But of course, the main reason why we're still seeing the old WW2 designs on the ramp is the insane expense of new aircraft. A factory new IFR tourer starts at USD400k. Way outside the budget of most people.
You make some good points but have factory new IFR tourers ever been within the budget of most people? We have to careful when looking back at prices to not forget inflation. I agree they were relatively cheaper but still not in the range of a motor vehicle. Let alone IFR aircraft.
I too am not convinced that planes have gone up in price, ahead of inflation since say 1960. I bet they haven't.
I think light GA planes have always been priced at the top end of what a successful professional (e.g. a surgeon doing private work) or small-business proprietor can afford.
Basically the price of a modest house!
Also I do not believe that uncertified are better value for money. Some of the Rotax powered ones are amazingly expensive (~€80k+) for a very simple airframe, poorly insulated, and apparently flimsy. Uncertified avionics is certainly a lot cheaper however.
Finally, the attitude against GA which has developed primarily in Europa but is also taking hold in the US, where GA Pilots are generally assumed to be rich playboys and ecologically irresponsible people.
If the point being made here is meant to be applicable to the US, that is really not every man's perception.
What has actually happened to new aircraft in the US is that most private owners stopped buying certified aircraft when the kit built industry matured. It was a natural evolution given that aircraft buyers tend to be technical people regardless. 0-15 year old Van's RVs are like belly buttons around my base: it seems everybody has one, typically built for $60-90K, they are practical, and they are used in the US without restrictions on IFR or anything else. The builders, being builders, are generally not quite the 'rich playboy type' and public perception recognizes it. There are enough airshows and public displays for them to learn.
The declining US pilot population has nothing at all to do with public image. The US is not Europe with its over-done environmental religion and enduring class envy, in spite of the late model US politician's interest in promoting same. In the US it actually has more to do with Southwest Airlines and fast, long lived, ultra reliable modern cars. They can get most utility work done. The main market for new aircraft has therefore shifted from production aircraft for family transportation to kit built two place all-rounders built in lower volume, but still reasonable volume. 8000 RVs now flying.
Just shows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the Bonanza does indeed have "ramp presence." The Cirrus looks like a pregnant guppie....
I agree!
My choice in that category would be a Bellanca Viking because they are more vulnerable and appealing on that basis like a lost puppy :-) No accounting for taste.
The Boeing production rate for the 737 series is higher than the production rate for all Cessna SEP's. That is how far the market has fallen.
In 1979 Cessna built over 3000 C172's, but in inflation adjusted dollars they were selling for about 115,000 USD each average equipped. A new C 172 (albeit with much more capable avionics and a nicer interior) is 370,000 USD. I knew 2 guys that bought a new C 172 in 1972. Both were regular guys with regular jobs that bought half of a brand new airplane instead of a luxury car.
Fast forward to today and the number of guys who are interested in spending over a third of a million bucks for a new C 172 is a much much smaller number than it would be if you could get a new 4 place airplane for a little over 100,000 dollars. Furthermore in a pre-deregualation airline environment of high fares and service only between big cities like you had in the 1970's, loading the family in a light aircraft to go somewhere often made good financial sense.
Cheap and ubiquitous airline travel have made "going places" by GA an obsolete concept today.
GA everywhere is slowly, or in the case of EU land quickly, dying. It is unfortunately a vicious circle with reduced activity leading to continuing reductions in the number of airports, maintenance facilities, parts manufacturing etc etc.
Sadly aviation will IMO eventually be reduced to a rump of pure enthusiasts who just want to fly. Maybe it is time to give up on the dream of "rebuilding" GA and instead concentrate on keeping the passion alive where the enthusiasm is, namely, simple cheap airplanes owned by a syndicate, soaring, aerobatics, homebuilding and ultralights.
.
You may not forget, that the planes, Beech, Cessna and Piper cranked out by the thousands proved to be very durable aeroplanes. And so the used market competes directly with new planes. I know many folks around who have recently bought their old C172 or PA28 with a literally bulletproof engine for the fractions of maintenance costs a competing new aeroplane, for instance the DA40. The airframes are well known everywhere, where there is a general aviation and you just have to pay some 20 to 30000 Euros for the plane. Or look at the vintage Bonanzas, witch go cheap as 20000 US$ to 50000 US$ for a decent early model. And they cruise with 140 Kts on 40 litres Mogas. The ageing GA pilot crowd actually tends to flood the market, too. Every second plane, it seems, is sold because of loss of medical, owner died or gave up aviation.
When a new 172 costs 300000 EUR, I'd rather buy an older 172 for 30000 Euros, add another 20 to 25k and have modern avionics, a decent interior and the same usability. Overhaul the engine for 20k and get her a paint job for 10k and you have still spent only a third of the new same plane. And 210000 EUR buys a LOT of gas and charter fees of a bigger plane, if it is necessary. Bottom line: There is not much sense in buying some of those planes new, at least not as a private person. Well, not when there are many used planes around witch just do the job for most people.
And it is not true, that us "younger" generation of GA pilots condemn those old designs. I know more pilots aged 20 to 30, who'd rather dream of a C310, C340 or TwinCom, than a Cirrus or C400. And among my kind, nothing beats the ramp appeal of a Beech 18 or C195, but that is Class rather than usability.
Greetings,
My two pence worth
We operate a Cessna 150 and a 172 for flight training. We are rushed off our feet and need a second two seat aircraft.
I need to stay in business (which isn't easy with EASA coming out with all this ATO crap) so I want the aircraft that gives the lowest overall operating costs.
Sadly in the case of two seat design that’s a 25 year old Cessna 152. And this is where all the current aircraft designers have failed. They all produce some plastic fantastic rotax powered mogas sipping hotship but the overall they simply cost more to run than a 152 – hence that is what we will buy.
If someone could actually produce a suitable design with say running cost 50% of that of a 152 then the market would be huge. 152s would then be available to private owners and in time there replacements also.
Finally Peter I very much encourage qualified students to buy into groups and although I’ve not audited yet (although this as well as my bowel habit will probably be required by EASA) our post PPL drop out rate is far lower than the industrial average.
Is a C172 really $300k?
In 2003, a school here in the UK bought three C172s for £120k each (~$180k), from a Cessna dealer called CSE.
Pricing a C172 at $300k means somebody has lost the plot. It isn't going to make sense except for heavy-use flight training scenarios, and that has to be in the USA; in Europe the utilisation is much lower.
I still think the biggest missed opportunity has been the failure to come out with nice looking planes. Let's face it - everything else around us looks "nice". Cars, domestic items, consumer electronics. Finally, Cirrus did it and cleaned up the market. They did not deliver any technical innovation; it's all smart marketing: the chute, removing the RPM lever, fixed gear which costs a load of money in fuel. The 2 doors mean people can get in normally, instead of climbing over seats and over other people which is what you do in all the single-door airframes. And adverts aimed at successful aggressive and fashion conscious young men, which exposed new strata of customers who would have never otherwise been attracted to GA.
Every second plane, it seems, is sold because of loss of medical, owner died or gave up aviation.
And some due to EASA FCL ....
I very much encourage qualified students to buy into groups
That's a hugely novel concept... encouraging new PPL holders to fly! What next? 
Actually I suggested that to the CFI at my PPL school. It didn't float...
Why didn't Cessna restart the 152?
I have no idea why but wonder if perhaps it is very hard for a C152 to be legal (below MTOW) with two modern-size people. In my PPL training (PA38 and then C152) we never did W&B for flying lessons.
