Aircraft market

steingar said:
Nick, I have tried really really hard to hold my tongue on this, but you are enormously short-sighted on this issue. Automotive work is specialized. Few mechanics have to know engine, transmission, body, and electronics. Automotive work is highly specialized, reducing training time. Every A&P has to be able to do it all.

Automotive mechanics can go to the local NAPA for parts. A&Ps can't. The DOT doesn't go after mechanics after car crashes. The FAA does go after A&Ps. Most importantly, if my auto mechanic messes up, the most likely scenario is me stranded by the side of the road. If my airplane mechanic messes up, the most likely scenario is me dead.

I know for a fact that boat mechanics are egregiously expensive, as are motorcycle mechanics. Everything comes expensive in aviation. There just aren't enough of us to spread out the costs, and it will get worse before it gets better. If you want less expensive, go experimental. If you want cheap, get a motorcycle, but be ready to fix it yourself.
Click to expand...

But what you're overlooking is the main point: Airplanes are dirt.....dirt simple to work on. You've got a handful of parts that fit together in a VERY logical way.

Now, putting one together from scratch? That's not an easy task. Repairing one that is already together... Cakework.

Auto mechanics, on the other hand, have a very tough job because a car has parts all the way through it. From the trunk lid to the front bumper, there's something that can go wrong.

On an airplane, its either: Engine work, control surface work, cable/rod work, battery work, or body work.
 
SkyHog said:
But what you're overlooking is the main point: Airplanes are dirt.....dirt simple to work on. You've got a handful of parts that fit together in a VERY logical way.

Now, putting one together from scratch? That's not an easy task. Repairing one that is already together... Cakework.

Auto mechanics, on the other hand, have a very tough job because a car has parts all the way through it. From the trunk lid to the front bumper, there's something that can go wrong.

On an airplane, its either: Engine work, control surface work, cable/rod work, battery work, or body work.
Click to expand...

If it were just the engines I would agree with you. My motorcycle has a more complex engine than my airplane, and probably more powerful. However, my mechanic has to deal with far more than engines. He has to be able to repair sheet metal, rivets, wood and rag construction, and composites. How many mechanics spend the majority of their time working on 40 year old cars?

I only know one guy with a forty year old car, and it spends a lot of time not running. My 47 year old airplane spends far less time down. Since airplane mechanics have to be able to do a far wider variety of tasks, even though each of them is relatively simple, I feel it is the range of things they have to be able to do that makes their job complex.
 
SkyHog said:
But what you're overlooking is the main point: Airplanes are dirt.....dirt simple to work on. You've got a handful of parts that fit together in a VERY logical way.
Click to expand...

But when's the last time you saw a tech at the Chevy dealer have to fabricate a part? Developing a skill like riveting isn't exactly trivial, you know.

Auto mechanics, on the other hand, have a very tough job because a car has parts all the way through it. From the trunk lid to the front bumper, there's something that can go wrong.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose the parts count for a typical passenger car is compared to a 182? I don't know the answer, but I'll bet the 182 parts count is in the thousands.
 
Trapper John said:
But when's the last time you saw a tech at the Chevy dealer have to fabricate a part? Developing a skill like riveting isn't exactly trivial, you know.

What do you suppose the parts count for a typical passenger car is compared to a 182? I don't know the answer, but I'll bet the 182 parts count is in the thousands.
Click to expand...

I don't know either, but I'll bet the car contains at least 4x the number of parts that the 182 does.
 
SkyHog said:
But what you're overlooking is the main point: Airplanes are dirt.....dirt simple to work on. You've got a handful of parts that fit together in a VERY logical way.

Now, putting one together from scratch? That's not an easy task. Repairing one that is already together... Cakework.

Auto mechanics, on the other hand, have a very tough job because a car has parts all the way through it. From the trunk lid to the front bumper, there's something that can go wrong.

On an airplane, its either: Engine work, control surface work, cable/rod work, battery work, or body work.
Click to expand...

or turbo's, pressurization systems, exhaust systems, landing gear systems, electrical systems, avionics/instrumentation systems, fuel systems, etc. And most cars are stock units that have the same equipment that was installed at the factory. Airplanes are unique collections of parts and equipment, and very few are identical.

