Paul B. on engines

[SoonerAviator]

Lets talk about those batteries as a canonical example. Say you've got a boat with a lead acid battery, and you need to replace it every 3 or 4 years. That battery costs something like $200. The airplane equivalent of that battery also needs replacing every 3 or 4 years. It costs $600, so roughly 3x the cost. And if you want to upgrade that battery in your boat, just make sure it fits in the box. The airplane guy needs an STC (many AMU's probably) and and A&P to install it. Its a small example but an instructive one.

Right, but you're replacing $600 worth of batteries in the boat because electric trolling motors are usually on a 36V bank. So, the cost is the same no matter whether it's marine or aviation. Sure, the certificated part is true in aviation, but if you buy that RV-7 instead of the PA28 you can put whatever battery you want in it. The costs are comparable.

 

[Grum.Man]

Are we talking about outboard engines that cost $25K+ to replace? $300+ monthly slip rental? Lower unit oil changes/maintenance? Dinged up $400 stainless props? New batteries every 3-4 years (usually 3-4 of them in a fishing rig)? It's not as if those in boating don't talk about BOAT = Break Out Another Thousand the same way we talk about money in AMUs. I'm not saying the costs are EXACTLY the same, but they are close enough in many instances to use as a comparison of "hobby costs". The main difference, is that everyone spouts off about the $40K engine overhaul every 2K hours as this expense that is just going to hit everyone. The boating guys don't really worry about that $25K powerhead on their 300HP outboard engine the way we fret about the cost of an engine failure at any given moment. Even though, on an hours of use basis, they're pretty comparable in many instances.

The vast majority of boat owners aren’t keeping their boat in a 300 slip. It’s on a trailer at their house or in a 100 per month storage lot. Also, when you spend 100k on a new boat you are all but guaranteed 5-10 years of no major expense unless you totally neglect and abuse it. Most boat owners will spend an hour or less of gas taking their 5+ friends for an afternoon of fun. That same 100k buys an old airplane that could possibly need another 30-65k in expense over the next 5-10 years no matter how well you treat it. You will likely burn 4+ hours of gas to take 2-3 friends somewhere where you will spend more money to have fun. While the initial buy in is similar, the ongoing cost is no where close between the two for most people.

now if you’ve got a 40+ foot boat in Florida that you spent 400k on then I could see the point.

 

[SoonerAviator]

The vast majority of boat owners aren’t keeping their boat in a 300 slip. It’s on a trailer at their house or in a 100 per month storage lot. Also, when you spend 100k on a new boat you are all but guaranteed 5-10 years of no major expense unless you totally neglect and abuse it. Most boat owners will spend an hour or less of gas taking their 5+ friends for an afternoon of fun. That same 100k buys an old airplane that could possibly need another 30-65k in expense over the next 5-10 years no matter how well you treat it. You will likely burn 4+ hours of gas to take 2-3 friends somewhere where you will spend more money to have fun. While the initial buy in is similar, the ongoing cost is no where close between the two for most people.

now if you’ve got a 40+ foot boat in Florida that you spent 400k on then I could see the point.

Sounds like a lot of uncertainty there. If everyone with a $50K C172 has to drop $30-65K in major repair expenses over 5 years, no one would fly them. You're using extreme examples to magnify the potential impact of aviation expenses. I'm not arguing that aviation isn't expensive, it is. I'd like to know who can burn an hour of gas in a boat for an afternoon of fun. My boat is relatively miserly, and I'll go through 15-20 gallons over the course of a day pulling skiers, tubes, and cruising. Sure, I'm not paying $5/gallon for AvGas, but I'm burning 91/93 octane at about the same volume of as the typical $100 hamburger run would in a C172 or similar. We're not comparing running a typical 20-25' center console to running an SR22, we're talking about older aircraft in average shape. The average boater isn't dropping $100K on a boat anyway, so I'm not sure why the initial capital cost comparison keeps rising. The average new boat cost is around $50K.

 

[Grum.Man]

Sounds like a lot of uncertainty there. If everyone with a $50K C172 has to drop $30-65K in major repair expenses over 5 years, no one would fly them. You're using extreme examples to magnify the potential impact of aviation expenses. I'm not arguing that aviation isn't expensive, it is. I'd like to know who can burn an hour of gas in a boat for an afternoon of fun. My boat is relatively miserly, and I'll go through 15-20 gallons over the course of a day pulling skiers, tubes, and cruising. Sure, I'm not paying $5/gallon for AvGas, but I'm burning 91/93 octane at about the same volume of as the typical $100 hamburger run would in a C172 or similar. We're not comparing running a typical 20-25' center console to running an SR22, we're talking about older aircraft in average shape.

At least around here a boating day for most people is a 15 minute run to the local party cove or sandy beach for an afternoon of grilling, floating, and drinking. I added 30 minutes for water sports lol. Sure I used worse case examples but those worst cases happen a lot more frequent in aviation. Just pointing out that the average family that can afford a 100k “toy” will not spend anywhere near aviation money on boat expenses. The exception being the outliers such as a 1-2 place experimental that’s fairly new, or a 40+ foot boat.

