Would you buy a new Cessna Skyhawk-equivalent for the 1968 price? (Inflation adjusted)

Posted by perispomene@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 37 comments

I dream about aircraft ownership and I will probably buy or build an airplane in the future. But I hear many people saying that the prices are so much higher now that they couldn't afford a plane like people did in the 60s-70s. A VFR Cessna Skyhawk in 1968 cost $13,250, which is $129,000 adjusted for inflation. No radios included. A single NAV/COM cost: * VHF/VOR $1700 * VHF/VOR/LOC $1940 * VHF/VOR/Glideslope $2090 The Skyhawk came standard with altimeter, turn coordinator, VSI, attitude indicator and directional gyro, nav lights, landing lights and beacon. Anti-collision lights were a little extra. All said, the inflation-adjusted price of a new 1968 Skyhawk was around $160,000, before adding any really advanced features like autopilot or second NAV/COM. Now, I know that it's currently impossible to build an equivalent airplane for that price. The cost of the engine alone is half or more. And I know that nobody will attempt to sell a plane without $150k or more in product liability insurance built into the price. But the question I have is whether cutting the price of a new "everybody" airplane this low would greatly expand the fleet.

37 Comments

[-]

AnActualSquirrel@reddit

I'd buy it, put $200K into the panel, lights, etc. and still be at a huge discount to a modern one. Which illustrates your point. It is impossible to produce a certified basic VFR spam can for that little money. If you step away from the certified world, you will see that homebuilders are generally opting for more expensive builds with more bells and whistles, not fewer.

saml01@reddit

How much is that labor cost over the 10 years they spend building it?

KITTYONFYRE@reddit

most kits nowadays are like 800-1500 hours depending on a ton of factors. you really don't need to let it take 10 years! plus, it's a hobby in and of itself.

If you worked on it an hour a day or would take you 4 years. Or If you make 100k a year, that 1500 hours full time is like 75k of your labor.

> If you make 100k a year, that 1500 hours if you worked on it full time would cost approx 75k of your labor. sure, and time IS money, but not really. not in that way. you aren't actually paying opportunity cost for the time spent building like that. building the plane isn't a chore you need to complete, it's the whole point of the damn thing, it IS the hobby. you aren't taking time out of your work day to do it, you're taking time out of your other hobbies. your point that it's a shitload of time and effort is definitely true. but you can't say "I make 100k/year as a software developer, what if I just worked an extra 7h/week?". just working an extra 7h/week isn't an option (usually). the "labor cost over the ten years they built it" is zero, in the same way the labor cost to become a bogey golfer is zero, and the labor cost to run a 20 minute 5k is zero. it's not a labor cost to participate in your hobbies. the tl;dr of all of this is the extremely common saying in the homebuilt world: if you want to build, build. if you want to fly, buy.

But the conversation isn't about the merits and justification for building. Its about the cost of building vs buying. Certainly you're right that you can't put a price on your own labor when engaging in a hobby but when you compare one vs the other and either spending years flying or buying, I feel, it's an important consideration.

chicagoderp@reddit

10 years is a ridiculous take unless they’re building a composite aircraft from scratch (e.g., longez)

> If you step away from the certified world, you will see that homebuilders are generally opting for more expensive builds with more bells and whistles, not fewer. the problem is that it basically costs 80k minimum, no matter what. a kitfox airframe is 50k, or even just a sonex is fairly similar. you can't get too too much cheaper than that much for the airframe, now add in an engine (sonex's 15k auto conversion is super appealing price wise on this point, usually you're spending 30k on a rotax or more for a lycoming/continental). if you're pushing that close or above 6 figures, it's pretty easy to say "fuck it let's throw in a g3x touch for 5k", etc. when the avionics are so much cheaper than certified, why not? adding all that capability isn't what's really driving the price up all the much. still, you can say that for a bunch of things, and now you've got a really nice and expensive experimental

OrganicParamedic6606@reddit

Sure if my housing costs also only matched inflation

taycoug@reddit

This is the stupid hill I’ll die on, but adjusting past items for inflation doesn’t tell you much. Your cell phone would only cost $100 in 1968. GB internet would only be $10/mo in 1968. Your job might not have existed in 1968. Availability of creature comforts today is night and day. Inflation adjusting is great for making the point that costs have risen faster than wages. Not great for comparing an experience now to an experience then. Again, stupid hill for me to die on but that’s just my flaw to have. You give me the choice between today’s prices and life in 1968 and I’m choosing today 100/100 times.

A single earner could have a middle class life in a California beach town with a family, hobbies, and all the contemporary trappings. kids could go to college without significant debt working summer jobs. A middle class person could buy a brand new airplane or sailboat as a hobby if they chose. None of that is real now. I’d trade a cell phone and the internet for it in a heartbeat

nookie-monster@reddit

People don't have any idea how much better the working class had it 1945-1973. Like, every single economic chart you've ever seen is so stark, I wish I could force every adult to sit through a class showing them the numbers and making sure they understand them. We've all seen the wages / productivity [graph](https://imgur.com/a/SVrqLWY) that departs in '73, but no one has ever seen the [wage growth during economic expansion chart](https://imgur.com/a/4izL1Kx), showing that lower wage earners getting larger percentage gains during growth periods than the ownership class. Or [basic wage growth](https://imgur.com/Zb5Rl2w) broken up by the post-New Deal era and the Reagonomics era. It's infuriating how many workers in this country voted to destroy the best time ever to be alive as a working class person because they were mad about minorities, gays, abortion, or whatever. Stupidest people ever born.

