What attributes do you think new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have to return General Aviation to 10,000 aircraft sales per year?

[skyking3286]

From the bottom feeder perspective here: The Vashon Ranger and the RV-12 are well in the range of the price points here, but the barriers to owning an airplane are so high that they will never achieve the volume needed to get the prices down. Take away all the new shining goodies in the OP - and you end up with a 1975 Cessna 172 for a lot less. So, it's not the airplane. It's the culture, our society which moved past aviation to other pursuits and the costs of ownership. Ron is right- you pay a up to a quarter of the value of these "entry" planes every year in hangar, insurance and maintenance. Not to mention gas, oil, training and all the other stuff. Engine overhauls start at $20,000 for a simple four cylinder. Want to repaint a plane? Need to replace an altimeter. . . those WW2 suplus instruments are gone and it's 1K for a new one now. Put a new interior in it? Costs go up.

People may want to own until they look at a commercial $150 R/T flight from Seattle to LA and realize that's only a half month of a hangar shed and there is no way they can fly themselves with the weather and the dollars. There was a time in the 1950s when private airplanes could give airlines a run for their money. No longer. As soon as airline fares when down, the end of mass general aviation was in sight. The safety record of those 1950's years also sealed the deal.

We've had a lot of LSA ultralights that get people into the air for fewer dollars but after the explosion in the 1978 era, they went downhill to a small market of hobbyists. Look at Oshkosh, and it's obvious that the average American is no longer something that is being a part of the market. We used to say that a middle class income could afford to fly, build a FlyBaby or Piet or get a classic and restore it. Perhaps. But there is change. You don't hear that anymore in marketing - dollars and the use and value of our time has changed. You can buy a top of the line EV sedan and use it every day and still not get close to the cheapest new airplane that will spend most of its life on the ground. Another past example: American Champion produced a new Aeronca Champ and the price was set at $4,995 in 1971. People said they wanted a low-cost airplane. They had 10,000 letters come in, and you could reserve a spot on the assembly line for $500. Problem was only 10 or 12 letters had the $500 deposit. Ended up with 70 or so 7ACAs on the ramp. A paint shop fire, a poor low cost Franklin engine and a 500% increase in the product-liability insurance made the price go up 40% to $7,130 (which was $2,000 less than a new Cessna 150 at the time) and that experiment was done. Plus the competition from newly restored old Champs which had a better engine was pretty significant. The new owners of ACA totally forgot that and tried again to produce a 7EC LSA just a couple of years ago. They put a heavy interior in it and ruined the useful load and priced it out of the market and it ended up being a single place plane with only a couple of buyers.

Cessna had the same experience with the $100K 162 LSA program, that ended up being $149,000 and a 1,000 deposits disappeared down to well, 192 planes (please, I know some people had problems with the production choices but still, for a price people will buy despite loud opinions about that). Delays and design changes made for a slow roll out and people bailed. They made a press release to move it up to the primary category, which would raise the useful load, open up the European market and make it into the trainer it could be (and still is here in Renton) but the pencil pushers said no. Textron ended up crushing new airplanes at the end, which said there was more money for the stock holders selling $359,000 Skyhawks and Citations. Only 175 or so have survived the crusher and ham fisted students so far. Cessna and Piper will never produce a lower cost airplane again, certainly not like the OP. These are still hand made, one at a time, sort of vehicles. That's expensive.

These are historical tales that need to be remembered. Wanting low cost and putting the dollars up front to buy it are two different ideas. So I guess I reject the whole premise of the question before us. As soon as the current flood of new money and flight schools trying to fill airline seats reaches the end of the road, aviation will settle back, as it always has, to the hobby it always was - with hand me down equipment as the new planes in the fleet age down to being "affordable" - in a matter of fashion. Which brings us back to that 1975 Cessna 172 for those who have the passion for flight. If only there are enough FAA licensed mechanics, shops and suppliers to keep them going. And affordable hangars.