 

[George Mohr]

If everyone with a $50K C172 has to drop $30-65K in major repair expenses over 5 years, no one would fly them.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I bet you the average amount that the average owner pumps into their older 172 is right about in that range. If they are not, they are either extremely lucky, or just letting the airplane slip.

 

[Grum.Man]

Not to mention if finances get tight for a month or a few months, my boat isn’t costing me a dime nor is it deteriorating by sitting idle in my garage. Every month my airplane sits at the airport it cost me $300.00. That’s also another month closer to condition inspection/annual. That’s also another month of GPS database updates, transponder certification, bi annual flight review. Now my precious engine is on the clock for corrosion potential.

 

[Dan Thomas]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I bet you the average amount that the average owner pumps into their older 172 is right about in that range. If they are not, they are either extremely lucky, or just letting the airplane slip.

They're letting it slip. I've worked on enough $50K airplanes that have had their maintenance shorted because the owner can't afford it, and eventually he sells it to some guy who has a different, often more conscientious mechanic who finds those horror stories that can add up to $30K. If the inspection panels, carpet and floor panels, and some of the interior aren't being removed at annual, stuff will go unseen and unaddressed. The whole "it'll be OK for another year" becomes SOP for ten or 15 years, and there you have it.

 

[George Mohr]

I know you are right, and I can't understand it. You put your friends and family in this thing.

 

[Doc Holliday]

It sounds tacky but GA needs to be made sexy again

People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on all sorts of stupid hobbies, there's plenty of money out there, and even people without money, there's practically free money out there with absurdly low interest rates

People also HATE traveling on the airlines. So there's a market out there somewhere. But no one has the desire (and capital) to crack it and make it happen. Like Paul said, you need sheer F*****G will

Funny, I was watching an Aerostar Jet video and the dude in the right seat goes "wow, this feels like my Tesla!" that's exactly what you need to go for.

GA will never be that. It’s a hobby with lots of regulation, and a regulated process for airman certification. To many, that’s a turnoff.

Take recreational boating. Buy the boat, take a weekend course and one is good to go. Want something bigger and more capable? No problem.

Yes, boats are pricey, and maintenance can easily exceed the cost of maintaining an airplane. But it’s something the whole family can enjoy relatively easy.

Back to GA airplanes. An alternative to airlines? Hardly. Unless you have spare time, and then all the weather variables. Need more capability? That’s gonna cost you in equipment, training, maintenance,fuel, insurance and more airman certification. And even with that, you are going to have times where you are still sitting on the ground waiting out weather.

I was fortunate to learn and live through the good times of GA (for me late 60’s thru the early 80’s) where flight schools thrived, GA airports were busy and it was a great experience.

But times have changed. In today’s world we can airline almost anywhere at a much lower cost than decades ago, with more frequency. This along with many other factors has put GA on the decline.

Today’s GA is dominated by old airplanes, many well passed their prime. And Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beech etc never envisioned these planes being in use for the decades they’ve seen.

 

[Bell206]

I can't understand it

It's one of the mysteries of aircraft ownership. I know/knew owners of means ($$$) who would not spend an extra nickel on their aircraft but would throw away major money at their vehicles or other play toys. I could not understand it either and I've been in the industry going on 40 years.

 

[NordicDave]

It sounds tacky but GA needs to be made sexy again

I’m a 55-year-old guy who still has his hair and he owns his own Cessna. Pretty damn sexy!

Anyone else part of this club?

 

[FormerHangie]

GA will never be that. It’s a hobby with lots of regulation, and a regulated process for airman certification. To many, that’s a turnoff.

Take recreational boating. Buy the boat, take a weekend course and one is good to go. Want something bigger and more capable? No problem.

Yes, boats are pricey, and maintenance can easily exceed the cost of maintaining an airplane. But it’s something the whole family can enjoy relatively easy.

Back to GA airplanes. An alternative to airlines? Hardly. Unless you have spare time, and then all the weather variables. Need more capability? That’s gonna cost you in equipment, training, maintenance,fuel, insurance and more airman certification. And even with that, you are going to have times where you are still sitting on the ground waiting out weather.

I was fortunate to learn and live through the good times of GA (for me late 60’s thru the early 80’s) where flight schools thrived, GA airports were busy and it was a great experience.

But times have changed. In today’s world we can airline almost anywhere at a much lower cost than decades ago, with more frequency. This along with many other factors has put GA on the decline.

Today’s GA is dominated by old airplanes, many well passed their prime. And Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beech etc never envisioned these planes being in use for the decades they’ve seen.

I've never understood why pilots compare boats with airplanes. For most people, an airplane is a means of transportation, and a boat is something to go out on for fun. I suppose there are some passengers who enjoy flying in a GA airplane, but not all that many, for them its a means to an end.

