New Aircraft Production...Production Cost Reduction
Thread Starter
New Aircraft Production...Production Cost Reduction
Following on the thread of what can replace an old Chieftain, it can only be a New Chieftain, but with some qualification.
The Caravan is a fine aircraft but in a league way above the Chieftain in size and cost.
The solution is to produce new build chieftain aircraft as well as other GA type aircraft but the production methods must have a radical change.
Typically, a new cessna 172 for example requires hundreds of man hours to build, each part is hand made then hand assembled on the production line. Little or no automation is evident on the production line.
Rather than make all individual pieces, then rivet them together by hand to for a component, wouldn't it be cheaper to mill that component from a billet of metal on a CNC milling machine.
Two examples I can think of involve a bulkead on a bussinesjet, used to be some hundreds of handmade pieces, welded/riveted together to form a bulkead, now it is done by a precision CNC lathe from 1 piece of metal. No human intervention, and identical compnonents, one after another.
Raytheons Premier 1 busseness jey is another example, the fuselage is made on a drum where carbon fibre tape is wound around and round till the job is done, in an hour or so with again no human intervention.
How would this apply to building a Chieftain, reduced parts count, all parts made by CNC milling machines, modern glass cockpit, new tecnology diesel engines burning jetA1. That's what is needed by GA.
The Caravan is a fine aircraft but in a league way above the Chieftain in size and cost.
The solution is to produce new build chieftain aircraft as well as other GA type aircraft but the production methods must have a radical change.
Typically, a new cessna 172 for example requires hundreds of man hours to build, each part is hand made then hand assembled on the production line. Little or no automation is evident on the production line.
Rather than make all individual pieces, then rivet them together by hand to for a component, wouldn't it be cheaper to mill that component from a billet of metal on a CNC milling machine.
Two examples I can think of involve a bulkead on a bussinesjet, used to be some hundreds of handmade pieces, welded/riveted together to form a bulkead, now it is done by a precision CNC lathe from 1 piece of metal. No human intervention, and identical compnonents, one after another.
Raytheons Premier 1 busseness jey is another example, the fuselage is made on a drum where carbon fibre tape is wound around and round till the job is done, in an hour or so with again no human intervention.
How would this apply to building a Chieftain, reduced parts count, all parts made by CNC milling machines, modern glass cockpit, new tecnology diesel engines burning jetA1. That's what is needed by GA.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potential to be an interesting thread.
It was probably my soul brother Gaunty who wrote in the other thread in passing about the lack of R&D with that Piper mob and others.
It takes a mighty big step to invest in R&D when the users have, in the main, rejected the new stuff for prolonged periods.
So it might be a chicken and egg, what comes first argument but ample precedent exists.
A veritable explosion of a new aircraft type hit our shores in the early/mid '70's. I'm talking of the Partenavia RN68 Victor. From memory we had 50-52 on register in very quick time and considerable numbers were sold world wide.
Regardless off your thoughts on the aircraft itself it was developed along to the point were it even won a crew door ect ect. Now the same company by 1978 had developed a stiff legged 8 seater with twin turbo props called the Spartacus and then a 10 seat retractable with the Alison engines called the Viator.
These were production models but I can't say I recall those variants ever being operated here in Aust. I heard tell there is a Spartacus for sale in Europe somewhere for $365K US. I've had a "pedal" of the Viator in the US a little while back and it's build date was from memory 1992!
Partenavia, as a company, fell over in 1994 but the point is that, based on the success of the PN68, they did embark on production of aircraft that, all things being equal, could have been the replacement for, or catalyst for improvement in, the 402/Chieftain clunkers we're still left with and yet their ideas were almost entirely rejected.
The twin campervans have hardly split the market wide open here either.
Perhaps someone should look at the dies and jigs for the Viator and use them in the new composite materials world?
And NO! I wasn't the Partenavia dealer!
It was probably my soul brother Gaunty who wrote in the other thread in passing about the lack of R&D with that Piper mob and others.
It takes a mighty big step to invest in R&D when the users have, in the main, rejected the new stuff for prolonged periods.
So it might be a chicken and egg, what comes first argument but ample precedent exists.
A veritable explosion of a new aircraft type hit our shores in the early/mid '70's. I'm talking of the Partenavia RN68 Victor. From memory we had 50-52 on register in very quick time and considerable numbers were sold world wide.
Regardless off your thoughts on the aircraft itself it was developed along to the point were it even won a crew door ect ect. Now the same company by 1978 had developed a stiff legged 8 seater with twin turbo props called the Spartacus and then a 10 seat retractable with the Alison engines called the Viator.
