aviatoreb Posted May 14, 2017 Author Report Posted May 14, 2017 ...in a theoretical world - with true and modern mass production, perhaps robotics, high production rates, I would still guess that theoretically a Mooney-style airplane could be built for $50k. Looking into my crystal ball - There will be a sea change within 10-20 years where autonomous air-vehicles take over the world. Think - quadcopter. They will be everywhere. They may not be personally owned but like a public utility, available upon demand. Think airborne Uber. They will be produced very inexpensively. They will not be for long range travel though. 1
Hank Posted May 14, 2017 Report Posted May 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: ...in a theoretical world - with true and modern mass production, perhaps robotics, high production rates, I would still guess that theoretically a Mooney-style airplane could be built for $50k. Looking into my crystal ball - There will be a sea change within 10-20 years where autonomous air-vehicles take over the world. Think - quadcopter. They will be everywhere. They may not be personally owned but like a public utility, available upon demand. Think airborne Uber. They will be produced very inexpensively. They will not be for long range travel though. While there may be an Air Uber some day, where do you get the idea that the vehicles won't be personally owned? Uber drivers now use their own cars, they don't belong to a public utility. Individual auto ownership has been prognosticated to go away for decades, but I don't see many people with the means to own a vehicle selling them to ride the bus (outside of areas like Boston [too crowded] or San Fran [compact area, green philosophy]).
aviatoreb Posted May 14, 2017 Author Report Posted May 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, Hank said: While there may be an Air Uber some day, where do you get the idea that the vehicles won't be personally owned? Uber drivers now use their own cars, they don't belong to a public utility. Individual auto ownership has been prognosticated to go away for decades, but I don't see many people with the means to own a vehicle selling them to ride the bus (outside of areas like Boston [too crowded] or San Fran [compact area, green philosophy]). It was in my crystal ball. Don't shoot the messenger. I was just reporting what I saw. Honestly though, that is what I believe will happen eventually - if not tomorrow, then eventually. Such a change would be more likely to happen during a sea change like transition of the modality of transportation. I was spouting this same dream to a fellow I work with at Princeton a few months ago and he told me that he had seen a lecture recently where the fellow in the lecture was saying the same thing. I think he said the lecture was by a top engineer from airbus. Not that this gives it more validity that his crystal ball is any more clear than mine. Just that other people have the same thought. 1
Hank Posted May 14, 2017 Report Posted May 14, 2017 I absolutely agree that the amount of hand work used to build Mooneys needs to be reduced, and the only reasonable way to do this is robotics. Get some discarded welding robots from an automobile plant, Mooney will only need two--set one up to do fuselage cages, and have one do wings and tails. They will also need an engineer to set them up and do the programming, and of course Maintenance will need to be trained in how to take care of them. The next thing to look at will be seats. I've seen how aircraft seats are laboriously made, quite similar to how Ferrari seats are done, all by hand. How do Ford, Honda, etc., make all of their seats? When I toured the nearby Hyundai plant with my car club, we saw seats being installed, but not fabricated. There has to be a less-lavor-intense way of cutting, assembling and sewing? One step at a time, and the cost will come down. Looking for the all-at-once cost halving is a pipe dream that will probably never arrive. Like eating an elephant, just go one bite at a time.
Guest Posted May 14, 2017 Report Posted May 14, 2017 I don't think how airplanes are built matters in the end. The pilot pool is shrinking and will continue to do so. When the cost of a PPL is between 15-20K few can afford it. Clarence
carusoam Posted May 14, 2017 Report Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) Ecomics of manpower. Chinese companies are using robots because people there cost too much compared to the robots and robot support teams... The first step has been taken... the engineering design work has been subbed out to an engineering design house. there are companies that build car and bus seats already. Email the design house details over to the seat builder... Fischer Autobody has been building complex auto Bodies for centuries. Email the tube details over to those fine people. Select the material dujour.... no need to own the welding robots or program the machines until the quantity reach a threshold for this... Molding the interior parts can all be done by existing suppliers to the industry Economics of the sales team.... anyone want to order their plane online, or at a mall based store? (Tesla model) The designs and final assembly are owned by the company, not much else... Its been a while since anyone with the last names of Ford or Mooney has done these jobs... Machines have always been replacing people at work. Resistance to this was first named by the people that threw their shoes into the machines to break them... the shoes known as Sabots... the act, commonly known as sabotage... The work environment is always going to be changing. People are always going to be needed. People that get trained/educated and work hard will always succeed... I just need a gyrocopter to get to the airport where my turbine Mooney will be kept... The future is going to be bright. Best regards, -a- Edited May 14, 2017 by carusoam 1
