X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:37:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2606310 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:06:53 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.252.42; envelope-from=sbej@verizon.net Received: from your4105e587b6 ([75.82.233.22]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JTC00EQD3LFSBAA@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:05:40 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:05:38 -0800 From: "Bryan Wullner" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 320/360 efficiency and economy - hole in the market? X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Message-id: <001f01c842ce$5866fde0$6400a8c0@your4105e587b6> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C8428B.49C2F520" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C8428B.49C2F520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have always wondered why they dont still produce the 320/360 kit. I = dont care what a 320/360 kit would cost in today's dollars. In my = opinion, If it was possible to produce the 320/360 super fastbuild and = sell it today for $27,000 it would still be successful. But obviously = Lancair chose to discontinue it so maybe they were seeing its popularity = die off. I think at the time the 320 was phased out people all wanted = bigger and better everything. Now with fuel costs and everyone going = green and trying to be efficient as possible it might be time to start = going back to smaller, sleek, fast airframes that use unbelievably small = amounts of HP. =20 Couldn't they have used the Legacy airfoil and adapted it to the = 320/360? I understand they made the stub wing wider to accommodate a = better landing gear system but couldn't they have just redesigned the = 320 wing, beefed up the landing gear a little and left everything else = as is. It could have been the Legacy 320. Or just lighten up the = Current Legacy airframe so it could fly 250MPH on 180HP. Ever felt how = heavy the stock Legacy Panel is? It could definitely stand to lose some = weight here and there. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Fitzgerald=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [LML] Re: 320/360 efficiency and economy - hole in the = market? Well, let's take a look at this. I was all set to agree with you = until I ran some numbers. In its day, the 320/360 was arguably the best value on the market, as = long as you didn't have to carry a big payload. The standard kit was = $20,000, and the fast-build kit was somewhere around $27,000. The = closest competitor (in cost and performance) was the Glasair II which I = seem to remember costing about $27,000 for the RG model. The 320/360 is = a legit 200 mph plane. One could argue that one of the major improvements (and cost drivers) = of the Lancair kits over the years has been the amount of = pre-fabrication done at the factory. The Legacy has far less = fabrication than even the fast-build version of the 320/360, and can't = even be seriously compared to the amount of fabrication in the standard = build kits (trust me on this one). This actually applies across the = entire line of kits, as any early L-IV builder can verify. Using the split kit ES with the fast-build options as a basis ($51,800 = in 1996) the E-glass 320/360 fast build kit would probably cost around = $43,000 today. When you cross reference other kit manufacturers, you = get similar numbers (a standard build RV-6A kit was about $10K in 1996 = and an RV-7A standard kit today sells for about $19K). A quick browse = of the Lancair website shows that they do indeed offer a 200+ mph kit = that uses a 4-cylinder engine for around $40K - the Legacy FG. So where would an updated version of the 320/360 kit fall in the = Lancair lineup? How much pre-fabrication would the factory have to = knock out of the kit to drop the price to, say, the $35,000 = neighborhood? Is the end product a kit that the marketplace would = tolerate? As for the $200K Legacy, well, if you throw dual Cheltons on the = panel, get a Reno-ready engine with an MT prop firewall-forward package, = and get someone else to put it all together for you, yeah, you can hit = $200K. However, if you start with a $60K Legacy kit, do 2 weeks of = builder support at the factory ($8K), use an overhauled engine (rebuilt = Lyc 540's and Cont. 520's are all over Trade-A-Plane for $25-30K, so = lets use $30K) still use that MT prop (~$11K from Lancair), use decent = quality tradional flight instruments for about $11K (and that includes a = single axis autopiliot), buy basic IFR radio stack for about another = $12K (which includes a Garmin 430), and 3K should cover your engine = instrumentation, and (here's the key) ACTUALLY BUILD THE PLANE YOURSELF, = you get a total of $135K, which leaves $65K for a paint job and interior = before you hit $200K. Going up to a rebuilt Cont. 550 would add $13K = ($43K from Lancair). On the other hand, you could also subtract a bunch = if you got really creative with your engine choice. Gary Fitzgerald LNC2 extra-slow build ~70% engine: TBD St. Charles, MO Has Lancair left a hole in the market place? =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C8428B.49C2F520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have always wondered why they dont = still produce=20 the 320/360 kit. I dont care what a 320/360 kit would cost in today's=20 dollars.  In my opinion, If it was possible to produce = the=20 320/360 super fastbuild and sell it today for $27,000 it would still be=20 successful.  But obviously Lancair chose to discontinue it so maybe = they=20 were seeing its popularity die off.  I think at the time the 320 = was phased=20 out people all wanted bigger and better everything.  Now with fuel = costs=20 and everyone going green and trying to be efficient as possible it might = be time=20 to start going back to smaller, sleek, fast airframes that = use unbelievably=20 small amounts of HP. 
Couldn't they have used the Legacy = airfoil and=20 adapted it to the 320/360? I understand they made the stub wing wider to = accommodate a better landing gear system but couldn't they have just = redesigned=20 the 320 wing, beefed up the landing gear a little and left everything = else as=20 is. It could have been the Legacy 320.   Or just lighten = up the=20 Current Legacy airframe so it could fly 250MPH on 180HP. Ever felt how = heavy the=20 stock Legacy Panel is? It could definitely stand to lose some = weight here=20 and there.
 