We bought a new boat five years ago, this is season six for us, The boat was $46,000 including tax, it was a leftover 2015, it's a 21 foot bowrider with two jet drives, essentially the same as what you'd find in one of Yamaha's more powerful Waverunners. For the first four years, it needed an annual oil change and general service, which is about $400, this last year it needed spark plugs as well, about $600 for plugs and oil changes. We've have two repairs, one where we got too close to shore and sucked up some debris, it cost $120 to get that cleaned out. We also had a rubber strap break, that was $50 installed. We keep it in a dry stack, that's about $3200 per year. I suppose there are places around the U. S. where you could get a hangar for that, but Atlanta is not among them. I hear that tiedowns go for $2200 a year at some of the local airports, and hangar space would be $5500 per year. Allowing for depreciation on the boat, I think it is costing us about $6500 all told, and that's for a new nice boat that you'd be proud to own and take your friends on. What sort of aviation experience would that get me? Depending on how far I'd want to drive, that would be between 35 and 45 hours in a 40 year old Skyhawk or Cherokee. And, that would be totally an individual experience, no one else in the family would want to come. Also, I haven't flown GA in decades, I'd need to get current, and I just don't see where I could fit flight training into my schedule, not to mention it would be in the $220 - $250 per hour range.

 

[Tantalum]

The chicken - egg would be much less expensive planes to kick start things. Auto industry didn’t take off until Model T made it affordable. I phone model 1 was affordable. Etc

Vashon was trying to do that. But they're a new, untrusted name (sort of to Paul B's point, which can be extended to new planes too). The model T example is perfect, Cessna has been building the 172 since what.. 1960? I would think production could have been streamlined by now and incrementally improved to effectively have these things no just pop out of a machine (but they don't, and yes I know that's a topic for a different thread)

Flying has more barriers to entry than boating, but much of the capital/monthly expenses can be comparable.

Boat stuff is not cheap.. I'd be willing to be that yearly boat ownership, for something like a 24' center console, or a 36' sailboat, is comparable to owning a 1970s C172

That stuff is all off the charts in aviation compared to boating.

..true, to a point, but I think this:

You are fully right about the other barriers to entry though. 10k worth of training is certainly one of them!

..is a much larger barrier to entry.. even if everyone *could* afford all that stuff people would still lack the will, time, and overall intellectual investment to get there. I'm glad I got my license when I was 17.. there's not a chance in hell I could justify the time and money to that today.

prior years there many more people owning flying aircraft that new pilots would get a lot of time in the right seat before they ever initiated training formally

Indeed. I'm jealous I didn't get this when a few of my friends did. Should I spawn offspring I plan to have them in the plane basically immediately

The vast majority of boat owners aren’t keeping their boat in a 300 slip. It’s on a trailer at their house or in a 100 per month storage lot. Also, when you spend 100k on a new boat you are all but guaranteed 5-10 years of no major expense unless you totally neglect and abuse it.

If adds up in different ways though.. and depending on upkeep I bet it's not too dissimilar. Some place like Massachusetts most people have to keep their boat in a yard over the winter, which has all sorts of fees and nonsense

You put your friends and family in this thing.

Scary.. right? It's not just cosmetic, but you see some seriously dubious stuff out there

I was fortunate to learn and live through the good times of GA (for me late 60’s thru the early 80’s) where flight schools thrived, GA airports were busy and it was a great experience.

Jealous. Around here it's still fairly active.. hoping it hangs on long enough for me to share this passion with my kids some day

Today’s GA is dominated by old airplanes, many well passed their prime. And Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beech etc never envisioned these planes being in use for the decades they’ve seen.

..a testament really..

 

[farangutan]

Indeed. I'm jealous I didn't get this when a few of my friends did. Should I spawn offspring I plan to have them in the plane basically immediately

Precisely what I'm doing with my kid. I didn't have any connection to aviation growing up and so glad I got the training when I was still wet behind the ears. Took my baby up when she turned 4 weeks and have flown with her dozens of times both in the little plane and airlines in her first year. She points to planes flying and pictures of planes now at 14 months.

Back to topic.
People put uncommon engines in experimentals but most will stick with the conventional aviation engines because the kit manufacturer makes that easier. I don't blame anyone for doing that. I just see a bit of a missed opportunity to experiment with promising new systems. The new engine manufacturers should be marketing to builders to get more of their engines in experimental planes like avionics companies.

 

[DaleB]

The new engine manufacturers should be marketing to builders to get more of their engines in experimental planes like avionics companies.

They are, to the extent possible, since Experimental builders are essentially their only customers. Aeromomentum, D-Motor, UL Power, and a few others are actively marketing. They show up at Oshkosh, advertise in Kitplanes, that sort of thing. AeroVee, of course, seems to be the engine of choice for Sonex builders. It's such a low volume business, though, I can't imagine they have multimillion dollar advertising budgets and big marketing departments. Some of these operations are just a small handful of people.

 

[George Mohr]

They are, to the extent possible, since Experimental builders are essentially their only customers. Aeromomentum, D-Motor, UL Power, and a few others are actively marketing. They show up at Oshkosh, advertise in Kitplanes, that sort of thing. AeroVee, of course, seems to be the engine of choice for Sonex builders. It's such a low volume business, though, I can't imagine they have multimillion dollar advertising budgets and big marketing departments. Some of these operations are just a small handful of people.

