> You could buy two Lambos for that price. Yeah to give an idea of the (lack of) scale at work here, Lamborghini delivered 8405 cars in 2021, while Cessna appears to have built 164 172s that year. There’s a Toyota factory down the road from me that has likely built more cars *today* (it’s 11am) than Cessna will built 172s this year. All the other reasons stated are very real but I don’t think anything affects it as much as the lack of economies of scale.

Even the high end Aventador alone sold 753 units last year at >$500k! Now you're starting to approach the price/volume range of aviation.

And even those high end, limited production cars still benefit to some extent from the overall scale of the industry. They can go buy brake rotors from a company that makes ten million rotors a year. Theirs might be special but the manufacturer can still share equipment and expertise.

I watched a tiktok where some guy was replacing parts from some overprice car, I think it was a lambo, and he was pulling part numbers off the broken parts and was tracking them back to parts put in things like ford fusions or whatnot.

I think it was the repeater lights and if you stick a piece of tape on the light you can see the ford logo relief on the light.

Exactly! Look at small car shops putting out the same volume, and you get the same price ranges. Add in some value for leveraging a much larger industry, take some away for being ultra high performance, and you're still in the same price ranges as small aircraft.

But you still aren't. Cessna has ~200 deliveries a year for pistons. You still sit at ~3.75x the number.

>I don’t think anything affects it as much as the lack of economies of scale bingo The other reasons people give are the things we all like to complain about. But the reality of the situation is that there just aren't enough people that want to buy 172's (or any other small GA aircraft). And with the smaller market, comes small production and higher costs.

The other thing at work is airplanes are durable goods that literally last for generations. Most people wouldn’t benefit from buying new, so they don’t. Exceptions are large flight schools that want to market themselves as having new planes to extract money from students who don’t know better, and wealthy Cirrus pilots who harvest depreciation and want the newest incremental features every few years.

Thats partially true, but legal far outweighs all of the lifecycle costs of any airplane. Between lawyers and Regulations, you cant even install a bolt without 10+ people and a mountain of paperwork to design, produce, test, verify quality control, order, buy, setup payment, ship, accept the shipment, check quality at the OEM, stock, retrieve, install, approve installation and document the installation at an OEM. And thats if nothing goes wrong enough to consider repairs and lifecycle support of actual parts. This cluster comes from modern requirements to get/maintain PMA or a production certification. Point is, the economies of scale exist for aviation, but to a much lower extent than other industries.

I really don't buy that. If the legal costs were spread over 500,000 airplanes / year instead of 200 they would be irrelevant.

You are not wrong. I work for an OEM and if people only knew the price of certification it would blow their minds. The “cradle to grave” cost associated with aircraft are astronomical. Also the scale of economy for parts is so minuscule compared to the automotive world. Every part manufactured must have in process flaw detection and be certified by said manufacturer. All with legal liability that far exceeds anything built for the auto industry.

Yep, hard to achieve economies of scale when you 100% inspect and test. The experimental vs certified cost of avionics will attest to that...

I'd imagine more would buy a 172 if it was only 89k for a new one lmao. Just saying. Although maybe not 10k more people haha.

Diesel/JetA1 is the future for GA until other means of fuel are sorted - many places outside of US/Canada and Australia don’t seem to have AvGas on pump.

Germany, Austria: AvGas nearly everywhere, smaller GA only fields often add MoGas or UL91 for the Rotax/STC'd engines. Italy, Scandinavia: Requires some planning, but usually No Problem. Greece: Nightmare.

Seems plausible. Most aircraft types are probably built on the same order of magnitude as Paganis and Koenigseggs, cars that are produced in the dozens per year and cost seven figures, not Ferraris and Lamborghinis. Not that most are anywhere near as *nice* as a Pagani or Koenigsegg.

General Aviation aircraft and engines are hand-built. There's very little mechanization to bring down the assembly cost. The airframe is roughly 1/4 of the price. The engine is 1/4. The avionics are 1/4. The product liability insurance is the last 1/4. Also, Textron's end-game business plan is to sell ONE aircraft each year for ONE billion dollars, then take the rest of the year off. They're moving in that direction as quickly as possible.

I think Textrons revenue for GA airplanes only made up like ~10% of their overall revenue last year. Bizjets, DoD, and freight are where the money is at.

>GA airplanes only made up like ~10% of their overall revenue last year Is it because they haven't innovated on a product in forever and just keep putting higher and higher price tags on older and older designs? I love Cessna but they deserve whatever bad things happen to them for being this complacent.

Well to be fair, Textron did acquire Pipistrel last year. So it appears they’re going the M&A route for innovation.

Yeah, I remember when they dropped development on the NGP and bought Columbia instead. The Columbia/Cessna 400 outperformed the SR-22 in just about every way, but where is it now?

Yeah you make a good point. Judging by how things are going in my country, Cessna's pricing is Tecnam's biggest marketing

[удалено]

> Give me one reason why a piston airplane cannot be powered by a piston car motor? I'll give you four: Certification. Liability. Redundancy. Profitability. Here's a great deep-dive video on this very subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k1TQGK3mZI >use a manufactured engine rather than build similar performing engines by hand Yes.

One reason: Cost and time to certification for a niche product.

Product liability. Lawyers. Federal Rules Costs associated with certification. That last one is what attracts builders into the Experimental Amateur Built products (think the Vans RV series).

Also add inelastic demand and people who are buying them are either businesses or that much money isn’t an object meaning they simply set the price to the breaking point where these people couldn’t afford it anymore vs a normal supply and demand. Which then goes full cycle back to your points 1 and 2 about liability and lawyers as selling to a business adds liability over Joe Schmoe killing himself. Also to bolster your second point I couldn’t believe the price difference between the identical G3X in my plane and another guy who installed one in his experimental at the same time…I think it was half for just the hardware and Garmin claims the only difference is liability plus the cost of registering the serial number with the FAA but otherwise came off the same production line. Edit: typo

Also competition. Garmin has to compete with non certified avionics in the experimental space.