I don't know what kind of airplane(s) you're thinking about, but the MX shop where I spend most of my time isn't seeing the fall-down simple variety that you seem to think is representative of the fleet.
 
wabower said:
or turbo's, pressurization systems, exhaust systems, landing gear systems, electrical systems, avionics/instrumentation systems, fuel systems, etc. And most cars are stock units that have the same equipment that was installed at the factory. Airplanes are unique collections of parts and equipment, and very few are identical.

I don't know what kind of airplane(s) you're thinking about, but the MX shop where I spend most of my time isn't seeing the fall-down simple variety that you seem to think is representative of the fleet.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in seeing how many airplanes in the GA fleet are of the type you describe versus the type I describe...remembering that I believe the most common airplane in the GA fleet is still the standard Cessna 172.
 
SkyHog said:
I don't know either, but I'll bet the car contains at least 4x the number of parts that the 182 does.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it. Look at a typical Cessna wing. Lots of parts there. Individual parts can and do get replaced by A&Ps. With cars, it's whole assemblies that get replaced. When's the last time you saw an auto body shop replace a door skin? They don't do that any more. They just swap the entire door.
 
If the number of airframes is the test you think is most appropriate, the answer is probably pretty easy to determine. I think the average shop revenues and man-hours per type of airplane maintained and the mix for each shop would be a much better indicator.

SkyHog said:
I'd be interested in seeing how many airplanes in the GA fleet are of the type you describe versus the type I describe...remembering that I believe the most common airplane in the GA fleet is still the standard Cessna 172.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
I don't know either, but I'll bet the car contains at least 4x the number of parts that the 182 does.
Click to expand...

Are you counting all the parts? How many rivets? How many soldered parts are contained in the Nav1, Nav2, stormscope, GPS, AHRS, Com1, Com2, MFD, PFD, etc? How about all the buttons, circuit breakers, etc...? Or are you just counting a wing as one part, an engine as one part, a GPS as one part, etc...?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That doesn't HAVE to be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...

True, but even I don't do work on my own planes signed off under supervision of an A&P/IA. And I have a great working relationship with mine. Like many of us, the time required is simply not there.
 
Nick, that was a trolling post and you know it. I work on my own cars and motorcycles, but not on my own airplanes. Why? Primary reason: The airplane work is cheaper.

Do not feed the troll...
 
I guess one big difference between aircraft and auto mechanics is that we are responsible to the FAA for everything we do. Auto mechanics are responsible to ??? basically no one. If they screw up the customer doesn't come back. If we screw up (or even if we don't) the FAA can come after us, take our license, fine us and basically screw up our whole life. It takes a lawyer to do that to an auto mechanic and that costs the customer money. The FAA does it to us for free. One other thing you don't seem to see is that I am responsible for any work I've ever done and signed off. If a plane I worked on in 1985 crashes today I can be named in the liability suit even though I had nothing to do with the pilot error crash. I've got to hire my own lawyer to defend me against the grieving family because I did a 100hr in 1985....any auto mechanics looking at that sort of long term responsibility? I don't make a living as an A&P and never have. The wages are lower than an auto mechanic and the responsibility much greater. Unless you work for a big airline the money isn't worth the risk. Look around airports as you fly around and realize that there used to be shops at most of them. Where are they now??? Another thing about airplanes being so simple to work on.....I worked with a lot of good race car mechanics and I can name all the ones I'd trust to work on a plane on one hand. Just knowing how to rivet or turn a wrench doesn't make an aircraft mechanic. If you have the knowledge and ability thats great. Find a mechanic to work with and get your A&P. It takes 30mo of experience and passing 3 writtens(at least it did). Once you start signing off logbooks your attitude will change a bit.


