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

MountainDude

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
948
Display Name

Display name:
MountainDude
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.
 
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.
Define "better".

I can proclaim anything to be better so long as I get to choose the metric.
 
Define "better".

I can proclaim anything to be better so long as I get to choose the metric.
You are right. This Tecnam is better than a C182 in the ceiling, range, ease of engine operation and efficiency.
The C182 is better in useful load, climb rate, takeoff/landing distance, and luggage space.
So yes, some good progress, but not nearly as much as comparing a 1970s sedan to today's cars.

I actually think that this plane is great for certain missions, like long range XC for 2 people and lots of gear.
 
There simply aren't enough single engine pistons made the justify the R&D costs. Cars benefit from a worldwide production volume of 60+ million per year. The auto market is much more competitive, too.

Volume is also the reason why smartphones caught up and even exceeded DSLRs so rapidly. We've been making over a billion phones a year for nearly a decade. Over the same time, DSLRs declined from 15+ million to around 5 million.

What is Lycoming's R&D budget per unit compared to Toyota or Apple?

[My post intends to expand conversation on this topic, not impugn your opinion or otherwise say you wrong.]
 
There simply aren't enough single engine pistons made the justify the R&D costs. Cars benefit from a worldwide production volume of 60+ million per year. The auto market is much more competitive, too.

Volume is also the reason why smartphones caught up and even exceeded DSLRs so rapidly. We've been making over a billion phones a year for nearly a decade. Over the same time, DSLRs declined from 15+ million to around 5 million.

What is Lycoming's R&D budget per unit compared to Toyota or Apple?

[My post intends to expand conversation on this topic, not impugn your opinion or otherwise say you wrong.]
Good points. I guess that Cessna 182 (and similar planes) reached almost a perfection in terms of aerodynamics and lift, and Lyc/Con's engines are nearly as efficient as gas engines can be, so there is really not much room for improvement.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
True, but all those things can be added to a C182 just as well as the new Tecnam. My point was that their new plane has not made much progress since 50 years ago.
 
You are right. This Tecnam is better than a C182 in the ceiling, range, ease of engine operation and efficiency.
The C182 is better in useful load, climb rate, takeoff/landing distance, and luggage space.
So yes, some good progress, but not nearly as much as comparing a 1970s sedan to today's cars.

I actually think that this plane is great for certain missions, like long range XC for 2 people and lots of gear.
I cruise at the same speed, and have 88 gal usable, so probably close to the same range. I have their useful load beat by ~475lbs. The Tecnam is probably more comfortable though.
 
I cruise at the same speed, and have 88 gal usable, so probably close to the same range. I have their useful load beat by ~475lbs. The Tecnam is probably more comfortable though.
And you have an extra half-million $ or so left over to spend on other stuff now…
 
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.
It's not hard to take a 50-year-old 182 and add all that stuff. A new 182 already includes most of it from the factory.
 
New planes can be heavier also. I remember years ago comparing a new $300k Archer at Oshkosh to an older Cherokee 180. At the time the older 180 could be had around $40k or so.
Most would like that ‘new plane smell’ no doubt.
 
New planes can be heavier also. I remember years ago comparing a new $300k Archer at Oshkosh to an older Cherokee 180. At the time the older 180 could be had around $40k or so.
Most would like that ‘new plane smell’ no doubt.
What about maintenance and reliability?

It would seem (though I'd love to see some data) that a new plane is less likely to hit the owner with an unexpected $75K annual, and I would expect the dispatch rate to be higher, since every part in it is new and ostensibly under some sort of warranty.
 
What about maintenance and reliability?

It would seem (though I'd love to see some data) that a new plane is less likely to hit the owner with an unexpected $75K annual, and I would expect the dispatch rate to be higher, since every part in it is new and ostensibly under some sort of warranty.

On the other side of this argument is the parts availability (finding/timing/cost) and almost universal knowledge among A&Ps how to work on the older stuff. There are a lot of them flying.

Also, all of the ADs are out on the old stuff. The new plane is possibly going to take some new blood and souls, statistically speaking, before the real kinks are found and worked out.
 
Wow, is 90% power typical cruise for these diesel engines?
I don't know about aviation diesels, but I have experience with GM (Detroit Diesel) marine engines. We ran a pair of 6V53's wide open for a cumulative 2000 hours. They were not new when we bought that boat, and when we sold it the total hours was near 7000. No major repairs. Hella stout engines.

