From the time I was 8-10 years old, I wanted to experience the freedom of flying my own plane. In the mid 1970s my father joined a flying club that had three planes (152, 172 & 182 Cessnas) and I flew often with him as a preteen. He was a non-tenured college professor with a home and a family of four and two cars. He had to be careful with his finances, but he figured out to how to "hobby fly" on a super-limited budget. I thought I'd do the same as I became an adult around 1979. But alas, the huge march toward the total "un-affordium" of private flight had already begun. Now, at 60 years old, in the Kansas City area, I have spent my adult life trying to figure out how to finance my desire to fly. I still can't make it! Like my father was, I am in a profession that I love and am very skilled at - but it pays shite! Because of the cost of flying ANYTHING safe has become way beyond my family's means. I have basically given up ever reaching a life goal. Like most everything and everywhere in the world the Wealthy DO... and the middle class (if there even is such a thing anymore) DON'T. From my perspective, General Aviation is gone forever. Best of luck to those that can fly. I'm very jealous.
We are at an influx of old pricey tech and new not tested electric aircraft beginning to rise, once you u can park your aircraft in your house and charge it with the sun, it will be what the Jetsons were doing
@@maxwdg In 1980 I joined a flying club in Houston, Texas, and was able to earn my PPL at a very small cost in a 1976 C150. Have you looked around for clubs in your area?
Years ago there was that dream that aviation was going to become affordable. From this it's pretty obvious flying is still an expensive pursuit. I do like the glass cockpit. Incredible how little has changed with this classic aviation design. Imagine a car company still pumping out a 1955 design and charging top dollar.
On No planet in the universe is a Cessna 172 worth $486,000. Cessna claims "They really don't make much profit on these aircraft" LMAO!! and these people believe that? It wouldn't be worth that much if it were made entirely of gold.
@@ImNotADeeJaybecause they don’t want anyone beside the highest class being able to fly. The same way they created the conditions to keep regular people from affording machine guns and similar weapons. It’s the easiest way to make believe you’re free. You’re freedom is proportional to the numbers in your bank account.
@@briansavage932 The high price of new certificated aircraft and the higher maintenance and upgrade costs of older certificated aircraft, are why experimental aircraft (and supporting) companies, are producing at record numbers. For around 100 grand, you can get an aircraft that does most of what a 172 can do and for the price of a new 172, you can get something that performs like (or better than) a Bonanza or 210. Only flight schools can make a financial case for a new Skyhawk.
@@Joe_Not_A_Fed Yeah, $100K. But then you have to build it. Buy an engine, prop, radios and all the little bits. Then you have to fly in an aircraft you built. However, I work as a GA mechanic. I am grateful that experimental aircraft exist. They have brought down the cost of flying for experimental and Certified aircraft.
I spent a lot of hours in a 172 in the early 90's building up hours. I just can't justify spending nearly $500k on something like this when I can get a much faster Lancair or an RV for 1/3 of that price.
Rick Cox I get your point but their comment about the potential of buying a 172s, flying it for thousands of hours, then selling it for more that you paid seems somewhat compelling. In fact for the guy wanting to learn to fly, he might be able to buy it, complete a great deal of training in it, and then sell it for more than he paid.
Totally illogical. I bought a nice 182 on Wip amphibious floats with updated avionics etc for $200,000 a few years ago. Who and why would anyone spend anywhere near even 200 for a Skyhawk ?!! I’ve have a real nice 210 I bought in 1995 for 95,000 / super traveling machine. Been all over US and Alaska with it. Can’t imagine doing those trip in a 172. 172 is a good stable simply dependable airplane but it’s range, speed and load capacity can in no way justify a ridiculous price of $486,000! - I may not sleep tonight 😱😆
Some people buy homebuilts and don't have a clue about maintaining a plane. I think in the US a mechanic has to be hired to work on them if the original builder no longer owns it. That is a good rule. Not the situation in Canada.
The government forces the prices to be artificially high with all the 'special certifications' that the parts are required to have. They shouldn't be that much more expensive than a car these days. How many hours until you have to tear down an aircraft engine and rebuild it? But a car engine will go 100,000 miles with no maintenance? Yes, it sucks, but the FAA hates GA.
@@vanstry Those certification requirements aren't new, they've been around for 70 years. When 172's were affordable. The rules didn't change, the lawyers did.
General aviation is now a rich man's game. Started to get my license back in the 90's and was like, I'll never be able to afford it even then. I'm out.
I would respectfully disagree, there are ways that you can fly on a regular salary. The easiest way is to join a flying club. If you want to do it, you can.
I was an early owner after they restarted,. purchasing my 172R in 1997 direct from the factory. I was fully optioned, at $153 K. Everyone (and me also) thought it was outrageous. Look at them now!
True, but that is a result of GA pilots continuing to bore smoking holes in the ground due to poor training and risk management. They’d go looking elsewhere to suck blood if we didn’t chum the water for them.
@@arthurpearson3407 that’s only an issue for the manufacturer when our heirs team up with underemployed lawyers to sue anyone who’s been within an mile of the Cessna factory instead of just saying “Well, he effed up.”
There's absolutely no way. They could get sued for every 3rd plane off the line and still be making a massive profit. That's nothing but an excuse used to charge people out the ass. Their CEO makes over 15 million a year. That's over 42,000 dollars a day.
I did my PPL in a Cessna 172 so this aircraft will forever hold a place in my heart. Handles well and man that undercarriage is very forgiving. For a GA aircraft the price point is astronomical.
Edit to fix price It debuted for about $8.3k, or about $88.2k in today's money. Cessna definitely made more than 300 172s in a year, before 2022, but they give low volume production an excuse for high prices. Basically they are doing an American dealership style of price gouging. I make good money, but overall GA is no longer affordable for me in terms of rentals, airport parking and now fuel costs.
Aviation liability lawyers are smiling from ear to ear......"we done did destroyed the whole small plane industry." In about 1960 a 172 cost about $10,000.
I saw someplace where an executive at Cessna stated that the cost of successfully defending the company in lawsuits cost $20M a year. And that is the cases that Cessna wins. Only the profits from the biz jets keep Cessna alive.
I was disgusted a few years ago, when I was quoted $140/hr for a 172 (in HSV). The same airplane I used to rent for around $65/hr. This past June, I was at an air show in Smyrna, TN and got to talking to a CFI whose FBO had an older 172 on display. I mentioned the $140/hr to him, and he replied “it’s gotten worse- try $175/hr. This 172 had steam gauges, and most of the avionics were probably early 90s vintage. For $175/hr. Sad to say, but I feel that GA is in its death throes. That kind of an hourly rate for decades old technology is asinine.
I learned to fly in the mid-60s. The cost of a new 172 in those days was about $10,000 when new cars were selling for around 1/3rd of that. If the price of new automobiles had kept pace with GA planes a car would sell for about $162K today. (To rent a 172 in 1965 was 14/hr. at our particular airport)
Having been a quarter partner in a beautiful C172 back in the 80's - I think back at how affordable it was for a married young dad with two children and a middle class livelihood to enjoy the pleasures of part owning a C172. I do not imagine that is possible anymore. Like so many things in our world - this has changed - and not for the better. It makes me long for the "good 'ol days" of GA - I fear they are gone forever. But it was incredible to see what the current model of the most popular airplane ever made looks like. Thanks Juan for a great report!
Alot of it is people who have old airplanes more as a family heirloom than a peice of utility or even a toy. There are many planes that sit in my area for months or more at a time. I can not afford to fly, but have a current medical and BFR. I've put out the offer to pay the extra money it'd take to put me on the insurance and help keep the plane clean in exchange for letting me fly it a few hours a month and all have opted to let the plane rot rather than God forbid let someone use their plane.
It's possibe; I have 2 planes. Like most things it's economical as long as you buy used. Honestly there are a LOT of people with that kind of money(and more) who can but new Cessna or Cirrus airplanes. What's the price of an average home in San Francisco? (Ans: a lot more than 1/2 a million).
Experimental aircraft are all well and good, but they are definitely not for everyone. You are essentially signing up to be your own test pilot. Personally I'd rather not experiment with my life. I know my limits and will leave the design, building, testing and maintenance of my aircraft to the pros who do it every day for a living. To each their own.
@@sintillate1913 Not true, definitely sounds like you have been reading Cessna marketing. My friend built a Velocity SE. When it was complete he had a Velocity test pilot come and try it out. The weekend before that he had a QA party where all interested friends went over the whole aircraft looking for anything not as stated in the build manual. Velocity did the test pilot part years ago, they developed a safe aircraft. You are no more your own test pilot that any Cessna owner taking his just serviced antique out for its first flight.
I was just telling my dad today that I’m ready to convert to experimental planes bc the cost of certified ga parts and avionics is just stupid expensive anymore. Hundreds of dollars for a specialized nut/bolt or $50for a fuel pump gasket, it’s ridiculous. EAA here I come.
That's absolutely insane for a moderate performance single-engine aircraft. And check out 13:50 - look how poorly this sensor is fitted to the leading edge of the starboard wing. It doesn't even appear to be meant for this aircraft.
Exactly what I was thinking too! It looks like an afterthought they just bolted onto the leading edge of the wing with some self-tapping screws they found on the work bench! For 500 K I would expect that to be an integral part of the wing; not some gadget they threw on there.
It looks like sheet metal that warped when they were half ass self tapping it to the wing. To say that looks amateur is being too kind. How have so many eyes passed over that without someone saying something? Wow.
Adding to that, take a look at the floor mat in the next shot. That mat is totally warped from the factory and the interior just looks horrible design wise. Like rocking a hand held microphone in year 2022?
Glad I got my flying done in the 90s. $6K for what the FAA thought was an ultralight, $4K spent on upgrades and upkeep, 1.5K for training, and sold after hundreds of happy time in the air for $7K. I highly recommend the Ultralight, Light Sport, or Experimental planes to those who just want to fly but choke on GA prices.
There was a time I was taking one lesson a month at 175 dollars a hour; wet and with a instructor. I to am glad I got my certifications in the mid 90's throu 2003.
I attended ERAU in the early 70’s. The main training aircraft was the C-172. After the airplane served it’s purpose, the aircraft would be repainted and the engine overhauled and sold for $10,000.
GARA, which enabled Cessna to bring back into production of the 172, was to limit liability in hopes of keeping prices down. That was touted throughout the industry at the time. But aircraft manufacturers just raised the cost anyway with the protections GARA brought about.. If I won the lottery tonight, I couldn't see the value of a $486,000 172 tomorrow. Cessna is raping the aviation industry- literally from the ground up in charging these prices. You can even see the rep hold back a smile while giving explanations. Sure, Cessna is apparently backlogged, but then if there was a plan for growth in this division, they would expand operations. Instead, they are fine with the price, and fine with the lead time, and so are the attorneys and the insurance agents. In all, this price is completely absurd.