As for the original posters comments, I'd like to add that checking out a plane for a ferry permit isn't too complex. I'd do a 100hr inspection on the plane, check AD's, make sure its safe and then ferry it to my AI with the gear down. Not likely the owner has jacks for gear tests....
It should be quite obvious whether the plane is safe or not and the engine can be checked. Just because it hasn't been annualled for 6 years isn't a death knell. If the owner hasn't been flying the plane sat. Sounds like the thing got overhauled some time back and the owner flew a bit and then it sat. After sitting for sometime someone looked into annualling and discovered rust in the cylinders so they topped it. Does that make the whole thing a junk pile??? I don't think so. Its possible.....but it might just be a simple explanation. If you're not interested in the plane it doesn't really matter.

Frank
 
Ted DuPuis said:
True, but even I don't do work on my own planes signed off under supervision of an A&P/IA. And I have a great working relationship with mine. Like many of us, the time required is simply not there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that wasn't my point. The point is that anyone can do almost anything on their airplanes if they are under the supervision of their mechanic. Provided everyone involved is confident in that arrangement. Whether or not one has the time is a different matter.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Nick, that was a trolling post and you know it. I work on my own cars and motorcycles, but not on my own airplanes. Why? Primary reason: The airplane work is cheaper.

Do not feed the troll...
Click to expand...

Hey, I admitted it was a trolling post of sorts...but the point remains at least somewhat valid....

I don't understand how airplane work is cheaper than work on a car or motorcycle, when you can basically get your entire engine rebuilt on a car for about $3,000, and that's on the high end. Compare that to $15,000 or so to rebuild a standard O-360.
 
SkyHog said:
Hey, I admitted it was a trolling post of sorts...but the point remains at least somewhat valid....

I don't understand how airplane work is cheaper than work on a car or motorcycle, when you can basically get your entire engine rebuilt on a car for about $3,000, and that's on the high end. Compare that to $15,000 or so to rebuild a standard O-360.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of big volume auto engine rebuilders. There are also lots of sources for auto engine parts. Those parts don't have to have any real pedigree.

If your O-360 needs a new crank, what are your choices? If your Chevy 350 needs a new crank, there are lots more choices.
 
SkyHog said:
Hey, I admitted it was a trolling post of sorts...but the point remains at least somewhat valid....

I don't understand how airplane work is cheaper than work on a car or motorcycle, when you can basically get your entire engine rebuilt on a car for about $3,000, and that's on the high end. Compare that to $15,000 or so to rebuild a standard O-360.
Click to expand...

simple competition, there are a bunch of auto parts companies that keeps the prices low, not so in aviation. Example,, cylinders, when the factory was the only choice we were paying over 1,000 each, superior and ECI entered the market they dropped to under 500 each. (adjust for time and inflation)

You don't pay your mechanic for what they do, you pay them for what they know.

A&Ps that work for the FBOs are paid under $15 per hour, some have bennies some don't. The boeing flight line mechanics make 34 to start and most are not A&Ps or IAs. your freelanced A&P-IA is the best deal in aviation.
 
I think the population of GA pilots is going down and has been doing down for a while now. There is an oversupply of planes from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
 
BiffJ said:
I guess one big difference between aircraft and auto mechanics is that we are responsible to the FAA for everything we do.
Frank
Click to expand...
My PMI at FSDO, told me he's the least of my worries, he could only take my certificate, the civil lawyers could take my house.
 
And you're actually able to hold a job and function in society?:wink2:
SkyHog said:
Hey, I admitted it was a trolling post of sorts...but the point remains at least somewhat valid....

I don't understand how airplane work is cheaper than work on a car or motorcycle, when you can basically get your entire engine rebuilt on a car for about $3,000, and that's on the high end. Compare that to $15,000 or so to rebuild a standard O-360.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, but you're worth it and more. Many of the mechanics aren't worth burger-flip rates, the problem is that you sometimes don't know that up front.

Tom-D said:
It may, or may not be, depending upon your perspective. but I do get enough work to stay busy.
Click to expand...
 
MSPAviator said:
I think the population of GA pilots is going down and has been doing down for a while now. There is an oversupply of planes from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Click to expand...