These were production models but I can't say I recall those variants ever being operated here in Aust. I heard tell there is a Spartacus for sale in Europe somewhere for $365K US. I've had a "pedal" of the Viator in the US a little while back and it's build date was from memory 1992!
Partenavia, as a company, fell over in 1994 but the point is that, based on the success of the PN68, they did embark on production of aircraft that, all things being equal, could have been the replacement for, or catalyst for improvement in, the 402/Chieftain clunkers we're still left with and yet their ideas were almost entirely rejected.
The twin campervans have hardly split the market wide open here either.
Perhaps someone should look at the dies and jigs for the Viator and use them in the new composite materials world?
And NO! I wasn't the Partenavia dealer!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozgrade 3
Interesting thread
But snide remark got it in one re the Piper and other stuff. Model T's belong in Model T museums.
I'm not so sure about the Viator or Spartacus the last time somebody ( a friend outside this but in the steel business) was trying to get me interested in these was when some Indian steel manufacturer client of his owned the rights for this area.
The Piaggio is an equally fine aircraft but just never got going as it IMHO should have.
Try here for a glimpse of the real future (and they are not even Cessnas
)
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/
is that hot or what.
and here;
http://www.etruria.com/p180.html
Very Cool and from all reports does what it is supposed to.
Italian flair with Ferrari performance.
This is what Beech really had in mind with the Starship but went up the wrong track with the certification and carbon fibre technology of the time.
This company is now run by Signor Ferrari Jr
and it's way ahead of their scooters.
Interesting thread
But snide remark got it in one re the Piper and other stuff. Model T's belong in Model T museums.
I'm not so sure about the Viator or Spartacus the last time somebody ( a friend outside this but in the steel business) was trying to get me interested in these was when some Indian steel manufacturer client of his owned the rights for this area.
The Piaggio is an equally fine aircraft but just never got going as it IMHO should have.
Try here for a glimpse of the real future (and they are not even Cessnas
)http://www.eclipseaviation.com/
is that hot or what.
and here;
http://www.etruria.com/p180.html
Very Cool and from all reports does what it is supposed to.
Italian flair with Ferrari performance.
This is what Beech really had in mind with the Starship but went up the wrong track with the certification and carbon fibre technology of the time.
This company is now run by Signor Ferrari Jr
and it's way ahead of their scooters.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: solaris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following this and other threads, why does a new aeroplane cost so much?
Simple silly comparison for your derision
: cessna caravan (675) vs ferrari (v12)
1.2M vs 0.3M USD
1800 kg (both)
675 (SHP) vs 550 (BHP)
186kts vs 170
similar prod runs
?more composites in ferrari, more aluminium in caravan
FL250 vs ~6'' agl (go the speed humps)
okay, okay I'll shut up soon, but is a PT6 and some avionics really worth the 0.9M USD difference. Besides, try cruising King's X in a flying caravan ...
Simple silly comparison for your derision
: cessna caravan (675) vs ferrari (v12)1.2M vs 0.3M USD
1800 kg (both)
675 (SHP) vs 550 (BHP)
186kts vs 170
similar prod runs
?more composites in ferrari, more aluminium in caravan
FL250 vs ~6'' agl (go the speed humps)
okay, okay I'll shut up soon, but is a PT6 and some avionics really worth the 0.9M USD difference. Besides, try cruising King's X in a flying caravan ...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gwtf
A simple but really not so simple answer is that a Ferrari doesn't have to go through the same certification and R & D recovery process, and if it did have a P & W engine it would cost nearly as much to buy and twice as much to run.
The Batmobile is a really good example of the problems that come with running a turbine in a car.
Cool for trolling Kings X with, but murder on parking valets and the cars behind you at the lights
A simple but really not so simple answer is that a Ferrari doesn't have to go through the same certification and R & D recovery process, and if it did have a P & W engine it would cost nearly as much to buy and twice as much to run.
The Batmobile is a really good example of the problems that come with running a turbine in a car.
Cool for trolling Kings X with, but murder on parking valets and the cars behind you at the lights
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
read somewhere in a yanky aviation magazine about a revolutionary way to bond metal. They call it something like "liquid stir welding." The technology uses robots and precision to weld metal together using sheet metal and with a near flawless and flush finish. From memory the technology was being used for a prototype small-size twin jet in the U.S.A.
The technology would remove alot of labour and improve the workmanship. That would bring costs down.
Lets wait and see
U2
The technology would remove alot of labour and improve the workmanship. That would bring costs down.
Lets wait and see
U2
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U2
If you go have a troll around the Eclipse site, see above post I think? you'll find that they are using it.
The tin bashing days are pretty much over.
