Upcoming Piper Announcement @ SnF

[Ventucky Red]

I think for $250K I can have a Bonanza with a new engine and new panel, and have money left over.

True... but over a period of five years... what is your total cost of ownership going to be?

For the $30G difference, I expect more of the IFR variants will be sold, as VFR only just doesn’t make sense to me for a flight school.

I'm pretty confident that some school looking to acquire 10 or more of these and pay for them with Piper financing will get the IFR plane for the VFR price.. maybe a little cheaper..

But a factory new airplane for $250k, that is better than I would have thought could be done.

That is where I was hoping it was going to be...

And did anyone here get an up-close and personal look at it?

So my next question is, is Cessna going to sit back and do nothing to address this?

 

[Ventucky Red]

I wonder about resale of these new aircraft, considering they don't have the 4 seats a regular Cherokee would have.

Speaking for myself 70% of my flying only needs one seat, 20% is usually a safety pilot or an instructor, and the last 10% is with A as is singular passenger.. This is both by design and reality... the reality, many people I know will go once, twice, or maybe three times and then they're done. The design, this is my time to clear my head and decompress from the world. I need a few hours of what my wife calls "lone wolf time.."

 

[flyer770]

I could see this as a good move for somewhat smaller schools. Looks like an upgraded Cherokee 140.

Just curious, what was the price in 1969 for a Cherokee 140?

 

[Pilawt]

Just curious, what was the price in 1969 for a Cherokee 140?

Base price $9,600.00. And I mean base ... two seats, minimum legal VFR instruments, no gyros, zero avionics.

$9,600 in 1969 is about the same buying power as $68,200 today.

 

[asicer]

Base price $9,600.00. And I mean base ... two seats, minimum legal VFR instruments, no gyros, zero avionics.

$9,600 in 1969 is about the same buying power as $68,200 today.

$289k for the IFR version minus GFC500 ($7k), dual screen G3x with EIS ($18k), G5 backup AI ($2k), GTX375 ($8k), dual GNC255 ($5k each) and an audio panel ($2k) plus install ($20K) still leaves quite a gap.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Base price $9,600.00. And I mean base ... two seats, minimum legal VFR instruments, no gyros, zero avionics.

$9,600 in 1969 is about the same buying power as $68,200 today.

There was a Cessna 150 displayed in our local mall in 1970, for $8,500. I thought that price unattainable as a 13-year-old! But if you are making thousands of something as opposed to perhaps a hundred or maybe even tens, it's cheaper per copy in most cases.

 

[TCABM]

Looks like an upgraded Cherokee 140.

One of the roll ups yesterday mentioned it’s basically an Archer TX with the Titan motor and G3x family of avionics.

It’ll be interesting to see the TCDS and POH when it’s finally available.

I can see value for the mid-volume schools to g to a single fleet. Since it’s Piper or Cessna in the SE trainer world, I think the business case is to price Cessna out of doing business there.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I could see this as a good move for somewhat smaller schools. Looks like an upgraded Cherokee 140.

Just curious, what was the price in 1969 for a Cherokee 140?

That concept has been discussed many times. There's really no reason that a Cessna 172, Cherokee (140 or otherwise) should cost what it does. In terms of true materials cost and labor, with a healthy profit margin based off of those costs, they should be able to stamp out models like those (which have been produced largely unchanged for a half-century) for under $150K. However, when Cessna lumps in whatever overhead costs they have onto the legacy products (for which the tooling/R&D/certifications costs have long since been covered) the price skyrockets. You end up with a Catch-22 where no one buys the C172/PA28 because the price is too high, which means they sell fewer units, which makes Piper/Cessna increase the price to make up for lost margin which results in lower sales volumes . . . etc. ad nauseam.

 

[Pilawt]

Since it’s Piper or Cessna in the SE trainer world, I think the business case is to price Cessna out of doing business there.

And Cirrus. Lufthansa Aviation Training, based here in the Phoenix area, is in the process of transitioning its fleet from elderly F33A Bonanzas in favor of new Cirrus SR20 and SR22 trainers.

