banner
banner

08 Jun 2025, 07:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2014, 23:16 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 9138
Post Likes: +6891
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
Easy... first of all, Lancair cut a lot of corners that hurt their airframes efficiency. We would not make the same mistake. Also, Lancair chose a small form engine with 750hp. We would use a medium form 850hp engine that actually gets better SPC than the small form engine, thus allowing better speeds and lower fuel burn. Lastly, Lancair is making a TON of money on their kits. We would just be a lot less greedy.


Are you sure that they're making that much money on their kits? And how would you know that?

When I went into business for myself (guitar repairs) I figured I could undercut the market by a healthy margin and make a good living as the low-price guy in town that does good work. Boy was I wrong. Overhead was more than I anticipated, and I'm charging just about what the rest of the market is charging, just doing better work.

It seems to me that you're asking for feedback from the wrong pilot population. There are a lot of good reasons for people to go with an experimental plane: innovation, the ability to fully customize, because they want to play a part in building their dream, better performance at a price point, etc. I think many (if not most) on this board who would consider a plane in that class are buying for much different reasons. You need to find the market of pilots who would consider the Lancair or Epic and ask them these questions.

I'm curious to know why you believe the homebuilt market is going to explode, and what those actual numbers look like. Do the segments of the market that are experiencing such growth include a $1M airplane? I'd be surprised since the economy still isn't doing great and the pilot population is still shrinking. I'm not doubting you, but I really am curious to know what you know.

For the record, I will likely never have enough wealth to consider a plane like this, but I love seeing innovation, and I think the homebuilt market has the ability to influence the entire industry in ways that Cessna and Beechcraft and Piper just can't.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2014, 23:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13472
Post Likes: +7559
Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC, E-55, 195
Based on your description, I would take a hard look. It would pay for itself in my case. What is the timeline?

_________________
Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients
My E55 : https://tinyurl.com/4dvxhwxu


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
Easy... first of all, Lancair cut a lot of corners that hurt their airframes efficiency. We would not make the same mistake. Also, Lancair chose a small form engine with 750hp. We would use a medium form 850hp engine that actually gets better SPC than the small form engine, thus allowing better speeds and lower fuel burn. Lastly, Lancair is making a TON of money on their kits. We would just be a lot less greedy.


Are you sure that they're making that much money on their kits? And how would you know that?

When I went into business for myself (guitar repairs) I figured I could undercut the market by a healthy margin and make a good living as the low-price guy in town that does good work. Boy was I wrong. Overhead was more than I anticipated, and I'm charging just about what the rest of the market is charging, just doing better work.

It seems to me that you're asking for feedback from the wrong pilot population. There are a lot of good reasons for people to go with an experimental plane: innovation, the ability to fully customize, because they want to play a part in building their dream, better performance at a price point, etc. I think many (if not most) on this board who would consider a plane in that class are buying for much different reasons. You need to find the market of pilots who would consider the Lancair or Epic and ask them these questions.

I'm curious to know why you believe the homebuilt market is going to explode, and what those actual numbers look like. Do the segments of the market that are experiencing such growth include a $1M airplane? I'd be surprised since the economy still isn't doing great and the pilot population is still shrinking. I'm not doubting you, but I really am curious to know what you know.

For the record, I will likely never have enough wealth to consider a plane like this, but I love seeing innovation, and I think the homebuilt market has the ability to influence the entire industry in ways that Cessna and Beechcraft and Piper just can't.


Well, yes I know for a fact that Lancair is making the profit's I suggest, but a large part of it is overhead. They COULD reduce their overhead significantly and bring their kit to market at a much lower price, but they decided to just ask a higher price instead since they didn't really have any competition. I know what their profit margin is because I basically have inside information. I will leave it at that.

Believe me if I knew where I could go to talk to Evo and Epic owners I would, but the homebuilt websites appear to be flooded with people that would rather shout you down than hear what you have to say and I don't think I would be warmly received on the Evolution only website, lol.

The reason why I believe the homebuild market will grow because first of all, it is. It is the fastest growing market by far. Also, look at what new piston airplanes cost these days. It's only going to continue to go up, and they are pushing the edge of our pricing point already.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
Based on your description, I would take a hard look. It would pay for itself in my case. What is the timeline?


We don't have a definite timeline yet. We are still looking for a few more investors. Once we have the funding it will be 2 years of R&D to design, test and build a flying prototype.

As of right now, we are planning to give anyone that pre purchases their kit a 10% across the board discount (that includes engine, prop, etc). But we would not be pre selling any kits until we are well into the R&D process. We want to be sure we are going to be able to deliver the product.


Last edited on 14 Feb 2014, 11:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:16 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13178
Post Likes: +21068
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:
Based on your description, I would take a hard look. It would pay for itself in my case. What is the timeline?


We don't have a definite timeline yet. We are still looking for a few more investors. Once we have the funding it will be 2 years of R&D to design, test and build a flying prototype.


Easily triple that for a realistic timeline, but, good luck to you. I look forward to seeing your innovation. :cheers:
_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6489
Post Likes: +14287
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
Username Protected wrote:

We don't have a definite timeline yet. We are still looking for a few more investors. Once we have the funding it will be 2 years of R&D to design, test and build a flying prototype.


Gerry,

I write for Kitplanes, Twin & Turbine, and others. When you have a story to tell, let me know... And even more important, when you have an airplane to fly, I will write a pilot report...

