The good 'ole days

[Notsoez891]

Mainly because I'm not doing much over summer break, and I do love the piper cub, I couldn't help but research how prices have changed drastically over the years. Even if you consider inflation the price of aircraft have gone up drastically. So while looking for the price tag of a J-3, I came across it in an old brochure: $2,195 (price effective July 1, 1946).

So after snooping I found that in 1946, a car could be purchased for $1,400. However, after further snooping, I found that a good Chevy could be bought for $1,200. So with a little rounding we can conclude that a cub was very loosely twice the cost of a low-end automobile. So therefore a basic, good airplane should cost twice that of a low-end car, or the equivalent to a low end luxury car.

How does this compare to modern day standards? Glad you asked. My dad has been looking into purchasing a new low-end vehicle, his two favorites being the VW Jetta and the Chevy Cruze. Both are good, reliable cars that range in price from about $15k to $20k. So if we follow our estimates from the last paragraph, we can conclude that a good, reliable, low-end airplane SHOULD cost $30k to $40k. What went wrong? The new trainers such as the Skycatcher and Legend Cub can cut a good $120k out of your wallet (why yes, that is a large wallet!). That is 3-4 times what it SHOULD cost. I understand that part of the problem is the lack of large-scale production, but this is crazy!

It appears we have a Catch-22: Nobody wants to fly until the price comes down, but the price won't come down until more people fly.

I personally feel that this problem is going to continue to haunt the aviation world and will only gets worse as the amount of pilots decreases more and more over the coming years.

I understand that this a completely ludicrous conclusion, but it's supposed to be, merely to show the absurd rise in the prices of commercial goods in America, most largely based on the debt crises. I posted this mainly as food for thought, and for the fact that I'm jealous of 21 cents/ gallon fuel prices in 1949 :( That's saddening.

I am no economics expert by any means, but I thought it was rather interesting.

[Joe LaMantia]

I think you may have missed one important factor in your analysis, mainly the impact on inflation. How does the 2012 dollar compare to the 1946 dollar? The assumption that twice the cost of a low end car in 1946 would be valid in 2012 is a false assumption. Just think of the state of the world in 1946. We had a population of about 125 million, vs 315 million today. We were the only major country to come out of WWII undamaged, and we had a great surplus of natural resources like oil. I was born in 1943 and can remember my Dad buying and selling a bunch of old cars, pre-war vintage, and even not owning a car for a short while.

My parents only owned one car, today I own 3. I think we may want to actually ask an economics expert to provide a real comparison of the buying power of the 1946 dollar in 2012, b/4 we jump to any conclusions.
There are a lot of factors or variables that impact currency valuation, I would like to see more than one valuation method before making any comparisons. I noticed that there is an opportunity to vote on this subject, which is an invitation to ask people to join together in wishful thinking. Today's Global economy is not based on wishes, but markets, while I'm not of fan of all the speculation in commodities it is part of the real world.

Joe
:cool:

[Inspector Fenwick]

I think you may have missed one important factor in your analysis, mainly the impact on inflation. How does the 2012 dollar compare to the 1946 dollar? The assumption that twice the cost of a low end car in 1946 would be valid in 2012 is a false assumption. Just think of the state of the world in 1946. We had a population of about 125 million, vs 315 million today. We were the only major country to come out of WWII undamaged, and we had a great surplus of natural resources like oil. I was born in 1943 and can remember my Dad buying and selling a bunch of old cars, pre-war vintage, and even not owning a car for a short while.

My parents only owned one car, today I own 3. I think we may want to actually ask an economics expert to provide a real comparison of the buying power of the 1946 dollar in 2012, b/4 we jump to any conclusions.
There are a lot of factors or variables that impact currency valuation, I would like to see more than one valuation method before making any comparisons. I noticed that there is an opportunity to vote on this subject, which is an invitation to ask people to join together in wishful thinking. Today's Global economy is not based on wishes, but markets, while I'm not of fan of all the speculation in commodities it is part of the real world.

Joe
:cool:

At the time of Pearl Harbor, the average American family income was about $2,000 per year. In 1946 it was $2,500 per year and if the WORLD needed anything built, it had to be built here, every other manufacturing center was a bombed out ruin. That is not the case today. We also did not have the additional soft costs of a litigious society, OSHA, and other helpful components of our commerce engine. I don't think Henry Ford would even consider building another CUB in today's world. (Hey, that was a JOKE, I know it was Marconi that built the CUB.).

[Mike Switzer]

I found that a good Chevy could be bought for $1,200.

Here is the flaw in you argument. There is no such thing as a good Chevy. ;)

[lkorona]

You can buy a good used plane for 20-40K. However it's not the buy-in costs that get you, it's the costs required to keep the plane in the air.

[kmacht]

Exactly. How many people would be willing to buy a $20,000 car if you told them that each year a mechanich would have to tear it half apart to inspect it, fix anything that is even remotely starting to wear, and that you would have a $2000 to $5000 non negotiable bill depending on what they might find. If you didn't pay then you couldn't drive the car anymore.

I would love to and could afford to go buy a nice little used cessna 150 to fly while building my Sonex. It is the unknown maintence cost that keeps me from doing so.

Keith

[lkorona]

Keith:

Spot on!

I have a C172 that I've owned for 20 plus years. Since moving to Tulsa OK last year from Northern New Jersey, I now have a hanger for the first time in many years, which allows me to work on the plane. I just finished an owner assisted annual last weekend. It took me a solid two weeks working whenever I had a spare hour to two. This is the only way to help cut down the costs, saved a bucket of $$. In past years I had to bring the plane into a shop for the annual and anything else but for the most basic stuff. At labor rates of $90-$100 hour, bills quickly add up.