Although when they knew how to do it they produced a beautiful thing indeed, when you have a look for example at the C3/400 series tip tanks.
edited for grammarosity.
[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: gaunty ]
If you go have a troll around the Eclipse site, see above post I think? you'll find that they are using it.
The tin bashing days are pretty much over.
Although when they knew how to do it they produced a beautiful thing indeed, when you have a look for example at the C3/400 series tip tanks.
edited for grammarosity.
[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: gaunty ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see people in this industry at last beginning to look towards the future..The technology that ozgrade3 writes about was pioneered in this country, abiet not very successfully because of our government and financial institutions lack of funding for R&D. but still the technology of prototyping and methodology has been used here. From this the kiwis have perfected the art of spinning carbon fibres in the more lucrative area of ocean racing...Aviation in government and financial circles is a dirty word, so we have to look offshore for this technology and or aircraft to be manufactured elsewhere. the same steel company in India that has been mentioned that still license builds the P68 aircraft also has developed a two seat trainer (hansa) and an 18 seat regional..not to mention the Indian Government license building 70 zenith aircraft for military ab-initio. All of this out of a supposedly "third world country". sort of makes you cringe when our leaders can't see the wood for the trees. Yes the technology is there (and here), there are some exciting new designs coming out over the next few years,unfortunately, not out of Australia..With all due respect to the gippsland people, who have produced a very workable but still fairly agricultural aircraft..it is an exception rather than the rule. With the current value of the Australian dollar (whoopsie daisey, its above 50 cents US) I would suspect that we will be flying around in antiquated aircraft for some time to come.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't here another Australian (originally) a/c called the "Explorer" or something similar from a couple of years ago? Seem to remember it being a sort-of hybrid/composite version of something similar to a Caravan with retractable gear (remember that because I noticed at the time that if the main gear failed to extend you could still land it on it's wheels as they protrududed a few inches below their fairings whilst retracted, and I thought that a great idea at the time).
Now, I beieve, the makers/developers of the Explorer a/c couldn't drum-up enough local interest so the moved the whole shebang to the 'states. Is it still a goer? Website?
How is production of the GA-8 Airvan going? Have the gotten over the problems of earlier this year? Have they got a website?
Composites are shaping up to be the build material of choice for the future (at least that's what it looks like, judging by manufacturers such as Lancair, Cirrus etc).
Now, I beieve, the makers/developers of the Explorer a/c couldn't drum-up enough local interest so the moved the whole shebang to the 'states. Is it still a goer? Website?
How is production of the GA-8 Airvan going? Have the gotten over the problems of earlier this year? Have they got a website?
Composites are shaping up to be the build material of choice for the future (at least that's what it looks like, judging by manufacturers such as Lancair, Cirrus etc).
Thread Starter
What got me thinking about production methods was a conversation I had at Avalon Airshow in Feb with the designer of the GA-8 Airvan. he said he was agast at the way Cessna, Piper, Beech, Mooney etc still build planes.
We were talking about a belly skin he ordered from the States, when it arrived, it was a mirriad of pieces, all hand formed and built up, yet it was still not right and had to be reworked, drilled etc before he could attacht it to the aircraft. In essence, no two pieces are identical due to the hand made production methods.
The GA-8 Airvan on the other hand, was designed on CAD, only about 12(or so) major components for the whole aircraft, all made on a CNC machine, each one comes out perfect 1st time, and hundreds of exactly identical bits can be made in a production run(in a day).
Certification costs are another area that need looking at. It cost Cirrus some 30 million USD just to get the Type and production Certificates for the SR20.
Can the whole certification be done more cheaply and expeditiously, does the whole certificaton process actually lead to a safety payoff. Could an abbreviated process result in the same or simolar level of safety in the end product.
To a degree, this philosophy has been adopted in new avionics certification, notibly in glass cockpit design. I think the Sandel EHSI was the 1st to take advantage of it. The old standard was a failure rate of 1 in a Billion or something like that, recently they changed the standard to that it only had to meet the equivalent reliablility standard of the existing instrument.
I read someohere it takes in the order of 100 man hrs to build a Porche, it takes 10 times that many man hrs to build a C172 or something like that.
At the end of the day, if we build cars like we still build planes, we'd still be driving EH Holdens.
Production costs vis a vi purchase costs, operating and maintenance costs must be halved for GA to survive.
Everything else we use has more than halved in cost and doubled in performance. Cars, machinery, telecomunications, electronics and of course computers. Planes must do the same.
[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: Ozgrade3 ]
We were talking about a belly skin he ordered from the States, when it arrived, it was a mirriad of pieces, all hand formed and built up, yet it was still not right and had to be reworked, drilled etc before he could attacht it to the aircraft. In essence, no two pieces are identical due to the hand made production methods.
