Inflation calculator I found online:

"What cost $10000 in 1960 would cost $71634.56 in 2009."

If that is the case, why can't a guy purchase a basic say, strait tail 182 brand new for under 100k ?

TwinPOS wrote:Inflation calculator I found online:

"What cost $10000 in 1960 would cost $71634.56 in 2009."

If that is the case, why can't a guy purchase a basic say, strait tail 182 brand new for under 100k ?

Because then Cessna wouldn't make a 200-300k profit!!

I'm going to guess that aircraft manufacturing can't be expected to follow the same inflation track as whatever other industries and indexes were used to generate your numbers. Increasing complexity of aircraft and systems combined with more strict federal regulation over the years, increasing cost of risk management and litigation protection, and then Cessna has to make a profit on top of that.

The entire industry is more expensive in every aspect than it was in the 50's, and many of those factors compound to contribute to the new price.

It's a simple answer..............thank a lawyer.

Hafast wrote:It's a simple answer..............thank a lawyer.

And our Uncle.

Some possible reasons:

The market will bear it so they do.

The production numbers may be smaller so they need to charge more.

If the calculator is using the government CPI to estimate inflation then it doesn't reflect actual inflation. This number is kept artificially low heavily biasing towards technologies like computers and under counting things like fuel and housing.

It's a simple answer..............thank a lawyer.

Thats what I kinda figured

When ever I get convoluted answers about costs and nuances to this question, I kinda chuckle. The general aviation revitalization act didn't go far enough. How about limiting the Manufacture liability of any airplane produced more than 18 years ago AND if they produce a model that was more than 18 years old so long as the S.B.s and A.D.s were all engineered out. For instance you can buy a 2011 C-182b brand new and the company still qualifies for the liabilty limits.

And while I'm on this detergent box, lets allow proffesional builders to take proven kit planes and produce them for sale legally. Starting with Van's RVs and Murphy kits.

Example: RV-10 Parts cost roughly 125k say you have 2500 hours build time (pessimistic amatuer) and you pay y ourself 40/hr. thats 225k all finished. New Cirrus: 500k

Lets go ahead and use the term TAXES.
There are more payroll taxes (unemployment, SS matching, state industrial, L&I, etc) that 'Cessna' pays-way more than 'the old days'. This also applies to sub contractors, sub-sub etc that the employers pay to employ anyone/everyone. This goes on at all levels-back to the Mine, transportation, smelter, etc........It has to be passed on to 'Cessna' to stay in business.
There are additional property taxes and B&O taxes (+ income in some states)that are paid at state and local levels. It is not just our big UNCLE we have to support, but also states, counties, and cities are voracious, too...The cost of 'doing business' has exploded.

Then there is regulation. OSHA, EPA, etc that you have to have meet their regulations-and have employees to generate documentation that you are compliant.

BLED WITH TAXES, WHILE BEING STRANGLED WITH REGULATION. Why are business leaving the USA?

This is happening at all the layers-thing add up. Then they ALL have to buy 'protection' from the lawyer racket-called liability Insurance. If it leaves the ground-compound it. If it carries people-compound it again-at least at all levels where it is identifiable as headed to become an airplane part.

Let this swirl in you brain, and you can picture the end of GA (as we know it) over the horizon-if we hold our current 'course'.
Probably our lifestyle, too!

You get the Idea. I'm sure there are those on here that know more about it than I do. I will let them 'carry the ball'.

lc

TwinPOS wrote:

It's a simple answer..............thank a lawyer.

Thats what I kinda figured

When ever I get convoluted answers about costs and nuances to this question, I kinda chuckle.\

Then why did you ask the question if you already have it figured out?

[quote="Zane]

Then why did you ask the question if you already have it figured out?[/quote]

I just wanted to hear other thoughts on the topic. Maybe bounce some ideas around with other guys with similar interests. You know kinda like a discussion forum.

TwinPOS wrote:Maybe bounce some ideas around with other guys with similar interests. You know kinda like a discussion forum.

Try convolutedanswers.com

Or smartassedremarks.com
Just for hijacking

Any ideas on the topic of lowering new plane costs?