I was a lineboy at Ann Arbor Airport in the late 60's and the airport was full of GA aircraft, even the outside tie-downs were just about all taken. I went back for a visit 20 years later and they were parking cars in the hangers that used to be chock full of aircraft. The airport still only had the same main hard surface runway and the same grass crosswind, no expansion in those years. The only difference was the U of Michigan had a big hanger for their expensive helicopter fleet. I found it really sad because this should be a progressive place having a major University, and I would have thought people of that place would have had an interest in aviation and the funds to participate. I guess not. Its a shame, I have many fond memories of those days watching aircraft and listening to the stories of old pilots and WWII vets.
I know the stories. I know the numbers. Back in 1976 I bought a new 182 and paid $39,000. I had a very small business and paid cash. Today you would have to be in the Burnie Madoff business to own one. (Sad)
As an instructor in 1964 I was paid $3 an hour for basic and $4 an hour for instrument dual I learned to fly on Cubs Champs and a beat up 150 Lots of stick and rudder and used sectional charts railroad tracks and roads for nav It was a hell of a lot of fun
1977 C-172 Full IFR with 100 hours on the Hobbs, $23,500. The first 160 HP H2AD motor lasted 377.4 hours on the hobbs. Prorate By Cessna at $1000 Removal and install new one. Adjusted for inflation, $23,500 in 1977 is equal to $105,174 in 2021. Annual inflation over this period was 3.46%. Value of a dollar.
I bought one the last Grumman Tigers in late 1979 --basic VFR panel for $32000. The last one I flew in Texas about10 or 12 years ago was almost $300,000. 10 times my cost, but my salary did not go up 10 times. General aviation needs modern "Volkswagen". At 75 myself, I feel deeply for the future of Private Pilots. J. Hibbert
The best measure I’ve seen for illustrating the truly apocalyptic economic decline for average people is “how many times the average yearly salary was this thing in 1960, and how many times the average yearly salary is it now?” From planes to houses, it’s all enough to make you want to scream. Hope you had fun, cause you enjoyed the post-WWII golden age. That’s all over now, and there’s a lot of hardship and doing without between my generation and better days.
Juan, that's pure insanity - half a million ? I bet 50% of that price is for "lawyer / lawsuit" overhead. 472,000 more obstacles to getting into General Aviation lol. Great work Juan keep it up !
Remember that lawyers don't initiate lawsuits on their own (unless it's a class action). They file damage claims based upon PILOTS, aircraft owners and their families for product defect. I remember having my Cessna seat roll back to it's aft most stop upon rotation and me pulling abruptly on the yoke. It could have resulted in a fatal stall spin had my brother not grabbed the yoke. Another time I was flying into a mountain airport at night, (no far from where Juan is) high and fast on final, had full flaps out, went for a go around at 100' above the ground and the stall horn goes off! Seems that the flap switch had failed and they were stuck in the down full position (and this when when they would go down further than they do today). With the stall horn blaring, we staggered around just above the trees, and made a successful landing. Both of these were mechanical defects and both could have resulted in fatal accidents. The seat rail problem was addressed in an AD, (probably after a lawsuit), don't know about the flap switch, but I appreciated the mechanical flaps in my Piper Warrior. BTW - NOT bashing Cessna, I've spent many hours in them and I'd buy a 182. Before bashing the legal profession, think: safest cars ever, safety seals and caps on medicines and yes, better quality airplanes.
@@danielhawley6817 Indeed Daniel all great examples. Im more criticizing the overquick impulse to sue that is the root of "lawsuit abuse. You on the other hand seem to be a model of restraint in this regards. Bravo Sir !
@@danielhawley6817 thats why I also advocate for a law to end product lisbility for aircraft manufacturers because the FAA made them go through extensive testing and certified the product as safe. So, lets change liability from the manufacturer to the FAA. Plus the government can just print more money when it needs it unlike the rest of us.
The venerable C-172! Most of us pilots have probably flown one. I started my flight training on the C-150, C-152, and graduated to the C-172 on some of my dual cross countries so I had plenty of C-172 time by the time I got my license. I am glad to say I got my training in 1989 - 1990 when C-150 prices were $42/ hr. wet, and the C-172 price was $48/hr. wet. "Those were the days my friend, I thought they'd never end". I calculated the cost of flight today, and they are roughly 2.5 to 3.0 times higher that the inflation rate from 1990. I only fly my 2020 MS Flight Simulator now. By the way Juan, Thanks again for all of the great videos you send our way!!! I watch everything you produce. Hi Pete. God Speed to all of you. Be safe out there.
No point in forking out that kind of cash to buy a brand new Cessna with the basic shell model from inception lest for some avionic upgrades. I would wager that the ride quality has not changed marginally from earlier models. No brainer at all , unless ofcourse money is not an issue.
I bought a Cessna 172 circa 1972 in 1982 for $12,000. It had been sitting for some time outside at Mammoth Lakes Airport. The battery was dead and the nose wheel boot was torn and it was dirty. I got it started by hand and let it warm up to discover a strong barbecue order coming off the exhaust manifolds. Apparently local mice/rodents had built a nest in the engine compartment in the exhaust manifolds. It took several hours of running for the smell to dissipate. After a short test flight I wrote the check to the happy former owner. I had the local shop do an annual inspection and took care of those items on their squawk list. New battery, new nose wheel boot, tires, and various other minor items. I put 1,500 hours on the aircraft flying all over the Western US from 1982 to 1988. It had a simple standard control panel of the time/era. It was a wonderful aircraft to fly, very reliable. The new Cessna 172 with the bigger engine and the very fine avionics is a big step forward, but I’d have a hard time spending 1/2 million for a new one. For that much money I’d want a 6 or 7 passenger circa 2000 $125,000 airplane in reasonable condition and put $150,000 of the latest avionics and improvements in it. I taught my 9 year old son to fly my Cessna 172 for 6 years on cross country trips, and his little brother for 4 years. The older son got his private pilots license on his 17th birthday in a 172. He went to the AF Academy and flew the F15E. He is now retired and owns a nice older Mooney and flies as a part time corporate pilot. The younger son joined the AF ROTC in college and got through solo training in a Cirrus. He went on to pilot school in the AF and flew the F15E and the F35. He is also AF retired, but serves as a contract simulator instructor for the F35. My father was the engineer & navigator on a VS44 Sikorsky flying boat in WWII. The whole family is full of pilots. I guess my 172 was a good buy!
This is incredible to see, I got my solo license when I was 16 (sadly didn't really get to continue as a pilot), and I remember how scared I was the first time I flew a C172 through the civil air patrol because it was from the 70s I think, I was 12, could barely reach the pedals, but its so cool to see how much has changed in the new ones.
I'm a Piper guy but eventually gave in and checked out in a Cessna 172. High wing is nice looking out at the ground. Did all my IFR training in the Cessna 172. Excellent IFR platform, including the C-182 & C-210T. I owned a Cherokee 140, Piper Arrow and partners in a Piper Commanche 260. However my favorite plane to fly was the Pitts S2A.
IIRC, there were more 172N’s sold in a single year in the seventies than all the R’s and S’s sold since the models were introduced over 25 years ago. There are many reasons for the change, but I believe one of them is that Cessna can still make this plane with few improvements. During the same time, auto manufacturers cannot make anything as shabby and unsafe as a 50 plus year old design.
I picked up my new R182 at the factory in Wichita in March of 1981. Flew in commercially and flew home to KTRK with my CFI to get the required retractable hours for insurance since I only had time in straight-legged Cessnas. What a wonderful experience I will never forget. Cost then was $74K! What a great airplane which I kept until I sadly decided to sell in 2020. Awesome memories Juan, thanks for the video. Landed many times at your headquarters’ field KGOO from KTRK.
Love how the avionics are used to explain the high price! I’d think for a manufacturer, removing all the traditional gauges would cut the costs immensely?
@@smasheduptoaster9186 That's quite surprising. You'd think that it would be cheaper to produce an electronic display in today's world, but laws and such probably make it more expensive to introduce new products.
@@martijn9568look at the cost of each Garmin screen the avionics can easily go into $50k you are paying for sourcing of the outdated components because certification is expensive
The cost of producing an electronic flight system like this is in the research and development phase of production. After the avionics system is fine tuned and ready for the consumer market, they have the blueprints ready for mass production and the software is already written. They use the avionics as an excuse because no one knows that computer parts and sensors are cheap, and every company nowadays only cares about maximizing profits.
Astonishing. Bought a very nice Mooney 201 (M20J) in 1982 for $54K, flew it all over the USA until 1997, sold it for $84K. Steam gauges and KX170B-type equipment but fully functional and versatile for serious IFR work back in those days. Can't imagine what it would sell for "new" today, but this particular aircraft I would think would go for about $150K in reasonable condition. Now that I'm an old guy, if I wanted to get back into aviation I would go for something like Richard Bach's "Puff," an inexpensive Experimental amphib powered by a stone-reliable Rotax engine. $100K and just for fun, not business travel.
People ask me why I don't fly anymore. Even building an experimental is going to cost you. Big time. I had to give it up . But before I did I was part owner in 4 aircraft. I am a Multi-engine Instrument Flight Instructor with an ATP in a Cessna 310R that I was in partners with 3 friends. I loved flying but sometimes you just have to let things go and move on. I have no regrets. It's a rich man's hobby and not a good career choice unless you make it to the Airlines. Even then it's hard on families. So, I'm proud of what I accomplished and I've moved on. I have many other interests that keep me excited about life. I still look up when a plane flies overhead.
Not really a problem. They are selling them to flight schools and other professional pilots. Hobbyists are cheap and their families tend to sue you when a crash happens.
Nope. The flight schools do not want a better plane. Any change costs them more than it’s worth. The insurers help with this by punishing newer and known to be safer designs. Don’t ask me why.
Textron/Cessnas philosophy is that C172 are too high in risk. Every time a low hour pilot crashes they get sued to hell and back, which usually requires alterations to their operation or the aircraft design, further increasing price and headache. Just like the C172S airbag seatbelts, which cost ~$10k and MUST be replaced every 10 years, all because of an accident that occurred years ago. Instead, they'd rather build corporate twin engine jets which sell for excellent profit, have a solid financial turn over and have FAR fewer accidents due to most pilots having more than 1500 hours flying them. Insurance and lawyers are KILLING GA.
@@Keys879 Worth pointing out is that the lawyers are often clearly using tactics and making arguments which go beyond the pale. Some of it is customary (which brings up questions about our legislators), but in aviation they knowingly pursue damages and present evidence that they know is false. Then, insurers have to raise rates. Where the insurers can be blamed is more complex, but it’s basically the case where they have let their industry devolve to where they do very little work determining risk and simply charge fees based on the past performance of nonsensical buckets while adding fees for any unknowns. Some guilt can be shared by the manufacturers here as they really haven’t done much about it.