 

[GRG55]

My school way back when bought 4 172R and 8 172SP, intending that the R would be slightly cheaper for primary training. It seldom worked out that way, you took whatever aircraft was available, and it soon became a moot point to have two different types...

Agree completely that standardizing the training aircraft configuration to simplify scheduling, maintenance, checklists, SOPs, etc. makes a lot of sense, unless one is running a very small operation doing essentially ab initio PPL training only (and that is getting much rarer these days as fewer pilots enter to fly purely for pleasure, compared to those entering training to make a career out of it).

I wonder about resale of these new aircraft, considering they don't have the 4 seats a regular Cherokee would have.

Piper stated the rear seat can be added as an option. Obviously all the airframe attachments are built in, so it's probably just a quick drop in/bolt up. Saves a bit of cost, but more important cuts the weight down for training fleet aircraft. Any private owner buying a used one in future can probably buy the rear seat later.

...So my next question is, is Cessna going to sit back and do nothing to address this?

I would say the answer to that question is "Yes", it won't do anything.
Demand for new 172s (and 182s) consistently exceeds Cessna's annual production output and Cessna has already told the industry it will not allocate any more production space or other resources to expand production. The piston engine Cessnas, particularly the 172, are probably the lowest margin, least profitable use of production capacity and capital that Textron has in the entire suite of planes it produces (e.g. the same floor space and manpower hours devoted to making a Citation generates a lot more money). As long as it can sell out current piston production it has no incentive to cut prices to try to match Piper.

Speaking for myself 70% of my flying only needs one seat...The design, this is my time to clear my head and decompress from the world. I need a few hours of what my wife calls "lone wolf time.."

One of the primary reasons I spend so much friggin' money on airplanes...it allows me to completely set aside all the other mundane crap and distractions in my life for a little while. My wife, who does not like flying, is fully supportive of my addiction - she says I come back after a flight "a completely different person" (easier to live with apparently)

$289k for the IFR version minus GFC500 ($7k), dual screen G3x with EIS ($18k), G5 backup AI ($2k), GTX375 ($8k), dual GNC255 ($5k each) and an audio panel ($2k) plus install ($20K) still leaves quite a gap.

Apples and oranges. Let's remember in the 1960s and 1970s Piper, Cessna, Bellanca, Mooney and the others were producing thousands of airplanes every year. And equally, Lycoming, Continental, and the other suppliers to these manufacturers were producing thousands of engines, propellers and other input components every year. Now they produce a few hundred planes a year, at best. The attrition rate of piston GA airplane manufacturers, including those like Adam Aircraft that have tried to enter this space, since those halcyon days has been pretty high. Making piston GA aircraft could not possibly be a highly profitable business. If it was a great business segment there would be lots of newcomers stampeding in with their investment money to take advantage of those wonderfully high margins.

One of my businesses manufactures specialized equipment that we use in our operating companies. My steel prices have increased more than 25% since July 1, 2018.
Labour standards, regulations, increasing tax complexity, raw materials input, energy costs and a host of other things have changed a lot since 1969, and all of those things conspire to increase the cost of doing business. Any wonder why Walmart buys all that junk it flogs from China?

We should probably be thankful Piper is trying to increase piston production in the USA. Every little bit helps to keep the supplier chain alive that the rest of us need to keep our ancient planes in the air.

 

[GRG55]

And Cirrus. Lufthansa Aviation Training, based here in the Phoenix area, is in the process of transitioning its fleet from elderly F33A Bonanzas in favor of new Cirrus SR20 and SR22 trainers.

If Lufthansa was using F33 Bonanazas, and is now replacing them with Cirrus, it would not appear to be a strictly price sensitive consumer of training aircraft...unlike most other training outfits. They continue to spend the (considerable) extra money for these types of airplanes for some other reason they have rationalized.