Yeah, that's the problem. EAB is a small slice of an already low-volume market. Engines are super complex machines with huge development costs. Sure Lycoming can (and does) do models targeted only at experimentals, but they aren't clean sheet designs. The cost of that would be prohibitive, and it would still leave the giant barrier of certification costs to move it into the larger world of GA.

 

[George Mohr]

Been thinking a lot about this in the past day due to this thread. You know what I've concluded? None of us really want or need 'new' technology. What we want is an airplane just like the one we bought in 1970, but with upgraded avionics (arguably the cheapest part). And we want it for a price that is somewhat reasonable. What's reasonable? To me, a 172 or PA-28 class airplane 'should' cost about 200k. If you look at the amount of construction, the general weight of the thing in materials, you are just not talking about more than that which is in a modern sedan. It's less mass, and generally lower tech materials. There is zero built-in R&D costs, as those were paid decades ago. The only real construction issue here is that the thing is mostly hand built.

And you know what, we aren't that far off of having this exact product available on the market. Piper built the Pilot and sells the IFR capable unit with G3X for about 285k. They deliberately built it into a configuration that would not appeal to private owners (3 seats), but that fourth seat is not an expense.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...=With a base price of,the Pilot in April 2019.

So what is preventing this from actually happening? Liability. I'm convinced that is the only thing pushing the price from 200k to something like 300k. If you removed that barrier, a BUNCH of us with ancient airplanes in this class would find a way to justify 200k. I know I would.

 

[Bell206]

Liability. I'm convinced that is the only thing pushing the price from 200k to something like 300k.

It is. If you look back at the background info for the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) they detailed the liability cost out of the production costs. Until there is a tort cap on liability awards I doubt you'll ever see an "affordable" new aircraft regardless of the sales volume.

 

[George Mohr]

It is. If you look back at the background info for the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) they detailed the liability cost out of the production costs. Until there is a tort cap on liability awards I doubt you'll ever see an "affordable" new aircraft regardless of the sales volume.

Right, and by extrapolation, there's nothing that should cause a new 182 to go for something like 600k. It's just not that much 'more' airplane than this iteration of the PA-28. Textron should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Right, and by extrapolation, there's nothing that should cause a new 182 to go for something like 600k. It's just not that much 'more' airplane than this iteration of the PA-28. Textron should be ashamed of themselves.

Not sure how you are figuring that "Textron should be ashamed of themselves".

How many new 182's have been sold? These are low production and labor intensive machines to build. Should Textron "do the right thing" and produce each 182 at a substantial loss "for the good of General Aviation"?

 

[George Mohr]

If Piper can build a PA-28 for $285k, why should Cessna's 182 be over TWICE that cost? The only meaningful difference in equipment is the CS prop.

 

[Doc Holliday]

If Piper can build a PA-28 for $285k, why should Cessna's 182 be over TWICE that cost? The only meaningful difference in equipment is the CS prop.

It's called "business". Piper is not Textron, and Textron is not Piper. Each company has a staff of individuals which calculate where their profit margins are, and the cost to manufacture. Again, no company is going to cut it's throat and produce a product with a negative return. Businesses operate to provide profit to the shareholders, not as charities to hobbyist.

 

[George Mohr]

Its called "failing business", and that's why we are where we are.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Its called "failing business", and that's why we are where we are.

Nope, they aren't failing because they won't produce products at a loss. That business entity doesn't see a market and doesn't want to commit financial suicide by mass producing a product with very few buyers.

Look at the low production numbers of the other manufacturers. Think if the demand was there they would increase production?

 

[George Mohr]

@Doc Holliday I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. We all know the business is low volume, and that this fact is the cause of pretty much all the woes in GA. What we are trying to figure out is "why". The cost of new aircraft is a strong contributor. Further, If piper can produce a modern equipped four seat piston single for $285, why is Cessna priced so much higher? Nobody is asking any company to sell product at a loss, but I can't figure out why their cost is so high as to demand this sort of price for a 182, even when compared to their already high priced peers.

Edit: some research shows me that a new 172SP (very apples to apples with the new PA-28 variant) is around $400k. So please tell me why an essentially equivalent airplane should cost $125k more.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The model T example is perfect, Cessna has been building the 172 since what.. 1960? I would think production could have been streamlined by now and incrementally improved to effectively have these things no just pop out of a machine (but they don't, and yes I know that's a topic for a different thread)

1956 for the 172. In those days, airplanes and cars were assembled, mostly by hand, on an assembly line. That continued until the 1980s, when robotic welding and painting and all sorts of automated stuff took over in the auto industry. The cars had to be designed for that sort of thing, too. And that robotic equipment wasn't cheap, either. It has come down in cost but it's still expensive and it takes volumes to justify it.

