9 ms·

He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104

He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.
sowbug 4y ago
The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?
- wstuartcl 4y ago
  imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.
- melling 4y ago
  I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells? Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
  - mc32 4y ago
    Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars. https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-can-get-and-why-theyre-so-cheap/ https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Their cheapest one failed a crash test against a child's pinata. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI
        mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, yes, they're not particularly good or safe cars.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        I didn't expect one to fare well in a crash test against another car. I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box. There's "unsafe", and then there's this.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        It messed up the bumper? Wouldn't that happen with tons of cars? And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        None of that damage should have occurred from a pinata. At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
  - akiselev 4y ago
    They’re all much cheaper than they were and more advanced by leaps and bounds. GA airplane production collapsed from a peak production of 17k a year in the 1970s to a few thousand a year starting in the 90s continuing to today. Cars and tractors and tanks and even jets have all seen their markets grow, not disappear.
    - Retric 4y ago
      That’s sometimes true but the standards have improved so much it’s hard to do these comparisons. A new Model T in 1925 cost had fallen to 260$, that’s roughly $4,348 in todays money. Sure it’s missing a great deal of modern features, but it’s hard to get a new golf cart at that price.
      - HPsquared 4y ago
        Very basic cars, similar to (probably better than) the Model T can still be made. For example the Tata Nano. People can afford much nicer cars now. Regulations also require decent crash safety. There's not much of a market for these kinds of super-cheap cars. Though it'd be interesting to work out how much an exact clone of the Model T would cost today (mass produced using modern technology).
        lazide 4y ago
        Mass produced with modern tech? Probably sub $1k and sold at harbor freight. The model T was pretty simple, and you can buy engines with waaaay more power - and longer life, quieter, more efficient, etc. too for sub $500 at harbor freight and strap it to a frame, and off you go.
        beamgirl 4y ago
        I actually doubt that. The raw materials in the T would be pretty expensive now. The vanadium steel for the chassis alone would probably cost a grand.
  - 8note 4y ago
    How much is a 30 y/o beater car? Even one in good condition?
    - culopatin 4y ago
      30yo is probably more expensive than a 15yo. A good Miata is 7/8k and a 2013 Jetta is 7k too.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    > Are cars cheaper today? Cars are AVAILABLE for pretty much the same price. People WANT more expensive cars. The Volkswagen Beetle was pretty much the least expensive car on the market for its entire sales run in the United States. The inflation-adjusted price of a Beetle in 1973 was around $12,000. The price of a Chevrolet Spark in 2022? $13,000. Nobody wants a Spark, though. They want an SUV. So Chevy killed the Spark. Before Chevy discontinued the Spark you could walk onto a lot and drive away in one of the dozen or so Sparks they had rotting away in the corner for less than the price of a VW Beetle in 1973-- and the Spark was superior in every measurable way. 2023's cheapest car is the Nissan Versa. You can 100% find dealers who will part with one for less than the cost of a Beetle. It is also better than the Beetle.
    - sn_master 4y ago
      > People WANT more expensive cars. Because it's very easy to get financing for a car, that's why. If they had to pay it out of pocket you bet they'd choose the cheaper car.
    - PaulHoule 4y ago
      Carmakers want to sell expensive cars. Back in the 1970s my dad had plenty of stories about how American car dealers had all kinds of excuses why they couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't sell you a small car. Now the Japanese car dealers do the same thing. A few years I went to a Honda dealer looking for a new Fit, found they didn't have any because "the factory washed out in a flood" but they had 50 CR-Vs which are made in the same factory which were somehow not affected by the flood. They really ought to put up or shut up: when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle but it is a sign they want to sell you a monster vehicle.
