 per nm for the Bonanza. So the difference between the two comes to a total of $0.14 per nm.

2. I sometimes make that mistake of saying cost of operation when I mean cost per nm. There is of course going to be a difference between a Bonanza and a Turboprop airplane insurance wise, but not that much. If a new Bonanza is $800k and a new TP like what I propose is $1m, there is little difference in hull value, which is a large part of the insurance cost.

3. This is very true, however someone can own and fly a PT6 for 23 years before needing to do an overhaul (assuming a 150 hours of flight a year). If they only fly 100 hours a year then they can get 35 years on an engine. So pretty much anyone will get almost a lifetime out of a PT6 engine before it would need an overhaul. An IO-550/520 will need to be overhauled every 11 years (if flown 150 hours a year) and every 17 years if flown 100 hours a year. However, I'm talking strictly hours per year. If you were to be realistic and do it based on NM of flight then the PT6 takes an even larger lead in time before overhaul because it will get you to your destination twice as fast thus you put on half the amount of hours.

4. I have no argument against that.

5. Well, we would have a pilot training course. We would go over every single aspect of the plane and it's safety features as well as what to do and not to do/emergency procedures, etc. But none of this is new. Insurance companies require these very things already for flight of any turboprop on a yearly basis.

So as you can see above, I feel I clearly pointed out how the cost of operation CAN in fact be relatively close.

[gabbett1]

Gabby,

What do you think your going to bring to the market that other aircraft like the Epic or Evolution don't already bring to an already cramped market? Does your engineer have some new manufacturing technique or design feature that is ground breaking? That's what it's going to take to bring your concept to market and make money. Business is about making money, not fulfilling somebodies fantasy. Now I will agree that it takes a certain amount of fantasy to get ideas started but there also has to be a gigantic amount of reality if the venture is going to be a success. A successful aircraft business is NOT one that leaves their customers high and dry several years down the road.

True, there are already airplanes out there that are similar, and it is cramped to some extent. Some of the manufacturing processes will be improved upon to not only reduce build time, but also improve strength by forging one piece instead of gluing two halves together. (although I'm not certain how Lancair and Epic does this process for sure)

The difference is that we feel we will have a leg up on both:

Lancair:
-The Evolution is a great flying airplane, great stall and slow flight handling as well as a very fast airplane. We believe we can maintain those same flight characteristics and speed with the luxury of a little bigger cabin on better or similar fuel specifics
-The entry to the Evolution is not the best. You have to be somewhat of a contortionist to get in and out. With an airstair entry and exits will be much easier.
-There are several areas of drag that we believe we can improve upon that will make our plane fly faster.
-We believe we can bring our product to market quite a bit cheaper (nearly $500k cheaper) because the fact that we are a start up and won't have the overhead that Lancair has. In business sometimes it's easier to be cheap starting from scratch rather than trying to cut the fat.
-We would allow our customers to chose the engine they want, and the avionics they want, and allow them to purchase those items from the location of their choosing, instead of forcing them to buy everything from us (which is what Lancair is currently doing, and they are turning customers away because they get angry).
-We would make our landing gear stout as to not leave lingering questions of it's strength. Also, I would like for it to be able to fly in and out of soft fields.

Epic:
-The Epic is also a very good flying airplane. It has similar speed and a decent amount more range, but at a sacrifice of cost per NM. The Epic burns 66 gph at ~310 kts where we would be ~42 gph at basically the same speed. Those numbers are real differences in cost of flying per nm. 24 gph to be exact which makes the Epic cost ~$120-150/hour more to fly.
-The epic is a $2.3m kit. A whole $1-1.3m more than ours. So, someone has to consider if they want to pay another $1m for a bigger cabin, 200-300 nm more range and $120-150/nm more to operate.
-Fit and finish of the interiors of every Epic I have been in have been poor.

[gabbett1]

As for #1 and #2, size is not important as the input from a consumer survey. No reason to ask potential purchasers what size they think the airplane should be; that stems from the required performance parameters.

As for #3, your potential customers have more than a million dollars ready to drop; if they do, they're likely to be living in a metropolitan area and can just rent or buy a bigger hangar. If the plane has equivalent performance to a Malibu, TBM, or something of that ilk, the form factor won't be an issue. Buyers will expect something the size of these other airplanes. Limiting your design for the one or two who can't change hangars doesn't make sense.

Well, if you recall, I did state in the OP that the interior would be somewhere in size of a PA46, or in other words a Malibu or Meridian.


Restricting performance or settling for inferior handling characterisitics for non-operational considerations often ends in inferior airplanes. The designers of the original DC-4 limited vertical stabilizer height to fit in the hangars of the day; only one was built (and an ugly SOB it was) and it was sold to Japan just prior to WWII. The redesign said, "### the hangars" and produced a good airplane.

I've seen this statement written several times now and I'm not sure why you/others think you would have to sacrifice performance and handling characteristics. Have you ever flown an Evolution? It is fast (320 kts if you install a -42) and it handles extremely well at slow speeds as well as stalls at 61 kts. Plus, our design wouldn't be a whole lot larger than the Evolution (the plane is much larger than I thought it would be). We have no reason to believe that we couldn't accomplish the same thing.


The original Fly Baby prototype didn't have very good pitch stability; the contest rules regarding roadability resulted in restricted horizontal stabilizer width. After the fuel-exhaustion crash, Bowers extended the fuselage to improve pitch stability. And you know, it *still* isn't that great... a 50-year-old legacy of non-operational limitations. Lets us get by without trim systems, at least...

If you *do* limit wingspan to fit in some notional idea of a hangar, it'll impact the low-speed capability of the airplane...higher stall speed, possibly poorer stall characteristics. You can gain some of this back with mechanical devices (Fowler flaps, slats, etc.) but that raises the ultimate cost of the airplane, since the owner has to pay more money for the hired guns to construct those items.