The 172 (and pretty much all other airplanes) were seeing sales fall off dramatically by the time the auto industry automated. If the cost per airplane for automation was high in the '80s, it's much worse now with the tiny production numbers. And the 172 (and most others) are not designed for automated production anyway. Before I was a CPL and aircraft mechanic I worked in machine shop industry and designed and built some automated production equipment and so I understand the limitations of that stuff in relation to aircraft construction. Aircraft aluminum, for instance, is not welding-friendly. Welding upsets its alloy purity and heat-treatment at the joint, weakening it. Some will claim that stir-friction welding is the answer, but it has supposedly been the answer for 30 years and I still don't see it anywhere in GA. If it was so suitable the manufacturers would have adopted it as a cost-cutting measure.

Probably the likeliest answer will be 3D printing, but it will have to get really good and cost-effective to make it work. Not sure how well it would work building thinwalled, light, strong structures. The strength of sheet aluminum comes not only from its alloying elements, but also from being work-hardened during production, by repeatedly rolling it, and then heat-treating and aging it. 3D printing has to duplicate that strength somehow.

 

[Doc Holliday]

@Doc Holliday I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. We all know the business is low volume, and that this fact is the cause of pretty much all the woes in GA.

And you don't understand why the business is low volume. And even if you believe this is the cause of all the woes in GA, you are really off the mark.

What we are trying to figure out is "why".

Supply vs demand.

The cost of new aircraft is a strong contributor.

Once again, you fail to understand what goes into the price of production, and the responsibilities of the company to the shareholders.

Further, If piper can produce a modern equipped four seat piston single for $285, why is Cessna priced so much higher?

Because for a multitude of reasons, Textron has figured that price point is what it takes to make a profit. Anything below that number makes them reconsider whether or not to even bother with production.

Nobody is asking any company to sell product at a loss, but I can't figure out why their cost is so high as to demand this sort of price for a 182, even when compared to their already high priced peers.

But you are wanting them to sell at a loss. And you are trying to compare two totally different companies as being identical financially, which they are not.

GA has been on the decline for years and continues so. The decline is what drives the production rates down, and many companies out of business. By suddenly flooding the market with cheaper airplanes may well see a spike in activity, it will be short lived and the manufacturers will be left holding the bag, a position they don't want.

 

[SoonerAviator]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I bet you the average amount that the average owner pumps into their older 172 is right about in that range. If they are not, they are either extremely lucky, or just letting the airplane slip.

I seriously doubt it. If the average annual for a C172 costed $8-10K, no one would fly them. That's essentially what $35-$50K would amount to over a 5-yr period. Yes, there will be big bills from time-to-time, and expensive repairs every now and then. From the data I've gathered over the years, most annuals for C172-class aircraft are around $2-3K on average, most of that not being "repairs" but just inspection/annual labor. Even rental rates don't show that $35K-$50K being spent every 5 years, much less a typical private-owned C172 being flown 50hrs a year.

Not to mention if finances get tight for a month or a few months, my boat isn’t costing me a dime nor is it deteriorating by sitting idle in my garage. Every month my airplane sits at the airport it cost me $300.00. That’s also another month closer to condition inspection/annual. That’s also another month of GPS database updates, transponder certification, bi annual flight review. Now my precious engine is on the clock for corrosion potential.

Again, tens of thousands of boat-owners don't have their boat at home. They often keep them in dry storage or wet slips. Wet slips typically average $10/ft for most of the typical US inland lakes, with areas along the coast being quite a bit pricier. Even dry-docking costs can be $100-$200/mo plus fees for having it pulled/put away each time. So, even when the boat isn't being used, there is a $200-$300 cost being incurred. The two activities just aren't that dissimilar for many Americans. There will always be instances we can use to justify one being more expensive than the other, and I've sure on average, aircraft are more expensive over the long term. However, for many people, the costs can be comparable between owning a 25' boat (which most people don't have the space to store at home) and a C172 or similar.

I think where the two activities really show their differences is less about monetary cost. Boats are going to pencil-out much better because when you're on the water (even anchored) you're getting value out of the boat because the boat IS the destination. The aircraft doesn't work the same way because being IN the aircraft isn't normally what drives people to own an aircraft, it's just a mode of transportation. This reason is why the small-GA market will never look like the boating/marine world. People won't make a $50-$100K purchase of a form of transportation as readily as they will buy a day/weekend getaway/source of entertainment & leisure.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I seriously doubt it. If the average annual for a C172 costed $8-10K, no one would fly them. That's essentially what $35-$50K would amount to over a 5-yr period. Yes, there will be big bills from time-to-time, and expensive repairs every now and then. From the data I've gathered over the years, most annuals for C172-class aircraft are around $2-3K on average, most of that not being "repairs" but just inspection/annual labor. Even rental rates don't show that $35K-$50K being spent every 5 years, much less a typical private-owned C172 being flown 50hrs a year.

Wouldn't that $35-50K per 5 years include the tiedown or hangarage? You're including storage costs for the boat.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Wouldn't that $35-50K per 5 years include the tiedown or hangarage? You're including storage costs for the boat.