 

[DJTorrente]

The vast majority of the people in this country have no need for what GA provides.

Just 15 years ago no one in the world needed a smartphone -- until Apple invented it. Today, two-thirds of the humans on the planet carry one.*

The public doesn't know what it GenAv can provide them because they haven't bothered to think about it -- the prospect of flying themselves in an airplane is as unfathomable and remote to them as winning the lottery, due to the high barriers to entry. If those barriers were lowered, people might find and/or invent use cases we haven't yet imagined.

Spoiler: * footnotes

(* To anyone reading this: I am not looking to start or engage in a tangent argument about whether Apple and Jobs really invented the smartphone -- I believe they were first to market it in its present form factor and have proven the most successful at it. Any point you want to make along those lines: just assume you're right.)

5.25 B smartphone users worldwide / 8 B world population = 65.6%

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

If you want to keep dreaming.....go back to bed.

 

[MRC01]

From the bottom feeder perspective here: ... aviation will settle back, as it always has, to the hobby it always was - with hand me down equipment as the new planes in the fleet age down to being "affordable" - in a matter of fashion. Which brings us back to that 1975 Cessna 172 for those who have the passion for flight. If only there are enough FAA licensed mechanics, shops and suppliers to keep them going. And affordable hangars.

Sad yet true.

This is an expensive impractical hobby. However, it's not unique. Years ago I used to race cars in SCCA. I spent as much doing that as I do owning and flying airplanes. Racing cars is fun, but I found aviation is way more fun, more educational and engaging, more family-friendly, and costs about the same. That's a no-brainer decision and I don't do SCCA anymore.

The point is, people do spend a lot of money on expensive impractical hobbies. Aviation won't necessarily fade away just because it's expensive and impractical.

 

[Ed Haywood]

E-VTOL ride sharing will change the equation on practicality somewhat. Bounding over the teeming masses stuck in traffic, once only an option for the ultra-wealthy, will become cost effective for the moderately wealthy.

Wonder if a new class of pilot certs will be in order at some point?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

E-VTOL ride sharing will change the equation on practicality somewhat. Bounding over the teeming masses stuck in traffic, once only an option for the ultra-wealthy, will become cost effective for the moderately wealthy.

Wonder if a new class of pilot certs will be in order at some point?

Who is doing this?....we have money for this all the sudden....helo's been doing this for a long time.

 

[Half Fast]

E-VTOL ride sharing will change the equation on practicality somewhat. Bounding over the teeming masses stuck in traffic, once only an option for the ultra-wealthy, will become cost effective for the moderately wealthy.

Wonder if a new class of pilot certs will be in order at some point?

I think it would be safer to keep teeming masses on the ground rather than put teeming masses into the air.

 

[Desmo]

No…there are no hangars in 50 miles in any direction from here. That is already a problem.

I hear you. There are no hangers within 100 miles of me.

 

[Brad W]

I just can't wrap my head around that no hangars thing.
I have 5 public use GA airports within 30 miles of my house, and another less than 40 miles
all with tons of open land...and waiting lists so documented demand....for instant pay them tomorrow rent.... if they would only build!
I'd be tickled pink if I thought I could get even just a shade hangar, let a lone a little porta port type T-Hangar thing!
Some don't even seem to have much in the way of open ramp space...even on grass!!!

 

[Doc Holliday]

I just can't wrap my head around that no hangars thing.
I have 5 public use GA airports within 30 miles of my house, and another less than 40 miles
all with tons of open land...and waiting lists so documented demand....for instant pay them tomorrow rent.... if they would only build!
I'd be tickled pink if I thought I could get even just a shade hangar, let a lone a little porta port type T-Hangar thing!
Some don't even seem to have much in the way of open ramp space...even on grass!!!

Building hangars on a public airport is not that easy. Typical land leases are 20 years, and I think it would be extremely rare to be able to purchase the land outright. Even buying property next to the airport can get into hassles with "through the fence" operations.