I was handing off the 'ball', and there was......no game?......

That makes me.........
'Charlie Brown'

I think our posts crossed. Yeah, taxes codified by politicians (lawyers), product liabilty lawsuits brought by lawyers. I do fear for the future of GA. I was just wondering if there isn't a small common sense proposal that could spur some interest and economic activity. Maybe some cool new planes that a working class guy could afford.

It's the liability tail that they are exposed to. Some rediculous percentage of the new price of a plane - like 40% - is liability insurance. We could likely find the right answer with a little research.

TwinPOS wrote:........And while I'm on this detergent box, lets allow proffesional builders to take proven kit planes and produce them for sale legally. Starting with Van's RVs and Murphy kits. .....

What's stopping them? Anyone can build an amateur-built experimental and sell it. Some people do this repeatedly. But that person is the manufacturer & can be held liable (along with the kit supplier) somewhere down the line if disaster strikes & a lawsuit-happy lawyer gets involved. I imagine that if this person was doing this on a large scale (like several airplanes a year), there might be some pressure put on them to tone it down. I don't know what rule there is against this, but I'm sure the FAA or whoever would think of something.
Also, the actual builder will be the holder of the repairman certificate if one is applied for. I think a lot of the people who want a hired gun to build their airplane for them want to get the repairman certificate for it themselves, and so they lie & say that they are the builder. I for one don't have a problem with hired gun builders, but I don't feel the buyer is qualified to hold the repairman certiificate.

The one thing with the stroke of a pen that could have been done to lower costs and would have helped keep our engine builders American owned would have been to provide protection for the engine builders the same way airframe manufacturers are limited in their product liability. Piper or Cessna get protection, but completely rebuild an engine or zero time it and the liability clock starts over for Continental and the rest. So in reality, no break for the engine manufacturers, better to sell it off to China who has deeper pockets.

Hired gun builders: Experimental aircraft builders who crank out planes for others are not building experimental aircraft. If they do this for the purpose of profit as a business the plane does not qualify for the experimental class. The stated purpose for Experimental class is " built for your own recreation or education". A builder can lose interest and sell the project part way through or when finished for a variety of reasons and it remains experimental and the person buying that aircraft is still buying an experimental provided the original builder built it for the approved purpose. He may not be qualified as the majority builder and may have to hire an AP to do the annual condition inspection but the plane will be still in the experimental class. Those aircraft that are cranked out for the purpose of sales by a builder fall under a different class and are more restricted in their use. This was what all the hoopla was about during the past four years when kit building companies came under FAA scrutiny for their factory assist programs. Nearly all US and Canadian companies in the end met the requirements but you no longer see some foreign factory assemblers in the experimental market. One that comes to mind was a Czech company that was wining and dining its US customers overseas while their Zenith Aircraft kit was being put together by 100% company hands. This company is not affiliated with the US Zenith Aircraft company although they may still be making and selling floats.

Misuse of the Experimental class is what brought undue FAA scrutiny down on the rest of the builders who stayed within the rule.

That's interesting, I agree with you about the repairman certificate. I guess it's the liability issue (again) that keeps people from just building a plane and selling it on a bigger scale. I'm just trying to think of some small law that would take some of the cuffs off of GA and maybe spark some aircraft manufacturing in this country, before it's all in china.
Im always hearing about some small pet project being attached to a larger bill that ends up costing the taxpayers millions or billions. Why can't we sneak one in that's simple, practical and actually spurs some economic activity.

This is where the growth is for general aviation. Look what has come available since 2005 in the LSA. I counted 45 of the 112 approved since then as built in the USA.

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm?b=6&m=2

These planes are not under the same certification rules that the FAA puts on the normal certification process and pilots need only hold a drivers license and no medical is required by the FAA. Be advised that if you are taking your LSA training and you are over 65 the insurance company most likely will require a medical certificate before issuing insurance. That flies in the face of lowering the FAA bar to the LSA requirement and in that way defeats the original purpose. Someone with an insurance background should jump in and explain that. It runs counter to the efforts that were made to get the LSA approval in the first place. 65 is soon to be considered still part of your working years.