@@davestephens3246 Hey Dave, thanks for responding. Don't believe I mentioned anything about life being difficult in the 60's. I know we had it good. Gas was 17cents/gal, they were practically giving milk and bread away. My monthly income in 1970 was $800/mon. I was renting a 2 BR apt, making a car note, and raising a son and we had plenty of expendable money. Couple reasons why, 1) TV was free, 2) I wasn't paying outrageous $$ for cell phones, 3) big pharma hadn't figured out how to gouge the public yet, 4) same could be said for healthcare systems (once the gov started paying, prices skyrocketed). You get the idea maybe. Life was a lot cheaper back then. Oh and I forgive you for calling me a boomer fucks. You'll be old someday. Good luck.
In the 1960s when I was actively flying, the general rule of thumb for the hourly rental rate was the cost of the airplane divided by 1000. I was renting $15,000 172s for $15 per hour. Would it be accurate to assume that the hourly rental rate of this particular aircraft would be around $486 per hour?
Probably about half that, in the range of $200-300/hour (wet) - varies by location but 5 years ago I paid just about $200/hr for a 2011 G1000 C172S in the Northeast US
The old rule of thumb was 1% of the total cost of the aircraft when new, and likely it is still true so yes 486 K translates to $486 per hour !!!! How the heck can anyone wanting to learn have that kinda money to do so. Whoa !!
When I was renting a new 172 from the local flight school here in Britain during the 1960s the rate was £8 sterling an hour, fuel included. I think that equates to $16 at the exchange rate back then.
I always laugh when I hear people ask "why is there a pilot shortage/how can we get more people involved in aviation?". When a 172 cost $486K and DPE's are charging $2K for check rides it's no wonder why we have fewer pilots now than we ever had. Pretty soon there won't be anymore GA, no one can afford it. Goodbye GA, it was fun while it lasted.
I had an uncle who bought a flying service company for around 500k in 1971. That included 2 -150s, 2 -172s, and an old twin Apache. I flew a new 172 he bought in 1972 when I was 12 yrs old. As I recall he paid about 12k for that one. Damn.
In 2004, I took delivery of my 172S. I flew out to Independence and brought it back home to Jacksonville. Mine was one of the last "steam gauges" and I paid $192,500 for the plane. I was also told that 30% of the cost of the plane was for that liability part that Juan mentioned. For sure, I'll never own another new 172. They have become way overpriced for the normal individual.
@@richardkrentz7553 ...and the lack of a much-needed reduction in GA accidents and payouts, which would mean no constant opportunity for the lawyers to reap and need for the insurance companies to pay.
@@rbrosz If judges and juries were appropriately educated about just liability practices, tort reform shouldn't have even been necessary. To quote one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, no free society can exist without an equal diffusion of literature (i.e., education), and that ideal was echoed by others among them. Just because we've decided they were wrong, that politics and laws are a sufficient replacement, doesn't mean we are right. Mechanical-failure accidents are at their highest rate in over a decade, making up about a third of all accidents, so there's plenty of liability there even with pilot causation removed.
I had a Cessna once, in the late 60's or early 70's' it was made of glue and various woods and I could never use it because I could not afford to complete the build since the radio remote and controls and the gas-powered engine were too expensive for my pocket. Thus ended my flying career at small scale and any other scale. I have instead "invested" in electric trains, which apparently are not cheap either, and which I am certain will survive me, no 6 figure liability needed no matter operator error or crash.
WOW! I remember my dad buying a new Cardinal RG in about 1974, and it was nowhere near half this price. I wish he was still around for me to ask about it. He sold it in the early 80s, and bought a T-34. He was the happiest I ever saw him with that old Navy trainer. Memories.
Looks like your having some really mild weather at your place.The reverse here in Virginia,we’re making up for November and December when you guys were cold and snowy.
Total GAMA shipments at the peak (circa 1980) was near 16,000 units. In 2020, GAMA reported 2,400 of which half were turbine. In 1977 we saw the first A36 leave the factory at over $100,000 and though that it had priced itself out of the market. Today the G36 goes out at nearly $1 million ($775,000 base). Circa 1978, the Bonanza liability cost per unit was more than the labor cost to build it.
There needs to be further legislative work on limiting liability on all products. Further, such awards should not be assigned by juries who have no idea what they are doing. Further, further, vexatious lawsuits should be punished by judges.
Good luck. The tort bar contributes every election cycle to politicians. I would love to see ethanol removed from gasoline, but there is too much money in it to be realistic.
HOLY SMOKES 😯...... way back in '81 or so my flying partner bought a new 172 ( N733TC ) from Gunnel Aviation W.L.A.for about 41K...... last time I checked it was still flying in a Denver flight school......... fun thing was I got to fly it for gas only( just fill it up when you return it).😁
AH 🤔.... Regular auto fuel was about $.79-.90 a gallon......... AV. Gas about a $1.50 ... and yep, that was not really cheap, 😁 a 152 out of Compton Aviation was $20.00 /Hr. wet. Most of my cross country was with the gas only 172😄.
I call the new Cessna offering the Wichita Insult. Here is a big company taking a design over 1/2 a century old, the original certification cost long paid for, just get a new panel, have the lawyers improve the design and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. There are suckers born every minute. That is why schools cost so much, they can afford the waste, my school use 1/4 century old 172 to teach us.I can convert from steam gauges to Dynon or Garmin with no trouble. Most makes have the AOA build right into the display instead of an ugly add on looking box. Cessna heart was not in light planes for decades, it is the larger jets and turbo props that they made their money on. For small planes , short cuts and risk averse business methods now rein, that is why they had several high profile failures recent years, like the Skycatcher, Corvolis and now decades late, they are trying to clone the PC12. A WW2 veteran would have asked , 240 planes , was that a day's production? For many in the EAA, if they have to wait that long, they might as well build one at less than 1/2 the cost. Smaller companies have better control of their overhead costs. Next bump of HP will make the 172 hard to tell from the 182. But the 182 is not so suitable for low time students, with a vulnerable firewall on landing.
One time I saw wine for sale at a store for upwards of 1000 dollars a bottle. I was thinking to myself - suppose I splurge and spend 1000 dollars on a wine, but would it taste any different when compared to a 10 dollar wine?
Holy cow! The 172 I learned to fly in 47 years ago cost about a twentieth of that. I bought a new C-152 in 1978 for just over $18K. Sold it ten years later for not much under that. Amazing.
I had a friend buy a 1977 C150 in 1993 for $19k. Fresh paint, fresh upholstery and interior, and a fresh engine. That little bugger was SO much fun to fly.
The GA industry definitely rising if a brand new 172 is half a million. If I was going to buy a 172 I would buy 172M or N for 80-90k spend 100k on getting it to life and still save 300k. Great video.
It is really quite amazing how such a simple thing with not much weight either can cost so much compared to other much more technologically advanced stuff (liked cars)
@@ben3989 Yeah imagine that lol xD You could go take any fuel injected car since the 80s and they'd probably still be more reliable than this Cessna engine :D (If you just look at the engine and not where you try to mount it to an airplane diy) Move up to a diesel and you'll be at twice the reliability and hours on the engine lol.
That was great.... but I wanted to see you fly it and demonstrate all that cool stuff 🙂 I've been told more than once... "You can make a small fortune in aviation, but you need a big one to get started"
I is absolutely distressing that although I have a PP certificate I cannot fly or ever get one of these due only to the cost involved compared to the 1999 time frame when I got the license.
I can't imagine what the hourly cost is for a student flying this a/c is. For me, the goal was always United Airlines. But when certain limiting medical issues got in the way, and the cost to keep flying exceeded the value I was getting out of it, I handed over the keys and stopped flying. I really miss flying the ILS down to near minimums and watching for the "rabbit."
Rabbit is a reference to the rapid flashing of the sequence flashers on the Approach Light System or ALS. If the approach has sequence flashers then ALSF…..F being flashers. Plenty of videos to see it in action.
@@daniels.9206 Looking it up now, thanks so much. I've probably seen those crazy things at my local INTL airport since those landing lights run right through the highway I-465 (which is a loop around the city). Thanks!!
I flew the 1998 Cessna 172R Skyhawk back in 2002 out of KVGT as a birthday present to myself. This was pre-glass cockpit days but boy oh boy would it be a joy to fly one like in this video. Look dad, no carburetor, no carburetor icing, LOL. Love that AOA indicator, that should save a lot of unintentional stalls. While I love flying more than anything both fixed wing and especially Bell 407 helicopters, it is no longer with me behind the controls as I learned I suffer from spatial disorientation which comes on without warning. Very unfortunate but with someone else behind the controls, I love being up there.
I think I like the older cockpit panel set up. I like having all my circle gauges I feel like I’m more focused with that there’s just not enough on the one display although everything needed is right there. It’s just a preference thing
‘Children of the Magenta Line’ - Captain Vanderburgh. Jaun is making reference to a seminar hosted by CA Vanderburgh bearing this phrase as its title. It’s worth a view, and is easily found on YT. I actually watched the video before I discovered the CA giving the discussion is my good buddies dad. Unfortunately I didn’t meet him before he passed.
Piper is surviving on fleet sales and I would think that is the same for Textron's 172 line. He's right about the older G1000 S models for the smaller flight schools who go through engines pretty frequently.
Juan. I commute to my job at Paine Field in either a 1946 Ercoupe or 1956 172...both have G5 instrumentation...but together they are not 1/2 million. I paid on Whidbey 600K for 3500 square feet and 15 acres :) wow my day job is managing max flight test
Yes the cost of the liability insurance is huge for the manufacturer. When a GA accident happens, the lawyers come out of the woodwork and sue everybody in sight from the airplane manufacturer to the engine manufacturer to the mechanic that serviced the airplane and the list goes on and on. I worked the gas line at a small airport in the 1970's and was also named in a lawsuit just because I fueled the airplanes! Fortunately one of the owners of the airport was a practicing attorney and got the suit dismissed for all of us that worked at that airport. That $100,000 price tag for Cessna was just the tip of the iceberg as the engine manufacturer also has liability insurance built into the cost of the engines and so do the avionics manufacturers. Every company involved has liability insurance added to the cost of their products.
I saw an old Cessna ad on Time magazine from 1956 , the advertised price was $8,750 that's about $90,000 in todays money . let me be generous and add another $90,000 for modern avionics that's $180k that's still 37% of the current price .
Fantastic segmenet Mr. Browne. Thanks to Sven for the great information as well. A long time ago an accountant once told me that you can afford one of these if your salary is 1.5x the cost of the plane. Well, time to cross a new 172S off the list.
The hourly rate for sailplane rental at our TX club a couple decades ago was one dollar per hour and $17 to add an instructor (plus modest monthly dues). Several decades earlier I could afford Cessna lessons at a USAF aero club from the coins of my allowance and occasional odd job at age 15.