      - Aunche 4y ago
        The only reason for a manufacturer to want to produce a cheap car is to sell a ton of them at a low margin. If not enough people are buying them, then there's no reason to continue selling them. At sub-$20,000, you're going to be better off buying a used car than a new, bare bones car. This wasn't the case decades ago when cars were a lot less reliable and generational improvements were much larger. >when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle What cars are you talking about? It's generally the "monster vehicles" that have the greatest markup (e.g. Bronco Raptor)
  - el_don_almighty 4y ago
    The core features of most capital products are basically commodities. Every car now has an automatic transmission, A/C, fancy radio, electric windows, etc... Manufacturer's can only increase prices (and thus keep ahead of inflation) by innovating the edge with new features, wanted or not. Is Ford or Caterpillar really best positioned to design and deliver a mobile flat-panel touch screen device? Not likely, but putting one in their vehicles creates opportunities for higher prices and new innovations. VERY LITTLE of this is available in the aircraft market where every new part number requires justification, testing, and approval. The health-care market is very similar yet demand is so high and inelastic that it still justifies huge investments. Aviation... not so much
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    If you buy a new car today, it'll be better than a 40 year old car in pretty much every metric. Performance, fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, etc. I think the OP is complaining that they're paying "modern vehicle" prices to rent a plane that has had minimal changes since the 1960s. The vast majority of old cars (other than collectable ones with low mileage) are gonna be cheaper than they were new.
    - tonyarkles 4y ago
      I think one of the gotchas with that is that there are no “equivalent” no frills new vehicles to purchase. Until recently I drove a 91 Ranger (original MSRP apparently around $9600). Inflation-adjusted that comes to $20,627 in 2022. My only two complaints about it was that it was only 2WD and it had small wheels that were more difficult every year to find winter tires for. In the harsh Canadian prairie winter it would readily get stuck on flat ground. Otherwise it perfectly met all my needs. In the end I replaced it with a 5 year old low mileage Tacoma, but paid close to twice what the Ranger’s inflation-adjusted MSRP was, and that was before the used car market went crazy. If I’d wanted to I could have probably resold it and made a $10k profit on it 6 months later. Do I love this truck? Definitely. Would I have been perfectly happy with a 4WD no-frills manual transmission truck and a $300 aftermarket deck with Bluetooth? Definitely, but it wasn’t an option.
  - nelgaard 4y ago
    Cars are a lot cheaper, taking inflation into account and before taxes (I am writing from Denmark) And they are much better. You can get a small car with ABS brakes, airbags, radio, air-conditioning, a fuel-efficient engine, etc that drives really well, for two months salary. Tanks and jets are probably much more expensive. But some of that is because there is literately an arms race. You need to pay for something that is much better than you had before or you service men will die because the enemy did get something that is better and more expensive. I would love to own a classic sports car. I would happily pay for the extra fuels and take the risk of not having airbags, ABS brakes etc. I am grateful that I do not have to go to war. But if I were, I would not want to do it a "classic" tank or fighter jet. Now Ukraine is getting our old Leopard 1 tanks which have a lot of firepower and moves fast but have less armour than modern tanks, which might work because the Russians most have old tanks left. But there is a good reason that European countries have bought Leopard 2 tanks that are much more expensive and 24 tonnes heavier.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    > I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. The government doesn't. They artificially suppress inflation numbers by counting technological progress as deflation.
  - outside1234 4y ago
    Cars are definitely cheaper today especially if you discount for the massive amount of features that have been added
- cholmon 4y ago
  I did a discovery flight with my son last summer in a C172. We had a blast, but I was pretty surprised how old the plane felt. My recurring thought is that Cessnas are like the TI-85s of airplanes; ubiquitous workhorses frozen in time. Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
  - docandrew 4y ago
    It’s not just Cessnas. Besides the normal wear and tear of a plane that’s potentially 40 years old, most of the single-engine planes at a flight school are going to see extra abuse from all the student pilots.
