If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Open-source airplane could cost just $15,000, including the engine   (whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 25
    More: Unlikely, fuselage, aliens  
•       •       •

2320 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2013 at 9:44 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-30 04:36:09 AM
Or you could just buy yourself a coffin, that would be a lot cheaper.
 
2013-07-30 07:59:03 AM

Sgygus: Or you could just buy yourself a coffin, that would be a lot cheaper.


I'd prefer a scourge, myself:

www.airdromeaeroplanes.com

www.airdromeaeroplanes.com
 
2013-07-30 08:41:50 AM
vostok.smugmug.com
 
2013-07-30 09:05:18 AM
You first.
 
2013-07-30 10:26:53 AM
Maybe when I retire and have the spare time to put a plane together. I will inherit an unfinished ultralight here one day too.
 
2013-07-30 10:29:10 AM
But who's going to fly it, kid? You?
 
2013-07-30 10:32:30 AM
Seems a bit ambitious, and with little explanation of how you are supposed to fit the engine in the budget. Had a cow-orker building one of these: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv7.htm (or another from the same company). What I learned: he can spend almost all of his time on it and it still seems like it will take longer and longer to finish (and he has some amazing construction skills).

Note that aviation engines are *expensive*. There might be some difference for the "special light license aircraft", but since they are new and don't appear to be a mass market, I doubt that. From the looks of it, they probably expect to come up with some automotive engine modification. This is typically harder than it looks, but it might only be because kits to modify specific engines aren't wide enough (doubtful, there are plenty of airplane kits out there, but it seems they always recommend a new aircraft engine with a budget recommendation of a used aircraft engine.

My guess is that if they get enough backers, their will be enough people to make a go of the aircraft (assuming the first few planes don't kill their pilots). There are some specific advantages to building your own plane, mostly in that it allows you to do/certify any maintenance you did on the plane (and licensed aircraft mechanics are *expensive*), No idea if you are on the hook if you ever try to sell the aircraft (look up the reasons companies sell kits and never small aircraft).

In before floats, flies, farks? Fark is slipping (my father tried to break the "if it floats, don't build it yourself" with disastrous results.
 
2013-07-30 11:02:13 AM

yet_another_wumpus: Note that aviation engines are *expensive*. There might be some difference for the "special light license aircraft", but since they are new and don't appear to be a mass market, I doubt that.


Actually, there are a number of relatively inexpensive engines appropriate for light sport aircraft.  Rotax makes a 65 HP engine, that when combined with a gearbox and recoil starter, runs a bit over $7000 MSRP.  That's about the same HP as the engine in a Piper Cub (which, btw, qualifies as an LSA aircraft), but it's lighter than the Continental used in the Cubs by about half (92 lbs vs. 170 lbs).

So if you budget $7k for the engine, you've got $8k you can spend for materials on the airframe itself.
 
2013-07-30 11:38:47 AM

yet_another_wumpus: Seems a bit ambitious, and with little explanation of how you are supposed to fit the engine in the budget. Had a cow-orker building one of these: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv7.htm (or another from the same company). What I learned: he can spend almost all of his time on it and it still seems like it will take longer and longer to finish (and he has some amazing construction skills).

Note that aviation engines are *expensive*. There might be some difference for the "special light license aircraft", but since they are new and don't appear to be a mass market, I doubt that. From the looks of it, they probably expect to come up with some automotive engine modification. This is typically harder than it looks, but it might only be because kits to modify specific engines aren't wide enough (doubtful, there are plenty of airplane kits out there, but it seems they always recommend a new aircraft engine with a budget recommendation of a used aircraft engine.

My guess is that if they get enough backers, their will be enough people to make a go of the aircraft (assuming the first few planes don't kill their pilots). There are some specific advantages to building your own plane, mostly in that it allows you to do/certify any maintenance you did on the plane (and licensed aircraft mechanics are *expensive*), No idea if you are on the hook if you ever try to sell the aircraft (look up the reasons companies sell kits and never small aircraft).

In before floats, flies, farks? Fark is slipping (my father tried to break the "if it floats, don't build it yourself" with disastrous results.


http://www.greatplainsas.com/

Been around for years....
 
2013-07-30 12:15:34 PM
Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.
 
2013-07-30 12:47:57 PM

Alonjar: Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.


Oh look, it's the guy that thinks we have Tang because of space.
 
2013-07-30 12:50:13 PM
Technically that's the same price range as a quicksilver ultralight... So, you can already buy a plane with the engine (granted, a rotax..) for around 15k..
 
2013-07-30 01:02:17 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Alonjar: Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.

Oh look, it's the guy that thinks we have Tang because of space.


In all fairness, without space, nothing in our universe would exist. Not even Tang.
 
2013-07-30 01:08:20 PM
That's not a bad deal for doing a nosedive into a crowd.
 
2013-07-30 01:19:10 PM

Alonjar: Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.


There are actually two related reasons for that:  Liability, and volume.

Right after WWII, you could buy a 2 or 4 seat airplane for the price of a nice car.  For example, an Aeronca Champion cost about $2,100 in the late 1940's, about the same price as a 1948 Pontiac Streamliner station wagon.
 