So if you can secure the land lease for 20 years and build the hangars with your money. At the end of the twenty, the hangars and land reverts back to the airport. In some instances, the lease can get extended for 5 years, or ten. But that really depends upon local politics. After all, it's a great deal for the airport if they get possession of the hangars once the lease is over.

 

[FormerHangie]

Just 15 years ago no one in the world needed a smartphone -- until Apple invented it. Today, two-thirds of the humans on the planet carry one.*

The public doesn't know what it GenAv can provide them because they haven't bothered to think about it -- the prospect of flying themselves in an airplane is as unfathomable and remote to them as winning the lottery, due to the high barriers to entry. If those barriers were lowered, people might find and/or invent use cases we haven't yet imagined.

Spoiler: * footnotes

(* To anyone reading this: I am not looking to start or engage in a tangent argument about whether Apple and Jobs really invented the smartphone -- I believe they were first to market it in its present form factor and have proven the most successful at it. Any point you want to make along those lines: just assume you're right.)

5.25 B smartphone users worldwide / 8 B world population = 65.6%

An airplane can provide transportation or recreation (for those who enjoy flying) Most Americans already have a device that provides transportation, it's called an automobile. A light GA airplane is faster over some routes and slower over others. In either case, most Americans don't travel regionally all that often, certainly not often enough to commit to spending $15000 to get their private and then a similar amount every year thereafter. Pilots fly because they like to fly, few of us can make a practical case for it.

E-VTOL ride sharing will change the equation on practicality somewhat. Bounding over the teeming masses stuck in traffic, once only an option for the ultra-wealthy, will become cost effective for the moderately wealthy.

Wonder if a new class of pilot certs will be in order at some point?

I don't think this is going to happen. A human carrying quadcopter will use too much energy and create too much noise to become common.

 

[Bell206]

The public doesn't know what it GenAv can provide them because they haven't bothered to think about it -- the prospect of flying themselves in an airplane is as unfathomable and remote to them as winning the lottery, due to the high barriers to entry. If those barriers were lowered, people might find and/or invent use cases we haven't yet imagined.

Dont know what public you're referencing but in the past 20 years, millions were spent to convince the public recreational general aviation was the ticket to their paradise on several occassions. However the only thing the public did of note in that time frame was to increase the registered drone numbers by 1 million plus. And that attempt included the the lowering of those same barriers you mention. It is what it is.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Quite a hobby to regulate…

 

[MBDiagMan]

When was the last time there were 10,000 GA planes sold in a single year?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

When was the last time there were 10,000 GA planes sold in a single year?

WWII….?

 

[jsstevens]

The actual answer to having 10,000 planes sold in a year is to dump several tens of thousands of already trained military pilots into the general population. And price them about 2x a decent new car.

 

[wanttaja]

When was the last time there were 10,000 GA planes sold in a single year?

Don't have the answer for that one, but this might help.

About 15 years ago, I plotted out the number of aircraft on the FAA registry vs. their listed year of manufacture.

Note that this was well before the FAA's policy shift that required owners to positively confirm their aircraft still existed, and the removal of those who didn't reply. Still, SOME of the planes from these years ended up being removed from the registry, probably because they crashed and the insurance company cancelled the registration.

The boom/bust of the immediate post-war period is obvious. There are a couple other period where production rates were consistently close to 10,000 a year.

Note this (A) doesn't include aircraft whose year of manufacture isn't recorded, and (B) *Does* include homebuilts.

BTW, there are 2612 aircraft listed as having been manufactured in 2020, as of 1 January this year.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

E-VTOL ride sharing will change the equation on practicality somewhat. Bounding over the teeming masses stuck in traffic, once only an option for the ultra-wealthy, will become cost effective for the moderately wealthy.

IMHO, E-VTOLs are going to be the saviors of General Aviation airports.

