Aircraft and parts prices out of control

[hindsight2020]

The hard truth is it is nearly impossible to achieve any sort of economy of scale in the aircraft industry. Vans and Cirrus are about the only manufacturers to get anywhere close to true production line efficiency. Everybody else is custom building.

Not disagreeing. Just thinking out loud: Forget the rules. Economically, if places like Vans are so proud of the kits they sell for us dum dums to assemble, why is the proposition for them to assemble all of a sudden blasphemy? From where I sit, if the kit is that easy, why does it flip the supposed economic equation for them to do the assembling?

Our resident home builders admit they'd be quicker if they did the same airplane three times in a row. That would be rather self-evident for the facility fabricating the damn parts in the first place, me thinks. I just don't buy the argument that assembly is the economic almighty wall of Westeros that keeps us in the economic morass of having to entertain CeRtIfIeD 50 year old nonsense under draconian rules meant for revenue operators.

 

[RyanB]

Now, if you are in fact against the existence of EAB in present form (wrt to mx allowances), then I take your argument as consistent and you may disregard my response. If you are ok with EAB as is, then your position is rank hypocrisy.

I’m not a huge fan of that either, but in a builders case, if they have the knowledge to build one, they most likely have the know-how to maintain one. Of course there’s a lot of non-builder pilots out there, that have no business doing their own maintenance.

 

[Bell206]

From where I sit, if the kit is that easy, why does it flip the supposed economic equation for them to do the assembling?

Simply because if Vans assembled/built their own kits at the factory they would cost the same as a new 182 or SR22.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

The majority of GA aircraft can be considered antique at this point.

Cessna, Piper, Beech, Mooney, etc never counted on these planes being around over twenty years or so, but yet 50+ years here they are.

GA began dying out in the mid eighties, had a small resurgence a decade or so later, and is now dying out again.

There’s not that much money to be made supporting 50 year old airframes.

If it’s dying why are used planes selling at a premium?

 

[Adam Weiss]

Not disagreeing. Just thinking out loud: Forget the rules. Economically, if places like Vans are so proud of the kits they sell for us dum dums to assemble, why is the proposition for them to assemble all of a sudden blasphemy? From where I sit, if the kit is that easy, why does it flip the supposed economic equation for them to do the assembling?

Our resident home builders admit they'd be quicker if they did the same airplane three times in a row. That would be rather self-evident for the facility fabricating the damn parts in the first place, me thinks. I just don't buy the argument that assembly is the economic almighty wall of Westeros that keeps us in the economic morass of having to entertain CeRtIfIeD 50 year old nonsense under draconian rules meant for revenue operators.

This comes back to the regulatory burden for certified aircraft manufacturers.
Vans is able to offer low-priced kits because they don’t have the burden that Cirrus does.
that’s why, for roughly the same plane, you can buy and build an Rv-10 for $250K vs $700k+ for an SR22.

I bet both companies make a similar margin at the end of the day.

 

[Adam Weiss]

Simply because if Vans assembled/built their own kits at the factory they would cost the same as a new 182 or SR22.

^ this was a much more succinct way of saying what I said

 

[Doc Holliday]

If it’s dying why are used planes selling at a premium?

The supply is dwindling, from crashes and basic neglect.

And you are speaking of the used market, not the new market. The manufacturers don’t build on speculation, they tend to build on orders. Go look at new aircraft sales numbers.

GA has been a declining market for years.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

You can buy a skytec starter relay for less than $100, an AP should be able to substitute OEM equipment in that case.

 

[Velocity173]

I’m not a huge fan of that either, but in a builders case, if they have the knowledge to build one, they most likely have the know-how to maintain one. Of course there’s a lot of non-builder pilots out there, that have no business doing their own maintenance.

That’s me.

 

[Bell206]

This comes back to the regulatory burden for certified aircraft manufacturers.

Unfortunately it is no longer the regulatory burden that is the leading issue. The rewrite of Part 23 dropped a lot of the certification costs. But no takers. Its more tort liability costs and no market that are the leaders now. Just look at some of the up and coming products which do not want the market in the US from strictly a liability standpoint--the Corsair Aircraft Engine a prime example who are developing a FAA STC to install in 172 but only for non-US customers due to domestic liability issues. And there are a number of others.

 

[Bell206]

You can buy a skytec starter relay for less than $100, an AP should be able to substitute OEM equipment in that case.

And in a number/most cases they can provided they want to use the system and be accountable. The system hasnt changed, the peop!e have.

 

[TCABM]

Simply because if Vans assembled/built their own kits at the factory they would cost the same as a new 182 or SR22.

