Skyhawk Pricing

[denverpilot]

Flying Mag says the 172 is "still relevant" at $275K a pop.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-still-relevant

I say nay-nay. Too much.

Plenty of inventory of older ones that could be completely rebuilt from the ground up if need be, and you could finish the complete rebuild for under half that price.

Find a decent one that doesn't need a rebuild, paint it, new avionics, new engine... You're STILL money-in-the-bank vs the new one. (Less fuel drains to check during pre-flight, too. )

Friends on Twitter and Facebook are making the argument that it's the same price today as in 1975 after inflation.

I'm saying in return that doesn't matter. That we'd have to know if average household discretionary income after expenses kept up with inflation during the same timeframe.

I think you could buy a LOT more airplane for $275K and I see no end to that opportunity with the pilot population headed downward in a world where the overall number of people... isn't.

What say you?

 

[Jim Logajan]

No assembly line techniques are used to build these fine aircraft - each is individually handcrafted by highly skilled craftsmen.

Only 8 of the 172R models were sold in 2010, while 77 of the 172S models sold that year[1].

Probably $25M in revenue for 85 planes sold; guess that isn't enough to justify the capital improvements that would be needed to reduce the labor cost.

[1] http://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_DATABOOK_2011_web.pdf

 

[Jim Logajan]

I've seen estimates as high as $75k product liability premium for each airplane sold, although nobody has ever provided credible deals and breakdown among various models. What was the biggest insurance claim ever paid by a manufacturer in the 70's?

If product liability was that much, it would mean ~50% of the $149k sales price of the Skycatcher would be going to the insurance company. Doubtful. The liability risk posed by an LSA is not much different than that of a 172. Plenty of LSA makers out there selling planes for much less than a new 172. The cost to build a dubious 4 seater isn't twice that of a 2 seater, so I don't see any argument along those lines having much traction.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Let's see what could I have instead of a new Skyhawk:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...0-LW/1973-CESSNA-CITATION-500-LW/1220921.htm?

How about a Citation 500 for $295K? It would straight smoke any Skyhawk, Bonanza, etc. and its even got a potty. What total idiot would buy a new Skyhawk when they could have this slightly used Citation for the same money?

I think you get something like 3 or 4 gallons per mile with a Citation, while with the 172 you probably get something like 14 miles per gallon. Of course you could use a potty in the 172 more often than in the Citation, since the latter is about 3 times faster than the former.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I think when I calculated the MPG on Mari's Citation it was something like 1.5. Hardly in the 0.25-0.33 MPG. And I think I calculated it as NMPG not SMPG, but it's been a few years.

I guesstimated the Citation MPG by checking the stats on risingup.com for the Citation 500, (SN 1 - 303), which lists something like 3780 gallon capacity and a range of 1308 nm, and then doing the division.

I see now that their capacity listing is nonsense; no doubt it probably should read 3780 lbs. I think that works out to about 556 gallons of jet fuel, so the value guesstimated from the stats would less than 2.3 NMPG.