Not sure of y'all's neighborhoods, but mine would scream bloody murder if a resident cranked up his E-VTOL every morning at 6 AM to go to the office. Electric or not, these vehicles are NOT that quiet. And, most cities are going to scream if dozens of these things descend into the central business districts every morning. Note that many cities banned Segways....they're not likely to look at E-VTOLs with much more favor.

So... owners will need somewhere to park them, behind security fences, with storage buildings and an infrastructure for maintenance and repair. Existing GA airports are the best bet. Sure, the E-VTOLs don't need ALL that much space to take off and land, but finding the land for a whole new VTOL airport is going to be expensive.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

About 15 years ago, I plotted out the number of aircraft on the FAA registry vs. their listed year of manufacture.

Here's the same information, based on the 1 January 2023 FAA registry. You can see how big a hit the re-registration process had on the immediate post-war airplanes.


Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bell206]

When was the last time there were 10,000 GA planes sold in a single year?

Late 1970s. If you dig into the GAMA historical data you'll see the trends based on new aircraft deliveries. 1980 was the start of the decline and it dropped off the cliff around 1985.

most cities are going to scream if dozens of these things descend into the central business districts every morning.

You'll find a number of large cities already have a UAM plan in development with some at the design stage. The concept of urban air mobility (UAM) has been around for decades. Most urban plans use vertiports and designated airways that in most cases will repurpose existing ground level public properties to provide access to important locations like a central business district.

But I agree that UAM (eVTOLs) and the higher AAM plan will maintain local airport access to private GA aircraft for the forseeable future.

 

[DJTorrente]

An airplane can provide transportation or recreation (for those who enjoy flying) Most Americans already have a device that provides transportation, it's called an automobile. A light GA airplane is faster over some routes and slower over others.

Point-to-point vs. indirect roads and traffic. I used to drive NY metro to Richmond, VA metro in the overnights specifically to avoid traffic. With 4 major cities I had to transit along the way, anything midweek was bound to hit a day or night rush hour in at least one of them. Perhaps a more rigorous study has been done, but I think once you get more than about 125 miles to your destination, GenAv becomes quicker overall.

In either case, most Americans don't travel regionally all that often, certainly not often enough to commit to spending $15000 to get their private and then a similar amount every year thereafter.

I posit its the $15,000 price of entry (not to mention the ongoing costs) that is the issue. Let's improve than, rather than accepting it as a given.

Pilots fly because they like to fly, few of us can make a practical case for it.

But we stand to benefit by lower costs and greater access if more partake. Every time you read about a pilot being abused by some government bureaucrat or rule, just imagine that they were trying to do that to some number of the 200,000,000 automobile drivers in the country, vs. one of the 800,000 pilots. If cars were regulated like airplanes were, there'd probably be less than 800,000 drivers, too.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Point-to-point vs. indirect roads and traffic. I used to drive NY metro to Richmond, VA metro in the overnights specifically to avoid traffic. With 4 major cities I had to transit along the way, anything midweek was bound to hit a day or night rush hour in at least one of them. Perhaps a more rigorous study has been done, but I think once you get more than about 125 miles to your destination, GenAv becomes quicker overall.

I posit its the $15,000 price of entry (not to mention the ongoing costs) that is the issue. Let's improve than, rather than accepting it as a given.

But we stand to benefit by lower costs and greater access if more partake. Every time you read about a pilot being abused by some government bureaucrat or rule, just imagine that they were trying to do that to some number of the 200,000,000 automobile drivers in the country, vs. one of the 800,000 pilots. If cars were regulated like airplanes were, there'd probably be less than 800,000 drivers, too.

So what affect does the US legal system have on GA? In building an airplane and selling it, what do you estimate the cost built in for potential lawsuits?

 

[Bell206]

I posit its the $15,000 price of entry (not to mention the ongoing costs) that is the issue. Let's improve than, rather than accepting it as a given

So what is your proposal to reduce that price of entry?

one of the 800,000 pilots.

FYI: you first may want to put your base figures into context. The current private or recreational pilot market which you are describing is closer to 30,000-40,000 than 800,000.

