New single engine

FlyBoyAndy

FlyBoyAndy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
202
Location
Syracuse, NY
Display Name
Display name:
FlyBoyAndy
Just out of curiosity today I was browsing manufacturer websites for new aircraft. In particular I wanted to see what Piper was offering, but I went to other sites and the offerings for new aircraft really surprised me, and quite frankly they were nice to see along with nice specifications. I went to several sites and it peaked my curiosity as to how many new single aircraft are sold per year. How many new single engines do you think are sold a year? I know that each manufacturer has a different size fleet that they offer, but does anyone know how well they do selling new single engine aircraft?
 
I'd wager less than a thousand all combined, not including homebuilt kits. Hell, most of the 172s/182s sold go to a handful of flight schools and CAP.
 
FlyBoyAndy said:
Just out of curiosity today I was browsing manufacturer websites for new aircraft. In particular I wanted to see what Piper was offering, but I went to other sites and the offerings for new aircraft really surprised me, and quite frankly they were nice to see along with nice specifications. I went to several sites and it peaked my curiosity as to how many new single aircraft are sold per year. How many new single engines do you think are sold a year? I know that each manufacturer has a different size fleet that they offer, but does anyone know how well they do selling new single engine aircraft?
Click to expand...


https://www.gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statistics/shipment-database
 
WOW. If there were only 143 C172s sold in 2015 how the hell are there like 400,000 (slight exaggeration) 1977 C172s still out there?
 
Pilawt said:
Kinda mind-boggling when you remember that Cessna sold 3,000 of one model -- the 150 -- for the 1966 model year, and almost that many again for 1967.
Click to expand...
That's because they were CHEAP when brand-new, even in today's dollars.

Now, we live in the world of pay-to-play politics, with American Industry nearly destroyed by regulation, and driving up the expenses of those that are left. The American Middle Class has been largely destroyed due to politics. Add in the litigious liability society we live in today, and the costs are over the top.

Look what happened with the Skycatcher, as just ONE example.
It went from an "inexpensive Trainer" that would sell for $79,000, to an already-outclassed failure that had to be BUILT IN CHINA to keep it under $130,000, bare-bones! Much of that due to external AND Internal politics that eventually cost the CEO Pelton his job.

The best new examples are coming from Europe or Brazil, but even then they are a $150k-$250K. Homebuilt is the only affordable flying left in the US today.
 
yep. Boomers had it good.

ETA: And don't gimme the "but but but Garmin 1000" crap. I'll take one with 1960s avionics new today. It'll still be half a million.
 
korben88 said:
WOW. If there were only 143 C172s sold in 2015 how the hell are there like 400,000 (slight exaggeration) 1977 C172s still out there?
Click to expand...

Well, I know you're slightly joking but in seriousness they built a ton of them. With a sales price in 1977 of $22,900 (roughly $92k in today's dollar) it was easier to sell them. I might be in the market for a new single at $92k rather than $435K for a base 172 today...
 
Don't overlook labor costs, either. While the manufacturing costs of cars and most other consumer goods have been affected by increasing automation and/or outsourced overseas labor, a Cessna 172 is as domestically hand-built now as it was in 1966. Look at median new home prices, also largely a function of labor costs -- under $21,000 in 1966, and just under $300,000 now.
 
hindsight2020 said:
yep. Boomers had it good.

ETA: And don't gimme the "but but but Garmin 1000" crap. I'll take one with 1960s avionics new today. It'll still be half a million.
Click to expand...

G1000 has been around for what, 14 years now? Moore's Law says it should be 128x cheaper than when it was first introduced.
 
If 100's of 1000's 172's were built and sold per year, they would cost about the same as a new Ford Taurus. They weigh less, don't have pollution controls or electric windows, dont have an automatic transmission etc. Mostly economy of scale.
 
asicer said:
G1000 has been around for what, 14 years now? Moore's Law says it should be 128x cheaper than when it was first introduced.
Click to expand...

You would probably be surprised at how much labor goes into a G1000, not just for the installation but for the customization for each airframe type, then certification. That labor is then amortized out over a pretty small number of sales.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You would probably be surprised at how much labor goes into a G1000, not just for the installation but for the customization for each airframe type, then certification. That labor is then amortized out over a pretty small number of sales.
Click to expand...