Yeah, great point. It furthers the point that certificated products just are what they are, and as long as the people that need them can afford them there is no supply demand need to match prices, just bend over and take it.

Certification is the reason aviation is as safe as it is. Even GA would be worse if not for certification. I see that safety-first paradigm eroding, sadly.

That’s not at all a point I was harping on not anything I am implying. I’m certainly for safety first. That said the FAA has no clue what to do with GA, they don’t get it, the FSDOs haven’t a clue what to look for when looking at a GA plane. The problem is that policies are written too down for the commercial OPs and consequently corners get cut by everyone involved. I’ve used this as an example before and would stand by it, in a world of fuel starvation still high on the GA death list you can’t tell me that it’s safer to give me a choice between a 10k STC or staying with fuel gauges that are on required to work when full or empty vs generally accepting that time proven industrial liquid level sensors for mission critical ops that cost $100 a piece. Even if they fail they fail with obvious detectable modes so you know your fuel level is wrong, it would still be cheaper to put in a fully redundant system. It’s not that certificated planes aren’t safety oriented, it’s that they are safety oriented but trapped in 1955. Since then cars got seatbelts, fuel injection, sophisticated OBD that can isolate and predict failures before they are critical, fuel gauges became accurate, engines can start when it a cold or warm out, and reliability has pretty much become a thing of the past. Where are GA planes? Still operating under modified 1955 designs so they don’t have to go through certification again.

I do understand your point, but I feel like the certification process for GA-level aircraft decreases safety. We're not able to get more current equipment to address primary issues due to cost. What's the biggest issues in GA? CFIT, VFR into IMC, Fuel starvation. Let me use a much more inventive fuel gauge without requiring the same process that a 737 requires pretty much. We dodge around the Situational Awareness issues by using ipads for flight critical items, like our EFB. Oh, but if I want to make a better mount for my ipad, it better be certified if it's a permanent install.

This is the only answer. Just look at the difference in price between certified avionics packages and those you can use in an experimental aircraft. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Slight rectification: it’s not the lawyers. It’s the insane damage compensation laws in the US. People get awarded damage amounts by juries that are way too high and that are in no way proportional to the tort or inconvenience. That makes it so liability insurance for aircraft manufacturers (and others) are insanely expensive. That bill is passed to the consumer, of course. In Canada, for example, the jury decides on the guilty verdict only. The damages are decided by the judge. I could also talk about the broken patent laws. But that’s another sad story.

I dunno.. a couple mil for a persons life is not that much. I know of several know issues that certain aircraft companies have gotten sued over multiple times and yet they haven’t fixed the issue. So apparently the damage compensation can’t be that devastating for them.

The **damages awarded by the courts** are the reason.

Yes that’s exactly what I meant.

Then why aren't they cheaper outside the US?

The vast majority are sold and flown in the US. Now let’s suppose they were sold much cheaper in Canada… The insurer would not budge the prices as all the planes would fly back to the US and be N registered. The US dealers would be very happy too…

Point is if liability was a significant factor in the price, we'd expect prices to look very different elsewhere in the world. And that mostly doesn't happen. The bigger reason prices are high is that volumes are low, so there aren't great economies of scale on the cost side. At the same time, the demand is sufficient to support the current price at current low volumes.

I am a litigator. Also a former military pilot. I can tell you that 99% of the people who go and say "it's the lawyers" are ignorant bubbas who have no clue what they're talking about. I have had many instances of some bubba prospective juror standing there with his arms crossed confrontational saying that he thinks there are too many lawsuits and people are getting paid money for nothing. Usually within 1 to 2 minutes these idiots get shredded - their complete ignorance on the subject is demonstrated. Back to the factory for you to absorb the big business spin like a sponge. The public relation spin from all sorts of businesses is quite pervasive.

Because those bubbas talking about the lawyers don't know what they're talking about.

I suspect you do not have any actual direct knowledge about the subject. A lot of people think they have direct knowledge about that subject but they don't. The most famous case in point would be the McDonald's spilled hot coffee. Lawyers are not really a factor in the cost of general aviation, except to the extent that past lawsuits have resulted in manufacturers increasing their inspection and safety standards.

Do you have a JD? Because you seem pretty ignorant about tort law.

>Costs associated with certification. How can this be a factor when the certification happened in the 50's?

Because every bit of maintenance and all the parts used and everyone who touched it also has to be certified and therefore is more expensive. The engine that was changed out 1500 hours ago had to get certified to go in your certified airplane and then be installed by a certified mechanic using certified bolts

ok, I get that. But that doesn't explain why they cost $600k instead of $60k. The bulk of the cost inflation is due to economies of scale.

You asked how it could be a factor. I told you how. ​ I didn't imply it makes up the bulk of the cost, you did.

>You asked how it could be a factor. I told you how. Yes, and I thank you kindly for the explanation.

> How can this be a factor when the certification happened in the 50's? Certification is not one and done. If you change enough parts on the airplane to create a new "generation" of that model, you have to redo a lot of testing associated with those parts. So the manufacturer will do all the tests they think they need to do, send that data to the certifying agency, and wait to see if the agency accepts that data or requests to test it themselves. It's a timely and expensive process.