That concept has been discussed many times. There's really no reason that a Cessna 172, Cherokee (140 or otherwise) should cost what it does. In terms of true materials cost and labor, with a healthy profit margin based off of those costs, they should be able to stamp out models like those (which have been produced largely unchanged for a half-century) for under $150K. However, when Cessna lumps in whatever overhead costs they have onto the legacy products (for which the tooling/R&D/certifications costs have long since been covered) the price skyrockets. You end up with a Catch-22 where no one buys the C172/PA28 because the price is too high, which means they sell fewer units, which makes Piper/Cessna increase the price to make up for lost margin which results in lower sales volumes . . . etc. ad nauseam.

Unfortunately the facts and history don't support your thesis.

If there really was hundreds of thousand of dollars of pure profit potential in making GA airplanes because Cessna and Piper are price gouging then why:

1. is Mooney, which is struggling to stay alive, and which is also making a legacy airframe from "paid off tooling/R&D", not cutting prices to move more planes than the 7 per year it sells now?
2. is every new entrant into this space also struggling and in every single case having to raise prices from their chronically optimistic initial promotional announcements (Icon is but one recent example)?

I have posted this before...the idea that the market can be materially expanded if Cessna cut its prices dramatically is almost certainly incorrect. How many pilots on this forum would line up and buy a new $150,000 Cessna 172 for their personal use in the next 6 months if Cessna made that offer?

Ya, that's what I thought.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Unfortunately the facts and history don't support your thesis.

If there really was hundreds of thousand of dollars of pure profit potential in making GA airplanes because Cessna and Piper are price gouging then why:

1. is Mooney, which is struggling to stay alive, and which is also making a legacy airframe from "paid off tooling/R&D", not cutting prices to move more planes than the 7 per year it sells now?
2. is every new entrant into this space also struggling and in every single case having to raise prices from their chronically optimistic initial promotional announcements (Icon is but one recent example)?

I have posted this before...the idea that the market can be materially expanded if Cessna cut its prices dramatically is almost certainly incorrect. How many pilots on this forum would line up and buy a new $150,000 Cessna 172 for their personal use in the next 6 months if Cessna made that offer?

Ya, that's what I thought.

1. I wasn't aware that Mooney was still selling the M20J . . . must have missed that in their product lineup which mainly focuses on trying to sell $700K+ Ovations/Ultras. If you had tooling and processes down to a science after having made 10,000 M20Js for a few decades, you think there's any R&D/tooling/depreciation that is still having to be absorbed? God I'd hope not. So you're left with the cost of the raw materials and the labor to assemble. I really hope we're not saying that a M20J has labor/materials over worth over $150K (assuming non-glass panel).

2. Vans seems to be doing just fine making a profit on RV10 kits at $50K/pop. I can't imagine there's a ton more cost to build an M20J/C172/PA28 in terms of materials (especially with volume discounts). So call it $50K in materials, $50K for engine, $10K panel. $110K is about what you can build an RV-10 for, from what I've gathered, if you don't go crazy on panels/upgrades. So, Cessna has to add the value of labor into the mix. Call it $30K if you want. So we're around $150K in cost to build. You're telling me that Cessna has to turn around and sell that for 50%+ margins to make the numbers work? If you allocate the cost of all of Cessna's overhead expenses to a product line like the C172/C182, it's going to drive the price through the roof.

I'm not talking about expanding the market, per say. I made no implication that if Cessna/Piper just dropped their prices, thousands of people would come running to the table with money in hand. I'm saying that the pricing of current aircraft like the long-established C172/PA28 series ensures that no one but revenue-generating businesses (flight schools) are going to be purchasing new. Hell, lump the straight-legged C182 into the mix, since aside from the engine, there really shouldn't be an appreciable difference in price . . . you think there wouldn't be some people/flying clubs lining up to buy a sub $250K NEW 182?! I bet there would. Cessna would have to accept making 30% margins instead of 50%+, which isn't likely going to happen. As has been mentioned, Cessna/Piper has no interest in investing anything into the legacy SE aircraft, there's just no justification for them when they can earn more profit from the sale of a few Jet-A burners than total annual sales of the C172.

All in all, unless you can see Mooney/Piper/Cessna's internal books, you and I are just speculating anyway. We're just operating under different assumptions, and I assume that it shouldn't cost a major manufacturer a ton of labor to make a product they've been making for the better part of a century.

