If you were to read the biography of the Frank D Robinson, the founder of most popular helicopter in the world -Robinson Helicopter Inc - it is amazing to see the rags to riches story. How this person fascinated to helicopter, in 1973 built a R22 prototype and within a span of 20 years has become world's top manufacturer of the civil helicopter selling to so many countries! Robinson helicopters are 2 and 4 seater aircraft and it sells like hot cakes.
R22 Robinson Helicopter the world's most popular helicopter
Is manufacturing an aircraft so much difficult than manufacturing, say a car or train or a ship? Aircraft is generally much lighter than any land-based or sea- based vehicles size-ratio wise, meaning it requires less materials or less metallurgy. So shouldn't it be easy to build?
Japan is great car, train and ship builder but still struggling to commercialise its Honda jet only civil aircraft built todate. Korea is a great ship builder, especially LNG tanker, and of course also a great car builder, but has not shown much progress in civil aircraft make.
China was not even a great car player 10 years ago but today it builds many cars and has become the top Asian car builder by leaps and bounds. Today its cars are exported to many Asian and African countries indicating its improving quality. China is also great train builder, and its train are really fast speed trains that can cross cities in hours. But China is still struggling with the civil aircraft manufacturing even though its people had launched into space and returned successful three years ago,
Indonesia, under Suharto, did enter into the civil aircraft manufacturing foray 30 years ago, with Habibie, as the key man behind it. But until today PT Dirgantara, the Indonesian aerospace company, is still struggling to make ends meet. The CN 235 it produces has not sold to many countries except to some military units in some countries and for some civil use in Indonesia. No other foreign civil airlines has bought it for the passengers route.
Why is it that Robinson Helicopter could succeed in such a short time and other Asian nations are still struggling to make their civil aircraft grow?
Aircraft technology has just crossed the century mark after the Wright Brothers made their first flight in 1903. and major civil aircraft manufacturers have been the USA and Europe. almost all of the world's nations have bought their civil aircraft from these two countries.
Ability to make civil aircraft is a great contributor to a nation's economy. Since selling prices of aircraft are so high it could become a major contributor to the nation's economy. An Airbus 320 price is about RM 300 million, so is Boeing 737 -900. An Airbus 380 sells at RM 1.0 billion each and if Airbus Industry could just sell 100 of these a year that would be RM 100 billion to the Europ ean economy!
Russia is also an European nation that has involved in aircraft for a long time. while it has built many civil aircraft for its own use but they are not as salable to other countries like Airbus or Boeing aircraft. Its Illusyin is only used by Russian. Are the Russians poor at marketing that they are unable to sell their aircraft to other 3rd world countries?
So what is it that USA and Europe (and to a certain extent Canada and Brazil) have that make them successful in aircraft manufacturing that the others who have failed miserably? Is it technology or is it financial strength or is it good business acumen? or it is the cost of the getting the aircraft certified?
I believe it is blend of the all the reasons above that have made most nations (other the Airbus and Boeing) less successful in aircraft manufacturing. Designing an aircraft itself cost hundreds of millions and so is getting it certified by two of the most reliable certification bodies - FAA (USA) and EASA (Europe). Why only these two bodies and not the others bodies are recognized? The answer is that market perception of quality. Buyers would not want to buy any aircraft without any one of certification from this bodies. and to get a certification from one of these two bodies cost lots of money.
So we wont be seeing any of our third world aircraft civil flying in the near future until we have overcome the quality standards.
R22 Robinson Helicopter the world's most popular helicopterIs manufacturing an aircraft so much difficult than manufacturing, say a car or train or a ship? Aircraft is generally much lighter than any land-based or sea- based vehicles size-ratio wise, meaning it requires less materials or less metallurgy. So shouldn't it be easy to build?
Japan is great car, train and ship builder but still struggling to commercialise its Honda jet only civil aircraft built todate. Korea is a great ship builder, especially LNG tanker, and of course also a great car builder, but has not shown much progress in civil aircraft make.
China was not even a great car player 10 years ago but today it builds many cars and has become the top Asian car builder by leaps and bounds. Today its cars are exported to many Asian and African countries indicating its improving quality. China is also great train builder, and its train are really fast speed trains that can cross cities in hours. But China is still struggling with the civil aircraft manufacturing even though its people had launched into space and returned successful three years ago,
Indonesia, under Suharto, did enter into the civil aircraft manufacturing foray 30 years ago, with Habibie, as the key man behind it. But until today PT Dirgantara, the Indonesian aerospace company, is still struggling to make ends meet. The CN 235 it produces has not sold to many countries except to some military units in some countries and for some civil use in Indonesia. No other foreign civil airlines has bought it for the passengers route.
Why is it that Robinson Helicopter could succeed in such a short time and other Asian nations are still struggling to make their civil aircraft grow?
Aircraft technology has just crossed the century mark after the Wright Brothers made their first flight in 1903. and major civil aircraft manufacturers have been the USA and Europe. almost all of the world's nations have bought their civil aircraft from these two countries.
Ability to make civil aircraft is a great contributor to a nation's economy. Since selling prices of aircraft are so high it could become a major contributor to the nation's economy. An Airbus 320 price is about RM 300 million, so is Boeing 737 -900. An Airbus 380 sells at RM 1.0 billion each and if Airbus Industry could just sell 100 of these a year that would be RM 100 billion to the Europ ean economy!
Russia is also an European nation that has involved in aircraft for a long time. while it has built many civil aircraft for its own use but they are not as salable to other countries like Airbus or Boeing aircraft. Its Illusyin is only used by Russian. Are the Russians poor at marketing that they are unable to sell their aircraft to other 3rd world countries?
So what is it that USA and Europe (and to a certain extent Canada and Brazil) have that make them successful in aircraft manufacturing that the others who have failed miserably? Is it technology or is it financial strength or is it good business acumen? or it is the cost of the getting the aircraft certified?
I believe it is blend of the all the reasons above that have made most nations (other the Airbus and Boeing) less successful in aircraft manufacturing. Designing an aircraft itself cost hundreds of millions and so is getting it certified by two of the most reliable certification bodies - FAA (USA) and EASA (Europe). Why only these two bodies and not the others bodies are recognized? The answer is that market perception of quality. Buyers would not want to buy any aircraft without any one of certification from this bodies. and to get a certification from one of these two bodies cost lots of money.
So we wont be seeing any of our third world aircraft civil flying in the near future until we have overcome the quality standards.