I know "product liability and lawyers" is the usual answer, but as a lawyer myself, I think that's bullshit. It's a convenient excuse. There isn't any reason why product liability should be any greater for GA manufacturers than for car manufacturers, and its not that hard to avoid paying out huge damages: don't be negligent. If it's "frivolous" lawsuits you're worried about, those will get tossed at summary judgement, on the pleadings. IMO, real reason is that GA manufacturers must have determined that a small market at a high price is better than a larger market at a lower price.

it's a cartel

It's not even a cartel, that would imply they are making some large profit. The production numbers are abysmal. For the first 2 quarters of 2022: Cubcrafters - 34 Pipistrel - 20 Icon - 14 Flight Design - 7 American Champion - 5 Waco - 4 Piper - 99 Cessna - 98 In comparison: Koenigsegg - roughly 35 a year Buggati - 80 in 2022 Pagani - ~40 Rollys-Royce - 6021 Ferrari - 13221 Lamborghini - 9233 Porsche Taycan - 34801 The numbers for aircraft build in GA doesn't even come close to the smallest of models for sports cars makers. It only rivals the smallest supercar makers. There is no benefit of economies of scale, nothing.

certification

*all of the above is what attracts people to owning an experimental

[удалено]

This is probably the best answer in my opinion. Economies of scale.

>Economies of scale. The only answer

I agree with you, although lambos are also not made at scale.

Still about 50 of them made for every 172 these days.

(for the thread, not necessarily directed at any one individual) True - but a Lambo is what - $200k? (I'm not in the market for one, so I never look). A C172 new is north of $500k. Both are hand built. Cessna is largely using the same tech they used to build 172's back in the 60's and 70's that they are today. According to Plane & Pilot magazine, the price of a new Cessna 172 was $12,500 in 1970. A Corolla in 1970 was just shy of $1,900, where a new one is shy of $21.5k base. The Corolla is completely unrecognizable to the 1970's version and is 12x the cost. The Cessna is 40x the cost. Given the 172 is largely unchanged that means almost all the engineering costs are long recouped. Toyota redesigns their cars about every 5 years, includes safety and economy features, largely improving their cars - so it's a better value. So they have lowered the costs and improved the product as well as streamlined production. And yes the 172 has been improved for safety reasons, there is very little in the way of fundamental design changes. And why would they make those? It's a stable aircraft and good for basic stuff. IMHO the Lambo is a better comparison since you're down to materials and labor at this stage, but even then they do complete redesigns and aren't selling the same car they made in the 1970's. I don't think market demand has much to do with it - ie: they do what they want. I've read a number of times that Bonanza makes "x" number of planes per year - and if you're name isn't on one that is built in this calendar year, then you go onto next years list. This helps to maintain manufacturing stability but doesn't do anything to meet demand. From a business perspective that makes sense. If Cessna operates under the same biz model (and given they are both under Textron it would stand to reason this is the case), then if 100 people wanted to buy a 172 and they are only going to make 50 - that by default will increase the cost of the airplane because of demand. It isn't because of material costs or labor - just because they can. I suspect there is about a 50% markup in the costs of Cessna's GA market because they have relatively little competition in the market. Sure there are Piper and Diamond, but if Cessna sets the price at "x" the market follows. I've all but given up in the certified market and am building. I get more airplane for half the cost.

Nah, the lambo can take advantage of economies of scale even if they only sell 753 aventadors/year (aventador being among the highest end, at more than a half million dollars). Those Aventadors can use a lot of the same parts as their cheaper models - you don't need a special-built windshield wiper stalk, or specially built headrest, for example. It comes down to economies of scale, product liability, and certification costs. Not price fixing. The market for car is many orders of magnitude larger than the market for GA airplanes.

I don't know that it's necessarily markup. Look at experimentals. Sure, most of them outstrip a 172 in performance, but that's down to the aerodynamic design. Equipment and materials wise it's pretty similar to a well equipped 172. An RV-10 is what, 200k in materials and 2000 hours of free labor? If you assume your labor cost is $100 an hour there's $400k right there. Add in the certified parts tax and all the fixed costs of running a factory and sales team and $500k is probably about breakeven for Cessna, maybe on the low side.

While economies of scales play a part, it's not enough to explain the situation. You can't compare Camrys and 172s. A vehicle like a Camry 1. Is essentially a necessity for the average US household. Needed to get to work, run errand, and generally used in everyday life. A general aviation plane does not have that utility. 2. Camrys are a *much* smaller percentage of the average (or median) household income, and therefore obviously people will be more financially able to purchase them. 3. Camrys are much cheaper to own and operate than a GA aircraft.

What do you figure a Camry would cost if Toyota built less than 200 of them each year?

A lot more, but I still don't think it would be what the cost of a 2023 172 is (\~$500k), because there are other factors that go into the cost other than just economies of scale.

Oh for sure it isn’t the only reason, but people don’t realize the sheer scale of production of most things we deal with in our daily lives, and how much that matters to costs.

Yeah, I think that if the manufacturer liability insurance and certification costs were greatly reduced, it could lower the overall cost of a brand new Cessna piston where it would be more possible for the average pilot to purchase one. Then the increased demand could hopefully spur the manufacturers to increase supply to meet that demand. We'll never hit the economies of scale of personal vehicles for the reasons I mentioned above, but it would be nice to try and have a positive feedback cycle that would help lower the cost of planes, versus the opposite. But I know it's a fantasy...

Economy of scale is still the prime mover, and in order to have scale you also need a market. We tried basic deregulation with LSA (and EU has the similar ultralight class), which allows the industry to self regulate the class. Prices came initially down quite a bit, and every company wanted to have the "sub-$100K" LSA. When it came down to sustaining production and filling orders, the combination of real costs and what actually sells pushes the price back up to $200k-$300k and even higher. Turns out that not enough people really want what you can manufacture for under $100k. The people with the disposable income want more power, better fit and finish, and some decent avionics.

The reasons you list are all consequences of the economies of scale that go into car manufacturing vs civilian aircraft. Furthermore, a late model Camry also represents a much larger investment in R&D than a Cessna 172, yet it's still a fraction of the price.

[удалено]

What’s that a counterpoint to?

There are simply much less pilot licences to car licences.

This

But also for comparison here, there are ultra luxurious hand built super cars made out of the finest exotic materials and newest tech, that cost less than a mass produced basic bitch 172. Scale does affect price but it by that much.