How does that explain quick build kit pricing? An RV10 QB runs about $65K, using offshore labor to get pretty far down the line completion wise. Even with recent top of the line completed examples selling for $300+K, there’s not close to $200+K $500K additional cost involved to produce a base 182 or SR-22 today. All three companies retail their product to produce a profit, so I doubt there’s much difference in margins once the books balance, except the 182 sunk costs have been covered for decades than the other two.

Regulatory burden (across the entire spectrum from parts production to labor) and liability concerns does go a long way to explaining that though.

 

[Bell206]

How does that explain quick build kit pricing?

Because even at the QB level, Vans is still not the builder of record on the data tag. So there is a linear cost increase. Once the name hits the data tag it becomes a new ball game. While regulatory costs/burden do play into it, it's the product liability costs that sky rocket once you become a producer. Per the GARA Act data aircraft product liability costs had increased 2000 fold in a 24 year period ending in the mid/late 80s. It my understanding now those increases are even higher in today's money. So while there is not a $200K+ increase to the actual production costs, the cost of doing business increases by that much. Same happened with my maintenance insurance until the point I quite performing certain work because the premiums to cover that work exceeded the income I generated for that work. And that was in the 90s. So whether you choose to not believe or see that is fine. Or perhaps call an insurance broker and see what it would cost you to open up a aircraft production company or simply a aircraft part production company. You may be surprised.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The starter contactor for a 12 volt airplane is a repurposed automobile contactor. That keeps the price down, sort of. The 28- volt contactor doesn't come from any car that I know of. Its coil has to be of finer wire, many more turns of it, to limit the current. Big trucks use 24 volt systems, but their contactors are huge, to handle the much larger amperages their starters draw.

Besides that, how many 24-volt contactors would one sell in a year? How many of you owners of any airplane ever bought a new contactor? It would be a tiny volume, which is one of the reasons they're expensive.

You need to build stuff that costs nosebleed prices from the OEM and that isn't available anywhere else. McFarlane has done a good job of doing that, and Cessna even buys some of their parts from McFarlane now.

McFarlane makes the stabilizer trim jackscrew parts for the 180/185 and early 182. These are made of stainless steel instead of the alloy steel Cessna used, and the chain is also stainless. These trim jacks are supposed to be taken out at three-year intervals and overhauled, but very few are EVER taken out because it's a royal pain. I've done a bunch of them and have installed the Cessna access panel kit to make it easier. I used to find those screws corroded badly, a real safety issue. If it breaks in flight you're in trouble, and corrosion weakens it. The McFarlane stuff is WAY better than OEM.

BUT. The blue parts are the parts in the McFarlane kit, along with the stainless chain that isn't shown. What is not included is the little gray mounting bracket with its bushings and chain keeper angle. There are left and right brackets, one of each per airplane. Two jackscrew on the stab. That bracket, last time I checked, was $7,000 for one side and $10,000 for the other, Canadian dollars. I bet they're that much US now. That bracket is hardly any bigger than a golf ball, and is milled out of an aluminum alloy, maybe 2024T3 or 7075T6. They crack, they corrode, and if one of the bushings slips out, it can bend. Nobody makes them other than Cessna. There are a lot of airplanes in use that use them. I am surprised that McFarlane hasn't figured out what the alloy is, had a bunch made, and gotten PMA for them.

 

[3393RP]

Nope. Only Canadian citizens, or foreign entities (corporations), may hold Canadian aircraft registration. The foreign entities must report all flights weekly, and 60% of the flight hours in any six months must be within Canada. Furthermore, O-M aircraft are not permitted to enter the US, since the US has no equivalent registration category. You need to prevail on the FAA to create that.

O-M airplanes have been flying here for nearly 20 years. No unusual accident rate has been noted. Most owners are responsible enough to get a mechanic to fix the stuff they have no clue about. No doubt there are a few doing some really sketchy stuff on their O-M airplanes, but those guys are the same sort that do the same sketchy things on their certified airplanes anyway.

If I bought another airplane it would be an older type eligible for the O-M category, even though I'm a licensed AME (equivalent to US AP/IA). By older type I mean a tube-and-rag affair that has no complicated castings in its airframe, so that I can make or repair any part of it. Most all-metal airplanes use castings or forgings in their landing gear attachments, strut fittings, and so on. Difficult to remove and replace or repair. Expensive, too. I can machine and weld. I enjoy fabric work. I can do upholstery, but I'm no pro at it.

Thanks for the info. The O-M program is a reasonable option for older airplanes. Too bad the FAA has no such word in their bureaucracy vocabulary.

 

[TCABM]

…Per the GARA Act data aircraft product liability costs had increased 2000 fold in a 24 year period ending in the mid/late 80s…

How is that different than what I said, which was that regulatory burden and liability goes a long way towards explaining it?