    - fijiaarone 4y ago
      Student pilots = flying multiple trips several hours almost every day, on a tie down outside. Compared to the doctor owner pilot who flies 1 hour to get a hamburger once or twice a year, and keeps it hangared the rest of the time.
  - greycol 4y ago
    There is a pretty big "experimental" scene with small and ultra light airplanes. Experimental here basically meaning you can't use it for comercial. So mostly because of the costs of certification and liabilities involved and how the segment of the market is lifestyle/hobyists you end up with a lot of nice modern small planes that only the owner/syndicate flies and only for personal flights. There's plenty of neat little planes out there, my favorite was basically the go cart equivalent of a jet that I saw at our club airport. Something like this https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070 https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070
  - tcas 4y ago
    For certified piston aircraft, generally yes. The engines are pretty much made by a few manufacturers based on ancient designs, and while you may get some "newer" benefits in some models, such as fuel injection (instead of carborators), or digital engine control (FADEC), they're pretty much ancient technology compared to modern engines. Most still have manual mixture control for example and very limited monitoring. The only example in that class (sub $750k) I can think off the top of my head with a better engine is DA40 NG, which uses a modified Mercedes diesel engine.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  You're not paying for a depreciated product. You're paying for the maintenance and operating fees which don't depreciate in value.
  - docandrew 4y ago
    On an airplane you’re really paying for the engine. Typically after 2000 hours (depending on the model) they are supposed to be overhauled, which will be a cool $20-30k or so for something like the 172 in the OP. If you’re airplane shopping you’ll see a very tight correlation between the asking price and the “SMOH” time or hours since major overhaul.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      For $20-30k, you likely can buy and install a new engine, or two, were it car engines. (That's the route taken in the article.)
      - docandrew 4y ago
        It seems like kind of a slam dunk, though I wonder about the reliability of a car engine left at full-throttle (or close to it) for long periods of time the way airplane engines are.
        tonyarkles 4y ago
        That’s part of the secret if you head over to the Corsair website: https://corsairpower.com/ https://corsairpower.com/. They’ve significantly derated the engine with a custom ECU and added a gearbox to better match prop RPM to engine RPM. They’re rating it at “conservatively” (their words) 3000 hours TBO.
      - AdrianB1 4y ago
        Car or bike engines are not made to run continuously at 75% of max power with 1500-2000 between overhauls. Otherwise you can put a motorcycle engine in the plane, even better power to weight ratio (200 HP/liter) than car engines, but it does not work.
ben7799 4y ago
He's in a cheap area or something. Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point. I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something. Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  >People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something. Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
  - Pasorrijer 4y ago
    Safety purposes. If you're away from the school, a student gets off course, bad weather, etc, they would much rather you have extra fuel than too little. It's also dependent on what's being flown. Sometimes they will fly with less for weight and balance.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Also condensation in the tanks. Keeping them topped off helps prevent that.
- asciimike 4y ago
  Yeah, prices in CO (where Corsairpower is based) are ~100-150/hr wet for a 172, plus 30-40/hr for an instructor. I think I'm paying ~120/hr plus a varying "fuel surcharge" of ~20/hr for a T41-D. The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.
ghawk1ns 4y ago
That's innovation in my book. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce your costs while improving emissions, especially when we're talking about 30+ year old technology.
ghshephard 4y ago
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm According to BLS.GOV - 1970 $45 == 2022 $353. Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.
AdrianB1 4y ago
If 30 years ago you could fly a brand new plane for a price and now you can fly a 30 year old plane for a lot higher price, he is right to complain. It is the same comparing the price of a new car 30 years ago with the price of that used car now, with half a million miles on it, ignoring the potential "vintage, mint condition" surcharge.