Of course they were very heavily built.

Light duty for those engines was use in a city bus.

-Skip

@455 Bravo Uniform
 
On the other side of this argument is the parts availability (finding/timing/cost) and almost universal knowledge among A&Ps how to work on the older stuff. There are a lot of them flying.
Tecnam isn't exactly a rare breed. I'd also suggest that finding the specific part for a C310B or J35 Bonanza isn't necessarily as easy as ordering from an in-production parts catalog.
Also, all of the ADs are out on the old stuff. The new plane is possibly going to take some new blood and souls, statistically speaking, before the real kinks are found and worked out.
Good point....but: From the recent AD changes to the Piper wing spar issue, it seems that we're still finding kinks in 50+ year old PA28s....
 
What about maintenance and reliability?
The one thing some people overlook on "new" aircraft is they are no longer certified to CAR3 or CAR13. So its always important to see how the Part 23 or Part 33 requirements change the maintenance side. For example, a quick look to the Airworthiness Limitations Section for this Continental CD-170 shows a few mandatory requirements not found on previous CAR13 engines and especially Section 5.1.6.

that a new plane is less likely to hit the owner with an unexpected $75K annual,
FWIW: $75K annuals are directly proportional to how the owner(s) maintained the aircraft. Know a number of 50+ year old aircraft that the annual is little more than a formality as they are maintained at the proper level.

it seems that we're still finding kinks in 50+ year old PA28s....
I don't have access to a P2010 mx manual but I would hazard to guess if you look in the ALS there probably already is a mechanism in place to prevent the cause of the Piper AD via either a service life limit or mandatory inspection requirement. Piper's 50+ year old design simply aged out.
 
It's not hard to take a 50-year-old 182 and add all that stuff. A new 182 already includes most of it from the factory.

Of course, but that doesn't support "Other things in life (cars, homes, electronics...) have gotten soooo much better, but that does not apply to aviation.". If anything it highlights how much it has changed...
 
and I would expect the dispatch rate to be higher, since every part in it is new and ostensibly under some sort of warranty.

Maybe.

I trained in Tecnam LSAs and I recall several times when a plane was grounded for weeks while we waited on some small part, like a flap motor or a switch, to arrive from Italy.
 
A few of the composite or composite fuselage/aluminum wing planes are so slippery they get close to 6 cylinder cruise performance with a 4 cylinder engine. Tough to beat the grunt of the O-470 and the like for climb performance and high density altitude work.

Always thought the P2010 should have been a Textron/Cessna next gen 172. It the plane Cessna should have built. They could have pulled off a 6 cylinder/4 cylinder option like Cirrus. The P2010 with a 230 Hp engine would be amazing.
 
my quick google search showed these numbers.... (was trying for base model price for 182 and F-150)


182 F-150 Median Home price
1974 New price ~15,000 3,282 37,000
1974 Adj 2023 95,000 20,971 236,430
2023 Price 600,000 37,000 412,000

So... if the 182 had maintained its price relative to an F-150, it would be around 200k? And it's 600k.
 
So... if the 182 had maintained its price relative to an F-150, it would be around 200k? And it's 600k.
So, what are the sources of the above-inflation price growth?

> Regulation compliance costs?
> Litigation funding?
> New technology requirements?
> Lack of manufacturing scale?

It's not higher performance, because the new planes of the same model really haven't improved their performance much, if any. [In comparison, the truck's performance is vastly improved.]

It's not excess profits, because Textron's profitability is less than 10% of sales, which is reasonable and presumably not much different from prior years. It's also consistent across the industry, so if it were just a couple of big corporate entities smaller companies would be able to undercut them...and that isn't happening.

Most of these increases (save scale) are also present in the truck (ABS, engine controls, automated everything, airbags, etc.), so...? I can see the lack of scale making a big difference, but 200%?

Something is wrong here.
 
Most of these increases (save scale) are also present in the truck (ABS, engine controls, automated everything, airbags, etc.), so...? I can see the lack of scale making a big difference, but 200%?

Wouldn't 200% be a new price of $400k? At $600, that's 300%. I think?

P.S. Unless this is a confusion of English...
 
Something is wrong here.
Not really. Basically, the market for Cessna 182s significantly decreased and the market for the F150 significantly increased during that time period. Different economies of scale. For example, in 2023, 1,113 single-engine, piston aircraft were shipped in the US of which 66 were Cessna 182s. In 1974, 11,562 single-engine, piston aircraft were shipped. The public data didn't get model specific until a number of years later. But you see the difference.

