Dyn'Aero in trouble?

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by autoreply, Oct 3, 2015.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 3, 2015 #1

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Google translate (to lazy to do it myself):
    Some angry articles here:
    Articles - Dynaero.info
    Hard to judge whether they're accurate or prejudiced.
     
  2. Dec 1, 2015 #2

    Luciano

    Luciano

    Luciano

    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Belgium
    Prejudiced articles issued by a former employee of Dyn'Aero.

    Dyn'Aero recently confirmed an important strategic move by which
    - they will further ensure the airworthness of all their airplanes,
    - they will stop the commercialisation of ready-to-fly airplanes
    - they will continue to provide the market with airplane kits
    - they will provide support, parts and components for the installed base via a dedicated partner

    More info available on the Dyn'Aero web site

    Rgds

    Luciano
     
  3. Dec 1, 2015 #3

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    108
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Jarno,

    This is the second time in a few years that these guys are in trouble. Since you introduced me to these fascinating MCR line of aircraft, I have been very impressed with their performance specs for the HP. From a business point of view I would like to know what is it that is making them go bust.

    To answer my own question with what I know, I created a comparison table with the best selling kit plane and MCR. There are two kits from Dynaero and they can compare head to head with Vans RV7 and RV10. All the numbers I gathered are from their respective websites and wikipedia or with the acquaintance in the RV world (where I know the credibility of the numbers).

    I was amazed that overall efficiency is just one part of the story(maybe a very small part). Have a look..............
    (Sorry,I do not know how to add a table so did screen shots instead)

    MCR sportster Vs RV7A.jpg

    MCR4s Vs RV10.jpg

    The entry level price point is pretty much the same and the operating cost is about $10/hr difference(basically from the more efficient MCR) for the sportster
    The 4s is basically a 2+2 like the sportsman2+2 with about the same performance as the Glastar too! Even considering the Rotax 914 consumes 6.5gph at the stated HP and not 5.5as on Dynaero's website and the SFC of the RV10 engine gives about 9.5gph at the stated cruise, the cost difference in operation is about $15/hr. This assumes ~$4-$5/gal gas.

    Unfortunately, the last few lines in the comparison tell the entire story about kit aircrafts in general :ermm:
     
  4. Dec 1, 2015 #4

    djschwartz

    djschwartz

    djschwartz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Having been around the homebuilt scene for 40 years now it's pretty easy to understand what is going on.

    Van's planes and his company do what they claim. Sure, they're not perfect, but they're darn good and there's little hype. Few in the industry come close on the "say what you do and do what you say" scale. He did that even when he was first starting out.

    Companies like Dyn Aero make claims that are "optimistic" at best and are regularly unable to back them up in practice.

    Van's fan support comes from a lot of happy folks who have built and are flying his designs.

    Dyn Aero and similar companies get most of their fan support from wishful enthusiasts viewing the claims on their web sites or reading their sales brochures.
     
  5. Dec 1, 2015 #5

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Gas is more like 15 US$/gallon...

    It's not written in stone that they're in trouble now. The message I posted certainly rings some alarm bells about the motive of the poster. I don't know the real truth.

    Where it concerns the old company; they had a great product, but seemed to consider customers an annoyance. That they nevertheless sold 500 speaks to the qualities of the design.

    Can't judge the new company. Dumping money in certification creates a huge overhead (few million a year). Even Van's, Sonex, Lancair and Glasair together couldn't afford to pay that for very long...

    Makes sense to solely focus on kits.

    Prices are not entirely comparable. The MCR is WAY faster to build than an RV. Less than half the time; easily. It includes (or included) considerable build time at the factories premises.

    I don't know owners of any other type of plane (including RV's) that are so outspoken that they never want to fly anything but an MCR. Many are equally outspoken over never wanting to have dealings with the "old" Dyn'Aero again ;-)
     
  6. Dec 1, 2015 #6

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands

    While that's true for many companies, it's utterly incorrect and undeserved for Dyn'aero. About 700 of their planes are FLYING. Name 5 other kit companies that have gotten to that number...

    Their numbers are spot on. How I know? I've flown and logged performance on 3 of their designs myself.
     
    Midniteoyl likes this.
  7. Dec 1, 2015 #7

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    108
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    The specs that I have are from there website and wikipedia. I know so many examples of RVs that beat the stated specs on Van's website with (some even without any mods) and I am not talking about the rockets here!
    The build time quoted on MCRs is from there US rep I talked to last year when I was complaining about the high price of their kit.
    I have never flown a MCR, heck never even seen one.
    Each one of the dozens of RV owners that I know has the RV grin. Not only do they like their plane, they like how Vans runs his business, ethics, and VAF and builder support overall around the country.