He complains that the plane which cost him $45 an hour to rent 30 years ago costs him $125 to rent now. Isn’t that basically just inflation? $45 in 1992 is $104 today.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

I think his point was the same planes are much older today and so he expected them to be cheaper after inflation. They were also old when he first flew them so the capital expenditure was likely already a small component of the per hour price.

sowbug 4y ago

The complaint is that it's the exact same plane, but 30 years older. Inflation sucks, but with most durable goods you get the benefit of improved technology. Imagine paying $1,000 for a PC today -- not bad, except what if it were a 60MHz Pentium with a 40MB hard drive?

wstuartcl 4y ago
imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.
melling 4y ago
I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. Are cars cheaper today? How about all that construction equipment the Caterpillar sells? Are the price of tanks and jets getting cheaper?
- mc32 4y ago
  Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars. https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-can-get-and-why-theyre-so-cheap/ https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Their cheapest one failed a crash test against a child's pinata. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, yes, they're not particularly good or safe cars.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        I didn't expect one to fare well in a crash test against another car. I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box. There's "unsafe", and then there's this.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        It messed up the bumper? Wouldn't that happen with tons of cars? And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        None of that damage should have occurred from a pinata. At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
- akiselev 4y ago
  They’re all much cheaper than they were and more advanced by leaps and bounds. GA airplane production collapsed from a peak production of 17k a year in the 1970s to a few thousand a year starting in the 90s continuing to today. Cars and tractors and tanks and even jets have all seen their markets grow, not disappear.
  - Retric 4y ago
    That’s sometimes true but the standards have improved so much it’s hard to do these comparisons. A new Model T in 1925 cost had fallen to 260$, that’s roughly $4,348 in todays money. Sure it’s missing a great deal of modern features, but it’s hard to get a new golf cart at that price.
    - HPsquared 4y ago
      Very basic cars, similar to (probably better than) the Model T can still be made. For example the Tata Nano. People can afford much nicer cars now. Regulations also require decent crash safety. There's not much of a market for these kinds of super-cheap cars. Though it'd be interesting to work out how much an exact clone of the Model T would cost today (mass produced using modern technology).
      - lazide 4y ago
        Mass produced with modern tech? Probably sub $1k and sold at harbor freight. The model T was pretty simple, and you can buy engines with waaaay more power - and longer life, quieter, more efficient, etc. too for sub $500 at harbor freight and strap it to a frame, and off you go.
        beamgirl 4y ago
        I actually doubt that. The raw materials in the T would be pretty expensive now. The vanadium steel for the chassis alone would probably cost a grand.
- 8note 4y ago
  How much is a 30 y/o beater car? Even one in good condition?
  - culopatin 4y ago
    30yo is probably more expensive than a 15yo. A good Miata is 7/8k and a 2013 Jetta is 7k too.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  > Are cars cheaper today? Cars are AVAILABLE for pretty much the same price. People WANT more expensive cars. The Volkswagen Beetle was pretty much the least expensive car on the market for its entire sales run in the United States. The inflation-adjusted price of a Beetle in 1973 was around $12,000. The price of a Chevrolet Spark in 2022? $13,000. Nobody wants a Spark, though. They want an SUV. So Chevy killed the Spark. Before Chevy discontinued the Spark you could walk onto a lot and drive away in one of the dozen or so Sparks they had rotting away in the corner for less than the price of a VW Beetle in 1973-- and the Spark was superior in every measurable way. 2023's cheapest car is the Nissan Versa. You can 100% find dealers who will part with one for less than the cost of a Beetle. It is also better than the Beetle.
  - sn_master 4y ago
    > People WANT more expensive cars. Because it's very easy to get financing for a car, that's why. If they had to pay it out of pocket you bet they'd choose the cheaper car.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Carmakers want to sell expensive cars. Back in the 1970s my dad had plenty of stories about how American car dealers had all kinds of excuses why they couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't sell you a small car. Now the Japanese car dealers do the same thing. A few years I went to a Honda dealer looking for a new Fit, found they didn't have any because "the factory washed out in a flood" but they had 50 CR-Vs which are made in the same factory which were somehow not affected by the flood. They really ought to put up or shut up: when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle but it is a sign they want to sell you a monster vehicle.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      The only reason for a manufacturer to want to produce a cheap car is to sell a ton of them at a low margin. If not enough people are buying them, then there's no reason to continue selling them. At sub-$20,000, you're going to be better off buying a used car than a new, bare bones car. This wasn't the case decades ago when cars were a lot less reliable and generational improvements were much larger. >when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle What cars are you talking about? It's generally the "monster vehicles" that have the greatest markup (e.g. Bronco Raptor)
- el_don_almighty 4y ago
  The core features of most capital products are basically commodities. Every car now has an automatic transmission, A/C, fancy radio, electric windows, etc... Manufacturer's can only increase prices (and thus keep ahead of inflation) by innovating the edge with new features, wanted or not. Is Ford or Caterpillar really best positioned to design and deliver a mobile flat-panel touch screen device? Not likely, but putting one in their vehicles creates opportunities for higher prices and new innovations. VERY LITTLE of this is available in the aircraft market where every new part number requires justification, testing, and approval. The health-care market is very similar yet demand is so high and inelastic that it still justifies huge investments. Aviation... not so much