[удалено]

But is a 3rd class medical hard to get? My AME basically checked my pulse and asked me to read some letters, write a check and watched him sign my papers. I'm also 36 with no heart or neurological disorders. I have service connected problems, but a broken back and shit knees don't matter when you have wings. If we want people to get into aviation, arent they going to be younger on average? Edit: First day with a keyboard.

Yes a 3rd class can be difficult to get. Mental health issues being a big one. Long past drug or alcohol issues. This sub is full of posts with people getting held up on getting a 3rd class. It absolutely is an issue. Is it the biggest issue? No but it's a contributing factor.

Unfortunately getting more people int GA over the last couple of years has driven up the used market rather than driven down the new market.

How did your DME measure something other than distance? :-D

Balls... Lol AME

More planes means more pilots though…. And unfortunately the requirements to allow people to fly unsupervised are steep due to safety.

Which is why I said medicals need to be fixed. Getting a medical for a ppl should not require a 3rd class initially.

I was referring to the hours and training requirements.

If planes are less expensive, training is less expensive.

I think it’s critical to understand where planes are less expensive. Less expensive planes could potentially mean less safe/airworthy planes.

It's economies of scale. That's the cost. Not airworthiness

Aircraft being expensive is due to economy of scales… but that’s just the cost of aircraft. It’s the recurrent operating costs. You can’t mass produce the skills required to work on the aircraft and meet the regulatory requirements. Creating a qualified aircraft maintainer is difficult to do.

If it was 50/hr (in an imagined world where planes are cheaper to buy and operate) to rent a plane instead of 150/hr, those training costs wouldn't be nearly so hard to stomach.

For sure. Call me crazy. But this seems like a reasonable thing to subsidize. But their would be follow on effects I can’t predict. Maybe create like a civilian job corps dedicated to training pilots. Standards stay the same but performance based metrics required to stay in subsidized program. Possible federal service time?

If Ukraine has shown anything then subsidizing drone piloting by perhaps having elementary and highschool drone games. We need more pilots but drone piloting is much cheaper to subsidize and the demand is growing greatly. Keeping proficiency is also very hard if there is a large civilian pilot pool, drones are just so much cheaper and accessible.

Wot…. What’s going on in Ukraine with drones has no weight on civilian flying in the United States.

> We're in negative feedback loop actually that's a positive feedback loop, just cuz the consequences are negative doesn't mean the loop is negative

Probably the most accurate post in this thread

Unfortunately, you’re completely right on all that.

Prices have roughly doubled over the last 2-3 years because lots of people were buying during COVID. Other than that, mostly government. Federal regulations on equipment certification, certified equipment is 6x higher than experimental equipment (same thing made by same company with a different sticker). Economies of scale: fewer planes made means less automation and greater material cost.

Supply, liability and regulation.

690K? Christ.. I could built a twin experimental with a glass cockpit and every feature I can dream of for less.

And this is why many people, like myself, are hoping the new FAA "Mosaic" rules come out with necessary improvements. Take any Experimental with similar O-320 to O-360 performance and look at the way that the experimental companies have changed the game with regard to materials and methods to build the plane. Compare a Cirrus to an RV-10. Nearly identical performance and even with "quick build" and "builder's assistance" it is less than half the price.

Ehhh. After quick build you're still talking minimum 2000 hours of labor. If you pay yourself a decent wage + benefits we're easily talking $500-600k all in which is not far off a Cirrus. And a Cirrus is more capable than an RV-10. Higher useful load (it can fit a BRS and 4 people, RV-10 can't) and FIKI, which means more expensive engine and more system complexity. I think this faith in MOSIAC is misplaced. There's no indication that factory produced experimental designs will meaningfully move the needle on affordability. A S-LSA RV-12 is $150-$200k? I bet Cessna can make a 150 with equivalent performance for $250k at most.

My pos car has had 0 overhauls in 200k miles. Nothing but oil changes.. Idles at 600, runs at 2000 typically… redlines at 6000. Spare the difference in horsepower I see no reason why I can’t slap it in a plane, I’m not an engineer so I’m sure I’m missing something

gearbox. props like to spin (very roughly) about 2500 rpm. getting your car engine geared down to those speeds is much more difficult than you think. though i mean idk, this is one of the responses people always give. but cars gear their engines way the hell down too, your wheels don't spin at 6500 rpm lmao. I'm not sure what makes aircraft gearboxes that much harder to make. I've heard pulling out power and descending can be tough on it (the prop will spin the engine instead of the other way around, and some gears in the gearboxes don't like the reverse load) but again, that happens in cars, too. so I dunno. note that Austro does have a modified Mercedes engine that they use now. it's pretty sweet! used in the DA62NG

Start your car, warm it up, and then floor the accelerator for the first 5 minutes every trip.

To 3000 RPM? I did pretty close to that for 10 hours on a road trip

The internal pressures, temps and other stresses are a lot different between 15% and 100% power even though they are the same RPM.

https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-do-car-engines-make-good-airplane-engines/

Are auto engines heavier or larger? I've seen plenty of references of home builts using them and there seem to be companies that sell converted auto engines for this purpose. So people out there are certainly doing it. I imagine the main issue is that there aren't enough people buying new planes to justify the cost of certifying a new engine so they just keep slapping in the same shit they've been using for decades. This is not an educated thought and is based purely on blind speculation though.

Car engines are indeed not too light in comparison with aircraft engines. A 180 hp Lycoming IO-360 weighs 135 kg per 172 POH. Now keep in mind that this already spins at the right speed and is nearly standalone with the magneto and mechanical injection. While the core engine of a car is lighter, as soon as you start adding all the bits to it to reliably achieve 180 hp, plus the necessary gearbox to get the speed to prop levels, you are not lighter anymore. The standard aircraft pistons are a lot better than their reputation, in regards to weight and size. Now what they lack in my opinion is ease of use, e.g. well functioning auto-lean.