Thanks for those graphs. Absolutely insane.

jackalcane@reddit

inflation is a weighted average of price increase, some price increases are higher than the average and some are lower

SkinnyWheel1357@reddit

Plus, noone really factors in the rising expectations. The house my parents bought brand new in 1970 was a 1200 sq ft 3br/1ba ranch with no garage. Not too many of them being built these days, and I'm not sure how many buyers there would be.

I bought a 1950 built postwar 2/2 bungalow in a California beach town. Same house as our parents and grandparents had access to. The price was about 4x the inflation adjustment. No rising expectations here

im white give me 1968

Congrats! You’ve won a trip to Vietnam.

aw shit that's fucking hilarious though LOL. but yeah reminds me of seeing Julius Ceaser listed as the richest person of all time... and yet his trillions of dollars of effective wealth still couldn't buy an air conditioner

BandicootOnly4598@reddit

Will dramatically cheaper 4-seat aircraft dramatically expand the fleet? I know of several manufacturers planning to release them under Mosaic. I suppose on July 24 we’ll all get to find out; should be a good Oshkosh this year.

EM22_@reddit

You can sleep in your plane but you can’t fly a house!

TheGacAttack@reddit

Underwriting? In _this_ forum??

400Volts@reddit

It's more likely than you think!

SatisfactoryFuss@reddit

The Vashon Ranger comes close to your specs and vision at $170k, but it is a 2 person aircraft. https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger-pricing.php I have a hard time believing a “4 seat” aircraft like the 172 can be made for your $160k target price. Will the new MOSAIC rules make this more of a possibility??

perispomene@reddit (OP)

I don't know. There's a lot of up front costs to developing an airplane, before you get to the manufacturing.

Gabriel_Owners@reddit

Only if I could turn around and sell it for today's prices.

Obviously not because they can get a new one for the same price.

Yes, I'm thinking the modern equivalent.

FridayMcNight@reddit

You could build a Zenith for that amount, and I'd take a Zenith over a Skyhawk.

> Would you buy a new Cessna Skyhawk-equivalent for the 1968 price? (Inflation adjusted) Money sent.

Dry-Horror-4188@reddit

As an aircraft owner that sank a crap load into my 67 Cherokee 180, no. I say that because you can essentially redo an older bird, and depending on the hours on the engine. Modernize the heck out of it. With that in mind, I plan on flying my Cherokee past recommended overhaul hours as long as my compressions hold steady, I have modernized the panel, painted it 18 years ago, and sunk other repairs into her. But once she is done, I am done. I will most likely sell her for parts, and say adios to flying overall. 46 years is a long time flying.

shrunkenhead041@reddit

There is a lot more to it. The newer Skyhawks meet a higher regulatory standard for things like seat crash-worthiness, and new Skyhawks have much more advanced avionics (inc. autopilots), and engine monitoring. No one would buy a stripped down new Skyhawk.

bigtallguy75@reddit

I would! The other options are stripped down old versions.

Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit

> No one would buy a stripped down new Skyhawk. For the price they're offering, no. But you realize there are multiple 1975-era Skyhawks listed for >$200k right now, right?

IAmTheFlyingIrishMan@reddit

Yes, even without avionics, a certified, factory built 4 seat trainer/entry level airplane for $129k would sell like mad. That is far more achievable for the average joe than the $450k or whatever it is for the barebones 172.

JSTootell@reddit

Me? No. And I'm pretty sure the 150 I have would be out out budget as well. Middle class buying power was much higher back then.

rFlyingTower@reddit

This is a copy of the original post body for posterity: --- I dream about aircraft ownership and I will probably buy or build an airplane in the future. But I hear many people saying that the prices are so much higher now that they couldn't afford a plane like people did in the 60s-70s. A VFR Cessna Skyhawk in 1968 cost $13,250, which is $129,000 adjusted for inflation. No radios included. A single NAV/COM cost: * VHF/VOR $1700 * VHF/VOR/LOC $1940 * VHF/VOR/Glideslope $2090 The Skyhawk came standard with altimeter, turn coordinator, VSI, attitude indicator and directional gyro, nav lights, landing lights and beacon. Anti-collision lights were a little extra. All said, the inflation-adjusted price of a new 1968 Skyhawk was around $160,000, before adding any really advanced features like autopilot or second NAV/COM. Now, I know that it's currently impossible to build an equivalent airplane for that price. The cost of the engine alone is half or more. And I know that nobody will attempt to sell a plane without $150k or more in product liability insurance built into the price. But the question I have is whether cutting the price of a new "everybody" airplane this low would greatly expand the fleet. --- Please downvote this comment until it collapses. Questions about this comment? [Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/wiki/index/rflyingtower/). --- I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please [contact the mods of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/flying).

Reply to Post

37 Comments