News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 1000's  (Read 35363 times)

SKYFLYER

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
Re: 1000's
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2017, 12:45:15 pm »
I want whats in your coffee 8)

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: 1000's
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2017, 01:25:31 pm »
And a useful load to boot!

A new Baron 58 1.5 mil

Same performance as a current 500s but no useful load at full fuel.  286 lbs.

I'm still thinking @ 1.1- 1.3 million for an updated current 500s Piston would sell. 

Especially for Island travels and families with useful load requirements. 

And if a wet wing could be figured out imagine the range!

And as an upgrade.  The turbine model. 

That would be a seriously fast bird!

Anyone know what happened to the tooling? 

Anyone know if rebuilding the plane as a composite would make it more attractive financially?

Come on I think were onto something here


donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
Re: 1000's
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2017, 03:45:25 pm »
A piston Shrike would have to sell for over $2 million, at least, probably more. That's the issue.

Bruce Byerly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
Re: 1000's
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2017, 09:33:14 pm »
Couple things; If 51DM could have been bought for $1.3, it would have been sold a long time ago.  Not sure where that number came from.  And that's a plane with original engines and other considerations.

For our new company, Don is hired for president of marketing!

I just flew Bob Mays' Shrike from LA to Peoria. Well, I flew a leg in the left seat, a couple in the right seat, and a couple in the back.  I think he owned it for 30 years give or take. It's hard to let these planes go. They are great planes. A great ride and a comfortable way to travel.   But the complexity and parts count are simply not conducive to manufacturing in this day and age. Just look at all those curves and flush riveting.  A new Baron is $1.4mm! I can't imagine what it would cost to craft a Commander.  Fortunately we have some good planes to work with, fix up, and continue to enjoy. 




« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 09:35:04 pm by Bruce Byerly »

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1654
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: 1000's
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2017, 10:48:14 pm »
Soon as I posted the $1.3 mill I realized I'd mixed it up with another plane. N51DM was for sale for $2m with another broker before you took her on, but not sure what the price is now. She certainly is a unique specimen from what I can tell, but it's a very narrow market at the pointy end.

As I understad it TC has all the tooling and jigs and could technically start production again, but that it would be cost prohibitive. What could the market bare for a brand new 1000 model? $3 million?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 10:52:29 pm by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
Re: 1000's
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2017, 11:50:35 pm »
A new King Air C90 is $3.6, so I think a new 1000 would be a good deal at around $4 million. A King Air 250 is the most direct competitor, and those are well over $4 million, so at $4 million (or $3.995!) a new 1000B would be a great value.

Slot my new 680S in at about $3.2 million and you have a nice little product line.

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: 1000's
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2017, 11:36:19 am »
Would it not be possible to go through the old shrike plans, Update them with all the new bells and whistles remove the old outdated systems and use current manufacturing techniques to simplify everything.  Cut down on the parts list and make a better 2017 airplane. 

And in the process make it a more affordable.  Better aircraft than the Barron

I still think it's worth a shot! 

So we have a
500s piston 1.5 - 2.0 mil
680s turbine 550hp 3.0 - 3.5 mil
And a 1000 turbine 4.0 to 4.5 mil.

Ok let's get started.
Who's in?

Bruce Byerly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
Re: 1000's
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2017, 02:41:10 pm »
Adam - much of the big tooling was destroyed sadly.   :(

It was a hand crafted airplane - extremely labor intensive. 

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
Re: 1000's
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2017, 06:22:26 pm »
So do they not, in fact, have the ability to restart production on any of the airplanes?

Bruce Byerly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
Re: 1000's
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2017, 12:44:03 am »
Don - they have the rights to do so of course but practically speaking I suspect the labor required is 3x what the modern light jets take to produce.  Then there are the forgings that came from sub contractors.  We have been using machined parts to replace those forgings for many years.  Shrike engine mounts and landing gear drag braces for example.  The really good news is that any of it can be made and the plane is well supported, but the ability to mass produce most of it would have to be re-done from scratch.  And I think the drawings are an approximation relative to today's tight Mfg tolerances.  No two Commanders are quite alike. Anything is possible, but it would be like building Shelby cobra bodies.  The ability to "economically" hammer those things out might remain in Poland or somewhere, I don't know.

I'm all for it - whatever it takes.   ;D
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 12:46:22 am by Bruce Byerly »

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: 1000's
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2017, 01:03:20 am »
Really,

These things were drawn with slide rules. 

Today we have CAD and Super precise measuring tools.  A good CAD operator and a set of plans could basically get the bird in 3D within weeks if not sooner.

Most of the metal Fab could be stamped now.  Or milled out of 3D lathing machines.  And if casts needed to be made then we get the cast parts made.  If these planes were basically hand made back in the day.  Then holy moly we could totally start assembly lining these things.

Proper planning, a great engineering team, and a little luck....
Here comes aero commander 2020 :)

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1654
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: 1000's
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2017, 04:07:22 am »
Count me in! I'd love to be involved in a new updated Jetprop. Like someone said, get rid of all the outdated stuff, make it better.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

SKYFLYER

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
Re: 1000's
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2017, 11:02:25 am »
And who said pilots are not dreamers..... 8)

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
Re: 1000's
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2017, 10:41:53 pm »
They still build King Airs, and I think those are built in much the same way as they always have been.

The advantage of the 1000 is that it's already certified, with modern avionics and everything, and some of the tooling (although maybe less than would be hoped for) exists, along with a bunch of PMA'd parts, etc. So it would seem to be MUCH cheaper to get started than with a clean sheet design.

The other advantage of the 1000 is that nothing really does what it does. It's a great competitor to the PC-12-- a little bit smaller cabin, but faster and more efficient. And twin engine.

I'm sure what they need, though, is a 25 or 50 unit order to get started. Either some sort of fractional or special mission program.

Steve binnette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: 1000's
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2017, 11:20:50 am »
It's seems crazy to me but I think some people would chose a SETP over a twin these days.   Even with the economics working for the twin.

Many new pilots don't have much experience in twins and fear them!  Must be like a new PPL student who fears stalls.  When you are not trained properly you fear the unknown.

Why spend millions on a pilatus or a TBM when you can get a king air?

If you expand your search to include legacy aircraft you have even better choices.  There is a problem, too much information for a new guy.

This is a hard hobby/business to jump into there is  lots of confusing information for a low time guy to absorb.

If a pilot they respect says get a TBM "that's the best way to go". They can stop asking questions about other airframes.  Making it easier to sort through all the confusing aviation information.