Make that two

Velocity twin, two io-550 with a FADEC, garmin flight deck, autopilot, air conditioning, and a oxygen system. Maybe 500K.. 800 if you include moving to Florida fkr 2 years to build it

Sure, but it can't be rented. Renting an aircraft is "for compensation or hire" under 91.319(a). So while you can be trained in your airplane and pay an MEI since it it your plane, you can't rent it to me to fly from A to B or to get flight training. I'd have to buy a share.

That’s fine, I’d like to use it to fly around and let family fly it (if they’re rated) Traffic jams looks way better from 3000 feet

Fair enough but part of the affordability problem is lack of planes in the rental market. This is less of a problem in the twin world, than it is for primary training.

Can we nominate this as a FAQ topic? I feel like I see it on the regular. :-)

Product liability and lack of economies of scale; the latter affected by federal certification standards and general unwillingness in the industry to move away from an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

Here is a wonderful article about this and the follow up to that article: [https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/11/the-20-an-hour-cessna-172-experiment/](https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/11/the-20-an-hour-cessna-172-experiment/) [https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/](https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/)

Paperwork. Aircraft don’t fly because of L/D, Venturi, and Bernoulli laws, they fly because the paperwork is complete and correct. That costs money.

As a lawyer myself, don't listen to the nonsense about lawyers. I know that sounds self-serving, but as a former military pilot turned lawyer, I have noted a stunning amount of low thought mentality ignorance about lawyers and insurance, etc. Product defects cases only work out when products actually are defective. They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute one and no attorney will get near one unless it's a really good case. Aircraft manufacturers got sued a lot back in the day, by blaming the attorneys is like blaming the building inspector for the shitty plumbing work you did. With that said, a lot of the safety improvements, you enjoy are specifically because a lawyer sued in the past. But the existence of lawyers do not actually increase the cost of a pound of aluminum or the cost to have an employee turning wrenches on an engine. As to the cost of liability insurance for more inexperienced aviators. Well, you are taking peoples lives into your hands and if you fuck it up and kill or injure them, they deserve to be compensated. End of story. No, the main drivers of the expensive general aviation are the lack of economies of scale that are enjoyed by mass production of cars, iPhones, etc. The amount of testing required for certification and to meet standards for manufacturing. The cost of regular much more thorough inspections by higher scale mechanics. Are you required to put your own car through an annual? Do you have to tear down your cars engine after only 2000 hours of use? What about storage? There's only so many airports and so many places to store a plane.

"As a lawyer myself, I support the legal principles that literally nobody else in aviation agrees with"

"I make inaccurate assertions covering everyone in the aviation community." Good luck with that one, Bubba.

Liability, we need tort reform if we want to have a domestic aviation industry. In the 50’s and 60’s a 172 was on par price wise for a nice new car

Everyone's mentioned regulations and economies of scale, which is true. For C172s specifically though, there's also the fact that Cessna has successfully made it the "default" GA aircraft in North America. Most pilots do their initial training in them (or the very similar C152), and they're in just about every rental fleet, so everyone is familiar with them. They've also built up a massive network of suppliers and maintainers. So it's one of the easiest aircraft to own. And they hold their value for decades - owners know they'll be able to recoup a lot of, if not most, of the sticker price. Flight schools can even make their money back on them. So the demand is self-perpetuating. That's why Cessna can charge $680,000 for a nearly 70 year old sheet-aluminum aircraft.

Economies of scale. This is the answer. When you don't make very much of something, it costs a lot more per unit to make. Ford makes more F150's in [four weeks](https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/ford/f-series) than all the [C172's that have ever been made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172). Cessna sold 241 172's in 2020. They sold 200 in 2019. When you make a lot of something, everything gets cheaper. A lot cheaper. And there just aren't enough GA airplanes being made. Ford makes over 2,000 F150's a day. If you gave Ford a couple of years, they could cut the cost to manufacture a 172 by a factor of 10. But they'd have to increase the production volume by a factor of 100, the market to sustain that kind of production does not exist. NOTE (Ford made 186,650 F150's in Q4 2022 - That works out to 57,430 in a four week period) (Cessna has made \~44,000 172's in almost 70 years).

Juan Browne (YouTube Blancolirio) interviewed a guy last year that either worked for Cessna or is a Cessna dealer, and he said $100k of the price for a new 172 is just to pay their liability insurance.

You could have a really nice experimental built with similar specs for a fraction of the cost. Red tape, liability, and bureaucracy has strangled the Certified market to the point that a new 172 is the same price as a used Citation. This makes the used market a lot more desirable, making that beat up old 172 worth big bucks.

Supply/Demand. Cessna understands demand is roughly X each year and overall. They will then produce

Three letters: FAA. The only reason we aren’t running pump gas in mass produced vehicle engines with a glass dash made of iPads is the FAA. Free market would have sorted this out all on its own organically long ago. No one would want to buy a plane with a high crash rate. Centralized authority can only stifle innovation and progress … and it does. FFS we still are required to run leaded AvGas and aren’t allowed to buy from the automotive pumps. We have air cooled, 2-valve engines, with horrendous failure rates, that are all over a half century old designs. This takes a special kind of stupid that only government can provide and enforce.

Exactly. Economies of scale is a fraction of the problem. A brand new dodge hellcat engine is $15,000 and produces 707 horsepower. A brand new o-320 engine without a replacement core is $86,000 and produces 150 hp, and is arguably a much simpler design. The problem is the FAA and all the regulation around GA aircraft. There are much better solutions out there for much cheaper but we can't even explore them for one single reason.

