Are new planes more expensive relative to incomes?

I agree that buying an old plane is sensible, that’s why I fly a 1979 plane and not a 2015 plane. However, I am very unhappy about that. I could also buy a 1979 car, could get it for 100 € probably but I think 2015 cars are both significantly better and attractively priced.

One of the reasons I’m buying and flying aircraft today is that old cars have risen in price beyond my means…. I have one collector car but its not a blue chip item

In today’s market, $100K can be used more productively elsewhere than it can to buy an old car, lovely though that old car may be. Maybe years from now (about the time I’m too feeble to fly, or lose interest) the old car market bubble will have burst and I’ll cash in my chips to buy an even older man’s cherished hobby. Similar to what can be done today with planes – I’ve already done that; one owner of my plane had it for 28 years.

Yeah but think about the advantages – who cares if the industry is dead if you can have a fleeting momentary orgasm that is bound to end forcibly with the demise of the industry? That requires “intellectual discipline” however – knowing you have an asset that is likely to be worth ca 0.01 cents on the dollar before long is not for the intellectually feeble. God forbid we “change the industry” so others have a chance to enjoy it too.

achimha wrote:

Yes and a 2015 Cessna doesn’t have 4 ashtrays anymore…

Took this photo a couple of days ago. Had never thought about it actually.

Don Draper would have enjoyed this as it helps the cigarette to burn at altitude. Also with all the vodka, oxygen helps to keep you alert in difficult weather.

My 1979 Don Draper plane has 4x oxygen factory installed and 4 ashtrays and 1 cigarette lighter.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

who cares if the industry is dead if you can have a fleeting momentary orgasm that is bound to end forcibly with the demise of the industry? That requires “intellectual discipline” however – knowing you have an asset that is likely to be worth ca 0.01 cents on the dollar before long is not for the intellectually feeble.

I think the European GA industry has been on that path for maybe 15 years, mainly as a result of oppressive regulation, but the US GA industry has changed without the need for activism into something fairly sustainable: over 9,000 RVs are flying, in conjunction with other practical kit built aircraft and a serviceable and economical fleet of factory built aircraft. VanGrunsven is obviously a real world doer, not a whiner, and US regulations allowed scope for him to do something useful.

My planes would together sell for less money than I currently keep as a working cash reserve, so obviously for me resale value cannot be a major consideration. That said, I expect that some day they’ll sell for something like what I paid for them.

I think most people will buy new when given reasonable options, hence microlights at 150k, which IMO hardly even is a reasonable option. But it beats an old Cessna for anyone satisfied flying VFR with two persons (1 and 1/2 if flown legally at any distance). A couple of weeks ago I had a look at this brand new Sirius (TL 3000).

It’s more or less a modernized mini Cessna look’a’like, only it comes with 2 x Garmin G3x touch and a Rotax 912 iS and built entirely of carbon composite. Absolutely lovely little thing. It’s produced entirely in Europe (except the Garmin option) and sells like hot cakes. This is somewhat surprising perhaps, since Cessna tried the same with their C-162, and it didn’t work, even though it was all made in low cost production giant China. Nothing wrong with the demand, only Cessna just didn’t bother anymore due to the extremely competitive market and small margins. They have “better” things to spend their production facilities and work force on, things that gives more profit for far less.

I would love to have that little plane, but I would never pay 150k€ for it (or whatever it was he paid, he wouldn’t tell). Later that day I flew to Tynset and spent the rest of the day there, and got a chance to look at this airplane. A beautiful example of the MFI-9B.

Who would guess this is a 50 year old aircraft? It looks modern even today, much more so than the Sirius in fact, or the C-162

LeSving wrote:

I would love to have that little plane, but I would never pay 150k€ for it (or whatever it was he paid, he wouldn’t tell). Later that day I flew to Tynset and spent the rest of the day there, and got a chance to look at this airplane. A beautiful example of the MFI-9B.

It sure looks like a nice one, and a pretty setting too. The SAAB / Bölkow 208 is the kind of plane I think makes good sense for a lot of normal people to buy and own, today, right now, no fantasy required .. It was originally an FAA home built.

Silvaire wrote:

Silvaire 11-Aug-15 17:10 #75
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

I think the European GA industry has been on that path for maybe 15 years, mainly as a result of oppressive regulation, but the US GA industry has changed without the need for activism into something fairly sustainable: over 9,000 RVs are flying, in conjunction with other practical kit built aircraft and a serviceable and economical fleet of factory built aircraft. VanGrunsven is obviously a real world doer, not a whiner, and US regulations allowed scope for him to do something useful.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 11 Aug 17:

You got to be kidding no US activism?? Without EAA and AOPA and BAA we would not have GA in the US. I really cant go over all the negative things they have prevented just in my life time. Every pilot should be member. If for no other reason than for support of numbers when our groups go to the legislature. While they, the legislature, might have been bought off by lobbyists they still acknowledge that vote count gets them elected and re-elected.

I wouldn’t call 9’000 planes made by the owners in their respective shed an “industry” – much less a sustainable one.