 

[Gerhardt]

I assume that it shouldn't cost a major manufacturer a ton of labor to make a product they've been making for the better part of a century.

It doesn't. It's the legal fees.

 

[zaitcev]

How many pilots on this forum would line up and buy a new $150,000 Cessna 172 for their personal use in the next 6 months if Cessna made that offer?

Just as a data point, about 50 people buy a Carbon Cub for $250k each year, for several years now. That's 5-6 times less than those getting a $800k Cirrus. In the same time, 50-70 people buy a $25k Aerolite 103. The numbers were pretty steady for a while for all 3. I'd say, there's not going to be more than 100 sales of $150k 172 for personal use. In fact, about 50 is probably realistic.

 

[Gerhardt]

I like the look of the new trainer. I like the optional 3rd seat. The price is high, but hey, I think the price of everything is high. I balked at buying an R22 back when they were $99K.

And it would be fun to learn to fly with a glass panel.

I did get a kick out of the bad photoshop job on their website though.

 

[zaitcev]

2. Vans seems to be doing just fine making a profit on RV10 kits at $50K/pop.

Kits, yes. However, the ready-to-fly RV-12 is $130k. Very instructive regarding the cost of labor.

Mooney management mentioned several times interviews during and after Chen's tenure that the cost of labor is killing them. Going to the composite shell in Ultras allowed them to cut thousands from the cost, because it's easier to lay cable bundles and then drag the shell over that. And it's like that throughout the airplane. It's an absurdly obsolete design, intended for the times of cheap labor.

 

[Ventucky Red]

How many pilots on this forum would line up and buy a new $150,000 Cessna 172 for their personal use in the next 6 months if Cessna made that offer?

A new 172 with standard avionics and the new IFR Garmin GPS.... I would in a New York second... As we discus earlier, look at what companies like Yingling are getting for a refurbished.. I know what you're thinking.... "then why are you not buying one of those refurbished planes?" Well, that is a hard sell to the household appropriations committee.. with her... new is easier to justify... go figure

 

[SoonerAviator]

It doesn't. It's the legal fees.

Agreed, which is where the overhead being allocated drives up the cost. What exactly is the insurance/legal liability for Cessna on a 172? I thought there was progress on changing the statute of limitation period related to lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Kits, yes. However, the ready-to-fly RV-12 is $130k. Very instructive regarding the cost of labor.

Mooney management mentioned several times interviews during and after Chen's tenure that the cost of labor is killing them. Going to the composite shell in Ultras allowed them to cut thousands from the cost, because it's easier to lay cable bundles and then drag the shell over that. And it's like that throughout the airplane. It's an absurdly obsolete design, intended for the times of cheap labor.

Understood, but do you need A&Ps assembling an aircraft at sky-high union wages, or is it okay to have Joe Blow making $20/hr doing the assembly? I'd be amazed if a major manufacturer needed more than 1,000 man-hours to assemble a C172 if you have all of the jigs/tooling to optimize the process. Guys are doing RV-12s in 1,500-2,000 by themselves.

 

[GRG55]

...All in all, unless you can see Mooney/Piper/Cessna's internal books, you and I are just speculating anyway. We're just operating under different assumptions, and I assume that it shouldn't cost a major manufacturer a ton of labor to make a product they've been making for the better part of a century.

Anybody here working for the same wages/salary/benefits/payroll deductions as the better part of a century ago?

 

[hindsight2020]

Yeah I don't buy the labor argument. If y'all saw the shenanigans of Boeing South Carolina and the 787 assembly, you'd never set foot in that airplane. You don't need everybody to be a 7-level doing the actual assembly. That's what QA supervising ranks are for. This isn't complicated.

As to demographics, well if they upped the useful load to 1100+ lbs by the use of a parallel valve IO-540 (around 70-90# heavier than a 360), I would be willing to buy a new Tecnam P2010 for $150K, today. Hell they're asking that much today for clap trap FG 182s with rotted bladders, archaic seats and all the rest of the legacy AD-laden effetry. Ditto for Lances et al.