The original comment from @George Mohr was talking about a surprise $30-$50K AD. Then @Grum.Man brought in "could possibly need another 30-65k in expense no matter how well you treat it". So, those were described as cost over-and-above the hangar/hourly operating costs. That's the part I disagree with. Sure, those costs can happen. Corrosion that was missed, an engine or prop shells itself. Bonanza magnesium parts or Piper spars that fail eddy current inspections. However, it's not the norm. I maintain that if C-172 owners routinely had $35K-$50K in extra repair costs every 5 years (above the normal fixed/operating costs) then no one would own them (or aircraft like them).

 

[George Mohr]

The original comment from @George Mohr was talking about a surprise $30-$50K AD. Then @Grum.Man brought in "could possibly need another 30-65k in expense no matter how well you treat it". So, those were described as cost over-and-above the hangar/hourly operating costs. That's the part I disagree with. Sure, those costs can happen. Corrosion that was missed, an engine or prop shells itself. Bonanza magnesium parts or Piper spars that fail eddy current inspections. However, it's not the norm. I maintain that if C-172 owners routinely had $35K-$50K in extra repair costs every 5 years (above the normal fixed/operating costs) then no one would own them (or aircraft like them).

I've averaged $8k in both repairs + upgrades per year on my airplanes over 7 years of ownership now. Some upgrades were discretionary (adding G5's or an autopilot), others where close to mandatory (ADS-B, or an engine monitor instead of replacing gauges from Textron that cost $1k each). The repairs were not discretionary (new alternator and regulator, leaking fuel tank, tires, batteries, or a replaced gyro here and there. Add in something like 6k in fixed costs, 10k in fuel and usage fund to fly 80-100h per year, and I'm at about 26k per year for this hobby. None of that is purchase cost and I have had any 'big' events like an AD or overhaul... yet...

There's no 25' boat owner that sees that kind of expense, period. This is part of the reason that I moved to a partnership. Dividing some of these by 2 is the only way I could afford keeping the airplane in a condition I find agreeable.

 

[Ed Haywood]

It's no big mystery. Trained pilots are the constraint.

The government trained hundreds of thousands of pilots in WWII. Those guys came back from the war, went to college on the GI bill, started careers and businesses, became successful, and decided to spend some of their money on a plane. Hence the GA boom from the 50's thru the 70's. Not a coincidence the market dropped off a cliff in the 80's when those guys hit 60 and started dealing with medical issues and living on fixed income.

That will NEVER happen again. We are living on the fumes of that era, and it will never come back. No amount of sexy is ever going to significantly change the number of people willing to go to the effort to learn to fly at their own expense.

HOWEVER ... technology is eventually going to flip that situation on it's head. Artificial intelligence, computing power, and electrical vehicle technology is eventually going to create a new class of aircraft that do not require significant skill and training to operate. We see this already with various startups racing to the air taxi market, and with the quad copter drones you see everywhere these days.

Is that piloting? Not in my book. But then I'm a taildragger weirdo flying a technology that became obsolete 75 years ago.

We are all dinosaurs wondering what the shadow above us is.

 

[George Mohr]

There's about 130,000 piston singles in the USA. According to AOPA, the average age of that fleet is 35 years (edit: those numbers were very old. The actual average age is actually 50 atm!!). Id suggest to you that the vast majority of these people would prefer to be flying a new airplane. Even though there's not a huge number of us, there is pent up demand here. The fact that the manufacturers are unable or unwilling to produce a new airplane that real humans can afford is primarily causing the drop in demand, and its a vicious cycle. We should be trying to figure out how to remove that barrier, rather than just @Doc Holliday 's approach of just throwing up hands and saying "well that's just how it is".

EAB exists because people want new airplanes for $150k, not $600k. And they are willing to invest years of sweat equity to make it happen. There is demand.

-G

 

[mondtster]

There's about 130,000 piston singles in the USA. According to AOPA, the average age of that fleet is 35 years (edit: those numbers were very old. The actual average age is actually 50 atm!!). Id suggest to you that the vast majority of these people would prefer to be flying a new airplane. Even though there's not a huge number of us, there is pent up demand here. The fact that the manufacturers are unable or unwilling to produce a new airplane that real humans can afford is primarily causing the drop in demand, and its a vicious cycle. We should be trying to figure out how to remove that barrier, rather than just @Doc Holliday 's approach of just throwing up hands and saying "well that's just how it is".

EAB exists because people want new airplanes for $150k, not $600k. And they are willing to invest years of sweat equity to make it happen. There is demand.

-G

I see the opposite. Every time there is a thread here that discusses buying a new or nearly new airplane it takes a left turn and devolves into "well for that price I could buy a 196x Bonanza and have a lot more airplane". Until these old, fully depreciated airplanes dwindle to nothing or become so expensive to maintain and operate that a newer airplane becomes viable, we will be in the same mentality and cycle we have been in for at least the last 20 or so years.

A friend of mine has bought at least a dozen new airplanes over the years, all for personal enjoyment. One of his more recent purchases was a Piper Malibu, which was at a price point that could have bought him a King Air. I'm sure if he would have posed the question on what to buy here he would have been viewed as an idiot for buying what he did.

