It means that engines and airframes are essentially hand-built. Not just does the low volume make prices high ($30K-$50K for rebuilt versions of the popular Lycoming and Continental models), the failure rates of components are high. This despite the PMA (parts manufacturing authority) process, which was created to have the opposite effect.
As much as I’d like to blame the lawyers, the production volume of the industry is probably more the cause of high prices and high failure rates.
Someone recently criticized the American airline industry, saying that dollars invested have not produced a positive financial return. Much the same has been the case in general aviation manufacturing. Innovation doesn’t lag (see Cirrus and Columbia, among others) but there’s no payback, particularly as the number of pilots continues to shrink.
Now, if someone would just come up with a nice, wide, fast 4-seater with the parts count of a Model T, we’d be all set.
The Lancair Columbia, the Cirrus - the plastics reduce the part count (no rivets!) and the structure is relatively simple - it’s the systems that take the time/money.
(plus, wet fiberglass is like wet plywood - it’s very difficult to reproduce an exact shape.
(then there’s the matter of a powerplant: a Lyc O-320 runs $24000 (and that is with OEM discount)).
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro TN.
We are getting:
9 Da-20s with the Cont IO-240
11 Da40-180s, one of which has an all glass cockpit
3 Piper Arrows for complex training
2 Seminoles for multiengine training
All new airplanes are IFR equipped with dual Garmin GPSRs. I think the Arrows are even gonna be air conditioned
We will be keeping our existing T-41, Piper Super Cub, DHC2 Beaver, and Cessna 404, snce they are all in perfect condition (restored).
They didn’t want to get the Pipers, but Diamonds twin is too far off, and they don’t have a retractable single. As far as I know, Cessna wasn’t even considered.
Mooney252: I think production is low because airplanes are too expensive. Getting back to the Ford analogy, cars used to be expensive before Ford started making zillions of them. An airplane will never be as cheap as a car, but I think that lower prices will stimulate demand, which will lead to more aircraft being made, which will result in lower prices.
There were 15,000 airplanes a year being made late-1970s, and the prices – while not cheap – were not outrageous either. So we have the ability to “hand build” large numbers of aircraft, and sell them at reasonable prices.
The “airplane as car” analogy will never work - unless/until everyone lives on a runway.
Consider:
Training - everybody (almost) who can read this post learned to drive as a matter of course at age 16. To become a pilot (more later), figure on spending $3k-$5k.
Convenience - Everyone has a street and a place to park a car within walking distance of their front door. The nearest airport (excluding class B) to me is 40 minutes (by car).
Functionality - Most cars are 7/24 propositions - I want to go somewhere, I get in my car and go - day, night, rain, snow, hail, lightning - whatever - barring really extreme weather, my car will get me there. With my PPL, any hint of weather grounds me. If I want a plane with the same functioality as my car, what am I looking at - $10K in training, a heavy single (minimum) or light twin, with all the bells and whistles of navigation and collision avoidance - call it a $50K stack, and a $500K plane to put it in.
Not to mention that I cannot fly everywhere I can drive - there’s a hell of a lot more roads than runways, and roadmaps are not subject to TFR’s.
Regulations - I don’t need a medical to drive. Can you say “Bob Hoover”?
If we get past all those matters, then price may become an issue - but I just don’t see mobs of people suddenly flocking to the (sole remaining) FBO just because they can afford a plane.
(and, let’s face it - anyone with a checkbook can get an “experimental” built to order for far less than a new 'Hawk).
It was used by the military in Vietnam, and then given to the forestry service in Texas, I believe. They later gave it to us, and the students restored it under supervision of the professors. It went on to win an award at Oshkosh. There has been talk lately of changing it back to the military paint scheme.
It is the loudest airplane on the face of the Earth.
I did an intership with a small company that restored and modified old Beavers, and built floats for them too. What a great old bird.
The military paint scheme is fine, but ditch the military seats. They had no padding and a ledge at the small of your back because you were supposed to be wearing a full parachute harness. I flew from Kansas City to St. Paul sitting on a folded up bedspread.
happyheathen: But we don’t need the “airplane as car”. That is, “everyone” doesn’t need to fly.