Alas, that price point for a 2010 is all vaporware. So I'll keep slowly schlepping it on the Arrow, and go EAB for the fun stuff. Figured I'll eat the capital savings in the operation of two airplanes. It's only money am I right?

Anybody here working for the same wages/salary/benefits/payroll deductions as the better part of a century ago?

Maybe not a century ago, but we've been working for the same wage since 1970, inflation adjusted. COL has not stayed flat of course. Airplane prices have outpaced inflation by quite a large margin, double whammy. This isn't state secret, though I understand how politically inconvenient it is for some sectors of the owner class to acknowledge the wage stagnation angle.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Agreed, which is where the overhead being allocated drives up the cost. What exactly is the insurance/legal liability for Cessna on a 172? I thought there was progress on changing the statute of limitation period related to lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers?

The 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act limited it to 18 years - There hasn't been any "progress" since then. But, the GARA is what allowed Cirrus and Diamond to come on the scene and Cessna to begin producing airplanes again.

 

[midwestpa24]

2. Vans seems to be doing just fine making a profit on RV10 kits at $50K/pop. I can't imagine there's a ton more cost to build an M20J/C172/PA28 in terms of materials (especially with volume discounts). So call it $50K in materials, $50K for engine, $10K panel. $110K is about what you can build an RV-10 for, from what I've gathered, if you don't go crazy on panels/upgrades. So, Cessna has to add the value of labor into the mix. Call it $30K if you want. So we're around $150K in cost to build. You're telling me that Cessna has to turn around and sell that for 50%+ margins to make the numbers work? If you allocate the cost of all of Cessna's overhead expenses to a product line like the C172/C182, it's going to drive the price through the roof.

You are seriously undervaluing the labor involved in the manufacture process. Even a Van's kit on their own website says 2000 man hours to complete. That is one person, employed full time, for a year, in a skilled labor position. Figure closer to $60k salary, plus benefits, make it $75k a year in labor costs. And that is for just one person. Not to mention Piper and Cessna are offering a much more refined final product than a lot of experimentals are, so even more labor and costs. Tack on certification compliance, insurance, and overhead, its not hard to realize why a new factory aircraft cost what it does. Raw materials are just the start and only a small percentage of the total costs. Building GA aircraft is not as profitable as you would think. Why else do you think GA manufacturing is so low?

 

[GRG55]

...Maybe not a century ago, but we've been working for the same wage since 1970, inflation adjusted. COL has not stayed flat of course. Airplane prices have outpaced inflation by quite a large margin, double whammy. This isn't state secret, though I understand how politically inconvenient it is for some sectors of the owner class to acknowledge the wage stagnation angle.

I understand the real inflation adjusted cost of GA airplanes has risen quite dramatically. I just don't buy the argument its due to price gouging by greedy manufacturers. I think its a tough business, and the attrition rate of companies that are dead or dying, and the attrition rate of aircraft models taken out of production within the surviving companies, is ample evidence of how tough.

Piper's trying to survive and grow (how many "New Pipers" have we had?). This move to produce a trainer at a reasonable cost is overdue for them. Both Cirrus and Mooney put a lot of effort into prototyping a new, clean sheet trainer. Both gave up on those projects. Why? Probably because the price they had to charge to produce them exceeded anything financially viable for the flight training market. Instead of the carping about Piper "not innovating", charging "too much", not including a back seat and such, maybe they deserve a tiny bit of credit for trying to provide some reasonable solution to the aging fleet of trainers out there. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[murphey]

Yes, but the aforementioned lack of flexibility in scheduling is hard to deal with unless you're a Really Big Flight School. It sounds like this might be getting aimed at the smaller end of the market. And even a not-so-small flight school that isn't going to have that many of them, I think would likely still want a significant majority of their fleet to be IFR, even if IFR isn't the majority of their training.

I bet the VFR ones do terrible on resale, as well. That alone might pay for the IFR version.