 

[DJTorrente]

So what affect does the US legal system have on GA? In building an airplane and selling it, what do you estimate the cost built in for potential lawsuits?

I carry no water for the tort law plaintiff's bar, but in other areas I've looked at, the cost of lawsuits are less than they would seem (something like 2-3% overall). Maybe its not justified, or with reform it can be reduced to 1%, but is that really going to move the needle?

The real expense of legal policy is regulatory. Why are planes flying with magneto ignition when dual-redundant electronic control is bullet-proof and far superior? Because each new product (or modification to improve a product) costs millions of dollars to certify before you can sell the first one.

 

[DJTorrente]

So what is your proposal to reduce that price of entry?

Reform Part 23. Let manufacturers use proven technologies to improve aircraft performance, even if its not certified to existing FAA standards. Then piggy-back on auto and industrial production to get volume of parts up and price down.

How many "experimental" aircraft need to fill the sky before people start to realize that they are not so experimental -- most of those folks know what they are doing.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I carry no water for the tort law plaintiff's bar, but in other areas I've looked at, the cost of lawsuits are less than they would seem (something like 2-3% overall). Maybe its not justified, or with reform it can be reduced to 1%, but is that really going to move the needle?

The real expense of legal policy is regulatory. Why are planes flying with magneto ignition when dual-redundant electronic control is bullet-proof and far superior? Because each new product (or modification to improve a product) costs millions of dollars to certify before you can sell the first one.

So a mechanic does an annual on a customers airplane. A month later, that customer (who is not instrument rated) flies into the clouds and ends up in a smoking hole, dead.

The lawyers move in, and sue the aircraft manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the magneto manufacturer, the carburetor manufacturer, the propeller manufacturer, the avionics manufacturer and anything else connected to the airplane. The IA that signed off the annual gets sued as well, as does the FBO that sold the owner gas the day he died.

As you are aware, it's often cheaper to settle out of court. So all these entities insurance providers settle and the lawyers get paid and the widow receives her sum.

This happens with many accidents. I personally know IA's that have been sued like this. And the manufacturers and their insurers must factor this in as well.

So my question to you, would you be willing to back Tort reform to stop this nonsense from happening over and over?

 

[tspear]

I carry no water for the tort law plaintiff's bar, but in other areas I've looked at, the cost of lawsuits are less than they would seem (something like 2-3% overall). Maybe its not justified, or with reform it can be reduced to 1%, but is that really going to move the needle?

The real expense of legal policy is regulatory. Why are planes flying with magneto ignition when dual-redundant electronic control is bullet-proof and far superior? Because each new product (or modification to improve a product) costs millions of dollars to certify before you can sell the first one.

I am willing to bet you are looking at much higher volume industries. Cirrus is a high volume GA company. And they are only around 200 units a year.

Tim

 

[Bell206]

Reform Part 23.

They already did that in 2017. It was a complete rewrite where 1000+ regulations were deleted and replaced by acceptable data, i.e., ASTM consensus standards. The same standards used for LSA aircraft design. But few takers on the private GA side in the past 6 years. However the rewrite did spur on two clean sheet aircraft designs and certification in the Beech Denali and Cessna Sky Courier. The difference? There was a viable market for those investments to be made by the manufacturer.

the cost of lawsuits are less than they would seem (something like 2-3% overall)

If you look back into the supporting data for the GARA Act you'll find the liability cost had risen by 2000% in the 1980s and had a dollar amount of around $50,000 - $70,000 per new aircraft produced at that time. And while those costs have dropped some at around 30-40% per unit depending on OEM today, liability costs are still the single most item hindering new aircraft development in the private GA market and not regulatory costs.

Case in point, there was no such hesitation for Denali or Sky Courier markets mentioned above. Cap tort awards in the US and you will see a marked difference. How much of a difference will depend on if someone wants to fly aircraft, drones, or possibly an eVTOL.