    As I understand, one needs to spend $$ for the two essential liquids that sustain life... Beer & Gasoline. All your $$ gets spent on the great beer across the pond that the incredible ICE has to suffer and hence your liking for sailplanes :gig:

    I have never seen a European complain for expensive Beer :devious:
     
  8. Jan 3, 2016 #8

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
  9. Jan 3, 2016 #9

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Glasair, Kitfox, Lancair, RANS, and Zenair, based on US registrations alone.

    Never make a statistics-based rhetorical comment with me around. :)

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    DangerZone, Topaz and BJC like this.
  10. Jan 3, 2016 #10

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Here's a summary of US Experimental Amateur-Built registrations from a year ago. I'll be downloading the new FAA registration database this week and re-running to get the current figures.

    Ron Wanttaja
     

    Attached Files:

    cheapracer, Vigilant1 and flyvulcan like this.
  11. Jan 3, 2016 #11

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,499
    Likes Received:
    6,256
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Ron:

    Thanks for that, it always is good to have facts.

    May I share that pdf with the Glasair Aviation Aircraft Owners forum?

    Thanks,


    BJC
     
  12. Jan 3, 2016 #12

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    500
    Location:
    Indiana
    Registered, or flying?
     
  13. Jan 3, 2016 #13

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    I don't mind the least... always nice to learn a thing or too. And statistically I was 20% off, though my mental list excluded RANS and Zenair and included Jodel, so it's probably more like 7 companies total ;-)
     
  14. Jan 3, 2016 #14

    flyvulcan

    flyvulcan

    flyvulcan

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    311
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Thanks Ron,

    Those statistics are very interesting.

    Dave
     
  15. Jan 3, 2016 #15

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,499
    Likes Received:
    6,256
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    There were / are lots of CGS Hawk series airplanes. Not sure how many were kits verses factory assembled ultralights.


    BJC
     
  16. Jan 3, 2016 #16

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    Ron, does the Sonex number include all models? I would not be surprised if they're in spitting distance if we include Waiex, Xenos, and Onex. Also, note that the Rutan aircraft are over 700.
     
  17. Jan 3, 2016 #17

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Yes, no problem. Though I should have the new data out in a week or so, with the previous year's data for comparison.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    cheapracer and BJC like this.
  18. Jan 3, 2016 #18

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Registered. No way to tell how many are flying. There is a column to indicate whether a plane has earned an airworthiness certificate, but it's not too reliable.

    For instance, my search for RV-6s comes up with 1,965 aircraft. If I restrict that to only aircraft that have Experimental Amateur-Built certificates, the total is about 200 lower. This, nominally, should indicate aircraft that haven't been completed yet (and thus have not been inspected).

    However, ONE of those ~200 aircraft is an RV-6 a friend built 25 years ago. Not only is it in its fourth decade of flight, it's listed on the NTSB accident data twice. So the actual knowledge is difficult.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  19. Jan 3, 2016 #19

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Sonex number includes all models. Filter used is: Like "*SONEX*" Or Like "*WAIEX*" Or Like "*XENOS*" Or Like "*ONEX*". If you have suggestions for expanding it, let me know.

    That's one thing to consider on this analysis; it depends builders using reasonably consistent names. Remember, builders can name them anything they want.

    I search for RV-8s using:

    Like "*RV-8*" Or Like "*RV 8*" Or Like "*RV8*" Or Like "*VANS 8*"

    ... but this doesn't catch the "VANS EIGHT" or "JOES SPORT PLANE" variants.

    It's not as big of a deal with the more popular airplanes, but some of the rarer and older ones can get sporty. Not to mention names that get shared across several homebuilt types ("Sport", "Special", etc.), just plain misspellings ("Christian Eagle" "Chalinger"), or creative spellings/abbreviations ("Star Duster" "Rway").

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Himat likes this.
  20. Jan 3, 2016 #20

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Quick search on just "CGS" comes up with 144 hits. All of these would be N-Numbered airplanes.

    "Hawk" is used for too many types of airplanes to be useful as a filter. "Dakota Hawk", "Sparrow Hawk", "Kestrel Hawk", "Treasure Hawk", "Canary Hawk"(!), etc. Searching for "Hawk Arrow" (actual filter: "* Hawk A*") and a few other tricks adds another dozen or so.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Himat and BJC like this.

Share This Page

arrow_white