This just shows the vicious circle that GA has gotten itself into with all the regulation and cost cutting down on people picking up new equipment and planes.

As GA shrinks the companies are trying to maintain the same profit margins and income from a smaller pool of buyers by increasing the prince of goods and services... causing more buyers to look for cheaper alternatives or to leave the market due to costs... causing a smaller pool of buyers that need to produce the same income for the sellers... causing a rise in prices... causing......... ad infinitum.

Something has to break in the cycle or it all goes down in flames. Right now it appears Home Built and non-certified is the direction the market is breaking in, but unless those planes can really take the full place of the low end certified GA market that will only go so far.
 
That's correct and no one is willing to manufacture a loss leader in avionics/aircraft to build a brand loyal base of customers now. I'm not saying that they should price their products where they go negative margin but the industry needs some low margin entry level products to attract and retain customers.
 
Blindrage said:
Something has to break in the cycle or it all goes down in flames. Right now it appears Home Built and non-certified is the direction the market is breaking in, but unless those planes can really take the full place of the low end certified GA market that will only go so far.
Click to expand...

I think E-AB offers a lot of great options for people wanting piston (or turbine) singles up to 4 seats. I wish there were more 4 seaters and also 6 seaters and twin-engine aircraft, which would expand the reach that E-AB has. The restrictions of E-AB don't matter for most of us, and I think a good number of people would go to E-AB aircraft if they could buy one that supported the mission.

Having spent the past 10 years in various aspects of the aviation industry, the two biggest things that would lower costs are tort reform and certification reform. Add to that maintenance reform (let people work on their own certified planes for Part 91) and most of us could reduce our costs substantially.
 
FlyingElvii said:
That's because they were CHEAP when brand-new, even in today's dollars.

Now, we live in the world of pay-to-play politics, with American Industry nearly destroyed by regulation, and driving up the expenses of those that are left. The American Middle Class has been largely destroyed due to politics. Add in the litigious liability society we live in today, and the costs are over the top.

Look what happened with the Skycatcher, as just ONE example.
It went from an "inexpensive Trainer" that would sell for $79,000, to an already-outclassed failure that had to be BUILT IN CHINA to keep it under $130,000, bare-bones! Much of that due to external AND Internal politics that eventually cost the CEO Pelton his job.

The best new examples are coming from Europe or Brazil, but even then they are a $150k-$250K. Homebuilt is the only affordable flying left in the US today.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that while industry regulation was a factor, it was not the killer of the manufacturing industry. Due to financial deregulation in an effort to create a more vertical economy we saw the rise in globalization. While good for the economy writ large our workforce is barely able to compete in terms of large scale manufacturing.
 
labbadabba said:
I'd argue that while industry regulation was a factor, it was not the killer of the manufacturing industry. Due to financial deregulation in an effort to create a more vertical economy we saw the rise in globalization. While good for the economy writ large our workforce is barely able to compete in terms of large scale manufacturing.
Click to expand...
All true. Add to this the millions of middle class jobs shipped overseas by nafta,etc. Then add automation and there you have it. These were the backbone of light aircraftsales in the 60s 70s. Added regulation has little to do with it. It's a supply and demand problem. A bonanza ,when it first appeared , was about ten grand, now it's over half a mill. Hard to buy one if your frying Big Macs or making motel beds.
 
asicer said:
G1000 has been around for what, 14 years now? Moore's Law says it should be 128x cheaper than when it was first introduced.
Click to expand...
Not when the volume of sales is so very low. How many people throw out a perfectly functional G1000 to "upgrade" to a box with the same functionality? -Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
Not when the volume of sales is so very low. How many people throw out a perfectly functional G1000 to "upgrade" to a box with the same functionality? -Skip
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if G1000's manufactured today are still using the same componentry as those 14 years ago. That must be one heck of a parts contract. Are things like DDR-1 SDRAM, SH3 or MIPS4000 CPU's still even available? A G1000 redesigned today would probably be a 2-3 chip solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top