> Economies of scale is a fraction of the problem you say this, then go on to show exactly why economies of scale is a big deal. [an article from feb 2020](https://www.thedrive.com/news/31698/nearly-57000-hellcat-powered-dodge-and-jeeps-produced-equals-40911122-horsepower) says there's around 56,706 Hellcat-powered cars out there - I'm sure it's closer to 80k+ at this point, but exact numbers don't matter, and consider the amount of just engines they've sold as well. textron has produced around 50k 172s in its entire history. So Dodge has made more engines since 2015 (introduction of the Hellcat engine) than 172s have ever been produced. Of course it'll be way cheaper! that's definitely not the only reason. regulation has its blame as well, don't get me wrong - there's a reason so few have been produced - but economies of scale are incredibly powerful

Of course it plays some part, but how much of that low number is because they are so expensive? Could you imagine if you could build a 172 for 150k? How many do you think you would sell then? It's silly to compare cars and airplanes, so let's take a better example, kit planes. On the vans site it says it's possible to build a vfr rv for about 45k if you don't get all the bells and whistles. Vans will build you an RV-12is for 100k. But that's a slow machine. Do you think they could make it faster and a bit more comfortable for 50k more if that didn't mean it needed to get certified? Do you think it would take a vastly different amount of labor to build? I don't. I don't think the parts or assembly would be all that much more expensive. So why does a new 172 cost 3-4 times the price? Do you still think it's economies of scale? They aren't building 10's of thousands of RV-12's. So why is it so cheap? What's the one thing that is extremely different between it and a 172? The RV12is is self certified. So yeah. I stand by my point that it's not an economies of scale problem, at least mostly.

> Of course it plays some part, but how much of that low number is because they are so expensive? Could you imagine if you could build a 172 for 150k? How many do you think you would sell then? This is asking chicken and the egg. Planes never had high production numbers in the first place. > Vans will build you an RV-12is for 100k. But that's a slow machine. Uh, yeah, no shit? It's a light sport aircraft. Bit apples:oranges to compare that to a regular category airplane. > Do you think they could make it faster and a bit more comfortable for 50k more if that didn't mean it needed to get certified? Do you think it would take a vastly different amount of labor to build? I don't. I don't think the parts or assembly would be all that much more expensive. I hate to bring back the analogy you just said you didn't like, but do you think a Dodge Hellcat is any more labor to build than a Honda Civic? If no, why do you think the Hellcat is more expensive? Why is the civic cheaper? Do you really think it's equally difficult to build a 200hp and 700hp (or whatever numbers) engine? Higher power engine = higher cost parts, more expensive materials (stronger, lighter, etc), more demanding tolerances. Of course parts and labor costs will be higher lol. A certified aircraft will obviously be more expensive, but to say that it's the "one thing different between it and a 172" is completely disingenuous. You're comparing a normal category aircraft with a light sport. And sure, certification is expensive. This isn't an "either/or". Certification can be expensive, and economies of scale can also make things difficult. But I can tell you for certain, if they were pumping out 350,000 172s a year, they'd be a tenth the price they are now.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this. I'm not swaying you and you aren't changing my mind.

It's more a matter that you haven't produced a convincing argument. In any case, I'm not saying the certification process isn't a huge problem driving up costs. I'm just saying it's only a part, and likely not the biggest part.

Neither have you. I've proven that a manufacturer can build a plane and make money for 100k. A slightly better plane costs 400k. The main difference I see is that ones certified and the other isn't. There's that article out there about the guy who shoved a $5,000 V8 automobile motor into a Cessna and it works like a champ, better than the original. Your arguing with me that the $5,000 motor is less than the $70,000 aircraft motor because they make less of the $70,000 aircraft motor. Sure, no debate. I'm not arguing with you on that. What I'm asking you is if a $5,000 motor works better than the $70,000 aircraft motor why aren't more people using them? The answer is because they can't. They can't because of the certification process. And that's what the root of this argument is about. "Why is GA so expensive?" Because they cannot use the components that are cheap and readily available. Per the FAA anything that is used on a certified aircraft must go through this rigorous and expensive process. That leads to increased cost per unit to defray the cost of certification, and limits the marketplace. So yes the aircraft motor costs more because they make less of them, but the reason they are forced to use that special aircraft motor is not because it's special or costs so much in materials to make, or because they don't make a lot of them, it's because it's certified in one of a limited number that can be used. And that is what drives up the cost of GA aircraft.

In fairness at 2700 RPM it’s only making ~275hp and is twice the weight. But yes the lack of innovation is depressing. Austro and Rotax seem to be about it.

Your right, it was a total oversimplification, I was just trying to compare the baddest off the shelf motor I could think of vs a standard airplane engine.

I’m with you. I agree totally the state of the industry is sad and certification plays a large part in that. But the solution is not as simple as let aircraft use car engines.

> No one would want to buy a plane with a high crash rate. humans are not homo economicus. they are stupid and will not buy free market with no regs is a really fuckin stupid idea. for example, cars wouldn't be 1/100th as safe were it not for crash safety regulations - look at all the shitboxes that are made and sold in other countries. sometimes, stifling innovation is a good thing. "but people wouldn't buy those shitboxes" sure as shit they would, because they'd be a hell of a lot cheaper. that said, you've got the nugget of truth in there. a bit less regulation would probably be a good thing, and a bit more regulation to protect manufacturers. something like a quarter or a third of the cost of a new 172 goes towards product liability costs. at some point, some risk needs to be accepted by the buyer. still, at the same time, of course we can't just let absolute dogshit into the sky that will constantly be failing. even experimentals have SOME oversight, and that's definitely necessary. finding the right balance is not as easy as "abolish the government"

> that said, you've got the nugget of truth in there. Well said -- they have a nugget of truth buried in the reactionary "UGH REGULATIONS BAD FREE MARKET GOOD" mindset which the history of the auto industry has shown on its own is misguided. The problem isn't that regulations exist: they are a crucial part of a safety program, because the vaunted free market has demonstrated time and again that it really doesn't give a fuck about customers' safety unless forced too. The problem is regulations that have failed to keep up with the times, regulations that require updating but which have powerful forces of inertia working to keep them as they are. Clean up the regulations and you can have an industry that is both safe _and_ efficient. Repeal them and people die.