I bought a new C-172 in 1991 for $135,000. I picked it up in Independence KS and flew it home to McKinney TX. The 2023 C-172 has a superior avionics package. But other than that, they are the same as the 1991 model. The giant price increase is largely due to spendthrift politicians' debasement of the US dollar.
When will the flying community put a stop to this insanity? I worked hard my entire life to get to the point where I could get out of my impoverished upbringing, so that I could afford to get my pilot’s license (a childhood dream - which I finally did in 2014). Now to see this, whereby one of these machines made of aluminum and some iPads, totaling MAYBE $3000 in parts and labor, are being artificially priced at my ENTIRE life savings. Come on people, this is an OUTRAGE. Who can afford this????!!! We can’t ALL be doctors, lawyers, Hollywood actors, or Mike Patey. The ability of the few who can afford to pay for this absurdity ruins the ability for ANYONE other than them to afford it. Fat wallets and smiling faces ruin anyone else’s chance to even sit in one of these things. Call me a lunatic, but you know I’m right. I quit.
Sorry Bass, you're way off. Several hundred hours to complete one aircraft by folks making $30-40 an hour, plus purchasing the engine from Lycoming (which takes more skilled labor, plus the cost of castings, etc.) plus purchasing the avionics, same costs, plus all the other things purchased from suppliers (think tires, aluminum, castings, etc.), plus cost of production machines, plus maintenance, plus overhead, plus R&D, plus maybe a little profit (why they're in business in the first place), there's no way an aircraft like the 172 could be produced as cheaply as you suggest. Sure, half a million dollars is an absurd amount for a private pilot to shell out for a utilitarian aircraft with modest performance, but to suggest any light aircraft could be produced at a cost of less than 10% of a high-performance sports car is just out of touch with reality.
Cessna is not getting rich in these planes, but they are helping to prevent others from solving the problem by continuing to make them. I wish they would quit. The planes are junk. If you want to be an aviator, build a plane. The real problem is the FAA, not the builders. They are really happy with keeping the sky free of piston planes, and so is everyone powerful in this country. In the mid 2000’s, when GA had been making progress again, the IRS changed the rules on write offs in a way that regular businesses with owner pilots couldn’t realistically write off their needed training flights and the whole thing came apart again (and they did so using populist anger at corporate jet use as an excuse). Now the EPA wants to destroy the fuel supply and see them all junked (not because there are enough of us to make a bit of difference but because they are a cult of lefties under the sway of Marxist philosophy they picked up in college).
You're exaggerating, but there's a reason why my dream is the cozy, can get something really good for 50k and the basics for 30k (and still 170 knots wtf man)
@@tridium-go6hw Thank you for your response - I don't disagree with you. Yet - just look at the technology, parts, labor, patents, and profit they are making on a 2022 Corvette. It costs, what, maybe 80k? I understand economy of scale, but I guess my real argument is with the asking price for a steam gauge, 30-year-old, half-run-out engine, 172. Absurd. Your point is well-taken however. Blue skies.
My Dad was one of their racing/factory test pilots pre 1930 temporary Depression closing. Proud of Dad, flying was risky, but Dad had both unbelievable flying skills and courage. 👍 Pop!
Man... I really like flying C172, but I just do not see any improvements in cabin design/ergonomics for this noble price. They still use pretty old frame and parts and it gets only more expensive. It just just "refurbished" 30 year old Cessna, that you can buy for some 50K and invest 40K to make it up-to date. It is very sad, that such a nice and secure plane becomes less affordable for normal humans.
Got my ASEL in 1983 having taken lessons in a 152. Less than a week later, I purchased a 4 yo 172 with the (in)famous 0-320 H2AD engine. Never an issue with the cam/lifters other than the oil additive. Owned the a/c for 6 years and absolutely loved flying it, mostly at night due to working so much. Purchase price: $20,000. Seems a lifetime ago...
I learned to fly in a 1978 172 back in 2018. Then I bought a Cessna T182T -2006 G1000 model. Now I am buying a brand new 2022 T206H. It will have taken 1 year to get it since I ordered it. I have confidence in Cessna and Textron.
When I used to instruct our school had all Piper warriors but one Cessna 172. We used it for scenic flights and spins. The older ones were approved for it in the utility category. None of the other instructors wanted to do it so I it was always me that did the spin endorsements. It wasn’t as easy to spin as the 152 or Citabria but it would do it if you went full elevator back full rudder right at the stall warning with a shot of power. Would basically come out on its own once you relaxed the controls. Such a well designed great flying airplane.
Nice plane. But I have a RV7 tricycle gear plane I built and got flying several years ago for less than 100K US with a brand new IO360 and two Savier electrronic ignitions, as well as a glass panel My plane also has a constant speed prop, which that Cessna does not have (I didn't see a prop control on the panel). I also have two comms, working into antennas at each end of each wing. They work great, so there are no antennas sticking out in the breeze except for the transponder antenna. There is a little standby battery that can only charge in normal operation, and can be switched to the left electronic ignition when/if the system fails, and will fun it for two hours. So this thing really perfoms as empty weight is 1120 lbs. But I could be convinced to sell it, as the other plane I have and love and built is a Longeze with an O 235.
I believe the reason for no constant speed propeller is because that would make it a complex aircraft, and unavailable for use as a training aircraft, which is the primary mission of this aircraft in today's GA world.
If the flight schools are paying $500K for these things, I can't imagine what their hour cost is for instruction. I was paying $120/hr for C172 + instructor wet back in '95. Same flight school is now charging $189/hr for a C172S + 100/hr for instruction. Looking at almost 300/hr for primary instruction.
I learned to fly in a 1976 Cessna 172M and have flown an N and SP models. The 172 holds a very special place in my heart.Very forgiving, excellent trainer. It is insane how much they cost. I would say if you are to buy one, go for the earlier models.The cheapest I have seen is a 1966 G model going for $66,000. Really shows you that cessna has a great formula with this plane, simple design that has lasted many years.
This is a perfect example why less and less people are flying today.
From the time I was 8-10 years old, I wanted to experience the freedom of flying my own plane. In the mid 1970s my father joined a flying club that had three planes (152, 172 & 182 Cessnas) and I flew often with him as a preteen. He was a non-tenured college professor with a home and a family of four and two cars. He had to be careful with his finances, but he figured out to how to "hobby fly" on a super-limited budget. I thought I'd do the same as I became an adult around 1979. But alas, the huge march toward the total "un-affordium" of private flight had already begun. Now, at 60 years old, in the Kansas City area, I have spent my adult life trying to figure out how to finance my desire to fly. I still can't make it! Like my father was, I am in a profession that I love and am very skilled at - but it pays shite! Because of the cost of flying ANYTHING safe has become way beyond my family's means. I have basically given up ever reaching a life goal.
Like most everything and everywhere in the world the Wealthy DO... and the middle class (if there even is such a thing anymore) DON'T.
From my perspective, General Aviation is gone forever.
Best of luck to those that can fly. I'm very jealous.
@@maxwdg I suggest a good computer and FSX, it’s what i did.
You can still rent one pretty reasonably. But no, most GA pilots aren’t going to run out and buy something like this for sure
We are at an influx of old pricey tech and new not tested electric aircraft beginning to rise, once you u can park your aircraft in your house and charge it with the sun, it will be what the Jetsons were doing
@@maxwdg In 1980 I joined a flying club in Houston, Texas, and was able to earn my PPL at a very small cost in a 1976 C150. Have you looked around for clubs in your area?
Years ago there was that dream that aviation was going to become affordable. From this it's pretty obvious flying is still an expensive pursuit. I do like the glass cockpit. Incredible how little has changed with this classic aviation design. Imagine a car company still pumping out a 1955 design and charging top dollar.
Charging 50-100x the original msrp of the plane, but hey it’s got a cool radio on it!
Love this comment!
I'm buying an ultralight way cheaper 😊
On No planet in the universe is a Cessna 172 worth $486,000. Cessna claims "They really don't make much profit on these aircraft" LMAO!! and these people believe that? It wouldn't be worth that much if it were made entirely of gold.
dude theyre trying to make owning a home a rich person only thing too.
For half a million I want something designed in this century
And has done power😂❤
In 1971 My new 172 cost me $12,000. Flew it for 42 years before selling it and it is still flying.
$12k in 1971 adjusted for inflation is $92k today.
1971's 12k adjusted for inflation would be 90k of today's dollars. Somehow, they figured they can charge five times that and get away with it.
@@ImNotADeeJaybecause they don’t want anyone beside the highest class being able to fly. The same way they created the conditions to keep regular people from affording machine guns and similar weapons. It’s the easiest way to make believe you’re free. You’re freedom is proportional to the numbers in your bank account.
@@stephen_crumleywho's "they" that are apparently after you?
@@Fenderak the sick elites behind climate scam and everything else.. look up WEF
The new 172's are one of the many reasons that Experimental aircraft have at least a half year waiting list across the board.
Elaborate..
@@briansavage932 The high price of new certificated aircraft and the higher maintenance and upgrade costs of older certificated aircraft, are why experimental aircraft (and supporting) companies, are producing at record numbers. For around 100 grand, you can get an aircraft that does most of what a 172 can do and for the price of a new 172, you can get something that performs like (or better than) a Bonanza or 210. Only flight schools can make a financial case for a new Skyhawk.
@@Joe_Not_A_Fed Yeah, $100K. But then you have to build it. Buy an engine, prop, radios and all the little bits. Then you have to fly in an aircraft you built. However, I work as a GA mechanic. I am grateful that experimental aircraft exist. They have brought down the cost of flying for experimental and Certified aircraft.
Wow -- what an embarrasingly rough bracket for the AOA flapper switch. 13:43.
Yes, fit and finish construction is lacking, there.
You beat me to it. Looks like a total afterthought, as if some intern bolted it on.
Yep, looked tacky at best!!!
Should have paid for the DeLuxe eh?
@@loddude5706
The Cessna 172 Brougham Elite!!!
It can have all the bells and whistles in the world, it's still a 172. Hard pass for half a mil.
Not a toy, people make good money on that plane even at that price.
It's a segment-leading price for obsolescent structural technology.
.. indeed ! .. half a mil for an obsolete design ?? .. off with their heads ! 🗡️
Yep. Get an old Grumman Tiger and a fresh engine...much better!
For half the price you can buy a used twin Cessna and actually carry 4 people and bags and go somewhere.
I spent a lot of hours in a 172 in the early 90's building up hours. I just can't justify spending nearly $500k on something like this when I can get a much faster Lancair or an RV for 1/3 of that price.
My sentiments exactly. I'd rather use a RV-12 for a training airplane.