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6489
Post Likes: +14287
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
Username Protected wrote:

Easily triple that for a realistic timeline, but, good luck to you. I look forward to seeing your innovation. :cheers:


2 years, why not 2 months... All you need is a big 3D printer, and a CAD file... Fill it up with resin, turn it on, and an airplane comes out. Bolt on an engine, and go flying... Nothing to it! ;)

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:23 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13178
Post Likes: +21068
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:

Easily triple that for a realistic timeline, but, good luck to you. I look forward to seeing your innovation. :cheers:


2 years, why not 2 months... All you need is a big 3D printer, and a CAD file... Fill it up with resin, turn it on, and an airplane comes out. Bolt on an engine, and go flying... Nothing to it! ;)


No, you print the engine into the airframe! Ha!
_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:

Easily triple that for a realistic timeline, but, good luck to you. I look forward to seeing your innovation. :cheers:


2 years, why not 2 months... All you need is a big 3D printer, and a CAD file... Fill it up with resin, turn it on, and an airplane comes out. Bolt on an engine, and go flying... Nothing to it! ;)


Haha, that's funny stuff. I wish it were that easy. :cheers:

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:

We don't have a definite timeline yet. We are still looking for a few more investors. Once we have the funding it will be 2 years of R&D to design, test and build a flying prototype.


Gerry,

I write for Kitplanes, Twin & Turbine, and others. When you have a story to tell, let me know... And even more important, when you have an airplane to fly, I will write a pilot report...


Doug,

That is very good to know :thumbup: . I will keep you informed.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
We don't have a definite timeline yet. We are still looking for a few more investors. Once we have the funding it will be 2 years of R&D to design, test and build a flying prototype.


Easily triple that for a realistic timeline, but, good luck to you. I look forward to seeing your innovation. :cheers:


Triple that? Based on what? Lancair did it in 2 years, why couldn't we?

We would be hiring about a 15 person R&D team to meet our timeline.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:39 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13178
Post Likes: +21068
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:
Triple that? Based on what? Lancair did it in 2 years, why couldn't we?


Well, this statement says a lot:
Quote:
Found out today that even a kit airplane has to go through FAA structure testing to pass and be sold on the market. I wasn't aware of this.


There's probably a lot more you are unaware of... and that is OK (I'm not trying to curb your enthusiasm for a new project).

You also say you have "inside information" at Lancair. The lawsuit for some kind of patent infringment (whether true or not because that is one of the ways companies stifle competition) will probably be interesting to watch.

As for Lancair leveraging their older, proprietary design-knowledge-base and making a 4-seat, composite, pressurized turbine in a couple years... that timeline is, in no way, related to a start-up designing their own, bigger airplane, building their own airplane from scratch, certifying that airplane with the FAA for the first time, testing that airplane in the appropriate envelopes and marketing it for production.

I applaud your enthusiasm, and I am not "shouting you down," but enthusiasm should be tempered with a realistic expectation and timeline in order to avoid frustration - especially from your investors - and promote success.

Expectation management is one of the most critical parts of any endeavor - and it is usually the most often overlooked. How many times do your weekend-projects turn into month-long projects?

_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1626
Post Likes: +276
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
Triple that? Based on what? Lancair did it in 2 years, why couldn't we?


Well, this statement says a lot:
Quote:
Found out today that even a kit airplane has to go through FAA structure testing to pass and be sold on the market. I wasn't aware of this.


There's probably a lot more you are unaware of... and that is OK (I'm not trying to curb your enthusiasm for a new project).

You also say you have "inside information" at Lancair. The lawsuit for some kind of patent infringment (whether true or not because that is one of the ways companies stifle competition) will probably be interesting to watch.

As for Lancair leveraging their older, proprietary design-knowledge-base and making a 4-seat, composite, pressurized turbine in a couple years... that timeline is, in no way, related to a start-up designing their own, bigger airplane, building their own airplane from scratch, certifying that airplane with the FAA for the first time, testing that airplane in the appropriate envelopes and marketing it for production.

I applaud your enthusiasm, and I am not "shouting you down," but enthusiasm should be tempered with a realistic expectation and timeline in order to avoid frustration and promote success.

Expectation management is one of the most critical parts of any endeavor - and it is usually the most often overlooked. How many times do your weekend-projects turn into month-long projects?


Well, I found out that the FAA testing is done along side the design process and it doesn't slow you up at all.

The reason why I have full confidence that we could meet the 2 year timeline is because the engineer that would be designing the plane, has already done this before and met that 2 year timeline.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:46 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13178
Post Likes: +21068
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:
Well, I found out that the FAA testing is done along side the design process and it doesn't slow you up at all.

The reason why I have full confidence that we could meet the 2 year timeline is because the engineer that would be designing the plane, has already done this before and met that 2 year timeline.


Well, in all seriousness, good luck! :cheers: But, unless that engineer's name is Burt Rutan, I remain skeptical.

_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein


Top

 Post subject: Re: OT: Experimental
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 11:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13472
Post Likes: +7559
Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC, E-55, 195
Gerry,

Don't get discouraged. There is plenty of room between the current pricing, and the cost to manufacture. If you build it, they will come.

The best thing Cirrus does is they understand who their customer is. Focus there. Forget chat boards, other than making connections. Unless someone is writing the checks, they are unlikely to compromise in their opinions and advice. We all know in real life every aircraft is a compromise.

If you build the airplane anywhere near your specs, at that price point, you can certify it and sell a ton of them in China. In fact, that is where I would be looking for investors. GA is about to go off over there.

Best,

_________________
Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients
My E55 : https://tinyurl.com/4dvxhwxu


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next



B-Kool (Top/Bottom Banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.