So for an RV8 a kit is 25K and 50% built is about 36.5 K. Extrapolating, it may cost 23K to get it built 100% so it would cost 50K dollars for the airframe. Add on another 50K dollars for the instruments and engine, and a hopefully generous 20K for the paint and other finishing, and the aircraft should cost 120K to produce, including whatever profit margins they’re making already.
It’s a lot of money, but still a far cry from the price of a comparable certified aircraft. Arguably the skills of their builders may probably be better than those of most amateurs and are at worst, satisfactory, so it is hard to make a safety case for insisting that homebuilt aircraft are … homebuilt.
With radio control aircraft there has been a big move away from balsa construction towards aircraft moulded out of foam. I have looked at plans for a number of homebuilt aircraft and I can’t help but think that many of them could perhaps be simplified in a similar way. For example aircraft such as the CriCri or Luciole could have two single foam parts comprising all the ribs. You could epoxy carbon fiber pultrusions in place to form the spars, and epoxy CNC cut aluminium parts into place and hugely simplify construction. You’d eliminate all the measuring and cutting work. Perhaps you could even introduce vent holes and use suction to pull the skins towards the foam whilst the glue dries.
Silvaire wrote:
How that occurs now, and the non-involvement of factories, is part of the technology and not a problem… except where backward looking regulation makes it so
Exactly.
kwlf wrote:
The kits are part assembled in the developing world (Phillipines IIRC) and are not a huge amount more expensive than the bare metal.
That’s a very good point and is also an important part of advances and innovations that combine to make an RV available, where it wasn’t before – in this case meaning the use of our now increased ability to outsource to developing countries, mainly via cheaper, faster goods transport and instant worldwide communication.
Never understood RV’s, never understood Cirrii. So I’m obviously a bad judge of desirability and you probably should not employ me as an oracle. 
You could probably extrapolate from the cost of an RV part-built kit. They’re meant to be just under the 50% built level. The kits are part assembled in the developing world (Phillipines IIRC) and are not a huge amount more expensive than the bare metal.
The additional issues would be certification and liability.
alioth wrote:
I’m guessing the only reason an RV is affordable is because the buyer puts in 1500-2000 man hours work for the love of it.
Or he buys a used RV, plentiful in the market, for an affordable price. The market plus technology plus people have created wide availability of aircraft with performance + practicality unheard of a few decades ago. How that occurs now, and the non-involvement of factories, is part of the technology and not a problem… except where backward looking regulation makes it so.
alioth wrote:
I’ve never found LTE or 4G to work in flight in the US above about 1500 feet. At least with a T-Mobile SIM.
Yes, that’s a fair point. My very first port of call when arriving in the country is an AT&T store, where you can get a 2Gb sim for $30 which lasts about a week in Foreflight. In the store, you can pay with a foreign credit card and get the techie to test it for you, which seems to be necessary 50% of the time. Budget 1Hr for this store visit!. You can also get a 6Gb card for $60 approx. AT&T’s service extends to GA altitudes and within 30 miles of habitation typically. On a recent 40 Hr trip I had coverage better than 50% of the time, 5-10k ft AGL, East and West including Great Plains. This using iPad air 2.
(Note: you have to visit a store each time because the Sims expire after 30 days, can’t be renewed with a foreign credit card, can’t be mail ordered and get permanently cancelled in a few months because they can’t connect in Europe). Unless someone knows better….
Avoid Sim’s from other carriers, even if they say “uses AT&T”, because they have all kinds of throttling. Same is true of UK’s ‘3’ sims, which have excellent ‘Feel at Home’ roaming performance on the ground, but only average in the air, and typically use T-Mobile. Actually 3 is the perfect solution for phoning home because the rate is the same as domestic UK.
Silvaire wrote:
[Vans RV] Nothing like that was available a few decades ago.
And in the factory built world, there is still nothing like it available.
I do have to wonder how much something like an RV6 would cost – the exact same design, but as a factory built. I’m guessing the only reason an RV is affordable is because the buyer puts in 1500-2000 man hours work for the love of it. A factory might be able to get what the homebuilder is doing down to 1200 hours, but that’s an awful lot of money in labour costs alone (and then the factory would want to also make a profit).
Aveling wrote:
In the sky. During the flight.
I’ve never found LTE or 4G to work in flight in the US above about 1500 feet. At least with a T-Mobile SIM.
From the perspective of VFR flying, and apologies Adam, but I disagree with the premise of this thread. Two examples:
In the US, the near pervasiveness of 4G / LTE means that anyone with an iPad and Foreflight has access to real time weather radar, satellite images and TAF’s, Metars and Notams much of the time. In the sky. During the flight.
In UK, with it’s chaotic ATC, Pilot Aware and similar boxes have the potential to provide traffic awareness that should be available through Flight Following, but isn’t and probably never will be.
Both these innovations have emerged in the last 5 years and both, and in their respective countries, have the ability to transform the safety and utility of VFR flying.
And to add another: Uber has transformed the utility of small airports on both sides of the Atlantic, eliminating unreliable taxis and the temptation to use uninsured courtesy cars. OK, none of these ‘innovations’ concern the airframe or powerplant, but a roll of certified velcro, such that the iPad could be taped over the existing panel, would meet that objective as well. Not entirely facetious!