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  If you buy a new car today, it'll be better than a 40 year old car in pretty much every metric. Performance, fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, etc. I think the OP is complaining that they're paying "modern vehicle" prices to rent a plane that has had minimal changes since the 1960s. The vast majority of old cars (other than collectable ones with low mileage) are gonna be cheaper than they were new.
  - tonyarkles 4y ago
    I think one of the gotchas with that is that there are no “equivalent” no frills new vehicles to purchase. Until recently I drove a 91 Ranger (original MSRP apparently around $9600). Inflation-adjusted that comes to $20,627 in 2022. My only two complaints about it was that it was only 2WD and it had small wheels that were more difficult every year to find winter tires for. In the harsh Canadian prairie winter it would readily get stuck on flat ground. Otherwise it perfectly met all my needs. In the end I replaced it with a 5 year old low mileage Tacoma, but paid close to twice what the Ranger’s inflation-adjusted MSRP was, and that was before the used car market went crazy. If I’d wanted to I could have probably resold it and made a $10k profit on it 6 months later. Do I love this truck? Definitely. Would I have been perfectly happy with a 4WD no-frills manual transmission truck and a $300 aftermarket deck with Bluetooth? Definitely, but it wasn’t an option.
- nelgaard 4y ago
  Cars are a lot cheaper, taking inflation into account and before taxes (I am writing from Denmark) And they are much better. You can get a small car with ABS brakes, airbags, radio, air-conditioning, a fuel-efficient engine, etc that drives really well, for two months salary. Tanks and jets are probably much more expensive. But some of that is because there is literately an arms race. You need to pay for something that is much better than you had before or you service men will die because the enemy did get something that is better and more expensive. I would love to own a classic sports car. I would happily pay for the extra fuels and take the risk of not having airbags, ABS brakes etc. I am grateful that I do not have to go to war. But if I were, I would not want to do it a "classic" tank or fighter jet. Now Ukraine is getting our old Leopard 1 tanks which have a lot of firepower and moves fast but have less armour than modern tanks, which might work because the Russians most have old tanks left. But there is a good reason that European countries have bought Leopard 2 tanks that are much more expensive and 24 tonnes heavier.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods. The government doesn't. They artificially suppress inflation numbers by counting technological progress as deflation.
- outside1234 4y ago
  Cars are definitely cheaper today especially if you discount for the massive amount of features that have been added
cholmon 4y ago
I did a discovery flight with my son last summer in a C172. We had a blast, but I was pretty surprised how old the plane felt. My recurring thought is that Cessnas are like the TI-85s of airplanes; ubiquitous workhorses frozen in time. Is it just Cessnas though? Is this the way all small planes are?
- docandrew 4y ago
  It’s not just Cessnas. Besides the normal wear and tear of a plane that’s potentially 40 years old, most of the single-engine planes at a flight school are going to see extra abuse from all the student pilots.
  - fijiaarone 4y ago
    Student pilots = flying multiple trips several hours almost every day, on a tie down outside. Compared to the doctor owner pilot who flies 1 hour to get a hamburger once or twice a year, and keeps it hangared the rest of the time.
- greycol 4y ago
  There is a pretty big "experimental" scene with small and ultra light airplanes. Experimental here basically meaning you can't use it for comercial. So mostly because of the costs of certification and liabilities involved and how the segment of the market is lifestyle/hobyists you end up with a lot of nice modern small planes that only the owner/syndicate flies and only for personal flights. There's plenty of neat little planes out there, my favorite was basically the go cart equivalent of a jet that I saw at our club airport. Something like this https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070 https://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=92070
- tcas 4y ago
  For certified piston aircraft, generally yes. The engines are pretty much made by a few manufacturers based on ancient designs, and while you may get some "newer" benefits in some models, such as fuel injection (instead of carborators), or digital engine control (FADEC), they're pretty much ancient technology compared to modern engines. Most still have manual mixture control for example and very limited monitoring. The only example in that class (sub $750k) I can think off the top of my head with a better engine is DA40 NG, which uses a modified Mercedes diesel engine.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
You're not paying for a depreciated product. You're paying for the maintenance and operating fees which don't depreciate in value.
- docandrew 4y ago
  On an airplane you’re really paying for the engine. Typically after 2000 hours (depending on the model) they are supposed to be overhauled, which will be a cool $20-30k or so for something like the 172 in the OP. If you’re airplane shopping you’ll see a very tight correlation between the asking price and the “SMOH” time or hours since major overhaul.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    For $20-30k, you likely can buy and install a new engine, or two, were it car engines. (That's the route taken in the article.)
    - docandrew 4y ago
      It seems like kind of a slam dunk, though I wonder about the reliability of a car engine left at full-throttle (or close to it) for long periods of time the way airplane engines are.
      - tonyarkles 4y ago
        That’s part of the secret if you head over to the Corsair website: https://corsairpower.com/ https://corsairpower.com/. They’ve significantly derated the engine with a custom ECU and added a gearbox to better match prop RPM to engine RPM. They’re rating it at “conservatively” (their words) 3000 hours TBO.
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      Car or bike engines are not made to run continuously at 75% of max power with 1500-2000 between overhauls. Otherwise you can put a motorcycle engine in the plane, even better power to weight ratio (200 HP/liter) than car engines, but it does not work.