Resale, exactly. My Mother the Real Estate Broker always preached that all upgrades/improvements/replacements in a house should be with the knowledge that the house would be on the market at some time in the future. I'm not sure I see a strong future in the US for the used trainers, but definitely in Europe.

 

[Gerhardt]

You are seriously undervaluing the labor involved in the manufacture process. Even a Van's kit on their own website says 2000 man hours to complete. That is one person, employed full time, for a year, in a skilled labor position.

True. For the first one. Much less than that for the second one, and by the time you've put a dozen together, especially if you're working as part of a team, that number comes down substantially. The VAST majority of your time on a first-time build is converting the instructions into actual work (productivity). After just a few completions those instructions are there just as a checklist, not trying to figure out what to do and how to do it.

 

[eman1200]

 

[PilotRPI]

Van’s quick builds are made in the Philipenes. Wonder if the rv-12 is as well or if they use US labor.

A new ifr plane that could honestly cruise at 120 kts for around $150k would be very enticing to me.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Resale, exactly. My Mother the Real Estate Broker always preached that all upgrades/improvements/replacements in a house should be with the knowledge that the house would be on the market at some time in the future. I'm not sure I see a strong future in the US for the used trainers, but definitely in Europe.

Again, let me ask the question... why are Cessna 152s getting on average $35K for an 8 - 10K plus hour air-frame if there is not a strong future in the US? Some goes for the Tomahawk, and the Skipper the asking and selling prices are up there... there is a market for an inexpensive, cheap to keep, fun to own scoot-about of a plane that has some legs for a 300-400 mile x-country...

Side note, I know of one gent that sold his very clean well maintained 182 and bought a Cessna 150/150 and is just as happy... As he put, "it is just a fun and less of a hit on my wallet..."

 

[Ventucky Red]

Y Why else do you think GA manufacturing is so low?

Let see... how many used airplanes are for sale right now... this is the same issue with the marine and RV market...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Again, let me ask the question... why are Cessna 152s getting on average $35K for an 8 - 10K plus hour air-frame if there is not a strong future in the US? Some goes for the Tomahawk, and the Skipper the asking and selling prices are up there... there is a market for an inexpensive, cheap to keep, fun to own scoot-about of a plane that has some legs for a 300-400 mile x-country...

The addressable market for a $30K airplane is much larger than that for a $150K airplane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Interesting. Limited to ~25 units/year and the first ones will be available in the first half of 2020.

Piper also just announced their largest order ever - For 240 Archers and Seminoles.

If you go to Piper's web site, clicking on Models->Pilot 100 gives you a 404 error... Not found.

 

[Ventucky Red]

The addressable market for a $30K airplane is much larger than that for a $150K airplane.

So are the $40K, $50K, $60K markets... But I degrees, if Cessna, Piper, Beechcaft address the sub $175K market with new aircraft that would do what to the used market? Make it more realistic?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Anybody here working for the same wages/salary/benefits/payroll deductions as the better part of a century ago?

Inflation calculators do a pretty good job of bringing the cost from 1970's dollars into current. If we take a 1970 C172 @ $14K sale price, that converts to $91K in today's price. So add another $40K worth of labor cost to it if you think inflation doesn't cover enough of the current labor rate. Either way, the math doesn't add up that they'd have to sell them for $300K+ when it's the same damn plane they've been making for 60+ years.

The 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act limited it to 18 years - There hasn't been any "progress" since then. But, the GARA is what allowed Cirrus and Diamond to come on the scene and Cessna to begin producing airplanes again.

That's what I recall, which is why it amazes me that there would be such a large legal liability for the few number of aircraft that Cessna has produced essentially since the re-start C172R. I suppose it comes down to how much exposure they want to calculate and attribute to each air-frame produced.

You are seriously undervaluing the labor involved in the manufacture process. Even a Van's kit on their own website says 2000 man hours to complete. That is one person, employed full time, for a year, in a skilled labor position. Figure closer to $60k salary, plus benefits, make it $75k a year in labor costs. And that is for just one person. Not to mention Piper and Cessna are offering a much more refined final product than a lot of experimentals are, so even more labor and costs. Tack on certification compliance, insurance, and overhead, its not hard to realize why a new factory aircraft cost what it does. Raw materials are just the start and only a small percentage of the total costs. Building GA aircraft is not as profitable as you would think. Why else do you think GA manufacturing is so low?

