A brand new plane still not better than a 50+ year old Cessna 182

chemgeek said:
I think most 40-50 year old planes, like mine, are basically the "Ship of Theseus." The panel and many of the parts no longer look anything like the original.
Click to expand...

I don’t know that it’s “most” but it’s certainly not rare.
 
Half Fast said:
I’m not trying to equate the planes, I’m merely demonstrating why a buyer is likely to choose the older one with the resulting impact on the new airplane market. Many buyers of old aircraft don’t replace the entire panel like you do.
Click to expand...
But I’m agreeing with you on the larger point. It’s cheaper to buy a used aircraft and upgrade it than to buy the new one. All the more so if you can find one someone did for you.
 
I do not see many take off or landing that represents traveling, as opposed to training for professional careers. No luggage into or out of the planes.

At our airport, there is a sign in sign out log, and most of the flights originate here, and terminate here, same day.

Primary training is forbidden, so the flying is for advanced ratings.

The airspace around many airports is clogged with local traffic, the airways below oxygen altitude is mostly empty.

Most travel today is either by car, or commercial air service.

That is a continuing trend, and the market for personal transport planes is not going to increase.

In the '70s, CGS to STL by airline for my wife and I plus our two children was twice as much as the club Cessna 172,

Today, the reverse is true, flying the Cessna is twice the airline fare, all costs included.

20 years after I earned my certificate, my oldest son earned his, but soon realized the economics had turned the wrong way, and quit flying.

That is the reality the manufacturers are seeing, and spending R&D accordingly.
 
geezer said:
In the '70s, CGS to STL by airline for my wife and I plus our two children was twice as much as the club Cessna 172,

Today, the reverse is true, flying the Cessna is twice the airline fare, all costs included.
Click to expand...
That's definitely the trend in commercial airline pricing.

In the early 90s, I paid ~$350 for a basic domestic round trip fare on Delta. Today it's $400-$450 - well below inflation.

So, we should blame all of GAs problems on Southwest, RyanAir and ValuJet.
 
I do not blame Southwest, I fly them. Alleviates most of the weather problems.:)
 
chemgeek said:
I think most 40-50 year old planes, like mine, are basically the "Ship of Theseus." The panel and many of the parts no longer look anything like the original.
Click to expand...

Agree! My '78 Skyhawk is going in sometime in the next two weeks for it's second avionics upgrade. I wonder upgrades will be available in 20 years???
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, we should blame all of GAs problems on Southwest, RyanAir and ValuJet.
Click to expand...
If want to get technical you need to blame the Deregulation Act and Peoples Express. Regardless, the demise of recreational GA was more directly due to liability costs and the beginning of a decline in interest around the same time.
 
idahoflier said:
It's kind of subjective, but overall I disagree. 50 years ago there was no GPS, ADSB, iPads, SiriusXM, Bluetooth, WiFi, noise cancelling headsets, flat panel displays, engine monitors, ballistic parachutes, LED lights, affordable and reliable 2 and 3-axis autopilots, etc. If you consider what GA was in 1974 to what it is now, I think it's astounding how far it has come.
Click to expand...
50 years ago the best tech was added to new planes, same as today. And at the same price - whatever the market will bear. So that's a wash.
 
I recently weighed flying myself or airline to Houston for a wedding this weekend. While weather uncertainty far out is always a factor, it was the cost that sealed the deal.

The money I save on avgas will be spent on upgrades (which is ironic to invest more money in this trap, lol). Airline was $122 roundtrip non-stop (not counting car gas and parking) vs over $1,000 avgas (no FBO fees or parking/hangaring).

Plus, got family commitments on either side of the trip that make get-there-itis a factor.

Still, I’m bummed about it. Love GA.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Airline was $122 roundtrip non-stop (not counting car gas and parking) vs over $1,000 avgas (no FBO fees or parking/hangaring).
Click to expand...
Comparing a ticket price by itself to what you'll spend in avgas is not going to give you the right answer in either direction. Unless you compare all the costs, you're only looking at part of the picture.

For the GA side, there's also (potentially) fees and such to deal with. There are additional costs to flying that you may want to consider, such as an engine reserve if you keep one. I do *not*, however, believe that any fixed costs should be incorporated into the decision as those are already sunk.

But then for the airline side, there's parking, there's rental car (may be different than GA), there's potentially extra hotel days, and of course if you care to figure it in, there's your time and the extra fun of airline travel you'll encounter - Crammed into a tiny seat, maybe next to a screaming baby or a sick guy, TSA fun, no control over canceled/delayed flights, etc...

Longer distances are usually harder to justify via GA, but if you're gonna compare, do the whole comparison. GA is best at trips that are maybe 125 miles on up to 800nm or about 2x your plane's cruise speed * your bladder's endurance, whichever is lower.
 
Why are we comparing a P2010 to a 182?
 
Because it seems pretty clearly to be a competitor to the 172.
 
It's somewhere in between the 172 and 182. Here are the MTOWs:

C172 2550#
P2010 Gran Lusso 2690#
C182 3100#
 
MountainDude said:
Fancy and beautiful, but still not as good as a 50+ year old Cessna 182. Other things in life (cars, homes, electronics...) have gotten soooo much better, but that does not apply to aviation.
Click to expand...
Imagine where we'd be if we only had a "Federal Automotive Administration". Crank starters and chrome tailfins!

chemgeek said:
I think most 40-50 year old planes, like mine, are basically the "Ship of Theseus." The panel and many of the parts no longer look anything like the original.
Click to expand...
What about the parts you can't see? The motor, in particular. Horizontally opposed, air-cooled, magneto-fired...
 
MountainDude said:
Both are 4 seat, ~140 kt planes. Why not?
Click to expand...
Because a better comparison would be a 50 year old 182P to a brand new 182T. If you want to deviate from the thread title, then you could also compare a brand new 182T to a brand new P2010.
 
idahoflier said:
Agree! My '78 Skyhawk is going in sometime in the next two weeks for it's second avionics upgrade. I wonder upgrades will be available in 20 years???
Click to expand...
So, over nearly 40 years, I have rebuilt wheel pants, new spinner, mostly all new plastic fairings, new windshield, all new interior plastic and interior, LED replacement lighting (for all but one light), wing tanks sealed 3 times, 2 sets of new fuel senders, new engine with all new parts and accessories, new starter, STC modified engine and new prop, and avionics went from Narco VORs and switching panel to LORAN to IFR-GPS, with ADS-B, autopilot, and EFIS (G5s) added. It seems like it never ends! All that's left that's original is the basic airframe. Flying it now is like cheating compared to what it was like when I got my IFR ticket in 1989.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top