PilotDAR wrote:Same with a plane... it has depreciated all it will.
Maybe yes, maybe no... I don't know the New price in 1975 of my 150M, but I bet that it will still fetch about that today!
Ahh... yes! Inflation. I was looking at a 1948 Aeronca Champ that just needs recover, engine, and prop... and it's worth (well... the guy is asking) two grand more than it was brand new. Of course... it's probably not worth it even if it was free... but I'm sure somebody will take it.
hangar3 wrote:@iflyforpie
I totally hear you, I wouldn't buy a new 172 if I had the money, as I could own and maintain a fleet of 10 for the same price as one new one!
How is it possible, that in 45 years, a C172 that rolls off the production line is the same as one from 1970! There are hundreds of advances that by now should have completely changed the way we fly. Are the research teams at these manufacturers dormant?
Yes and no. I mean.. you look at a Cirrus... and it represents an almost equivalent advancement to aviation. All composite construction, advanced aerodynamics, etc etc.... and it does fly faster on less fuel. But most airplanes are a compromise and where it gains in cruising speed and efficiency it loses in docility and low speed handling characteristics. The humble Cessna 172 and 182 have always managed to have the best compromise of cruising speed, short field performance, and docile handling.
EX: there are HUDs now that you could wear to give you all the instrumentation you need! You could save tons of weight there for example.
Perhaps... but we can't just change the instruments in the aircraft or get rid of them. Even with glass cockpits we have to have standby instruments. A wearable HUD would certainly have to have backup instruments just in case the HUD decided to go on the fritz. Then there would be the costs of certification. Of course.. .there are minimalists in aviation who choose to just have basic instruments and remain VFR.
EX2: An average car today does less than 10L/100km. Have Cessna (as an example) not been made aware of all the advances in engine technology? Why does a new 172 still burn 10 GPH? there's cars out there that can do 40 MPG+ now, and that was unthinkable in the 70's!
Was it? Seems to me a 1976 Chevette got 40MPG highway, 28 city.... US gallons even. How quickly we forget.
Of course... cars have lots of advances that aren't applicable to airplanes... and an awful lot of marketing that makes a big deal out of what isn't a big deal at all.
For example... starting about the mid 60s.. it was the 'cubic inch wars'. It didn't matter what the performance or handling was... bigger was better. 289, 302, 327, 350, 396, 427, 440, 454, 460, etc etc... they were just putting three ton truck engines into shortened grocery getter chassis with leaf springs and drum brakes. Years later when displacements came back down for fuel economy purposes and horsepower came down because of SAE Net and emissions requirements... they stopped advertising those. Nobody wanted a 305 Corvette huffing 180 HP after the big blocks of the early 1970s.
Then horsepowers started going up again with better technology. Multiport, sequential, and direct fuel injection.. dual overhead cams and multivalve heads, turbochargers, and engines with big bores and short strokes designed to rev to the stratosphere. Problem was.. it was only peak horsepower and lots of the useable torque was sacrificed for it. But the big number was what was put in the advertisement... even though lots of lower powered engines felt better around town.
Airplane engines are designed to be simple... most have no gear box and because of the limitations of the propeller they spin at no more than 2800RPM. This means that overhead cams, multiple valves, and low reciprocating mass isn't really a priority. It means that we want to know the peak horsepower.. but we're expecting to be able to use 55-75% of it for hours upon end; we'd never use a car engine that way and it probably wouldn't last very long if we did.
Here is a good read about the ensuing disaster of trying to put a 'modern' car engine into an airplane.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html
If you look at the car, for example, it also used to be unattainable to a lot of people, but with the assembly line it became cheap enough for a lot of people to get ahold of it. What would you need to do for that to work with airplanes? What is missing?
Something like this did happen in 1946. With the end of the war, lots of infrastructure in place for aircraft manufacture, lots of newly minted pilots, and people who had a large amount of disposable income for the first time since the Depression who were snapping up tract housing and new cars like no tomorrow.
Problem was, the market got saturated. Everyone who wanted a plane got one in 1946, and the aircraft market crashed spectacularly. The post war boom drove up wages and costs of manufacture which meant only a few light aircraft manufacturers survived while others folded or were passed around to various industrial conglomerates like the village bicycle. While enjoying a brief resurgence in the 50s, 60s, and 70s... litigation drove prices up to the point of being unsustainable while driving away customers.
Then there are all the disadvantages of aircraft vs cars. You can't just jump into a plane like you can into a car. You can't just fly across town. You can't fly in inclement weather without a lot more equipment, training, and infrastructure. You need a lot of special training just to be able to fly a plane. And typically, you can't carry anywhere near what you can carry in even a regular sedan. This puts the plane into the expensive toy rather than the everyday necessity category. Don't ever try and rationalize it like it will save time travelling or it will appreciate in value.. 'cause chances are it won't.