EAB has changed. It used to be that people built airplanes because they were interested in building airplanes. Now people seem to build mainly to avoid the cost of buying factory new without giving much consideration to what their time is worth.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I've averaged $8k in both repairs + upgrades per year on my airplanes over 7 years of ownership now. Some upgrades were discretionary (adding G5's or an autopilot), others where close to mandatory (ADS-B, or an engine monitor instead of replacing gauges from Textron that cost $1k each). The repairs were not discretionary (new alternator and regulator, leaking fuel tank, tires, batteries, or a replaced gyro here and there. Add in something like 6k in fixed costs, 10k in fuel and usage fund to fly 80-100h per year, and I'm at about 26k per year for this hobby. None of that is purchase cost and I have had any 'big' events like an AD or overhaul... yet...

There's no 25' boat owner that sees that kind of expense, period. This is part of the reason that I moved to a partnership. Dividing some of these by 2 is the only way I could afford keeping the airplane in a condition I find agreeable.

I'd estimate that an owner of a 25' boat would spend around $9-$10K/yr based on 100hrs of use for slip rental ($3,600: $300 x12 months), fuel ($4,800: 12gph best economy @ $4/gal), and general maintenance ($1K - engine oil/gear lube changes, etc). That is without discretionary upgrades like $3K chart plotter/fish finder upgrades or $2.5K power poles. A C172 works out to a wash for hangar cost against slip rental in my area, slightly more expensive on fuel usage (10gph x $5/gal) = $5K), and estimated maintenance higher at $4K. So, without having to pay for one-off items the cost to own works out to about $13K vs $10K per year, all-in (without one-offs). Even renting a C172 @ $120/hr would be roughly the same (and carries the intrinsic engine reserve/profit in it). The bigger hit than anything would be liability insurance, as boat insurance is cheap compared to aircraft insurance.

Point is, when you actually run the numbers without the one-time ADS-B or tank re-sealing items, the annual operating costs are close enough to compare the two hobbies. I don't know why you're arguing it as I'm putting the data out in front of you. Sure, there may be expensive items that come up (spar corrosion, broken window latches, alternators) but those items still occur in the marine world. Transoms get rotten, decking breaks down, ECUs get fried. The parts cost is just a lot less when dealing with them due to the certified-aviation side.

Here's some 3rd party support for my calc, BTW (data as of 2019).

 

[Tantalum]

1956 for the 172. In those days, airplanes and cars were assembled, mostly by hand, on an assembly line. That continued until the 1980s, when robotic welding and painting and all sorts of automated stuff took over in the auto industry. The cars had to be designed for that sort of thing, too. And that robotic equipment wasn't cheap, either. It has come down in cost but it's still expensive and it takes volumes to justify it.

The 172 (and pretty much all other airplanes) were seeing sales fall off dramatically by the time the auto industry automated. If the cost per airplane for automation was high in the '80s, it's much worse now with the tiny production numbers. And the 172 (and most others) are not designed for automated production anyway. Before I was a CPL and aircraft mechanic I worked in machine shop industry and designed and built some automated production equipment and so I understand the limitations of that stuff in relation to aircraft construction. Aircraft aluminum, for instance, is not welding-friendly. Welding upsets its alloy purity and heat-treatment at the joint, weakening it. Some will claim that stir-friction welding is the answer, but it has supposedly been the answer for 30 years and I still don't see it anywhere in GA. If it was so suitable the manufacturers would have adopted it as a cost-cutting measure.

Probably the likeliest answer will be 3D printing, but it will have to get really good and cost-effective to make it work. Not sure how well it would work building thinwalled, light, strong structures. The strength of sheet aluminum comes not only from its alloying elements, but also from being work-hardened during production, by repeatedly rolling it, and then heat-treating and aging it. 3D printing has to duplicate that strength somehow.

So basically "we chose not to optimize and see continuous improvement because we were doing fine without it and didn't see the need to add efficiencies to our production line" <- it's a narrow mindset. Cirrus started completely differently. Unfortunately Dodge and GM also have pretty narrow mindsets, hence why they nearly went bankrupt while Toyota lived through two potentially catastrophic events

At the end of the day, the only "expensive" thing on a 172/182 should be the engine (and maybe avionics if for some crazy reason you need 787 level avionics in a fair weather plane that goes 100 knots).. it's about 2,000 lbs of meta.. the jigs exist, the skill is there.. how on earth is that expensive to build?

Textron really SUCKS. They're the whole reason we're in this mess. They slowly killed the landscape and decided to build a series of mediocre jets instead.

 

[Grum.Man]

I'd estimate that an owner of a 25' boat would spend around $9-$10K/yr based on 100hrs of use for slip rental ($3,600: $300 x12 months), fuel ($4,800: 12gph best economy @ $4/gal), and general maintenance ($1K - engine oil/gear lube changes, etc). That is without discretionary upgrades like $3K chart plotter/fish finder upgrades or $2.5K power poles. A C172 works out to a wash for hangar cost against slip rental in my area, slightly more expensive on fuel usage (10gph x $5/gal) = $5K), and estimated maintenance higher at $4K. So, without having to pay for one-off items the cost to own works out to about $13K vs $10K per year, all-in (without one-offs). Even renting a C172 @ $120/hr would be roughly the same (and carries the intrinsic engine reserve/profit in it). The bigger hit than anything would be liability insurance, as boat insurance is cheap compared to aircraft insurance.

