Has Cessna made dramatic changes to their airframes since the 70's to justify that price? Or was it the merely the cost of certifying those avionics that has driven the cost through the roof? If I bought a new -172 with just steam gauges, would I then be paying 1970 prices (plus inflation)? Who's fault is it that that aircraft with an airframe built from 1960's tooling costs 20 times more 50 years later?
You would need to ask someone besides me how Cessna can justify their prices. But I think what people need to keep in mind is that Cessna is not a charity, and neither are other aircraft manufacturers. They are in business to make money. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, either. But if they can sell 10 airplanes for $300,000 each it seems that they are doing better than if they sell 50 airplanes for $60,000 each.
No need to ask. It is justified by the fact that they sell planes every year. If there are enough people willing to pay that amount to make it worth their while to build them, that that is what they will do.
Would 50 aircraft per year not require more training centers, more parts availability, more service calls, etc? Seems that as often as they are doing layoffs, furloughs, etc they would eventually reassess their current business model.
Do you think that those items would make up the $240,000 difference in hypothetical airplane price? These would be new aircraft, under warranty for a while.
Maybe they wouldn't be flying for 50 years if people could buy the equivalent for $60,000 instead of $300,000. Besides, the manufacturer would be getting the $300,000 up front instead of over 50 years, that is, if people would actually spend that much at Cessna or other manufacturer over the life of the airplane.
Yeah, they've survived for 50+ years of increasing costs like everybody else who's been in business for that length of time. What were you paying for gasoline back then? Every currency that has existed has dealt with inflation, so that's an obvious part of price changes, but the changes in economic circumstances are even more important. Both of my kids were born in the 60's and the combined cost of physicians (OB, Pediatric, etc) and 4-day big-city hospital stay for each was less than $500. The hospital bill alone for my MIL's 2-day stay at a small-town hospital last year was $18,000, and no procedures were involved.
My plan for when someone tries to send me to a nursing home: -Buy a Duke -Take off from LA -Fly heading 270 Hell of a lot cheaper and more fun way to go.
In my little 150 there ain't much difference in cost when I include the cost of driving to my place in Tahoe. And yes, I enjoy skiing.
That. And depending on vehicle, the price difference in fuel isn't that great. Depending on winds, I can get 15-20smpg in the Mooney flying direct at speeds of 165-175mph. My F-150 Supercrew plodding along at 75mph following the roads gets 15mpg. Not much of a premium to fly.
Agreed, my TL gets 30 on the highway following roads, the 150, about 23smpg direct at 100mph. If I could only find non-alcohol mogas...
At the end of the day -- if you want to be able to do whatever you want with your aircraft without the man holding you down buy an Experimental. Just realize that you can now do whatever you want with your aircraft and so could the person before you. So use your head otherwise your newly found powers will cause you to do something stupid which will in turn kill you. Wanting a certified to be an experimental eliminates everything a certified is supposed to be, you know, certified.
"Impractical", that really hits the heart of the matter. Aircraft and flying is impractical for so many people, on so many levels. The training required to get over the threshold and get a certificate is impractical for many aspiring pilots. The proficiency required to be be safe in a complex or even simple aircraft is impractical for many recreational fliers. The cost and complexity of an aircraft that can do serious travel is impractical for many wannabe owners. The limits of a simple aircraft like a sailplane, Cub, C-150 or any LSA make them impractical for many wannabe travelers. But for those of us that find flight and aircraft fun and interesting enough to pursue anyway have many options. And the options are growing and getting better every year. When you narrow the problems down from the impracticalities of flight and aircraft in general, down to expense of owning and operating your own airplane, many of the solutions lie in the buying and/or building of E/AB aircraft.... Yep.
The one caveat with that is that allowing currently certified aircraft to become experimental permanently (the "owner experimental" idea) shouldn't be much different from buying a used experimental. Then you can do whatever you want.
But, but, there isn't an experimental and a certified in autos and auto safety is getting better while GA safety has stagnated. I don't want to be penalized for increasing the safety of my aircraft.
Uh, yeah there is. There is absolutely amateur/homebuilt/custom cars built from scratch. And they are even legal to drive on the road.
AP, can you list SPECIFICALLY three items you want in your plane that will improve your safety in your plane and is NOT AVAILABLE to you because the items are not certified? Be specific, who builds it and what does it do to enhance safety for you?
And following up on Ed, these amateur vehicles generally have to be taken through a series of hoops to get paperwork so they can legally be used on public roads. Ask anybody who has built a custom bike.
of course. Please include the cost of the 3 specific items as well as how they will enhance safety in a quantifiable way.
I said that "are not certified". Your premise is that if the item is not certified it will be priced in your price range. Which un certified items are you ready to purchase that would make your plane safer?
I'm not Aunt Peggy, and I haven't even finished training, but I don't see why you can't put a modern tire (like something steel belted -- 1970's technology) on a plane. Is there any real advantage to using "real" rubber?
You are incorrect, as Ed pointed out. You'd actually probably be surprised at how many things you can install in your car that are not approved for use on public roads. The difference is that in the auto world, nobody cares.
what is the perceived problem with currently available tires that you are trying to address with something heavier and more costly ? If there is one part of the plane where there is enormous selection of aftermarket vendors, it's tires.
You can pull over in your car if there is a minor malfunction. In your airplane you'll most likely just die. Small fire in car? Pull over. Small fire in airplane? Burn up. Of course they're treated different. They are VERY different. Do you think you can manufacture a new car, mass-produce it, and sell it to the general public without dealing with LOTS of government red tape? It's just as bad as it is in aviation...they just have bigger pockets.
I'm not a tire expert, but the other question I'd ask is: "Is there an advantage to the newer, steel-belted technology on a plane?" Just because it's newer does not always mean it's better.