The GA-8 Airvan on the other hand, was designed on CAD, only about 12(or so) major components for the whole aircraft, all made on a CNC machine, each one comes out perfect 1st time, and hundreds of exactly identical bits can be made in a production run(in a day).
Certification costs are another area that need looking at. It cost Cirrus some 30 million USD just to get the Type and production Certificates for the SR20.
Can the whole certification be done more cheaply and expeditiously, does the whole certificaton process actually lead to a safety payoff. Could an abbreviated process result in the same or simolar level of safety in the end product.
To a degree, this philosophy has been adopted in new avionics certification, notibly in glass cockpit design. I think the Sandel EHSI was the 1st to take advantage of it. The old standard was a failure rate of 1 in a Billion or something like that, recently they changed the standard to that it only had to meet the equivalent reliablility standard of the existing instrument.
I read someohere it takes in the order of 100 man hrs to build a Porche, it takes 10 times that many man hrs to build a C172 or something like that.
At the end of the day, if we build cars like we still build planes, we'd still be driving EH Holdens.
Production costs vis a vi purchase costs, operating and maintenance costs must be halved for GA to survive.
Everything else we use has more than halved in cost and doubled in performance. Cars, machinery, telecomunications, electronics and of course computers. Planes must do the same.
[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: Ozgrade3 ]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't worked the numbers but there would be as many cars come off a largish car manufacturers production line in a day, as all of the aircraft manufacturers put together build in a year, which is why the cost per unit is where it is.
The Aerospatiale GA product (Trinidad/Tobago), is all CNC stuff and you don't need to cut to fit as every part is the same as the other.
But that and their helicopters are a legacy of the humungously huge, large, big, immense, collosal, ginormous, monstrous and great amount of money spent on the R & D technology by the Airbus mob for manufacturing the big kids aircraft. What they sell them for (Trinidads etc) and what they really cost are undoubtedly 2 different things.
I think Eclipse are up to around AUD$200,000,000 and they have only just started to cut metal and they still have the certification road in front of them.
I wont say designing an aircraft is easy, because it's not, but aviation history is littered with stillborn "good ideas" and yes even the odd turkey disguised as an eagle gets airborne if you apply enough of other peoples money in a quest for some form of nationalistic jingoism.
It is a long and winding road to a succesful product in the long term. Ask Messrs Boeing, Cessna, Dassault, Bombardier, Gulfstream and Airbus. The rest are still scratching their heads trying to work out what happened.
Douglas, McDonnell, Chance Vought, Lockheed, Martin, Curtiss, Mooney, Piper, Mitsubishi, Avro, Shorts, Vickers, Bristol, Convair, Beech, Aero Commander, Aeronca, Navion, Partenavia, Hawker Siddley, Blackburn, De Havilland, Sopwith, Fokker and so it goes, all had their day in the sun but just didn't that thing that separates them from the rest.
There are a whole lot of new ones on the way.
But they are going have to face the same problems.
The Laws of Gravity, Physics, Aerodynamics and Money.
The Aerospatiale GA product (Trinidad/Tobago), is all CNC stuff and you don't need to cut to fit as every part is the same as the other.
But that and their helicopters are a legacy of the humungously huge, large, big, immense, collosal, ginormous, monstrous and great amount of money spent on the R & D technology by the Airbus mob for manufacturing the big kids aircraft. What they sell them for (Trinidads etc) and what they really cost are undoubtedly 2 different things.
I think Eclipse are up to around AUD$200,000,000 and they have only just started to cut metal and they still have the certification road in front of them.
I wont say designing an aircraft is easy, because it's not, but aviation history is littered with stillborn "good ideas" and yes even the odd turkey disguised as an eagle gets airborne if you apply enough of other peoples money in a quest for some form of nationalistic jingoism.
It is a long and winding road to a succesful product in the long term. Ask Messrs Boeing, Cessna, Dassault, Bombardier, Gulfstream and Airbus. The rest are still scratching their heads trying to work out what happened.
Douglas, McDonnell, Chance Vought, Lockheed, Martin, Curtiss, Mooney, Piper, Mitsubishi, Avro, Shorts, Vickers, Bristol, Convair, Beech, Aero Commander, Aeronca, Navion, Partenavia, Hawker Siddley, Blackburn, De Havilland, Sopwith, Fokker and so it goes, all had their day in the sun but just didn't that thing that separates them from the rest.
There are a whole lot of new ones on the way.
But they are going have to face the same problems.
The Laws of Gravity, Physics, Aerodynamics and Money.
