As KITPLANES reported Saturday, Van’s Aircraft customers who ordered engines, avionics or propellers along with their kits will have until roughly mid-February to accept modest price increases on those items and have their existing deposits honored. Van’s announced Saturday that Lycoming engines will cost up to 12% more than when customers sent their deposits, Hartzell props will be 3% more expensive, Sensenich and MT props will be 6% more, and avionics and engine kits for RV-12/12is will also be 6% higher. Those with Lycoming orders will pay either 12% or the 2024 list price, whichever is less.
Notices will be sent out in the next few days and customers will have 14 days to accept or to give up their deposits and try to reclaim them as an unsecured creditor. Those with kit orders were given until Jan. 31 to decide, but if they also ordered third-party items their kit deadline will be similarly extended. “We know these price increases create hardship for our customers,” Van’s said in the announcement. “However, without taking these steps and making these price changes, there simply is not a feasible path forward for Van’s Aircraft.”
The company said customer acceptance of the average 30% price increase on airframe kits has been “high” but did not specify a figure. It had earlier set 70% as a target and said two weeks ago that about 65% had agreed. That figure didn’t include many of those who’d also ordered third-party items so it’s likely to increase following the latest announcement.
“without taking these steps and making these price changes, there simply is not a feasible path forward for Van’s Aircraft.”
Nothing else needs to be said.
Interesting that Hartzell props will only see a 3% increase after the Hartzell massive price increase. Did the huge price increase at Hartzell not include the props but only Sky-Tec starters, Plane Power alternators, etc.?
For the most part the price hikes exceed the current rate of inflation. Wondering if the price hikes are the suppliers raising their prices or perhaps Vans is the one doing it? Or perhaps a bit of both.
Modest price hikes be in the eye of the viewer. Modest perhaps from Vans perspective. From the customers point of view maybe not.
For years, I’ve gotten advertisements from Air Power (Van Bortel) for their engines … based upon my long-time ownership of a 172. I don’t know why but I save them in my hangar. A pile of them for over 2 decades has built up. Over that time, the prices of the engines keep growing noticeably. I think the early ones have prices in the mid-20’s for a new engine. I just looked at a new one on their website and it’s $71K. Y I K E S !!!
In the very early 90’s, when Piper was going to restart the PA28-140 line and call it a Cadet. Piper ordered a bunch of engines for them from Lycoming but fell on hard times and was unable to pay. Lycoming then sold them outright at near cost, I think. I bought one for — are ya’ll ready — $13.5K !! Boy .. if I’da only known … I’da bought five. I guess my point is, the people building those Vans airplanes better pop because they aren’t gonna get any cheaper. That said, I think it’s time for a modern airplane engine to start replacing them; Lycoming is gonna price themselves right out of the market. If I were building a Van’s … I’d want a new Rotax 916iS in an RV-9.
A newly designed modern airplane engine is going to be prohibitively expensive I would think. The hoops the FAA is going to make manufacturer’s jump through now is going to be a show stopper for many.
Google ROTAX. That’s modern compared to Lycoming, or to anything else for that matter.
The Rotax 912 was certificated in 1995 – 29 years ago – and
a) we still think it’s “new” and “modern”
b) most maintenance shops know nothing about it.
If I didn’t love flying, I’d want nothing to do with aviation.
there is a potential new technology engine out there for the 240 to 360 Hp category that just needs $$$ to get it certified and into production . it is Adept. https://flyadept.co.za/
it is small enough and light enough to fit in most existing designs (any diesel now being designed or concepted will not)
AND it will run on any available gasoline
but the development needs to be finished.
from other engine efforts that have been done in the recent history it will not be cheap. the cost to certify and build a production capability and get to close to cash flow neutral in smaller production is in the order of $200 million.
is there any deep pockets that want to make the effort to solve this need?
Viking engines.
Those, too. 🙂 If I were building a Zenith … I’d have one.
Or Aeromomentum – new parts – not junkyard refugees rebuilt.
Either way though – Auto engines ought to be the focus. They’re out there in droves, have had so much engineering and development, and experience has weeded out functional compromises. The engines already exist, just need to get them accepted – which of course is the biggest hurdle.
AND they already run on approved fuels….
I could complain every time I go to the grocery store and the prices would still rise. This is the way it’s going to be for a while longer. Van’s and their third party suppliers are not immune.
What I don’t understand is why do they have to raise those prices when it doesn’t cost them more. They take the deposit, forward it, and then the item gets drop shipped to the customer, or at least that’s how it was supposed to be. If the 3rd party isn’t raising their prices, why does Vans do it for items sold months ago?
Judging by the amount of money that Vans owed Lycoming, I don’t believe those deposits were being forwarded. I’m surprised there is only a 12% increase to the customers. My heart goes out to those customers trying to build on a budget like most of us, guess it could have been worse.
Interesting decision by Vans, to hold onto the cash. It would go on the balance sheet as an asset, yes, but also as a liability, and if the price of the engine went up (which is the way to bet), the liability would go up (the the entire increase in the engine price) but the asset (a fraction of the engine price) wouldn’t. So Vans was locking in expected losses, which seems like an odd decision. Why not lock in the price with Lycoming and give them the deposit?
Of course, giving it to Lycoming wouldn’t altogether eliminate risk: if Lycoming went bankrupt the deposit could be lost but Vans would still owe it back to the customer, so maybe they thought holding the cash was the more prudent decision.
In any case, interesting.
Would it make sense if Vans published the price of a kit at todays prices? Meaning: it would be a way to compare what it would cost if you were starting to shop today.
The company, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December, announced January 20 that “65 percent of eligible kit orders have been renewed at the adjusted price,” reported to be about 30 percent higher than the price originally agreed to, though at least one customer has reported a much higher number—a 54-percent increase over the agreed-upon price for an RV–10 kit, according to a court filing submitted by that customer.
Customer Steven Allcock’s January 22 filing notes that he received the letter with just over a week to consider the new terms being offered for the $68,476 RV–10 kit that he had paid for in full, at the company’s request, in July. In addition to objecting to the tight deadline, Allcock argued that he, as a customer who has paid in full, should be treated differently.
I am a fully paid-up customer but if for some reason my logic does not work for the court then I will reluctantly proceed with the additional funding request from [Van’s Aircraft] when I can afford to find the additional $36,889.06. This is a request from [Van’s Aircraft] to increase my purchase price by 53.8 %—an outrageous ask in my opinion.”