[ul]
[li]Today the price of a new airplane is a greater percentage of a person’s income than it used to be, even though the airplane is essentially the same.[/li][li]When new airplanes were more affordable, three-to-five times the number of airplanes were being built.[/li][li]Major design costs and most of the tooling were paid for decades ago.[/li][li]Increased demand leads to higher production, new innovations, and lower prices (which can be seen in cars and computers, for example).[/li][/ul]
So we don’t need a number of new airplanes similar to the number of new cars. All we need is the number of new airplanes similar to the number of new airplanes that were built in the late-1970s. I’m not saying that we should have brand new $50,000 airplanes. But if a new 172 cost, say, $125,000 instead of $160,000 then I think that more people would be willing to buy new airplanes. If more people are willing to buy more airplanes, then manufacturers would be more likely to come up with new and better designs. If there are new and better designs, then people would be more likely to buy one of them instead of buying a 30-year-old airplane that is esentially the same as a new one.
And that’s my point. (At least I think it is, as I haven’t had coffee yet. ) Right now there is little or no reason for a consumer to buy a new 172, since a mid-'70s 172 will perform as well as a new one at a quarter of the cost.
We’d all like to see cheaper airplanes but it ain’t gonna happen.
I had occasion to talk with Bing Lantis before he took the job as president of Columbia. He was an ex-Mooney president and has substantial experience in the aerospace industry. While working as consultant to Lance Neibauer of Lancair (Columbia’s owner) he pointed out that even with a volume of 500 airplanes per year, pricing the aircraft at $180,000 would never pay back the capital invested in the Columbia factory.
As a result, the original price of the Columbia went up (by about 40% if I recall correctly).
People have tried the cheaper manufacturing route; lots have hoped for higher volume sales. The market isn’t there today, especially because the U.S. and Canada are the prime consumers of GA aircraft.
Manufactures have come up with new (better) designs - Cirrus and Columbia - but they are not appreciatively cheaper than the 1957 172 type certificate airplane - they drastically reduce part count, but the r&d and certification process is hard to amortize on 12 planes a year.
(and liability insurance is a constant, regardless of construction method).
My points:
The cost of the airframe can be reduced by using plastics, but the powereplant, radios, and instruments can’t be (unless the FAA gets into the loco weed and starts acting like it wants ga to survive).
Even if I could go to the store and buy a nice shiney new airplane for $50K, why would I? The $100 hamburger is now marked down to $90 - but I still don’t have a credible transportation method. A neat toy, sure - but I’m not making plans to fly to very many destinations - how much does “known icing” certification cost?
This is probably why we still don’t see any Toyotas with propellors.
Known-ice on certified Mooneys is about $35,000, though the TKS weeping ethylene glycol system is about $27,000 as a field install; about $20,000 from the TKS people.
In reasonable volumes of say 10,000 units per year it could be less than half that cost.
Johnny: The industry can’t return to 1970’s production levels, for a simple reason: In the 1970’s, the used market was much, much smaller. And there was a pilot boom. The used market couldn’t meet the demand, so all those new planes were built.
But the majority of all those planes built in the 1970’s are still out there flying and being bought and sold in the marketplace. That’s a tough market for new airplanes to crack. I can buy a used Grumman Tiger with a 0 time engine for $55,000. Why would I want to buy the new Tiger for $200,000? To get a new color of seat fabric?
And if the manufacturers managed to push the price down for the new airplanes, all that would do is put pressure on the used market to lower its prices. The market share of new planes would increase, but would stop again well short of 70’s levels.
My feeling is that if someone could make a good, usable, reasonably fast and very safe airplane for $80,000, they could sell a few thousand a year. But then a used 172 would drop to $30K or whatever price it had to to sell.
) Right now there is little or no reason for a consumer to buy a new 172, since a mid-'70s 172 will perform as well as a new one at a quarter of the cost.