Thank you for going back to the intent of this thread.

that is a factor in the dropping aircraft prices, the other is the fuel prices, and the 210's maintenance costs. 10 years ago, you would never see a 210 allowed to deteriorate. but now there are several for sale in unairworthy condition.

plus the fact the 210 owners are aging and not using the aircraft for the reason they bought it.
 
SkyHog said:
Hey, I admitted it was a trolling post of sorts...but the point remains at least somewhat valid....

I don't understand how airplane work is cheaper than work on a car or motorcycle, when you can basically get your entire engine rebuilt on a car for about $3,000, and that's on the high end. Compare that to $15,000 or so to rebuild a standard O-360.
Click to expand...

$12,000 worth of FAA paperwork. :wink2: :eek: :cryin:
 
Many aircraft owners find themselves approximately a year older every 12 months, but a reasonably high percentage maintain their airplanes in airworthy condition. Bearing in mind that average book retail/wholesale is 28k/22k for a 1960 210, what's the discount on this dog?

Tom-D said:
Thank you for going back to the intent of this thread.

that is a factor in the dropping aircraft prices, the other is the fuel prices, and the 210's maintenance costs. 10 years ago, you would never see a 210 allowed to deteriorate. but now there are several for sale in unairworthy condition.

plus the fact the 210 owners are aging and not using the aircraft for the reason they bought it.
Click to expand...
 
MSPAviator said:
I think the population of GA pilots is going down and has been doing down for a while now. There is an oversupply of planes from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Click to expand...

There won't be for long. Airplanes that aren't flown (like the current example) deteriorate over time. They can easily wind up costing more to fix than they're worth.
 
steingar said:
There won't be for long. Airplanes that aren't flown (like the current example) deteriorate over time. They can easily wind up costing more to fix than they're worth.
Click to expand...

How soon are you going to be ready to buy new?

AS long as there are poor folks that want to fly there will be a market for these aircraft.
 
wabower said:
Many aircraft owners find themselves approximately a year older every 12 months, but a reasonably high percentage maintain their airplanes in airworthy condition. Bearing in mind that average book retail/wholesale is 28k/22k for a 1960 210, what's the discount on this dog?
Click to expand...

Many older pilots have the idea that they will get better and fly their baby once more, and get stuck in that rut for years before they pass on.

I get the feeling that is the case here, they want a quick sale to clear the estate.

as for "DoG" you wouldn't know until you inspect it.

Yes I did feel the yank on my chain.
 
steingar said:
There won't be for long. Airplanes that aren't flown (like the current example) deteriorate over time. They can easily wind up costing more to fix than they're worth.
Click to expand...


That's more hype than truth. but keep the hype going, it keeps aircraft affordable for many of us.
 
steingar said:
There won't be for long. Airplanes that aren't flown (like the current example) deteriorate over time. They can easily wind up costing more to fix than they're worth.
Click to expand...

Once they reach that point, hopefully they end up in salvage so the good parts left can be used to keep other planes flying.
 
Trapper John said:
Once they reach that point, hopefully they end up in salvage so the good parts left can be used to keep other planes flying.
Click to expand...

John, I spent the major portion of last week retrieving a C-150 from a hangar in Pullman Wa. that was last flown when the ARC 312 was legal to use.

the AC TT is 1850 with a first run 0-200, I drained the oil filled with Stoddard solvent ran it 30 seconds and drained and filled with 20W50 Phillips and did 30 minute run. Mag drops were within limits and oil pressure was great, a compression check was all above 75/80 and so I flew it to OKH.

Cosmetics are not so good but who cares, it flys great. Owner says he can't see the paint when he is flying and grinning.
 
I would have never bought my plane if I listened to everyone on here. Even with what I have had to do on it in 2 years, I still got a deal.
 
Tom-D said:
John, I spent the major portion of last week retrieving a C-150 from a hangar in Pullman Wa. that was last flown when the ARC 312 was legal to use.

the AC TT is 1850 with a first run 0-200, I drained the oil filled with Stoddard solvent ran it 30 seconds and drained and filled with 20W50 Phillips and did 30 minute run. Mag drops were within limits and oil pressure was great, a compression check was all above 75/80 and so I flew it to OKH.