Rick Cox I get your point but their comment about the potential of buying a 172s, flying it for thousands of hours, then selling it for more that you paid seems somewhat compelling. In fact for the guy wanting to learn to fly, he might be able to buy it, complete a great deal of training in it, and then sell it for more than he paid.
Totally illogical. I bought a nice 182 on Wip amphibious floats with updated avionics etc for $200,000 a few years ago. Who and why would anyone spend anywhere near even 200 for a Skyhawk ?!! I’ve have a real nice 210 I bought in 1995 for 95,000 / super traveling machine. Been all over US and Alaska with it. Can’t imagine doing those trip in a 172. 172 is a good stable simply dependable airplane but it’s range, speed and load capacity can in no way justify a ridiculous price of $486,000! - I may not sleep tonight 😱😆
Amen. This is the reason I am building a Vans.
Some people buy homebuilts and don't have a clue about maintaining a plane. I think in the US a mechanic has to be hired to work on them if the original builder no longer owns it. That is a good rule. Not the situation in Canada.
and GA slowly slides into history.... Plane prices are just crazy. Even the sport light stuff is super crazy.
pretty sad.
blame insurance and lawyers.
Well, insurance executives and lawyers have to eat, too!
The government forces the prices to be artificially high with all the 'special certifications' that the parts are required to have. They shouldn't be that much more expensive than a car these days. How many hours until you have to tear down an aircraft engine and rebuild it? But a car engine will go 100,000 miles with no maintenance? Yes, it sucks, but the FAA hates GA.
@@vanstry Those certification requirements aren't new, they've been around for 70 years. When 172's were affordable. The rules didn't change, the lawyers did.
General aviation is now a rich man's game. Started to get my license back in the 90's and was like, I'll never be able to afford it even then. I'm out.
Same here. Went thru ground school in '93 and then realized that I couldn't afford to have a wealthy man's hobby.
Same here. I'd love to continue training, but I'd also like to live in a house.
I would respectfully disagree, there are ways that you can fly on a regular salary. The easiest way is to join a flying club. If you want to do it, you can.
Lots of “affordable” ways to fly. I fly in a club with access to a 172 and 182. You can buy a nice Champ for half the price of a brand new pickup.
You can be a working class and fly, but only if you are willing to fly a 60 years old airplane and hope the wings hold together.
I was an early owner after they restarted,. purchasing my 172R in 1997 direct from the factory. I was fully optioned, at $153 K. Everyone (and me also) thought it was outrageous.
Look at them now!
Do you still own it?
@@mctransportation9831 No. Sold it when it got too much hassle to maintain my medical.
@@grahaml3449 sorry to hear that. At least it you ended up getting a good price for it.
“Why this aircraft costs so much” An over abundance of unemployed lawyers.
If you watched the video that only accounts for $100k. Another $200k, at least, is just greed.
@@cageordie Or outdated manufacturing techniques and boutique, batch production.
True, but that is a result of GA pilots continuing to bore smoking holes in the ground due to poor training and risk management. They’d go looking elsewhere to suck blood if we didn’t chum the water for them.
@@arthurpearson3407 that’s only an issue for the manufacturer when our heirs team up with underemployed lawyers to sue anyone who’s been within an mile of the Cessna factory instead of just saying “Well, he effed up.”
There's absolutely no way. They could get sued for every 3rd plane off the line and still be making a massive profit. That's nothing but an excuse used to charge people out the ass. Their CEO makes over 15 million a year. That's over 42,000 dollars a day.
I did my PPL in a Cessna 172 so this aircraft will forever hold a place in my heart. Handles well and man that undercarriage is very forgiving. For a GA aircraft the price point is astronomical.
Edit to fix price
It debuted for about $8.3k, or about $88.2k in today's money. Cessna definitely made more than 300 172s in a year, before 2022, but they give low volume production an excuse for high prices. Basically they are doing an American dealership style of price gouging. I make good money, but overall GA is no longer affordable for me in terms of rentals, airport parking and now fuel costs.
Aviation liability lawyers are smiling from ear to ear......"we done did destroyed the whole small plane industry."
In about 1960 a 172 cost about $10,000.
My father bought a new 172 about 1962. Interesting to hear a ballpark price for it compared to the $500k!
Since prices from the past without inflation adjustment do not tell much: $10,000 in 1960 is roughly $95,000 in today's money.
@@Jerry_from_analytics yeah airplanes been more affected by inflation than most products but it seem liability helped make it go up another 4 fold.
Parasites
I saw someplace where an executive at Cessna stated that the cost of successfully defending the company in lawsuits cost $20M a year.
And that is the cases that Cessna wins.
Only the profits from the biz jets keep Cessna alive.
I was disgusted a few years ago, when I was quoted $140/hr for a 172 (in HSV). The same airplane I used to rent for around $65/hr. This past June, I was at an air show in Smyrna, TN and got to talking to a CFI whose FBO had an older 172 on display. I mentioned the $140/hr to him, and he replied “it’s gotten worse- try $175/hr.
This 172 had steam gauges, and most of the avionics were probably early 90s vintage. For $175/hr. Sad to say, but I feel that GA is in its death throes. That kind of an hourly rate for decades old technology is asinine.
$175/hr in silicon valley california? That's your area. How much does a slice of pizza cost there.
OMG, that's just nuts. It's getting out of hand.
@@WarrenPostma Silicon Valley? I’m in North AL. The $175/hr 172 is in Smyrna TN.
I learned to fly in the mid-60s. The cost of a new 172 in those days was about $10,000 when new cars were selling for around 1/3rd of that. If the price of new automobiles had kept pace with GA planes a car would sell for about $162K today. (To rent a 172 in 1965 was 14/hr. at our particular airport)
Try 245€ here in Italy for a C172
Having been a quarter partner in a beautiful C172 back in the 80's - I think back at how affordable it was for a married young dad with two children and a middle class livelihood to enjoy the pleasures of part owning a C172. I do not imagine that is possible anymore. Like so many things in our world - this has changed - and not for the better. It makes me long for the "good 'ol days" of GA - I fear they are gone forever. But it was incredible to see what the current model of the most popular airplane ever made looks like. Thanks Juan for a great report!
Its perfectly possible if you do it the right way...
Dang right Sir...I remember the 80's and taking Sunday joy flights with Dad...
Alot of it is people who have old airplanes more as a family heirloom than a peice of utility or even a toy. There are many planes that sit in my area for months or more at a time. I can not afford to fly, but have a current medical and BFR. I've put out the offer to pay the extra money it'd take to put me on the insurance and help keep the plane clean in exchange for letting me fly it a few hours a month and all have opted to let the plane rot rather than God forbid let someone use their plane.
It's possibe; I have 2 planes. Like most things it's economical as long as you buy used.
Honestly there are a LOT of people with that kind of money(and more) who can but new Cessna or Cirrus airplanes.
What's the price of an average home in San Francisco? (Ans: a lot more than 1/2 a million).
A lot of people are buying build kits, way more affordable.
Back in 1980, I used to rent a C 172 on lease back to an FBO for $34 an hour wet.
This is why I love experimental aircraft. A lot more performance for less money. And you can work on them yourself.
Yep!
Experimental aircraft are all well and good, but they are definitely not for everyone. You are essentially signing up to be your own test pilot. Personally I'd rather not experiment with my life. I know my limits and will leave the design, building, testing and maintenance of my aircraft to the pros who do it every day for a living. To each their own.
@@sintillate1913 Not true, definitely sounds like you have been reading Cessna marketing. My friend built a Velocity SE. When it was complete he had a Velocity test pilot come and try it out. The weekend before that he had a QA party where all interested friends went over the whole aircraft looking for anything not as stated in the build manual. Velocity did the test pilot part years ago, they developed a safe aircraft. You are no more your own test pilot that any Cessna owner taking his just serviced antique out for its first flight.
I was just telling my dad today that I’m ready to convert to experimental planes bc the cost of certified ga parts and avionics is just stupid expensive anymore. Hundreds of dollars for a specialized nut/bolt or $50for a fuel pump gasket, it’s ridiculous. EAA here I come.
@@sintillate1913 Fly commercial
I Ford would be that innovative, we would still having a Model T in the garage. With LEDs....
That's absolutely insane for a moderate performance single-engine aircraft. And check out 13:50 - look how poorly this sensor is fitted to the leading edge of the starboard wing. It doesn't even appear to be meant for this aircraft.
That alone probably cuts airspeed by10 knots and should cut the price by $31,000.
The sensor itself probably locally reduces the stall angle of attack of what was a good NACA 2412 section leading edge.
Exactly what I was thinking too! It looks like an afterthought they just bolted onto the leading edge of the wing with some self-tapping screws they found on the work bench!
For 500 K I would expect that to be an integral part of the wing; not some gadget they threw on there.
It looks like sheet metal that warped when they were half ass self tapping it to the wing. To say that looks amateur is being too kind. How have so many eyes passed over that without someone saying something? Wow.
Adding to that, take a look at the floor mat in the next shot. That mat is totally warped from the factory and the interior just looks horrible design wise. Like rocking a hand held microphone in year 2022?
Great, a guy can drive to the airport in his 87k Dodge Ram and fly away in his half million dollar 172. wow !
Don’t forget his $500k 1 bed condo
Hooray for rich people!
Most underrated comment
But the Dodge Ram might be faster and Carries more people .
@@tomedgar4375 Good one ! And the dodge ram could tow the Cessna down the road faster than it will fly
Glad I got my flying done in the 90s. $6K for what the FAA thought was an ultralight, $4K spent on upgrades and upkeep, 1.5K for training, and sold after hundreds of happy time in the air for $7K. I highly recommend the Ultralight, Light Sport, or Experimental planes to those who just want to fly but choke on GA prices.
There was a time I was taking one lesson a month at 175 dollars a hour; wet and with a instructor. I to am glad I got my certifications in the mid 90's throu 2003.
I attended ERAU in the early 70’s. The main training aircraft was the C-172. After the airplane served it’s purpose, the aircraft would be repainted and the engine overhauled and sold for $10,000.
Which is ~$70,000 in todays money. Crazy.
GARA, which enabled Cessna to bring back into production of the 172, was to limit liability in hopes of keeping prices down. That was touted throughout the industry at the time. But aircraft manufacturers just raised the cost anyway with the protections GARA brought about.. If I won the lottery tonight, I couldn't see the value of a $486,000 172 tomorrow. Cessna is raping the aviation industry- literally from the ground up in charging these prices. You can even see the rep hold back a smile while giving explanations. Sure, Cessna is apparently backlogged, but then if there was a plan for growth in this division, they would expand operations. Instead, they are fine with the price, and fine with the lead time, and so are the attorneys and the insurance agents. In all, this price is completely absurd.
Absurd, Right, that’s the word I was look for to describe a 500k Cessna 172.