Not to come off offensive, but do you work in manufacturing? Raw materials make up over half of the estimated cost. Well, the Pa28/C172 has been certified for a few decades now, I doubt there's much cost left to absorb. I will admit I have no idea what the cost of "compliance" with that certification since that should mainly consist of proper documentation. Van's 2,000hrs is average for one guy working in a shop trying to figure out how to read/interpret drawings and instructions, learning assembly/fabrication techniques, and generally just getting everything organized and set up. That isn't how you design an assembly line/manufacturing cell. You have flow, you minimize unnecessary movement of people/materials, you have jigs/stations which are designed to simply and speed up the assembly process. I said they could probably be done in under 1,000 man-hours, which translates to a team of 8 guys working 40hr work weeks for 3 weeks. If each guy is making roughly $20/hr, that translates to total salary/benefits of somewhere around $35-40K over that 3 week span. So my math above still holds that with $110K in materials cost and $40K of labor, they should be able to come in at a cost of $150K or less. Now, after they allocate all of their overhead expenses in, they may come up with a drastically different cost.

Personal example: I have a friend who has built his 3rd Carbon Cub. The first one took him 700hrs to complete. The second, 500hrs. The 3rd, 450hrs. The more times you repeat the process, the quicker you get, as you have the process down to an art. Same goes for making a homogeneous C172/PA28/M20.

 

[TCABM]

...I said they could probably be done in under 1,000 man-hours, which translates to a team of 8 guys working 40hr work weeks for 3 weeks.

Considering Boeing builds a 737 in nine days and pumps out 40+ per month, I’d bet there aren’t much more than 1,000 man hours in a -172.

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/boeing-builds-737-just-nine-days/

 

[Ventucky Red]

Not to come off offensive, but do you work in manufacturing? Raw materials make up over half of the estimated cost. Well, the Pa28/C172 has been certified for a few decades now, I doubt there's much cost left to absorb. I will admit I have no idea what the cost of "compliance" with that certification since that should mainly consist of proper documentation.

Add in the fact there have been vast improvements in manufacturing technique since the first PA28 rolled of the line in Loch Haven that may have taken some of the intensive out of the labor intensive process. Also these were being made in South America as well. I wonder how many "knock down kits" could be made elsewhere and shipped here for final assembly..

 

[Kenny Phillips]

So are the $40K, $50K, $60K markets... But I degrees, if Cessna, Piper, Beechcaft address the sub $175K market with new aircraft that would do what to the used market? Make it more realistic?

The used market is realistic. Heck, you can buy a 340-kt twin-turboprop Cheyenne 400 for about what a late-model SR22 goes for. Free market forces at work! And remember the Cessna and Beechcraft are both parts of Textron, so don't expect much there.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Add in the fact there have been vast improvements in manufacturing technique since the first PA28 rolled of the line in Loch Haven that may have taken some of the intensive out of the labor intensive process. Also these were being made in South America as well. I wonder how many "knock down kits" could be made elsewhere and shipped here for final assembly..

It's rather labor intensive to drill, debur, dimple, and drive ten thousand rivets. Perhaps the drilling is easier, with today's CNC stuff, but even a C-150 would take quite a few human-hours to build. No "vast improvement" until you get robots involved, which means mass production, not a few dozen a year.

 

[jallen0]

I calculated a passenger / baggage load of 558 lbs after a full tank of fuel is loaded. Not sure why you need a third seat, doesn't seem like you can carry anyone with it.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I calculated a passenger / baggage load of 558 lbs after a full tank of fuel is loaded. Not sure why you need a third seat, doesn't seem like you can carry anyone with it.

558 lbs is plenty to carry three people. You just gotta choose the people! My Skyhawk held 660 lbs with full tanks, and I had four people in it more than once.