Dont get me wrong. I'm all for increasing private GA numbers, allowing increase mx participation by owners, etc. But its the reality of the situation some people dont care to address to meet those goals.

 

[DJTorrente]

So a mechanic does an annual on a customers airplane. A month later, that customer (who is not instrument rated) flies into the clouds and ends up in a smoking hole, dead.

You forgot that he crashed into a schoolyard full of kids and nuns. And he was rich, too -- after all everyone who flies those little planes are filthy millionaires. They deserve to pay just on principle. [TIC]

So my question to you, would you be willing to back Tort reform to stop this nonsense from happening over and over?

In God we Trust. All others bring data.

 

[Domenick]

Yep. Loser of a suit pays all court costs and the winner's legal defense fees.

 

[Half Fast]

Yep. Loser of a suit pays all court costs and the winner's legal defense fees.

Addendum: loser’s attorney must pay the same percentage he would have received had he won the case.

 

[Dave Anderson]

Building hangars on a public airport is not that easy. Typical land leases are 20 years, and I think it would be extremely rare to be able to purchase the land outright. Even buying property next to the airport can get into hassles with "through the fence" operations.

So if you can secure the land lease for 20 years and build the hangars with your money. At the end of the twenty, the hangars and land reverts back to the airport. In some instances, the lease can get extended for 5 years, or ten. But that really depends upon local politics. After all, it's a great deal for the airport if they get possession of the hangars once the lease is over.

What about on private land I was looking at hangar build cost they seem to have escalated beyond affordability to add to a grass strip We used to have several grass fields in the area w private hangars but they were likely built when Bidenomics weren't in play

 

[Shepherd]

Seriously? 10,000 a year in the US of A is an unreasonable number, to put it mildly.
Why?
The economy sucks. It has for years.
Buying power for the average Joe has been steadily declining since soon after WWII, and a 300k to 400k $$$ airplanes are not a viable option for the average guy. There are no more cheap surplus airplanes for people to get into aviation.
Blah Blah Blah "The cost of LSA is soooo much cheaper than real airplanes."
No, it's not.

Example: a new New Tecnam P2008 VFR only panel (a middle of the road LSA) starts around $262,065.00 before tax, delivery, fees yada, yada, yada.
Want an IFR panel? Tack on another $150,000.00
Now add insurance, the cost for 5 to 10 hours of instruction in type so you can buy insurance (good luck finding an instructor with time in type) That's another $150.00 an hour if you
have someone local. If not prepare to spend a week or two in a hotel somewhere. Sorry wife, sorry kids, sorry boss, I'm busy.
We haven't even put gas in it yet.
Then whatever it costs to fly it home.
I pay $470.00 a month for my hanger. $5460.00 a year. I am NOT letting my new toy sit outside in New York weather.
That first year, you are in for $500,000.00 or more just to buy an airplane.
Then, if nothing breaks, add in $1,400.00 that year for your first annual, minimum.
BTW: I'm sitting here with a quote from Tecnam sitting in front of me.

Per capita income in Dutchess County, NY - $44,800.00 (2021)
Median income in Dutchess County, NY - $87,112.00
The actual cost to live in Dutchess County NY - $82,464 for two adults, 2 kids.
You can't even afford to get a Light Sport Cert for what's left over after the bills are paid.
Where does the money come to buy a new Tecnam?

Those halcyon days of cheap flying, for the average Joe, if they ever existed, are long gone.

JMHO

 

[Doc Holliday]

Seriously? 10,000 a year in the US of A is an unreasonable number, to put it mildly.
Why?
The economy sucks. It has for years.
Buying power for the average Joe has been steadily declining since soon after WWII, and a 300k to 400k $$$ airplanes are not a viable option for the average guy. There are no more cheap surplus airplanes for people to get into aviation.
Blah Blah Blah "The cost of LSA is soooo much cheaper than real airplanes."
No, it's not.