 

[Racerx]

So you're against the EAB category as presently allowed then. Nothing wrong with being enemies on this front, but you can't have the cake and eat it too.

In present circumstances, both paradigms are allowed to fly in the same airspace over the heads of the same non-participating members of the non-flying public, and for the same economic end no less (non-revenue RECREATION). Thence, there's a fundamental credibility problem with your position, whilst allowing EAB mx rules to exist concurrently.

Now, if you are in fact against the existence of EAB in present form (wrt to mx allowances), then I take your argument as consistent and you may disregard my response. If you are ok with EAB as is, then your position is rank hypocrisy.

I disagree. If you build the plane yourself you should have gained the knowledge necessary to repair and inspect things. You know how things went together because you put them together in the first place.

 

[hindsight2020]

I disagree. If you build the plane yourself you should have gained the knowledge necessary to repair and inspect things. You know how things went together because you put them together in the first place.

I never argued against what you wrote. I agree with it. I think you meant to quote the guy I was responding to. I'm in favor of EAB, not against it. Now, if you're saying you're against non-builders having the legal allowance to perform their own maintenance in the EAB they didn't build, then we're not on the same team.

We should stand in solidarity when it comes to support of the EAB category.

 

[Racerx]

I never argued against what you wrote. I agree with it. I think you meant to quote the guy I was responding to. I'm in favor of EAB, not against it. Now, if you're saying you're against non-builders having the legal allowance to perform their own maintenance in the EAB they didn't build, then we're not on the same team.

We should stand in solidarity when it comes to support of the EAB category.

I definitely support the EAB category. Long said it's the future of GA. I don't think non builders should be able to do their own condition inspection, but I do think they should have more freedom than tc'd aircraft. Buying it used or paying someone to build it for you doesn't give you the expertise actually building it would.

 

[MountainDude]

I blame AOPA for the current situation as much as any other factor.

 

[Racerx]

I blame AOPA for the current situation as much as any other factor.

Blame them for what exactly? Dude flies a plane that had 577 built among 7 different submodels. Last of which was built in 1980. When there's one source of parts and no alternative you're kind of at someone else's mercy.

 

[Bathman]

I don’t think it has anything to do with low production volumes or liability. Manufacturers have simply realised they can charge what the customer doesn’t have any choice.

I replacement door hinge for a C150 2200 dollars - come on.

Or look at the price of an alternator for the same aircraft its a 120 dollar car part - well certainly the one that I removed marked Ford Motorcraft was. But we are now talking 1000 dollars for a replacement with the correct paperwork.

They have also learnt that this lack of choice means they don’t have to put any effort into producing a quality part. My local engine shop overhauls all new continental cylinders before fitting them as they are out of spec when they arrive new from the manufacturer.

 

[Skyknight320]

I blame AOPA for the current situation as much as any other factor.

I agree. I petitioned the FAA several years ago to add items to the preventative maintenance items an owner can perform. When I contacted AOPA for their support, they were completely against it, EAA was more receptive, but didn't offer any help either.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

I replaced an alternator on a C185 for about $200 last year.

For those who think E-AB is the future of GA, which models do what a 172 does? A 182?

I used to believe E-AB was the future. Then I took a closer look and realized there isn’t one that I want, with the possible exception of a Cub Clone, but that’s a niche machine. Furthermore, there’s not much of a workforce putting them together unless you want an RV. A Bearhawk, you say? Fine. I’ll take a Bearhawk and two Bearhawk 5’s, please. But there aren’t any. And if I got one, it would still have a Lycoming 540 in it. 90% of the money I’ve spent on maintenance I’ve spent under the hood. E-AB doesn’t get me much.

 

[Bob Noel]

For those who think E-AB is the future of GA, which models do what a 172 does? A 182?

Let's imagine you (the generic you) were going to develop, produce, market, support an E-AB. Would you pick one that has the same capabilies as a 172 or 182 of which there are thousands out there? or would you develop one that has more capability or is less expensive/difficult to maintain or ?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Cessna starter relay: 2006 cost $529, 2021 cost $2268 is a 329% increase

When that was new, it was an off the shelf $20 automobile part. Now it's 20-30 years obsolete, and short supply. But, the important thing is that you get a starter solenoid with the correct part number. So, you are going to pay. That's the beauty of having a type certificate. The paperwork keeps you safe.

 

[steingar]

Every one of those parts is a specifically manufactured one-off. Did you really think Cessna has parts stacked up ready to go for you 50 year old airplane? Try buying an automotive part your mechanic has to fab up from nothing. It’ll get expensive fast. Been in GA 20 years and the one thing that hasn’t changed is guys botching and moaning about the price of parts.