And lets not forget about the cost of parts! $25 for a sparkplug, $20 for an oil filter?! Even with doing most of the labor, parts will add up to big $$ over time.

[rosiejerryrosie]

You folks are just flying the wrong kind of airplane. An annual on my Aeronca takes about three hours and costs me $350.00 (including travel time). Simple is better!

[kmacht]

Thats just because you haven't found anything wrong. How much do you think that annual is going to cost you when your mechanic tells you the plane needs to be recovered or that you have low compression in one or more of those engine cylinders. I bet it will be alot more than that $350 you just paid.

Annuals can be inexpensive when everything goes right. It isn't the cost of the annual itself that is the problem. It is what can be found during the annual that scares me off from buying a certified plane. It is just a huge unknown expense each year.

Keith

[Jf1450]

As an A&P I cant comprehend a 3 hour annual on *any* airplane. A day minimum assuming normal servicing and nothing wrong.

[rosiejerryrosie]

As an A&P I cant comprehend a 3 hour annual on *any* airplane. A day minimum assuming normal servicing and nothing wrong.
As an A&P, what do you suspect my A&P is missing? I do have everything opened up for him before he arrives....

[lkorona]

Annuals can be inexpensive when everything goes right. It isn't the cost of the annual itself that is the problem. It is what can be found during the annual that scares me off from buying a certified plane. It is just a huge unknown expense each year.

Keith

Keith:

The unknowns that increase the $$ involved are common to both experimental and certified planes. If your engine needs work, it needs work. It will cost you $$ in any case. My point is the best thing an owner can do to save $$ and to learn about your plane is to become involved with the annual as much as possible. This involvement blurs the difference between experimental and certified in my opinion.
As I mention above, I’ve got a C172, and being a certified plane, that allows me to do Angel Flights for example. My recent annual cost just under $1000 to do. That included some extra work beyond the annual. Even with me doing all the grunt work, that’s a good deal. I won’t slam certified planes over this, there are other reasons beyond servicing costs that drive the desire to go the experimental route.

Larry

[Ylinen]

You might find this GAMA chart of interest.

2083
It is estimated that certification accounts for 15% of the cost of an aircraft. Liability is 35%. Economies of Scale is about 50%. So if you could make any changes to those; they might bring the cost of aircraft back down to the inflation curve.

[Mike M]

your premise of "twice the price of a new car" might not be useful, although inflation would affect the price change of both equally. but there was a big demand for new cars in '46 because of the dearth of late-model used cars and the conversion of factories from war production to car production. there was no shortage of "cubs" since the conversion basically required nothing but a different paint color and there was already a glut of surplus aircraft. supply vs demand might have had more to do with it than anything else?

look at the price of a kit plane (at least 51% left to finish, right?) vs the cost of a new car. the kit, the panel, and the firewall forward are more than twice the price of an economy car. now insert taxes, liability insurance, etcetcetc AND 49% more labor. it's obvious nobody can profitably produce 3000 flyable aircraft a year for $30k each. and now you know why DOD pays so much for high-tech aircraft. but that's another story.

[Joe LaMantia]

These posts have surprised me, over half actually recognize economic factors that reflect the real world. I was expecting a mob reaction to charge head long into "wishful" thinking. Those who commented on used aircraft make a case, but the original proposition of this thread is a comparison between new aircraft and new cars. Lots of good comments on current operating costs and the "annual". Having done some "assisting" for the A&P on the annual I would highly recommend it for any pilot. You not only save a few dollars but you learn a lot about the annual process and your airplane. Ylinen, Nice Chart!

Joe
:cool:

[kmacht]

Keith:

The unknowns that increase the $$ involved are common to both experimental and certified planes. If your engine needs work, it needs work. It will cost you $$ in any case.
Larry

Not true at all. It is true that both types of aircraft have unknown costs but they are not relative to each other. If the door latch on your cessna breaks you have to go buy a certified replacement at a very high price and pay an A&P $80 an hour to install it. If it breaks on your experimental you can go ahead and just fabricate a new one out of a $2 piece of metal and put it in yourself. The same goes for the engine. If something wears or breaks on your cessna you have to pay someone to pull the engine, send it to a certified overhaul shop and then pay for someone to re-install it. In the experimental world you are free to go out and get the knowledge on how to overhaul and engine and do all the work yourself saving a large sum of money.

You can treat an experimental like a certified aircraft if you so choose to. There is nothing saying that someone not mechanically inclined can't go and pay an A&P to do all the work on their plane. If they did then yes, the costs would be similar. The real advantage of the experimental world comes in the ability to go out and gain the knowledge and have the ability to do the work yourself.


Keith

[raytoews]

I'm going to rattle cages here but I am a smug Canadian.

It's called Owner Maintenance, or O/M and it allows me the owner to maintain and sign off EVERYTHING on my Grumman Cheetah.
Supposedly I reduced the value by putting it in this category but like the stock market I only lose if I sell which I have no intention of, someday my kids can do whatever they want.
Lobby your gov't or move to Canada. It is absoutely the way to go. I still get an engineer, if I can find one I trust, to work on it but they love it as they don't have to watch over their shoulder.
Of course it only applies to fixed gear fixed pitch a/c so you Bonanza guys are out of luck.
So, we may have socialized medicine but we can fly.
:)