I was a lineboy at Ann Arbor Airport in the late 60's and the airport was full of GA aircraft, even the outside tie-downs were just about all taken. I went back for a visit 20 years later and they were parking cars in the hangers that used to be chock full of aircraft. The airport still only had the same main hard surface runway and the same grass crosswind, no expansion in those years. The only difference was the U of Michigan had a big hanger for their expensive helicopter fleet.
I found it really sad because this should be a progressive place having a major University, and I would have thought people of that place would have had an interest in aviation and the funds to participate. I guess not.
Its a shame, I have many fond memories of those days watching aircraft and listening to the stories of old pilots and WWII vets.
You could probably find an old Citation for not too much more.
@@wesmcgee1648 With timed out million dollar engines, but I take your point.
He brags about the line running flat out making 280 planes a year, but back in the late 60s they were making 1,200 or so per year.
I know the stories. I know the numbers. Back in 1976 I bought a new 182 and paid $39,000. I had a very small business and paid cash.
Today you would have to be in the Burnie Madoff business to own one. (Sad)
Equally sad is all of our money that Bernie Made off with.
Insurance and lawyers drove the cost .
As an instructor in 1964 I was paid $3 an hour for basic and $4 an hour for instrument dual I learned to fly on Cubs Champs and a beat up 150 Lots of stick and rudder and used sectional charts railroad tracks and roads for nav It was a hell of a lot of fun
1977 C-172 Full IFR with 100 hours on the Hobbs, $23,500. The first 160 HP H2AD motor lasted 377.4 hours on the hobbs. Prorate By Cessna at $1000 Removal and install new one.
Adjusted for inflation, $23,500 in 1977 is equal to $105,174 in 2021. Annual inflation over this period was 3.46%. Value of a dollar.
I have heard many times in flight school and around the hangar that half the cost of an airplane today is for liability.
A $25k house in the bay area in the 70's goes for 1.5 million now..
I bought one the last Grumman Tigers in late 1979 --basic VFR panel for $32000. The last one I flew in Texas about10 or 12 years ago was almost $300,000. 10 times my cost, but my salary did not go up 10 times. General aviation needs modern "Volkswagen". At 75 myself, I feel deeply for the future of Private Pilots. J. Hibbert
The best measure I’ve seen for illustrating the truly apocalyptic economic decline for average people is “how many times the average yearly salary was this thing in 1960, and how many times the average yearly salary is it now?”
From planes to houses, it’s all enough to make you want to scream. Hope you had fun, cause you enjoyed the post-WWII golden age. That’s all over now, and there’s a lot of hardship and doing without between my generation and better days.
Juan, that's pure insanity - half a million ?
I bet 50% of that price is for "lawyer / lawsuit" overhead.
472,000 more obstacles to getting into General Aviation lol.
Great work Juan keep it up !
True on the lawyer overhead….that’s what happens in a sue happy society, everyone’s gotta gear up for the inevitable (for the MFRs at least)
Id vote for a 99% lawyer tax so it can be given back to everybody when they buy products with liability priced in.
Remember that lawyers don't initiate lawsuits on their own (unless it's a class action). They file damage claims based upon PILOTS, aircraft owners and their families for product defect. I remember having my Cessna seat roll back to it's aft most stop upon rotation and me pulling abruptly on the yoke. It could have resulted in a fatal stall spin had my brother not grabbed the yoke. Another time I was flying into a mountain airport at night, (no far from where Juan is) high and fast on final, had full flaps out, went for a go around at 100' above the ground and the stall horn goes off! Seems that the flap switch had failed and they were stuck in the down full position (and this when when they would go down further than they do today). With the stall horn blaring, we staggered around just above the trees, and made a successful landing.
Both of these were mechanical defects and both could have resulted in fatal accidents. The seat rail problem was addressed in an AD, (probably after a lawsuit), don't know about the flap switch, but I appreciated the mechanical flaps in my Piper Warrior. BTW - NOT bashing Cessna, I've spent many hours in them and I'd buy a 182.
Before bashing the legal profession, think: safest cars ever, safety seals and caps on medicines and yes, better quality airplanes.
@@danielhawley6817
Indeed Daniel all great examples.
Im more criticizing the overquick impulse to sue that is the root of "lawsuit abuse.
You on the other hand seem to be a model of restraint in this regards.
Bravo Sir !
@@danielhawley6817 thats why I also advocate for a law to end product lisbility for aircraft manufacturers because the FAA made them go through extensive testing and certified the product as safe. So, lets change liability from the manufacturer to the FAA. Plus the government can just print more money when it needs it unlike the rest of us.
That was a lot of fun to see the latest 172 with all the bells and whistles. Thanks Juan and Sven.
Looked it up and the 275 has about a 75 minute backup battery.
The venerable C-172! Most of us pilots have probably flown one. I started my flight training on the C-150, C-152, and graduated to the C-172 on some of my dual cross countries so I had plenty of C-172 time by the time I got my license. I am glad to say I got my training in 1989 - 1990 when C-150 prices were $42/ hr. wet, and the C-172 price was $48/hr. wet. "Those were the days my friend, I thought they'd never end". I calculated the cost of flight today, and they are roughly 2.5 to 3.0 times higher that the inflation rate from 1990. I only fly my 2020 MS Flight Simulator now. By the way Juan, Thanks again for all of the great videos you send our way!!! I watch everything you produce. Hi Pete. God Speed to all of you. Be safe out there.
I'll take 'Why is general aviation on life support for $486,000' Alex!
Lawyers and Insurance, backed by the FAA.
No point in forking out that kind of cash to buy a brand new Cessna with the basic shell model from inception lest for some avionic upgrades. I would wager that the ride quality has not changed marginally from earlier models. No brainer at all , unless ofcourse money is not an issue.
By design.
I bought a Cessna 172 circa 1972 in 1982 for $12,000. It had been sitting for some time outside at Mammoth Lakes Airport. The battery was dead and the nose wheel boot was torn and it was dirty. I got it started by hand and let it warm up to discover a strong barbecue order coming off the exhaust manifolds. Apparently local mice/rodents had built a nest in the engine compartment in the exhaust manifolds. It took several hours of running for the smell to dissipate. After a short test flight I wrote the check to the happy former owner. I had the local shop do an annual inspection and took care of those items on their squawk list. New battery, new nose wheel boot, tires, and various other minor items. I put 1,500 hours on the aircraft flying all over the Western US from 1982 to 1988. It had a simple standard control panel of the time/era. It was a wonderful aircraft to fly, very reliable. The new Cessna 172 with the bigger engine and the very fine avionics is a big step forward, but I’d have a hard time spending 1/2 million for a new one. For that much money I’d want a 6 or 7 passenger circa 2000 $125,000 airplane in reasonable condition and put $150,000 of the latest avionics and improvements in it.
I taught my 9 year old son to fly my Cessna 172 for 6 years on cross country trips, and his little brother for 4 years. The older son got his private pilots license on his 17th birthday in a 172. He went to the AF Academy and flew the F15E. He is now retired and owns a nice older Mooney and flies as a part time corporate pilot. The younger son joined the AF ROTC in college and got through solo training in a Cirrus. He went on to pilot school in the AF and flew the F15E and the F35. He is also AF retired, but serves as a contract simulator instructor for the F35. My father was the engineer & navigator on a VS44 Sikorsky flying boat in WWII. The whole family is full of pilots. I guess my 172 was a good buy!
All the prices in aviation make perfect sense, after you divide by 10.
My experience was a little better. I think flying is only 5 times more expensive than it's worth.
I bought a C172 SP (non-G1000) back in 2007 for 107k, there’s no way to justify almost 500k for a C172, it’s a trainer!!! Go experimental
This is incredible to see, I got my solo license when I was 16 (sadly didn't really get to continue as a pilot), and I remember how scared I was the first time I flew a C172 through the civil air patrol because it was from the 70s I think, I was 12, could barely reach the pedals, but its so cool to see how much has changed in the new ones.
I'm a Piper guy but eventually gave in and checked out in a Cessna 172. High wing is nice looking out at the ground. Did all my IFR training in the Cessna 172. Excellent IFR platform, including the C-182 & C-210T.
I owned a Cherokee 140, Piper Arrow and partners in a Piper Commanche 260. However my favorite plane to fly was the Pitts S2A.
IIRC, there were more 172N’s sold in a single year in the seventies than all the R’s and S’s sold since the models were introduced over 25 years ago. There are many reasons for the change, but I believe one of them is that Cessna can still make this plane with few improvements. During the same time, auto manufacturers cannot make anything as shabby and unsafe as a 50 plus year old design.
I picked up my new R182 at the factory in Wichita in March of 1981. Flew in commercially and flew home to KTRK with my CFI to get the required retractable hours for insurance since I only had time in straight-legged Cessnas. What a wonderful experience I will never forget. Cost then was $74K! What a great airplane which I kept until I sadly decided to sell in 2020. Awesome memories Juan, thanks for the video. Landed many times at your headquarters’ field KGOO from KTRK.
I bought a 1961 C-182D a year ago for $68;500. The plane had a total airframe time of 5000 hours and engine 1500 hours T.T..
Love how the avionics are used to explain the high price! I’d think for a manufacturer, removing all the traditional gauges would cut the costs immensely?
It was a very lame excuse but glass cockpit costs astronomically more than steam gauges.
@@smasheduptoaster9186 That's quite surprising. You'd think that it would be cheaper to produce an electronic display in today's world, but laws and such probably make it more expensive to introduce new products.
You're paying for the software
@@martijn9568look at the cost of each Garmin screen the avionics can easily go into $50k you are paying for sourcing of the outdated components because certification is expensive
The cost of producing an electronic flight system like this is in the research and development phase of production. After the avionics system is fine tuned and ready for the consumer market, they have the blueprints ready for mass production and the software is already written. They use the avionics as an excuse because no one knows that computer parts and sensors are cheap, and every company nowadays only cares about maximizing profits.
Astonishing.
Bought a very nice Mooney 201 (M20J) in 1982 for $54K, flew it all over the USA until 1997, sold it for $84K. Steam gauges and KX170B-type equipment but fully functional and versatile for serious IFR work back in those days. Can't imagine what it would sell for "new" today, but this particular aircraft I would think would go for about $150K in reasonable condition.
Now that I'm an old guy, if I wanted to get back into aviation I would go for something like Richard Bach's "Puff," an inexpensive Experimental amphib powered by a stone-reliable Rotax engine. $100K and just for fun, not business travel.
People ask me why I don't fly anymore. Even building an experimental is going to cost you. Big time. I had to give it up . But before I did I was part owner in 4 aircraft. I am a Multi-engine Instrument Flight Instructor with an ATP in a Cessna 310R that I was in partners with 3 friends. I loved flying but sometimes you just have to let things go and move on. I have no regrets. It's a rich man's hobby and not a good career choice unless you make it to the Airlines. Even then it's hard on families. So, I'm proud of what I accomplished and I've moved on. I have many other interests that keep me excited about life. I still look up when a plane flies overhead.