carusoam Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 (edited) There are a couple of governments that pay their citizens... as apposed to taxing the citizenry... Often, This is based on the economics of oil. Anyone live in Alaska? In the US, we can purchase tiny bits of the public companies. Whenever the companies lay-off expensive employees, the value of the stock, step-wise, increases... the same is going on each time robots are used in place of tens of employees. It is better to own enough of the company than to be a worker of the company. Be an owner buy the stock of a different company than the one you work at. Too many eggs in one basket. I have worked for more than a few companies that no longer exist or have been deeply absorbed into another entity... there is a learning curve that goes with this... the company that buys out the other company is in charge of laying-off the bought companies employees. You have to be very special to be kept on. Being very special, you are naturally expensive. Have Plan B ready to go. General Foods, Himont, Warner-Lambert, Killion, Van Dam, Schering-Plough. (Food, Chemical, Machines, Pharma - all extruder users or machine builders...) Robots taking over manufacturing is a concern for some. One company taking over another, wholesale closes the extra manufacturing sites. This is a much larger concern for everyone... The work environment will always be a challenge. No matter if you are a sabot wearer, working on machines, or a suit wearing VP of manufacturing in charge of manufacturing sites. Best regards, -a- Edited May 16, 2017 by carusoam 2
RobertGary1 Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 Reminds me of the twighlight zone episode in which the factory manager replaced all his workers with Robby the Robot. So he spent his days slamming his fist and his desk and spinning his pocket watch. In the end they found a robot to do that and he was gone. This robot stood in the office, slamed his fist on the desk and spun his watch around. But seriously automated manufacturing in the US probably creates more high paying jobs. Someone needs to maintain those machines and someone needs to design the layout etc. Manual manufacturing in the US isn't going to become more competitive Best case is high fuel costs to increase shipping Not worried about buggy whip makers -Robert 1
Yetti Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 Integration. A $30.00 computer along with 3 - $40.00 transceivers could cover all the basis for navigation, ADSB and Voice coms. But regulation holds us back. As far as the airframe. It is a manual process. The oil companies get their platforms build in Korea where there are armies of people to put things together. I ride a TI bike that the guy specs out here and then has ex Mig workers build in China with left over tubing from a Mig. It would be fun to send them a Bearhawk kit and see how long and what you get back. Is it still 51% if you outsource the tube welding and riveting?
Hank Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, carusoam said: There are a couple of governments that pay their citizens... as apposed to taxing the citizenry... Often, This is based on the economics of oil. Anyone live in Alaska? In the US, we can purchase tiny bits of the public companies. Whenever the companies lay-off expensive employees, the value of the stock, step-wise, increases... the same is going on each time robots are used in place of tens of employees. It is better to own enough of the company than to be a worker of the company. Be an owner buy the stock of a different company than the one you work at. Too many eggs in one basket. I have worked for more than a few companies that no longer exist or have been deeply absorbed into another entity... there is a learning curve that goes with this... the company that buys out the other company is in charge of laying-off the bought companies employees. You have to be very special to be kept on. Being very special, you are naturally expensive. Have Plan B ready to go. General Foods, Himont, Warner-Lambert, Killion, Van Dam, Schering-Plough. (Food, Chemical, Machines, Pharma - all extruder users or machine builders...) Robots taking over manufacturing is a concern for some. One company taking over another, wholesale closes the extra manufacturing sites. This is a much larger concern for everyone... The work environment will always be a challenge. No matter if you are a sabot wearer, working on machines, or a suit wearing VP of manufacturing in charge of manufacturing sites. Best regards, -a- It's not fun being sold . . . Jobs, jobs--robots need to be built, tested, shipped, installed, programmed, maintained and repaired. Most of these high tech positions pay well. If the new owner keeps you . . . . . Edited May 16, 2017 by Hank 1
aviatoreb Posted May 17, 2017 Author Report Posted May 17, 2017 5 hours ago, RobertGary1 said: Not worried about buggy whip makers -Robert Buggy whip!
Wildhorsesracing Posted May 17, 2017 Report Posted May 17, 2017 On 5/13/2017 at 9:35 PM, aviatoreb said: I forgot - everything experimental is cheaper / even the engine abd prop etc. but in a certified airplane the costs would be more like I said. wow those engines are new like the cost of an overhaul on a certified. Remind me again why I like certified? Owning a certified and an experimental aircraft I'll agree with that 100% - experimental is always less expensive. I'd like to see aircraft that are at least 30 yrs old be able to be declared experimental to take advantage of the lower costs to keep them flying.
RobertGary1 Posted May 17, 2017 Report Posted May 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Wildhorsesracing said: Owning a certified and an experimental aircraft I'll agree with that 100% - experimental is always less expensive. I'd like to see aircraft that are at least 30 yrs old be able to be declared experimental to take advantage of the lower costs to keep them flying. Or even better have an easier route to certify owners to do more routine work (mag changes, vac pump replacement, R&R vacuum instruments, etc). You could train mechanically inclined owners to do minor alterations in 6 months instead of 2 years. No need to overhaul motors or service cabin pressurization systems, etc. At one point ther was momentum to replace the annual inspection with an every 2 year inspection. -Robert 1
Recommended Posts