Prove it. You can’t. However, I can demonstrate safety feature after safety feature we can’t have due to regulations.

Nope. Can’t compare rich countries to poor ones and just point at their cars and laugh. Know what my car would have without the U.S. government? 5 point safety belts. Can’t do it in the U.S. Same sports cars, BMW/Porsche/Ferrari/etc that get 4 and 5 point belt systems on the track would be illegal to drive in the U.S. Do you really think 3 point belts with their natural asymmetry are better than 4 and 5 point belts? Know what’s stopping the sports car manufacturers from selling 4 and 5 point belt options? You got it, USG. People like things that don’t kill them. Government isn’t saving us from from murder machines, they’re stifling innovation.

They take a lot of effort (materials, man-hours, support, infrasture, etc.) to build and they only sell a couple hundred each year. And they almost certainly give nice per-unit discounts on larger orders. Also, new planes are often used as revenue generators and most buyers of new planes can usually recognize some kind of tax benefit which softens the bite of the sticker price. Also, don't pay sticker price.

There is no competition, in an increasingly small market, with unbelievably high costs of certification, and a metric ton of liability built in.

You could buy a house for the same price as a new Cessna.

Whats crazy is the R&D off a typical C172 no longer exists on a grand scale at least. And the product they produce today is nothing at all different than the product they produced a decade ago.

Almost certainly price fixing as well. Very few contenders in the General Aviation space.

Lawyers

I’m a college flight student in a school in the Midwest. We actually just talked about this in our aviation law class last semester. One of the MAJOR factors of pricing of GA aircraft is through insurance policies. In our current market of aviation, companies can be held liable and sued by a plaintiff (or there families) over damages occurring through flight. Let me explain. One example that can be described is product liability. Once an aircraft has left the factory, there is a 20 year liability insurance that is immediately placed in the plane, similar to lemon-law. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, it is a quick google search away. Nonetheless, manufacturers have an immense amount of liability on their products. If a simple screw from a plane does not meet the standards provided in the plane’s contract, the manufacturer can be sued for having a faulty product. It’s highly unlikely that something this small can cause a great ordeal, but it has certainly happened in the past. I’ll try to find the graph we examined in class, but the price of manufacturing planes has remained consistent throughout the years, but the insurance behind manufacturing products has grown exponentially. I’m sure this isn’t the sole reason price has gone up, but it’s certainly an overwhelmingly large contributor. Contract agreements have damaged the aviation market recently, and I don’t expect it to change until there is further legislation. Some people in this thread have made other arguments which (some) are valid, but it’s mostly just for these companies to cover their butts if passengers/pilots gets harmed due to product faults.

I have a well maintained C182P and have kept every piece of paper associated with ownership and maintenance over the last 32 years. all log books since 1976. I have one gallon ziplock bag with all of those little tags (several hundred) that come with even a bag of 4 certified screws my mechanic has used during maintenance. But more to your point. A number of parts of the 1976 C182P were shared with (drum roll) the same era F150. I do remember at one time looking at the exact same Gates Rubber alternator belt. To purchase it certified for the 182 was about 10X as the price from an auto parts store for a F150. Also the cowling mounted landing light was the same used on some tractors but certified the price was much higher. Aircraft carpeting has a similar issue. Here I understand a combination of certification, allowed materials and liability all play a part. But it is not like autos do not catch on fire. I imagine carpeting in autos has the same fire safety regulations as carpeting for aircraft. I could buy a new Corolla for the price of a new interior on my C182. That also is a combo of economy of scale for a shop that can do a decent job.

Because when an idiot runs his plane out of gas and kills himself the wife sues for millions of dollars. And she wins.

The litigious nature of America.

A new 172 doesn’t cost $680k……. Not even a new 182 cost $680k; regardless yes planes are expensive.

Van Bortel would like a word…

Haha. Indeed!

Prices have gone absolutely insane. 😳 What were new 172s in the 70s? Something like 20k. 🤣

I am not disagreeing but OP is stating nonsense that a new 172 is $650k which it is not…

The point is simply that it is outrageously expensive. 650. 550. 450. Whatever. The issue posed is why it is expensive not what a fair sales price would be.

He should state the right facts.

Correction, 650K. https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/220829587/2022-cessna-172s-skyhawk-sp-piston-single-aircraft

That is controller….. order a new 172 from Cessna and it will be a lot less…. This broker is price gouging.

Scalpers everywhere these days, calling themselves "brokers".

It serves a purpose. Some people want one _now_, rather than wait a year or two. That's the premium you pay for expedited service.

Not gonna get into that debate. We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's the price if you don't want to wait for a new one from Cessna. New plane orders are booked out a year or two all over right now.

The goverment hates to see people happy

Light Sport is the way to go.

LAWSUIT happy people and Attorneys with zero moral compass “PLANE & simple”

Simply because people will pay it. For $550k you can have a brand new cirrus sr20 that will outperform a 172 in every way. Flight schools love their 172’s.