GA is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive to the future generations.. I had to quit flying because of the cost to even rent a plane near me.
Here's the problem (for them). There are many more enticing options in that price bracket with much shorter delivery times.
Apparently not the much of a problem (for them) with an 18 month waiting list.
Not really a problem. They are selling them to flight schools and other professional pilots. Hobbyists are cheap and their families tend to sue you when a crash happens.
Nope. The flight schools do not want a better plane. Any change costs them more than it’s worth. The insurers help with this by punishing newer and known to be safer designs. Don’t ask me why.
Textron/Cessnas philosophy is that C172 are too high in risk. Every time a low hour pilot crashes they get sued to hell and back, which usually requires alterations to their operation or the aircraft design, further increasing price and headache. Just like the C172S airbag seatbelts, which cost ~$10k and MUST be replaced every 10 years, all because of an accident that occurred years ago.
Instead, they'd rather build corporate twin engine jets which sell for excellent profit, have a solid financial turn over and have FAR fewer accidents due to most pilots having more than 1500 hours flying them.
Insurance and lawyers are KILLING GA.
@@Keys879 Worth pointing out is that the lawyers are often clearly using tactics and making arguments which go beyond the pale. Some of it is customary (which brings up questions about our legislators), but in aviation they knowingly pursue damages and present evidence that they know is false. Then, insurers have to raise rates. Where the insurers can be blamed is more complex, but it’s basically the case where they have let their industry devolve to where they do very little work determining risk and simply charge fees based on the past performance of nonsensical buckets while adding fees for any unknowns. Some guilt can be shared by the manufacturers here as they really haven’t done much about it.
When I started flying in 1965, I was renting a 172 for 14.50/hr + 5/hr for a CFI. My how times have changed.
@@davestephens3246 Hey Dave, thanks for responding. Don't believe I mentioned anything about life being difficult in the 60's. I know we had it good. Gas was 17cents/gal, they were practically giving milk and bread away. My monthly income in 1970 was $800/mon. I was renting a 2 BR apt, making a car note, and raising a son and we had plenty of expendable money. Couple reasons why, 1) TV was free, 2) I wasn't paying outrageous $$ for cell phones, 3) big pharma hadn't figured out how to gouge the public yet, 4) same could be said for healthcare systems (once the gov started paying, prices skyrocketed). You get the idea maybe. Life was a lot cheaper back then. Oh and I forgive you for calling me a boomer fucks. You'll be old someday. Good luck.
Adjusted for inflation thats still $120hr.
In the 1960s when I was actively flying, the general rule of thumb for the hourly rental rate was the cost of the airplane divided by 1000. I was renting $15,000 172s for $15 per hour. Would it be accurate to assume that the hourly rental rate of this particular aircraft would be around $486 per hour?
Probably about half that, in the range of $200-300/hour (wet) - varies by location but 5 years ago I paid just about $200/hr for a 2011 G1000 C172S in the Northeast US
@@eda73194 If the old rule of thumb holds true then the value of the 172 you rented would be around $200,000. Sounds about right.
The old rule of thumb was 1% of the total cost of the aircraft when new, and likely it is still true so yes 486 K translates to $486 per hour !!!!
How the heck can anyone wanting to learn have that kinda money to do so. Whoa !!
When I was renting a new 172 from the local flight school here in Britain during the 1960s the rate was £8 sterling an hour, fuel included. I think that equates to $16 at the exchange rate back then.
I REMEMBER TA(ING ONE HR FLIGHTS FOR 20.00 PER. ABOUT 1973,74
Two more keepers Juan. Sven and his daughter should be visited again perhaps during one of your stop overs in Anchorage! Great Folks, just like you.
I always laugh when I hear people ask "why is there a pilot shortage/how can we get more people involved in aviation?". When a 172 cost $486K and DPE's are charging $2K for check rides it's no wonder why we have fewer pilots now than we ever had. Pretty soon there won't be anymore GA, no one can afford it. Goodbye GA, it was fun while it lasted.
it sucks, im just now at a point I can invest the time and money, but I don't have enough money now.
So was the Middle Class.
I had an uncle who bought a flying service company for around 500k in 1971. That included 2 -150s, 2 -172s, and an old twin Apache. I flew a new 172 he bought in 1972 when I was 12 yrs old. As I recall he paid about 12k for that one. Damn.
In 2004, I took delivery of my 172S. I flew out to Independence and brought it back home to Jacksonville. Mine was one of the last "steam gauges" and I paid $192,500 for the plane. I was also told that 30% of the cost of the plane was for that liability part that Juan mentioned. For sure, I'll never own another new 172. They have become way overpriced for the normal individual.
Do they come with a parachute for if the engine quits? Asking for Trevor Jacob.
You can add a ballistic system yes
The plane is a parachute.
Thanks Juan, good to see Cessna still creating world class "affordable" planes
LMAO! ^v^
AFFORDABLE?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
haha yeah
Almost £500k and all you get is a 172? No wonder GA is dying
@@adammarley8456 Exactly.
In 1955, the sticker price for a 172 was $8,995 - seems a bargain.
Which inflates to about $100 grand today.
Thank the insurance companies and lawyers for the high price.
They had less lawyers in 1955.
@@richardkrentz7553 ...and the lack of a much-needed reduction in GA accidents and payouts, which would mean no constant opportunity for the lawyers to reap and need for the insurance companies to pay.
@@rbrosz If judges and juries were appropriately educated about just liability practices, tort reform shouldn't have even been necessary. To quote one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, no free society can exist without an equal diffusion of literature (i.e., education), and that ideal was echoed by others among them. Just because we've decided they were wrong, that politics and laws are a sufficient replacement, doesn't mean we are right. Mechanical-failure accidents are at their highest rate in over a decade, making up about a third of all accidents, so there's plenty of liability there even with pilot causation removed.
I had a Cessna once, in the late 60's or early 70's' it was made of glue and various woods and I could never use it because I could not afford to complete the build since the radio remote and controls and the gas-powered engine were too expensive for my pocket. Thus ended my flying career at small scale and any other scale. I have instead "invested" in electric trains, which apparently are not cheap either, and which I am certain will survive me, no 6 figure liability needed no matter operator error or crash.
He could sell wings to a fly. What a nice gentleman.
WOW! I remember my dad buying a new Cardinal RG in about 1974, and it was nowhere near half this price. I wish he was still around for me to ask about it. He sold it in the early 80s, and bought a T-34. He was the happiest I ever saw him with that old Navy trainer. Memories.
Looks like your having some really mild weather at your place.The reverse here in Virginia,we’re making up for November and December when you guys were cold and snowy.
Thanks Juan! “Children of the magenta” - I blew whiskey out my nose. Still burns. Great advice at the end! Get in on the front of the wave!
Total GAMA shipments at the peak (circa 1980) was near 16,000 units. In 2020, GAMA reported 2,400 of which half were turbine. In 1977 we saw the first A36 leave the factory at over $100,000 and though that it had priced itself out of the market. Today the G36 goes out at nearly $1 million ($775,000 base). Circa 1978, the Bonanza liability cost per unit was more than the labor cost to build it.
There needs to be further legislative work on limiting liability on all products. Further, such awards should not be assigned by juries who have no idea what they are doing. Further, further, vexatious lawsuits should be punished by judges.
Good luck. The tort bar contributes every election cycle to politicians. I would love to see ethanol removed from gasoline, but there is too much money in it to be realistic.
HOLY SMOKES 😯...... way back in '81 or so my flying partner bought a new 172 ( N733TC ) from Gunnel Aviation W.L.A.for about 41K...... last time I checked it was still flying in a Denver flight school......... fun thing was I got to fly it for gas only( just fill it up when you return it).😁
I'm betting the fuel wasn't cheap
AH 🤔.... Regular auto fuel was about $.79-.90 a gallon......... AV. Gas about a $1.50 ... and yep, that was not really cheap, 😁 a 152 out of Compton Aviation was $20.00 /Hr. wet. Most of my cross country was with the gas only 172😄.
I call the new Cessna offering the Wichita Insult. Here is a big company taking a design over 1/2 a century old, the original certification cost long paid for, just get a new panel, have the lawyers improve the design and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. There are suckers born every minute. That is why schools cost so much, they can afford the waste, my school use 1/4 century old 172 to teach us.I can convert from steam gauges to Dynon or Garmin with no trouble. Most makes have the AOA build right into the display instead of an ugly add on looking box. Cessna heart was not in light planes for decades, it is the larger jets and turbo props that they made their money on. For small planes , short cuts and risk averse business methods now rein, that is why they had several high profile failures recent years, like the Skycatcher, Corvolis and now decades late, they are trying to clone the PC12. A WW2 veteran would have asked , 240 planes , was that a day's production? For many in the EAA, if they have to wait that long, they might as well build one at less than 1/2 the cost. Smaller companies have better control of their overhead costs. Next bump of HP will make the 172 hard to tell from the 182. But the 182 is not so suitable for low time students, with a vulnerable firewall on landing.
Ouch $$$. I remember paying $7,000 for my low time 1967, 172 back in 1976.
One time I saw wine for sale at a store for upwards of 1000 dollars a bottle. I was thinking to myself - suppose I splurge and spend 1000 dollars on a wine, but would it taste any different when compared to a 10 dollar wine?
Holy cow! The 172 I learned to fly in 47 years ago cost about a twentieth of that. I bought a new C-152 in 1978 for just over $18K. Sold it ten years later for not much under that. Amazing.
I had a friend buy a 1977 C150 in 1993 for $19k. Fresh paint, fresh upholstery and interior, and a fresh engine. That little bugger was SO much fun to fly.
The GA industry definitely rising if a brand new 172 is half a million. If I was going to buy a 172 I would buy 172M or N for 80-90k spend 100k on getting it to life and still save 300k. Great video.
It is really quite amazing how such a simple thing with not much weight either can cost so much compared to other much more technologically advanced stuff (liked cars)
This one has fuel injection! Simply amazing adopted late 60’s technology.
@@ben3989 Yeah imagine that lol xD You could go take any fuel injected car since the 80s and they'd probably still be more reliable than this Cessna engine :D (If you just look at the engine and not where you try to mount it to an airplane diy)
Move up to a diesel and you'll be at twice the reliability and hours on the engine lol.
That was great.... but I wanted to see you fly it and demonstrate all that cool stuff 🙂
I've been told more than once... "You can make a small fortune in aviation, but you need a big one to get started"
Looks like the long-range fuel tanks, 54 gallons useable. Beautiful plane and wonderful interview, thanks!
Nope. That's std. fuel on all Independence built 172s.
I is absolutely distressing that although I have a PP certificate I cannot fly or ever get one of these due only to the cost involved compared to the 1999 time frame when I got the license.