Point is, when you actually run the numbers without the one-time ADS-B or tank re-sealing items, the annual operating costs are close enough to compare the two hobbies. I don't know why you're arguing it as I'm putting the data out in front of you. Sure, there may be expensive items that come up (spar corrosion, broken window latches, alternators) but those items still occur in the marine world. Transoms get rotten, decking breaks down, ECUs get fried. The parts cost is just a lot less when dealing with them due to the certified-aviation side.

Here's some 3rd party support for my calc, BTW (data as of 2019).

View attachment 96552

If we are comparing the bulk of boat owners, they simply aren’t dry docking or slipping their boats. I guess geographically that can differ but in NC there will be 10 times or more the number of boats trailered to the lake each day than are even docked at the marina. I’m leaving out people who own lake houses or live in Aviation communities because they are in a class that could likely afford both hobbies. The 25’ range came up because they fall under 100k usually fully equipped or right around there which I feel most two income families can afford. You are talking a brand new boat versus a 30-40 year old airplane. The boat will have a 3 year hull warranty if not lifetime and the engine will be 5-6 years usually. There is no warranty on a 30 year old airplane.

 

[Doc Holliday]

There's about 130,000 piston singles in the USA. According to AOPA, the average age of that fleet is 35 years (edit: those numbers were very old. The actual average age is actually 50 atm!!). Id suggest to you that the vast majority of these people would prefer to be flying a new airplane. Even though there's not a huge number of us, there is pent up demand here. The fact that the manufacturers are unable or unwilling to produce a new airplane that real humans can afford is primarily causing the drop in demand, and its a vicious cycle. We should be trying to figure out how to remove that barrier, rather than just @Doc Holliday 's approach of just throwing up hands and saying "well that's just how it is".

Businesses are not charities, nor do they exist to supply your hobby at a loss to them.

Let's say you have a few $100K to invest. Are you willing to invest in an aircraft company that says they are going to develop, then start mass producing aircraft? Would you want to see their financials, the projections and their market surveys first? Or, would you hand over the money, because you know deep down this is going to be a winner and are willing to take the gamble?

This is exactly how the majority of the recreational pilot group look at it. They want others to take the risk and lose their money in order for the community to have access to cheaper newer airplanes.

EAB exists because people want new airplanes for $150k, not $600k. And they are willing to invest years of sweat equity to make it happen. There is demand.
-G

EAB exist because a group of people enjoy building and the hobby of EAB. Again, look at the number of kits sold each year, it's not as huge as you may believe.

Maybe in the early 1900's those companies making buggy whips should have upped production to keep their companies viable.........

 

[Doc Holliday]

So basically "we chose not to optimize and see continuous improvement because we were doing fine without it and didn't see the need to add efficiencies to our production line" <- it's a narrow mindset. Cirrus started completely differently. Unfortunately Dodge and GM also have pretty narrow mindsets, hence why they nearly went bankrupt while Toyota lived through two potentially catastrophic events

At the end of the day, the only "expensive" thing on a 172/182 should be the engine (and maybe avionics if for some crazy reason you need 787 level avionics in a fair weather plane that goes 100 knots).. it's about 2,000 lbs of meta.. the jigs exist, the skill is there.. how on earth is that expensive to build?

Textron really SUCKS. They're the whole reason we're in this mess. They slowly killed the landscape and decided to build a series of mediocre jets instead.

Where there is a market, someone will fulfil it. Textron is into bigger and better things than hobby aircraft. If there were truly a market for them, the other manufacturers would be capitalizing on it. Go ask Piper, Mooney and Cirrus or other manufacturers how many backorders they have for aircraft. That will tell the story of where the demand is.

 

[George Mohr]

I don't know why you're arguing it as I'm putting the data out in front of you.

Sorry, sir, really not trying to come off argumentative here but the data you are putting in front of me proves my point instead of yours. Your boat example of 9-10k per year and my example is 26k per year, even if you take out my 4k of upgrades, you still get well over twice the expense. And that's absolute best case scenario numbers here. But you just cant use best case numbers, its a disservice to prospective owners.

Sure, there may be expensive items that come up (spar corrosion, broken window latches, alternators) but those items still occur in the marine world. Transoms get rotten, decking breaks down, ECUs get fried.

You wont have those problems on your boat, because your boat is new, or 10 years old, or whatever. It isn't 50 years old. The average GA airplane owner must do these upgrades and serious repairs just to keep the thing safe and capable of operating the airspace system. And over 5 years or so, your chances of having a 20k day are rather high.

On the topic of the Honeywell chart... I'm being kind here... it is laughable. Show me a 30k airplane that doesn't need 10k of work the day you buy it. And the next year, and the next...