The one fellow had it right. If you really think it’s some sort of conspiracy, get the authorization and make the parts yourself. You’ll get rich (if you’re right).

 

[Bell206]

How is that different than what I said, which was that regulatory burden and liability goes a long way towards explaining it?

It's not. I was answering your quick build question and merely adding context to the product liability costs as some people are not familiar with how those liability cost increased by factors. The regulatory burden costs have already been paid for especially on a 30 year old CAR3 aircraft.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

Let's imagine you (the generic you) were going to develop, produce, market, support an E-AB. Would you pick one that has the same capabilies as a 172 or 182 of which there are thousands out there? or would you develop one that has more capability or is less expensive/difficult to maintain or ?

Better would be great. Which homebuilts have better capabilities than a 182 or a Bonanza?

 

[Adam Weiss]

Better would be great. Which homebuilts have better capabilities than a 182 or a Bonanza?

RV-10

 

[Adam Weiss]

I replaced an alternator on a C185 for about $200 last year.

For those who think E-AB is the future of GA, which models do what a 172 does? A 182?

Who spends all the time and effort to learn to fly, then goes and buys a 172?
I mean, a 182 maybe. in either case, if you need 4 seats, an RV-10 blows them (and a Cirrus) out of the water.

 

[Omalley1537]

At some point you have to stop blaming the lawyers and start blaming the greed of the manufacturers and retailers.

I think it’s both, not either/or. When Lycoming has to defend itself in a lawsuit because a VFR pilot flew into IMC with a perfectly functional engine and struck cumulogranite, our system needs an overhaul (no pun intended).

I’ve also seen the parts greed side. When the kit to fix the 182 strut/door frame cracking became mandatory via AD, it wasn’t a sudden jump in liability that caused Cessna to crank the price up.

 

[Timbeck2]

Who spends all the time and effort to learn to fly, then goes and buys a 172?

A lot of people. Not me of course but based on what is read on the forums. Perhaps I’m missing your point.

 

[BPM]

ugh. This post bums me out. After 2 years of virtual shopping/tire-kicking I finally thought I'd decided on a Lance. Then I read this. Time to start re-researching Velocities...

Slowly but surely. One post at a time, I think I'm turning into hindsight2020. Without the writing skills of course.

 

[TCABM]

Who spends all the time and effort to learn to fly, then goes and buys a 172?.

Lots of folks. Hell, I’m a partner in a 172. It handles most of what we for $65/hr dry with &49K in mx reserves.

For the rare 600nm+ XC, we’re looking at partnerships or an RV10 build.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Slowly but surely. One post at a time, I think I'm turning into hindsight2020. Without the writing skills of course.

Writing skills???

 

[nauga]

We should stand in solidarity when it comes to support of the EAB category.

I'll decide for myself what to support. I am absolutely in favor of the EAB category as it is intended. I am not in favor of using the EAB category to subvert the type cert process.

Nauga,
"wrought not bought"

 

[Skyknight320]

Several posts are saying yes aviation is expensive, I know that, but what I am talking about is the price curve seems to be going vertical recently. A 300% price increase is out of wack. In 2001 the Bendix/King KLN94 price was $4152, in 2021 the Garmin GPS175 sells for $4295 only a 3.4% increase. This is in the midst of a microchip shortage and the avionics prices are stable and yet the price of a new Baron is up $850,000.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Several posts are saying yes aviation is expensive, I know that, but what I am talking about is the price curve seems to be going vertical recently. A 300% price increase is out of wack. In 2001 the Bendix/King KLN94 price was $4152, in 2021 the Garmin GPS175 sells for $4295 only a 3.4% increase. This is in the midst of a microchip shortage and the avionics prices are stable and yet the price of a new Baron is up $850,000.

So other than griping on a forum, what’s your solution?

 

[Dan Thomas]

I definitely support the EAB category. Long said it's the future of GA. I don't think non builders should be able to do their own condition inspection, but I do think they should have more freedom than tc'd aircraft. Buying it used or paying someone to build it for you doesn't give you the expertise actually building it would.

In Canada a homebuilder does all his own maintenance. And the non-homebuilder that buys it from him also does all his own maintenance. Most responsible owners know their own limitations and we don't have endless homebuilt crashes. In fact, most aircraft-failure accidents seem to be a result of poor assembly of the airframe or fuel systems, and those tend to crash very early on. The rest of the accidents are due to the same reasons TC'd aircraft crash: carb ice and its mismanagement, continued VFR into IMC, fuel exhaustion, loss of control during takeoff or landing or unauthorized aerobatics or botched forced landings.