 

  
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gary = Fitzgerald=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, = 2007 6:23=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: 320/360 = efficiency and=20 economy - hole in the market?

Well, let's take a look at = this.  I was all=20 set to agree with you until I ran some numbers.
 
In its day, the 320/360 was = arguably the=20 best value on the market, as long as you didn't have to carry a big=20 payload.  The standard kit was $20,000, and the fast-build kit = was=20 somewhere around $27,000.  The closest competitor (in cost = and=20 performance) was the Glasair II which I seem to remember costing about = $27,000=20 for the RG model.  The 320/360 is a legit 200 mph=20 plane.
 
One could argue that one of the major = improvements (and cost drivers) of the Lancair kits over the years has = been=20 the amount of pre-fabrication done at the factory.  = The Legacy=20 has far less fabrication than even the fast-build version = of the=20 320/360, and can't even be seriously compared to the amount of = fabrication in=20 the standard build kits (trust me on this one).  This actually = applies=20 across the entire line of kits, as any early L-IV builder can=20 verify.
 
Using the split kit ES with the = fast-build=20 options as a basis ($51,800 in 1996) the E-glass 320/360 fast build = kit would=20 probably cost around $43,000 today.  When you cross reference = other kit=20 manufacturers, you get similar numbers (a standard build RV-6A kit was = about=20 $10K in 1996 and an RV-7A standard kit today sells for about = $19K). =20 A quick browse of the Lancair website shows that they do indeed offer = a 200+=20 mph kit that uses a 4-cylinder engine for around $40K - the Legacy=20 FG.
 
So where would an updated version of = the 320/360=20 kit fall in the Lancair lineup?  How much pre-fabrication would = the=20 factory have to knock out of the kit to drop the price to, say, the = $35,000=20 neighborhood?  Is the end product a kit that the = marketplace=20 would tolerate?
 
As for the $200K Legacy, well, if you = throw dual=20 Cheltons on the panel, get a Reno-ready engine with an MT prop=20 firewall-forward package, and get someone else to put it all together = for you,=20 yeah, you can hit $200K.  However, if you start with a $60K = Legacy kit,=20 do 2 weeks of builder support at the factory ($8K), use an overhauled = engine=20 (rebuilt Lyc 540's and Cont. 520's are all over Trade-A-Plane for = $25-30K, so=20 lets use $30K) still use that MT prop  (~$11K from Lancair), use = decent=20 quality tradional flight instruments for about $11K (and that=20 includes a single axis autopiliot), buy basic IFR radio = stack for=20 about another $12K (which includes a Garmin 430), and 3K should cover = your=20 engine instrumentation, and (here's the key) ACTUALLY BUILD THE PLANE=20 YOURSELF, you get a total of $135K, which leaves $65K for a paint job = and=20 interior before you hit $200K.  Going up to a rebuilt Cont. 550 = would add=20 $13K ($43K from Lancair).  On the other hand, you could also = subtract a=20 bunch if you got really creative with your engine choice.
 
Gary Fitzgerald
LNC2 extra-slow = build=20 ~70%
engine: TBD
St. Charles, MO
 

Has Lancair left a = hole in the=20 market place? 

 

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C8428B.49C2F520--