# Dyn'Aero in trouble?

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

##### Well-Known Member
Aupa Dyn'aéro arrête les MCR
Le constructeur des MCR n’était pas à Blois cette année. La raison est simple : il s’agit d’une nouvelle orientation stratégique de la société qui ne produira plus de kits, ni ne montera d’appareils prêts à voler. Les conditions de fabrication des MCR dans leur configuration actuelle ne permettent pas d’assurer une viabilité économique du process. A moins bien sûr qu’un constructeur des pays de l’Est ou d’Asie ne s’emploie à rentabiliser la production avec des coûts plus adaptés au niveau des prix de marché français et européens. Toutefois, Aupa Dyn’aero continuera à suivre la navigabilité des appareils et à produire des pièces détachées. Cela concerne près de 600 MCR.
Google translate (to lazy to do it myself):
Aupa Dyn'Aero stops MCR
The manufacturer of the MCR was not in Blois (French Oshkosh) this year. The reason is simple: this is a new strategic direction of the company that no longer produce kits, nor rise of devices ready to fly. MCR manufacturing conditions in their current configuration does not ensure economic viability of the process. Unless of course a manufacturer of East Asian countries and seeks to do profitable production with more suitable costs at the French and European market prices. However, Aupa Dyn'Aero continue to monitor the airworthiness of aircraft and produce parts. This concerns around 600 MCR.
Some angry articles here:
Articles - Dynaero.info
Hard to judge whether they're accurate or prejudiced.

#### Luciano

##### New Member
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

Rgds

Luciano

#### saini flyer

##### Well-Known Member
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)

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:

#### djschwartz

##### Well-Known Member
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.

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 ;-) #### autoreply ##### Well-Known Member 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. 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. #### saini flyer ##### Well-Known Member 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. Gas is more like 15 US$/gallon...
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:

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
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...
Glasair, Kitfox, Lancair, RANS, and Zenair, based on US registrations alone.

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

Ron Wanttaja

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
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

#### Attachments

• 17.7 KB Views: 218

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
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
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

#### Midniteoyl

##### Well-Known Member
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
Registered, or flying?

##### Well-Known Member
Glasair, Kitfox, Lancair, RANS, and Zenair, based on US registrations alone.

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

Ron Wanttaja
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 ;-)

#### flyvulcan

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Thanks Ron,

Those statistics are very interesting.

Dave

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
There were / are lots of CGS Hawk series airplanes. Not sure how many were kits verses factory assembled ultralights.

BJC

#### mcrae0104

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
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.

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
May I share that pdf with the Glasair Aviation Aircraft Owners forum?
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

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
Registered, or flying?
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

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
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.
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

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
There were / are lots of CGS Hawk series airplanes. Not sure how many were kits verses factory assembled ultralights.
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