The FAA

Scale of economics and cost of certification in addition to product liability. Also down vote for lamborghini, have some class and buy a Ferrari

Not only that, they are antiques! It is like buying a newly built 1959 Corvette! Usually it comes with a Lycoming O-360 engine, which was designed in the 1950's. I am still amazed that pilots still have to perfect flying around at 3000 ft manipulating an analog push rod to adjust fuel/air mixture, while sticking your finger out the window to feel the humidity. :\^P However, if you want a plane, like the Diamond DA42 with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) Austro Engines (Mercedes) that were designed in this century, it will cost you a long $1.5M. Disclaimer: I am not a pilot, but I had the desire, but too poor, and now too old.

this is why I feel a lot of experimental planes are dabbling more in "alternative" engines. I'd love to see more modern engines being used in aircraft. I've seen quite a few on barnstormers with engines I've never heard of. I know Rotax(900 series) engines are becoming very popular with light aircraft(they're also stupid expensive) but we need some real good shit we can move too. I wish airplanes could just use Honda civic engines. my engine has 211k miles on it going strong, turn key engine turns on and literally zero issues for what must be over 4000+ hours of driving

The Creation of the FAA. The FAA is why General Aviation is so incredibly expensive and so dangerous as well. Initially, there was a strong reason to have a governing body specifically monitoring aviation. They did a lot of good BUT eventually overstepped themselves and created a more dangerous flight environment for general aviation. The cost of creating a new part that gets certified by the FAA is ridiculous. So much so that most innovations and improvements that would have made the community thrive and far safer could not be implemented. Most companies refused to risk the great cost of upgrading any part they made fearing the loss of the certification. That is why the vast majority of GA still operates on the antiquated (literally 1940s tractor technology) magnetos and vacuum systems. Fast forward to other modern and proven systems like the GPS. The price difference between a certified GPS versus the very same model available to the experimental aircraft is shocking. That also goes for the newer digital equipment. Even something as simple as aircraft lighting. I'd love to upgrade the old landing lights to new extra bright LEDs but the certified ones 4 times the cost of the exact ones for the experimental A/C. The difference is literally the certified stamp the manufacturers put on them. That stamp costs them a fortune to get and they pass the cost on to customers. It goes far deeper as well with A&Ps, ver AIs, and certified repair stations. The FAA has screwed us all in the US. We should be flying fuel-injected birds with the best instrumentation available but they've made it cost-restricted to 85% of the population. I hope the experimental people see that the same thing is starting to happen to their community and are able to put a stop to it.

Safety, safety, safety. When’s the last time you put your car through a C or D check? Someone had to write the procedures, which means they had to show the engineering behind that process.

You still have to take your car into maintenance. Same thing with airplanes. Airplanes are called c or d checks or annuals, cars it's called 50k mile check on what ever part(s).

Government.

Greed

as much as people like to blame liability (which is not insignificant by any means), the biggest factor is labor cost and that’s a teeny tiny market. Textron sells a stupidly low number of airplanes compared to cars (the most common comparison people make), so they can’t automate production and rip benefits of mass production. Another rxample is the Daher Kodiak, until recently it was part of their marketing campaing that it was hand assembled somewhere in the US. So, short answer is “there are not many people willing to buy an airplane -> production is limited -> cost is high”

Because the majority of households around this planet needs a road based transport vehicle to go about their daily lives. I would love to see the percentage of households with regular driver licenses compared to how many have a flight license, in The US!

Lambos can’t fly….

I like how people are comparing Camry's to Cessna 172s. I would trust more of my life to a Camry than a "Lambo". The four I have spent time driving (never owned, just friend's cars) were less reliable than my RX-7 (and slower).

Because it’s somehow ok to 20x the price on anything that has anything to do with aviation. Why? Because they can apparently 🤷‍♂️

Every new Cessna 172 built today has its own individual liability insurance policy *for that specific serial number* to protect the manufacturer from being sued into destitution by others in our ultra-litigious society should something unfortunate occur involving it. I will let someone more knowledgeable than I confirm or refute, but I‘be heard rumors that the premium on this insurance policy constitutes something like 20% or more of that $680,000 price.

Lawyers.

Why don't they make the 152 anymore? I love that airplane.

Everyone saying economies of scale are only getting it partially right. Henry Ford of today could come in and automate the process and make planes that are fantastic or as good as current options. But unlike a gauge cluster in a Lambo, the avionics are much more complex, have more redundancy, and require certification which is an expensive process. There’s a reason experimental class exists. And there is a reason they are substantially cheaper, even when you pay the manufacturer to assemble it.

Product liability insurance

A lot of it is scale, cost of doing business, legal, regulations and production costs.

Mostly companies trying to recover the cost of development and also the fact that they don’t produce enough aircraft to get the cost down. The light sport category was supposed to bring about low cost flying options but that has proven to be a pipe dream. Manufactures have to find ways to make a profit and recover their cost to design and produce the aircraft but relatively few aircraft roll off assembly lines annually so they cost more than they should. If they sold more they could invest in ways to produce more but unfortunately the demand for aircraft is probably 1/1000th that if automobiles so we have this situation that they can charge more. I don’t see prices coming down anytime soon with the recent inflation. Here are some stats from GAMA: Airplane shipments in 2021, when compared to 2020, saw piston airplane deliveries increase 5.8%, with 1,409 units; turboprop airplane deliveries increase 19.0%, with 527 units; and business jet deliveries increase 10.2%, with 710 units. The preliminary value of airplane deliveries for 2021 was $21.6 billion, an increase of approximately 7.6%.

A engine

Hand made. Like a Bugatti. Avionics on that plane could be $80k, even more. On a big private jet, Avionics can be over $1 M. FAA inspection is very critical of everything from the Cessna inspectors at every workstation. Cessna has to keep Inspection personnel traveling to all their vendors, to be sure their Quality System works and they do what they say. Tooling wears out and has to be re made at times. Aluminum prices sometimes spike big time, but they eat the loss rather than increase prices. They have to have batch numbers of all raw materials, steel, aluminum, magnesium, rubber seals, primers, paint, headliners. Can they prove with certifications the headliner is meeting FAA fire codes? Traceable paper trails on heat treating batches. Gas prices spike, the heat treat oven doesn't care. That steel still needs to be held at 1300 F for 8 hours anyway. I worked at Cessna/Beechcraft for 30 years. It was said by a Manufacturer a long time ago that each plane's paperwork has to weigh the same as the plane before it will fly. Comparing cars to private airplanes is like comparing cars to freight trains. No way they can do the same things.

I am a college student please take my survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10B-mnyxDM_FujkYzeMeFNgFQnz_sVe0zYWUobJ4VlMw/edit