I can't imagine what the hourly cost is for a student flying this a/c is. For me, the goal was always United Airlines. But when certain limiting medical issues got in the way, and the cost to keep flying exceeded the value I was getting out of it, I handed over the keys and stopped flying. I really miss flying the ILS down to near minimums and watching for the "rabbit."
It depends where you live. I'm fortunate enough to live near an airfield with cheap fuel (
what is the "rabbit". i assume some marker on the ILS indicator?
Rabbit is a reference to the rapid flashing of the sequence flashers on the Approach Light System or ALS. If the approach has sequence flashers then ALSF…..F being flashers. Plenty of videos to see it in action.
@@daniels.9206 Looking it up now, thanks so much. I've probably seen those crazy things at my local INTL airport since those landing lights run right through the highway I-465 (which is a loop around the city). Thanks!!
I flew the 1998 Cessna 172R Skyhawk back in 2002 out of KVGT as a birthday present to myself. This was pre-glass cockpit days but boy oh boy would it be a joy to fly one like in this video. Look dad, no carburetor, no carburetor icing, LOL. Love that AOA indicator, that should save a lot of unintentional stalls. While I love flying more than anything both fixed wing and especially Bell 407 helicopters, it is no longer with me behind the controls as I learned I suffer from spatial disorientation which comes on without warning. Very unfortunate but with someone else behind the controls, I love being up there.
I think I like the older cockpit panel set up. I like having all my circle gauges I feel like I’m more focused with that there’s just not enough on the one display although everything needed is right there. It’s just a preference thing
‘Children of the Magenta Line’ - Captain Vanderburgh. Jaun is making reference to a seminar hosted by CA Vanderburgh bearing this phrase as its title. It’s worth a view, and is easily found on YT. I actually watched the video before I discovered the CA giving the discussion is my good buddies dad. Unfortunately I didn’t meet him before he passed.
Piper is surviving on fleet sales and I would think that is the same for Textron's 172 line. He's right about the older G1000 S models for the smaller flight schools who go through engines pretty frequently.
like when you say go through engines, is that a brand new engine, 2nd hand rebuilt engine, or same factory engine rebuilt over and over and over?
Juan. I commute to my job at Paine Field in either a 1946 Ercoupe or 1956 172...both have G5 instrumentation...but together they are not 1/2 million. I paid on Whidbey 600K for 3500 square feet and 15 acres :) wow my day job is managing max flight test
Yes the cost of the liability insurance is huge for the manufacturer. When a GA accident happens, the lawyers come out of the woodwork and sue everybody in sight from the airplane manufacturer to the engine manufacturer to the mechanic that serviced the airplane and the list goes on and on. I worked the gas line at a small airport in the 1970's and was also named in a lawsuit just because I fueled the airplanes! Fortunately one of the owners of the airport was a practicing attorney and got the suit dismissed for all of us that worked at that airport. That $100,000 price tag for Cessna was just the tip of the iceberg as the engine manufacturer also has liability insurance built into the cost of the engines and so do the avionics manufacturers. Every company involved has liability insurance added to the cost of their products.
I saw an old Cessna ad on Time magazine from 1956 , the advertised price was $8,750 that's about $90,000 in todays money . let me be generous and add another $90,000 for modern avionics that's $180k that's still 37% of the current price .
When I saw the $486,000 price...I thought, well you know it does have a nice paint job.
"The Intelligence Behind the Headlines" Thank you Juan 👍
Your Luscombe looks like just as much fun. I enjoy your videos.
Great video! I learn more in these five minutes about a 172 than I’ve learned in quite a while.
Thank you, Juan. A great story to share!
: - )
Fantastic segmenet Mr. Browne. Thanks to Sven for the great information as well. A long time ago an accountant once told me that you can afford one of these if your salary is 1.5x the cost of the plane. Well, time to cross a new 172S off the list.
That’s a tough pill to swallow. This is why flight schools with those like mine are $200/hr wet rate right now
Lake Placid, NY, 1959 a J3 went for $6.50 an hour solo.
The hourly rate for sailplane rental at our TX club a couple decades ago was one dollar per hour and $17 to add an instructor (plus modest monthly dues). Several decades earlier I could afford Cessna lessons at a USAF aero club from the coins of my allowance and occasional odd job at age 15.
I bought a new C-172 in 1991 for $135,000. I picked it up in Independence KS and flew it home to McKinney TX. The 2023 C-172 has a superior avionics package. But other than that, they are the same as the 1991 model. The giant price increase is largely due to spendthrift politicians' debasement of the US dollar.
When will the flying community put a stop to this insanity? I worked hard my entire life to get to the point where I could get out of my impoverished upbringing, so that I could afford to get my pilot’s license (a childhood dream - which I finally did in 2014). Now to see this, whereby one of these machines made of aluminum and some iPads, totaling MAYBE $3000 in parts and labor, are being artificially priced at my ENTIRE life savings. Come on people, this is an OUTRAGE. Who can afford this????!!! We can’t ALL be doctors, lawyers, Hollywood actors, or Mike Patey. The ability of the few who can afford to pay for this absurdity ruins the ability for ANYONE other than them to afford it. Fat wallets and smiling faces ruin anyone else’s chance to even sit in one of these things. Call me a lunatic, but you know I’m right. I quit.
I would not buy anting of these planes too much money they've gone crazy
Sorry Bass, you're way off. Several hundred hours to complete one aircraft by folks making $30-40 an hour, plus purchasing the engine from Lycoming (which takes more skilled labor, plus the cost of castings, etc.) plus purchasing the avionics, same costs, plus all the other things purchased from suppliers (think tires, aluminum, castings, etc.), plus cost of production machines, plus maintenance, plus overhead, plus R&D, plus maybe a little profit (why they're in business in the first place), there's no way an aircraft like the 172 could be produced as cheaply as you suggest. Sure, half a million dollars is an absurd amount for a private pilot to shell out for a utilitarian aircraft with modest performance, but to suggest any light aircraft could be produced at a cost of less than 10% of a high-performance sports car is just out of touch with reality.
Cessna is not getting rich in these planes, but they are helping to prevent others from solving the problem by continuing to make them. I wish they would quit. The planes are junk. If you want to be an aviator, build a plane. The real problem is the FAA, not the builders. They are really happy with keeping the sky free of piston planes, and so is everyone powerful in this country. In the mid 2000’s, when GA had been making progress again, the IRS changed the rules on write offs in a way that regular businesses with owner pilots couldn’t realistically write off their needed training flights and the whole thing came apart again (and they did so using populist anger at corporate jet use as an excuse). Now the EPA wants to destroy the fuel supply and see them all junked (not because there are enough of us to make a bit of difference but because they are a cult of lefties under the sway of Marxist philosophy they picked up in college).
You're exaggerating, but there's a reason why my dream is the cozy, can get something really good for 50k and the basics for 30k (and still 170 knots wtf man)
@@tridium-go6hw Thank you for your response - I don't disagree with you. Yet - just look at the technology, parts, labor, patents, and profit they are making on a 2022 Corvette. It costs, what, maybe 80k? I understand economy of scale, but
I guess my real argument is with the asking price for a steam gauge, 30-year-old, half-run-out engine, 172. Absurd. Your point is well-taken however. Blue skies.
My Dad was one of their racing/factory test pilots pre 1930 temporary Depression closing. Proud of Dad, flying was risky, but Dad had both unbelievable flying skills and courage. 👍 Pop!
Man... I really like flying C172, but I just do not see any improvements in cabin design/ergonomics for this noble price. They still use pretty old frame and parts and it gets only more expensive. It just just "refurbished" 30 year old Cessna, that you can buy for some 50K and invest 40K to make it up-to date. It is very sad, that such a nice and secure plane becomes less affordable for normal humans.
You right . From 150 ft away it would be hard to tell the difference between a 2022 Cessna or a 1980 Cessna . Same old same old
$50k for a 30 year old 172? Take my money now! I’ll be able to resell it for another $50k easy. 172’s are not $50k anymore.
Got my ASEL in 1983 having taken lessons in a 152. Less than a week later, I purchased a 4 yo 172 with the (in)famous 0-320 H2AD engine. Never an issue with the cam/lifters other than the oil additive. Owned the a/c for 6 years and absolutely loved flying it, mostly at night due to working so much. Purchase price: $20,000. Seems a lifetime ago...
HOLY COW Juan ! Do my eyes deceive me? It's how much? The dollar sure isn't what it used to be. Crazy crazy crazy!
I learned to fly in a 1978 172 back in 2018. Then I bought a Cessna T182T -2006 G1000 model. Now I am buying a brand new 2022 T206H. It will have taken 1 year to get it since I ordered it. I have confidence in Cessna and Textron.
Very interesting. Thanks for the info. $486,000 would buy a nice house near the Blancolirio headquarters.
When I used to instruct our school had all Piper warriors but one Cessna 172. We used it for scenic flights and spins. The older ones were approved for it in the utility category. None of the other instructors wanted to do it so I it was always me that did the spin endorsements. It wasn’t as easy to spin as the 152 or Citabria but it would do it if you went full elevator back full rudder right at the stall warning with a shot of power. Would basically come out on its own once you relaxed the controls. Such a well designed great flying airplane.
Nice plane. But I have a RV7 tricycle gear plane I built and got flying several years ago for less than 100K US with a brand new IO360 and two Savier electrronic ignitions, as well as a glass panel My plane also has a constant speed prop, which that Cessna does not have (I didn't see a prop control on the panel). I also have two comms, working into antennas at each end of each wing. They work great, so there are no antennas sticking out in the breeze except for the transponder antenna. There is a little standby battery that can only charge in normal operation, and can be switched to the left electronic ignition when/if the system fails, and will fun it for two hours. So this thing really perfoms as empty weight is 1120 lbs. But I could be convinced to sell it, as the other plane I have and love and built is a Longeze with an O 235.
Excellent Hal. When can I enroll in your flight school?
I believe the reason for no constant speed propeller is because that would make it a complex aircraft, and unavailable for use as a training aircraft, which is the primary mission of this aircraft in today's GA world.
@@10to1imjokin Sort of what I thought too.
Jesus Christ, the cF-104 I was daydreaming about sold for less than that and it came with a spare jet engine. And it does almost Mach 2.
If the flight schools are paying $500K for these things, I can't imagine what their hour cost is for instruction. I was paying $120/hr for C172 + instructor wet back in '95. Same flight school is now charging $189/hr for a C172S + 100/hr for instruction. Looking at almost 300/hr for primary instruction.
I learned to fly in a 1976 Cessna 172M and have flown an N and SP models. The 172 holds a very special place in my heart.Very forgiving, excellent trainer. It is insane how much they cost. I would say if you are to buy one, go for the earlier models.The cheapest I have seen is a 1966 G model going for $66,000. Really shows you that cessna has a great formula with this plane, simple design that has lasted many years.