Example: a new New Tecnam P2008 VFR only panel (a middle of the road LSA) starts around $262,065.00 before tax, delivery, fees yada, yada, yada.
Want an IFR panel? Tack on another $150,000.00
Now add insurance, the cost for 5 to 10 hours of instruction in type so you can buy insurance (good luck finding an instructor with time in type) That's another $150.00 an hour if you
have someone local. If not prepare to spend a week or two in a hotel somewhere. Sorry wife, sorry kids, sorry boss, I'm busy.
We haven't even put gas in it yet.
Then whatever it costs to fly it home.
I pay $470.00 a month for my hanger. $5460.00 a year. I am NOT letting my new toy sit outside in New York weather.
That first year, you are in for $500,000.00 or more just to buy an airplane.
Then, if nothing breaks, add in $1,400.00 that year for your first annual, minimum.
BTW: I'm sitting here with a quote from Tecnam sitting in front of me.

Per capita income in Dutchess County, NY - $44,800.00 (2021)
Median income in Dutchess County, NY - $87,112.00
The actual cost to live in Dutchess County NY - $82,464 for two adults, 2 kids.
You can't even afford to get a Light Sport Cert for what's left over after the bills are paid.
Where does the money come to buy a new Tecnam?

Those halcyon days of cheap flying, for the average Joe, if they ever existed, are long gone.

JMHO

 

[Ed Haywood]

If you have a family to support and make the median income, buying a new plane by yourself is probably not for you. Sorry.

 

[Shepherd]

Exactly.
And for those of us who can afford a plane it serves no good purpose to keep pretending that flying and plane ownership are for "everyone".
Maybe 3%? of wage earners can actually afford to fly. And trust fund babies. They can afford it. The guy in the hanger next to me is one of those.
Looking at the numbers, the average salary for the blue collar working class in the US is less than $50,000.00 a year, well below what is needed to buy and fly.

 

[hindsight2020]

If you have a family to support and make the median income, buying a new plane by yourself is probably not for you. Sorry.

when everything is always couched by the overhead of dependents, it kinda begs the question, maybe paying for a family is the unaffordable hobby? Don't answer that I'm being rhetorical.

 

[SoonerAviator]

If you have a family to support and make the median income, buying a new plane by yourself is probably not for you. Sorry.

I think you're making his point. Buying a 152 or similar used to be attainable for the middle class. Obviously it wasn't without sacrifices financially, but today's middle class has no chance at it, when pretty much every new aircraft option if $300K+ before you ever spin the prop. Hard to have a revitalized industry when it's the same 3% of the US population even capable of making that kind of purchase, much less the ones who would be interested in the first place.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I think you're making his point. Buying a 152 or similar used to be attainable for the middle class. Obviously it wasn't without sacrifices financially, but today's middle class has no chance at it, when pretty much every new aircraft option if $300K+ before you ever spin the prop. Hard to have a revitalized industry when it's the same 3% of the US population even capable of making that kind of purchase, much less the ones who would be interested in the first place.

Buying a USED airplane still is attainable for the middle class. I know plenty of average Joes with a plane, and a few where their plane is literally the only asset they have. But the premise of this thread seems to be that MOSAIC will result in production of affordable NEW airplanes that an "average Joe" can afford. That's probably not going to happen, and I doubt it ever really was the case.

Now, is it possible that a well constructed set of regs might result in NEW airplanes that are affordable to, say, the top 20% of the population? Sure. And might those planes become used planes that are affordable to a median income buyer after 5 or 10 years. I think so.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Buying a USED airplane still is attainable for the middle class. I know plenty of average Joes with a plane, and a few where their plane is literally the only asset they have. But the premise of this thread seems to be that MOSAIC will result in production of affordable NEW airplanes that an "average Joe" can afford. That's probably not going to happen, and I doubt it ever really was the case.

I totally agree with this....

If someone wants a plane....they can make it affordable. But, they may not have two new cars or the mega house....but plenty of people find a way to do it.