So in general the current price is based more on supply/demand than anything else since only 66 were made last year. Now if the market, i.e., you and your fellow aviators, were to expand the demand for more aircraft closer to the 1974 numbers, then you might see Cessna react in the right direction. They did when certain parts of the market literally took-off and Textron responded with 2 clean-sheet designs in the Sky Courier and Denali.
 
Now if the market, i.e., you and your fellow aviators, were to expand the demand for more aircraft closer to the 1974 numbers, then you might see Cessna react in the right direction.
:yeahthat:


I really think part of what's keeping demand low for recreational GA airplanes is that the used market is meeting most of the demand. Lots of those 1974 aircraft are still flying, but there aren't many 1974 F-150s on the road. Since planes can be maintained in airworthy condition, and they can be upgraded with new avionics and so forth for far less money than buying new, the used market competes directly with the new market at a great financial advantage.
 
:yeahthat:


I really think part of what's keeping demand low for recreational GA airplanes is that the used market is meeting most of the demand. Lots of those 1974 aircraft are still flying, but there aren't many 1974 F-150s on the road. Since planes can be maintained in airworthy condition, and they can be upgraded with new avionics and so forth for far less money than buying new, the used market competes directly with the new market at a great financial advantage.
That's right. But, imagine the cost to keep a 1974 182 airworthy over the last 50 years. I'd wager it would be pretty darn close to 1/2 million dollars. Add in the avionics upgrades, and it's a lot more.

What's my point? I'm not sure. But it's interesting to think about.

I guess one point would be that (hopefully) somebody else spent that 1/2 million dollars already when you buy the 182 used, so you're getting a $600k plane for a lot less than that.
 
Last edited:
That's right. But, imagine the cost to keep a 1974 182 airworthy over the last 50 years. I'd wager it would be pretty darn close to 1/2 million dollars. Add in the avionics upgrades, and it's a lot more.

What's my point? I'm not sure. But it's interesting to think about.

Unless there was some sort of accident, I doubt it's quite that high. I'll take a SWAG at some very rough numbers.

Let's say the 50-year-old plane has had two major overhauls. That's maybe $60k-$70k in 2024 dollars. Say the annuals have averaged $2k, so 50 years is $100k. Add in a few big ticket items, like a major repair or two and a new radio, and maybe there's another $50k, so we're around $210k. $4.2k per year.

Suppose a pilot decides to buy a plane. A new one might cost him half a million, and ten years later he can sell it for about half that. Plus he's incurred maintenance costs all along, just like the guy with a new plane, but maybe they've run a bit less, so let's SWAG $3.5k per year instead of $4.2k. Or, he can buy the 50-year-old plane for, say, $100k and spend $4.2k per year maintaining it. Ten years later he can sell it for what it cost him, roughly, as it was fully depreciated when he bought it.

So the cost of 10 years of flying will be $285k with the new plane (most of the hit being depreciation), or $42k to fly the old plane.

Very rough numbers, of course, but they illustrate the nature of the problem. The new plane won't have significantly better performance than the old one (and might have less). Plus, the owner of the old plane can choose to pour some of his savings into a refresh and have a vehicle that's almost as nice as the brand new one.

When you do a little cost analysis, it's pretty difficult for the typical weekend pilot to justify a new plane. New planes make more sense for commercial use, like flight schools or charter operations, and when they decide to sell there's plenty of demand for their used planes.
 
Unless there was some sort of accident, I doubt it's quite that high. I'll take a SWAG at some very rough numbers.

Let's say the 50-year-old plane has had two major overhauls. That's maybe $60k-$70k in 2024 dollars. Say the annuals have averaged $2k, so 50 years is $100k. Add in a few big ticket items, like a major repair or two and a new radio, and maybe there's another $50k, so we're around $210k. $4.2k per year.

Suppose a pilot decides to buy a plane. A new one might cost him half a million, and ten years later he can sell it for about half that. Plus he's incurred maintenance costs all along, just like the guy with a new plane, but maybe they've run a bit less, so let's SWAG $3.5k per year instead of $4.2k. Or, he can buy the 50-year-old plane for, say, $100k and spend $4.2k per year maintaining it. Ten years later he can sell it for what it cost him, roughly, as it was fully depreciated when he bought it.

So the cost of 10 years of flying will be $285k with the new plane (most of the hit being depreciation), or $42k to fly the old plane.