Cosmetics are not so good but who cares, it flys great. Owner says he can't see the paint when he is flying and grinning.
Click to expand...

I think that's great.

But I've seen plenty of ramp ornaments with flat tires and covered in bird poop, where the owner has obviously run out of money. I'd rather see those salvaged for parts than rotting away further.
 
Trapper John said:
I think that's great.

But I've seen plenty of ramp ornaments with flat tires and covered in bird poop, where the owner has obviously run out of money. I'd rather see those salvaged for parts than rotting away further.
Click to expand...

Point being, every aircraft should be judged on its own merits.

there are plenty of hangar queens that are the direct opposite of the ramp derelicts.

but on the web the OTWs are spreading the wrong message. " all aircraft that have sat unused are in need of a total restoration" simply a dumb idea.
 
Tom-D said:
Point being, every aircraft should be judged on its own merits.

there are plenty of hangar queens that are the direct opposite of the ramp derelicts.

but on the web the OTWs are spreading the wrong message. " all aircraft that have sat unused are in need of a total restoration" simply a dumb idea.
Click to expand...

True, but one has to have a jaundice eye for aircraft that have been left for any amount of time. Some will likely be fine, like the aircraft you resurrected. Many will be far less so. When the market for flow aircraft begins to dry up (and it will, one way or the other) prices will go up. One that happens the drive to resurrect derelicts will increase, and many will meet a better fate.

By that time expect everything to be far more expensive, though.
 
steingar said:
True, but one has to have a jaundice eye for aircraft that have been left for any amount of time. Some will likely be fine, like the aircraft you resurrected. Many will be far less so. When the market for flow aircraft begins to dry up (and it will, one way or the other) prices will go up. One that happens the drive to resurrect derelicts will increase, and many will meet a better fate.

By that time expect everything to be far more expensive, though.
Click to expand...

That is what pilots were saying when Cessna shut the line down in 1981, it never happened. It may some time in the future, but in my humble opinion I don't believe it will any time soon, unless Homeland security does some thing incredibility stupid.
 
Trapper John said:
I really doubt it. Look at a typical Cessna wing. Lots of parts there. Individual parts can and do get replaced by A&Ps. With cars, it's whole assemblies that get replaced. When's the last time you saw an auto body shop replace a door skin? They don't do that any more. They just swap the entire door.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's the key to future affordable aircraft. "Field-Replaceable Units" (FRUs) are how most products are built these days.

Try getting it through the FAA's Certification process that's perennially stuck in the 1960's though...
 
Tom-D said:
That is what pilots were saying when Cessna shut the line down in 1981, it never happened. It may some time in the future, but in my humble opinion I don't believe it will any time soon, unless Homeland security does some thing incredibility stupid.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think happened to aviation since the 1980s? It got a buttload more expensive.

The Chinese could be our saviors in this regard. They are developing a great deal of wealth, have large distance to travel, and few airplanes or pilots. They could easily start buying our old aircraft for their emerging market.
 
More importantly, a prospective buyer should understand the odds and the risk-reward ratio of such a purchase. For every airplane that turns out with an oil change and a lived happily ever after story, I'd be willing to bet there are many more that turn into hair-pulls of immense proportions.

Stop by the next time you're in Dallas, and I'll show you one of the nicest 210-A's in the country. It started out a lot like the jewel you are touting, and the A&P who bought it thought he understood the issues well enough to be safe in making the purchase. The project that he thought would require three months turned into a three-year marathon that left him hopelessly upside-down in a very nice airplane.

For the guy who's trying to buy an airplane that he's always wanted and is willing to spend more than he planned, these old birds can provide the opportunity to make it happen. For everybody else, they should be viewed very skeptically.

Tom-D said:
Point being, every aircraft should be judged on its own merits.

there are plenty of hangar queens that are the direct opposite of the ramp derelicts.

but on the web the OTWs are spreading the wrong message. " all aircraft that have sat unused are in need of a total restoration" simply a dumb idea.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top