Ron Wanttaja

We would build the airplane with a traditional yoke instead of a joystick. This will allow us to make the ailerons smaller and the flaps larger, allowing us to slow the airplane down more and improving stall characteristics.

[gabbett1]

No one with an ounce of common sense believes they can operate a turbine for near what a B or C costs to operate.

I just demonstrated above that it can be close.

[av-mech]

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.

[gabbett1]

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.


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.


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.


"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.

[gabbett1]

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.

[gabbett1]

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

[Flyfalcons]

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.

[gabbett1]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[Flyfalcons]

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.

[gabbett1]

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.

[gabbett1]

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.

[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.

[Floatsflyer]

Ron & Gerry,

Very pleased you guys have made up and can now play nice in the sandbox like good little boys. And because you did, we all now have so much more information and detail on the project and we'll receive more as it progresses. Good luck and all the best to you Gerry and your designer partner.

Ron, I appreciate the kind remarks, thanks very much. Now, if you can convince my wife that my logical and pragmatic approach to most things(except a Sikorsky S-39) is sometimes better than her sometimes let's -just -do -it style, then I would be very appreciative and grateful. :-)

[gabbett1]

I'll share any new information as I receive it. If anyone has any further questions, I will monitor this thread and answer them the best that I can.

[Alex]

Gabbett1, here's what I think:
It's an excellent concept, and complying it with FAR Part 23 is very smart. I'd like to see a pic.

[gabbett1]

Gabbett1, here's what I think:
It's an excellent concept, and complying it with FAR Part 23 is very smart. I'd like to see a pic.

Thank you. I will gladly share when I am able.

[gabbett1]

I created a spreadsheet that shows the cost of flying a turboprop such as the one I suggest vs a G36 Bonanza. Quite interesting how the costs of each work out if you compare the two airplanes with the same number of NM flown a year vs the number of hours a year. IMO comparing NM's flown a year is going to be more accurate since people will more likely have a set of missions they do per year with some extras here and there. Hours per year comparison is less fair because the TP is so much faster that the pilot would be doing a lot of extra missions that he/she otherwise would not have been doing with a G36. Obviously the TP costs more to fly, but not quite as much as I would have expected. Is there a way to share spreadsheets on here?

It includes cost of annuals, insurance, overhauls... pretty much every cost associated with flying an airplane. Some of the numbers could be a tad off.

[gabbett1]

The thing that I find most surprising is that with a piston G36 and a turboprop flying the same number of NM a year, you will do 4.2 overhauls on the piston for every 1 on a tp, almost no matter how many NM you fly a year.

[gabbett1]

Being unable to share the spreadsheet, I figured I would post some of the highlights.

Ccomparison: Experimental vs G36

Altitude:
Experimental: 28000
G36: 8,000
Mission: 700 nm

Trip costs (including engine and prop reserves):
Experimental: $750.77
G36: $526.26
Difference: $224.52



Trip Time Difference



G36:
4:16


6 Seat Experimental:
2:19


Difference:
1:56






6 Seat Experimental Trip fuel cost:
$472.79


Trip Fuel cost per NM:
$0.68


Per Seat:
$0.11






G36 Fuel Trip Fuel Cost:
$388.33


Trip Fuel cost per NM:
$0.55


Per Seat:
$0.09






Difference per NM & Total Fuel Cost

Trip fuel difference


6 Seat Experimental:
$0.68
$472.79


G36:
$0.55
$388.33


Difference:
$0.12
$84.45






Annual Fixed Expense Difference



6 Seat Experimental:
$22,200.00


G36:
$20,700.00


Difference:
$1,500.00























NM flown a year 25,000
Years till overhaul:
Experimental: 44.2
G36: 11.2

Total overhaul costs in 44.2 years:
Experimental: $295,000
G36: $153,664.17
Difference: $141,335.83



Number of Years
11.2




Cost to overhaul G36
% Earnings
Total
Earned


$39,000.00
5%
$67,423.07
$28,423.07



6%
$74,988.80
$35,988.80



7%
$83,320.26
$44,320.26



8%
$92,486.67
$53,486.67



9%
$102,562.81
$63,562.81



10%
$113,629.35
$74,629.35






Number of Years:
44.2



G36 overhauls + intrest NOT earned at:
5%
$265,654.12



6%
$295,463.90



7%
$328,290.72



8%
$364,407.37



9%
$404,108.44



10%
$447,711.80






TOTAL Annual Cost per HOUR/year



Experimental:
$596.69


G36:
$259.96


Difference Cost/hour:
$336.73




Flight hours/year:
Experimental: 81.4
G35: 151.5

TOTAL cost per year:
Experimental: $48,590.43
G36: $39,388.06
Difference: $9,202.37

Lots of data here, so if you have any questions ask. You can also give me a way to share the spreadsheet if you would like to look at it yourself.

This is obviously assuming a few things. One that the owner would maintain the same missions per year if they owned each airplane. Not typical, but it gives you some way to sort of compare apples to apples this way. This isn't perfect. There are going to be other costs that arise over time that will skew the numbers on way or another. Again, this is just for comparison's sake. The SR22T comparison is interesting as well.

I have also been hearing more and more about people pushing their PT6 overhaul in a PC-12 and TBM out to 6 and even 8,000 hours through a "more" program. Change that data on the spreadsheet and the numbers quickly favor the Experimental in almost every category.

[Flyfalcons]

I the TP going to have full deice capability?

[gabbett1]

I the TP going to have full deice capability?

Yes, it will have a hot wing de-ice system as well as a hot prop. Possibly even a little bit of a TKS system for the windshield and top of the airframe.