Very rough numbers, of course, but they illustrate the nature of the problem. The new plane won't have significantly better performance than the old one (and might have less). Plus, the owner of the old plane can choose to pour some of his savings into a refresh and have a vehicle that's almost as nice as the brand new one.

When you do a little cost analysis, it's pretty difficult for the typical weekend pilot to justify a new plane. New planes make more sense for commercial use, like flight schools or charter operations, and when they decide to sell there's plenty of demand for their used planes.
You've had plenty of issues with yours already, but I guess you haven't owned it long enough yet to understand. lol I've easily spent $10k a year on average between maintenance and avionics upgrades. With paint, you've averaged more than that, and you're not even up to latest gen avionics.
 
New planes can be heavier also.
Yes... When I was shopping for a club plane about 15 years ago, I was surprised by how bad the useful load of some of the new birds was. They all got heavier, but at least Cessna kept pace by increasing their max gross weight accordingly, while others were down to 500 pounds or so of payload.
What about maintenance and reliability?

It would seem (though I'd love to see some data) that a new plane is less likely to hit the owner with an unexpected $75K annual, and I would expect the dispatch rate to be higher, since every part in it is new and ostensibly under some sort of warranty.
My plane is 27 years old, a baby when it comes to GA. It has definitely given me excellent reliability. However, older aircraft that are frequently flown and well maintained can do the same.
I trained in Tecnam LSAs and I recall several times when a plane was grounded for weeks while we waited on some small part, like a flap motor or a switch, to arrive from Italy.
Any aircraft that is manufactured outside the US and doesn't have a parts distribution warehouse in the US - So, anything manufactured outside the US that is piston powered - is going to have this issue. We occasionally had to wait a few extra days for Diamond parts to clear customs. It shouldn't be weeks, but it won't be overnight either.
Not really. Basically, the market for Cessna 182s significantly decreased and the market for the F150 significantly increased during that time period. Different economies of scale. For example, in 2023, 1,113 single-engine, piston aircraft were shipped in the US of which 66 were Cessna 182s. In 1974, 11,562 single-engine, piston aircraft were shipped. The public data didn't get model specific until a number of years later. But you see the difference.

So in general the current price is based more on supply/demand than anything else since only 66 were made last year. Now if the market, i.e., you and your fellow aviators, were to expand the demand for more aircraft closer to the 1974 numbers, then you might see Cessna react in the right direction. They did when certain parts of the market literally took-off and Textron responded with 2 clean-sheet designs in the Sky Courier and Denali.
Sad, but true. And we're in a downward spiral that will continue unless something significant is done to change the math. I would guess that, roughly speaking, every time you double the price, you decrease the size of the addressable market by an order of magnitude. One of the things I took away from the movie One Six Right was that one of the people they interviewed was a local news anchor, who went out and bought a brand new Beech Bonanza in 1974. Today, a new Bo costs well north of a million dollars, and there are zero local news anchors who are going to be affording one.

It's definitely not all attributable to the size of the market, though - Our $200K adjusted 182 probably would cost $400K due to the small market size and costs $600K due to increased liability concerns.
 
You've had plenty of issues with yours already, but I guess you haven't owned it long enough yet to understand. lol I've easily spent $10k a year on average between maintenance and avionics upgrades. With paint, you've averaged more than that, and you're not even up to latest gen avionics.

LOL! Maybe not.

But even with the paint I haven't hit 10k/yr yet. And having a new radio, audio panel, and my iFly, the avionics are just fine. I'm happy with steam guages, but if/when I need to replace them I'll probably just drop in a G5. And even if I do some more upgrades, I doubt I'll average 10k a year.

But that's all beside the point. Even at $10k/yr, the older plane will come up better. And if I was light on my maintenance estimate for the old one, I'm probably light on the new one, too.
 
LOL! Maybe not.

But even with the paint I haven't hit 10k/yr yet. And having a new radio, audio panel, and my iFly, the avionics are just fine. I'm happy with steam guages, but if/when I need to replace them I'll probably just drop in a G5. And even if I do some more upgrades, I doubt I'll average 10k a year.

But that's all beside the point. Even at $10k/yr, the older plane will come up better. And if I was light on my maintenance estimate for the old one, I'm probably light on the new one, too.
I think you have to factor the cost of modern avionics for it to be a fair comparison.
 
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.
 
I think you have to factor the cost of modern avionics for it to be a fair comparison.

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.
 
Back
Top