2013-07-30 01:52:48 PM
I'd prefer my planes cost a bit more

I don't think that the airplane that I am trusting my life to is the place for me to be cheap
 
2013-07-30 01:58:25 PM
I forget the specs (it was over 20 years ago), but I knew a guy that built an airplane with a BMW motor.  It worked pretty out pretty well, he flew it about maybe 20 times before he crashed.

Of course, he crashed because something was wrong with his landing gear, but he walked away from it with nothing but a few scratches.
 
2013-07-30 01:58:58 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Quantum Apostrophe: Alonjar: Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.

Oh look, it's the guy that thinks we have Tang because of space.

In all fairness, without space, nothing in our universe would exist. Not even Tang.


You need time too.
 
2013-07-30 01:59:51 PM

dittybopper: Alonjar: Airplanes are actually insanely simplistic machines... its kind of silly that they cost more than a car, when you really think about it.

There are actually two related reasons for that:  Liability, and volume.

Right after WWII, you could buy a 2 or 4 seat airplane for the price of a nice car.  For example, an Aeronca Champion cost about $2,100 in the late 1940's, about the same price as a 1948 Pontiac Streamliner station wagon.


OK, hit the "Add Comment" button too soon.

Anyway, it was reasonably cheap to get into general aviation back then, at least within the range of middle to upper-middle class.

Then the lawyers got involved.  Design stagnated.  That's why your typical Cessna has changed very little in materials or design over the last 60 years.  It's not like they *COULDN'T* innovate, it's just that it would cost them too much to come up with new designs, and it exposes them to new lawsuits.

Homebuilders, on the other hand, can afford to experiment.  That's where the real innovation is.  Look at the various higher performance small general aviation aircraft:  All homebuilt from plans, often in unconventional materials and configurations.

Compare a homebuilt Cozy Mk IV with a Beecraft Bonanza:  Both have comparable performance of speed, rate of climb, and useful load, but the Cozy weighs about 1,500 lbs less, because it uses foam and fiberglass construction, and it uses a 180 hp engine instead of a 300 hp engine.  Oh, and the Cozy has a much greater range at full load, nearly 4 times farther.
 
2013-07-30 01:59:56 PM

dittybopper: There are actually two related reasons for that:  Liability, and volume.


FAA regulations are a biatch....
 
2013-07-30 02:02:54 PM

Burr: dittybopper: There are actually two related reasons for that:  Liability, and volume.

FAA regulations are a biatch....


That too, but a lot of those go away when you build yourself.  Hell, my father had his plane inspected by the FAA when he N-numbered it as an LSA, and he breezed through the inspection.  Of course, he's a fanatic about doing everything just right, so that might help.

He gets to do all the work on his plane.  Only thing he doesn't do is zero-time the engine:  He removes it and ships it to a company that does that for him.
 
2013-07-30 02:04:43 PM
Another plane that would be cheap to manufacture or build, and I'd love to own a 2 or 4 seat version:

upload.wikimedia.org

The Facetmobile.
 
2013-07-30 05:04:10 PM

dittybopper: Another plane that would be cheap to manufacture or build, and I'd love to own a 2 or 4 seat version:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 403x308]

The Facetmobile.


It is covered up and sitting in the EAA 96 hangar at KCPM. I Have not seen Baranaby uncover it in manyyears
 
2013-07-30 06:09:03 PM

Rivetman1.0: dittybopper: Another plane that would be cheap to manufacture or build, and I'd love to own a 2 or 4 seat version:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 403x308]

The Facetmobile.

It is covered up and sitting in the EAA 96 hangar at KCPM. I Have not seen Baranaby uncover it in manyyears


Pity.  It's a unique concept, and because of it's unique construction you could make it much cheaper than a 'conventional' airplane, either tube and rag like Wainfan did, or out of flat panels like he proposed.
 
2013-07-30 09:35:07 PM

dittybopper: yet_another_wumpus: Note that aviation engines are *expensive*. There might be some difference for the "special light license aircraft", but since they are new and don't appear to be a mass market, I doubt that.

Actually, there are a number of relatively inexpensive engines appropriate for light sport aircraft.  Rotax makes a 65 HP engine, that when combined with a gearbox and recoil starter, runs a bit over $7000 MSRP.  That's about the same HP as the engine in a Piper Cub (which, btw, qualifies as an LSA aircraft), but it's lighter than the Continental used in the Cubs by about half (92 lbs vs. 170 lbs).

So if you budget $7k for the engine, you've got $8k you can spend for materials on the airframe itself.


Hell, the original Rutan Quickie ran on a 25hp pumpjack motor. There are lawnmower and go-kart engines that'd be suitable to power some designs. Generally, the lighter and slower the thing is, the easier it is to build on the cheap. Flying is easy, it's speed, efficiency, and useful load that eat up the budget. Well, reliability too, but that's more of a problem for certified aircraft. With a homebuilt you're pretty much throwing reliability out the window, which is why they're placarded as experimental.

But you don't need to go 200 mph just to have fun tooling around in the sky and with good aerodynamics it doesn't take a lot of power to haul even the average Farker around at 100 mph.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report