ben7799 4y ago

He's in a cheap area or something. Instruction in a 172 is more like $250/hr at the nearest airport to me in Massachusetts, with the plane being at least $200/hr of that. The gotcha is I think they are modern 172s, which are probably more than $500k each to buy at this point. I took lessons in the early 1990s and it was $125/hr in a 152 which was a much smaller less capable airplane. People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something. Everything about all of it is super wacked. The leaded fuel, the way people cling to old planes cause the new ones are so stratospherically expensive, the ancient technology because the manufacturers need so much money to get anything approved, etc..

grepfru_it 4y ago
>People are too heavy now, the 152 sized plane is no longer used as much because 2x 200lb adults will put it over it's max takeoff weight if the gas is topped off or something. Why would you fly with full fuel tanks while taking lessons? However, your comment is correct that 152 is horribly underpowered
- Pasorrijer 4y ago
  Safety purposes. If you're away from the school, a student gets off course, bad weather, etc, they would much rather you have extra fuel than too little. It's also dependent on what's being flown. Sometimes they will fly with less for weight and balance.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Also condensation in the tanks. Keeping them topped off helps prevent that.
asciimike 4y ago
Yeah, prices in CO (where Corsairpower is based) are ~100-150/hr wet for a 172, plus 30-40/hr for an instructor. I think I'm paying ~120/hr plus a varying "fuel surcharge" of ~20/hr for a T41-D. The main issue right now is that all the flight schools are booked up and you can't get a DPE booked less than two months out.

ghawk1ns 4y ago

That's innovation in my book. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce your costs while improving emissions, especially when we're talking about 30+ year old technology.

ghshephard 4y ago

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm According to BLS.GOV - 1970 $45 == 2022 $353. Makes sense that something like an airplane would drop in price, but I'm surprised that it is (after adjusting for inflation) 1/3 the price that it was in 1970.

AdrianB1 4y ago

If 30 years ago you could fly a brand new plane for a price and now you can fly a 30 year old plane for a lot higher price, he is right to complain. It is the same comparing the price of a new car 30 years ago with the price of that used car now, with half a million miles on it, ignoring the potential "vintage, mint condition" surcharge.