Why so expensive?

[statesman]

There isn't a GA section so I figured this was as good a place as any...


I have heard a lot of GA people (and military) talk about how awesome and expensive glass cockpits are... So I got curious and was browsing around the Garmin website looking at what was out there... then I started seeing prices...

W T F

MOST of these systems are more expensive than a nice new car, and many of them are more expensive than a Corvette!

What is driving the cost?

 

[Gatordev]

My take is the exact opposite. You can spend $10-20K on a very decent glass setup for GA. The problem is the damn airplanes. $400K for a C-172? Really? Can you punch me in the junk, too?

 

[statesman]

So maybe I'm just looking at the wrong systems.

I was browsing through the Garmin website, looked up the G600. A couple of flying periodicals that came up when I searched for a price on Google suggested that this was a great value at "just under $30,000"

 

[eas7888]

What is driving the cost?

Like everything else in this world, I would guess demand.

There are probably hundreds of STCs out there for aircraft to be retrofitted with the G1000, and smaller systems. While I was working at an FBO, that FBO received the STC to start retrofitting the PC-12 with the G1000, and people started lining up to do it.

The appeal is there for a number of reasons, chief among which, it makes flying much easier. Take a look at the G5000, it'll be like playing a video game.

Lastly, the certification process is an expensive one. Look how much it costs to purchase a screw, or bolt, or better yet, a tow pin for a Beech single or light twin.

 

[eas7888]

My take is the exact opposite. You can spend $10-20K on a very decent glass setup for GA. The problem is the damn airplanes. $400K for a C-172? Really? Can you punch me in the junk, too?

The new 172 is dramatically overpriced, especially when you consider that you can purchase a 40 year old aircraft that performs nearly identically for less than 1/10th of the price, and retrofit it with whatever you want, and still come in well under $100k.

 

[Jim123]

This doesn't answer your question either, but add up the steam gauges for an equivalent cockpit (good ones, electrical, and with lighting) and $10-20k comes and goes in no time.

(If you really want an answer then I choose to blame trial lawyers and tort law...)

 

[yak52driver]

A friend of mine had a G600 put in his Bonanza a couple of years ago. In addition he had a Garmin 530 and Garmin 430 installed. I don't remember the exact number for the G600, but it was under $30K. I fly that plane quite a bit and I have to say shooting a hard instrument approach is really nice, the scan is very compact. But I agree with Gatordev, 400K for a C172 is hard to accept. The problem that drives much of the price is lawyers and liability insurance. I've been told a significant percentage of the cost of a new airplane is the liability insurance. Heck, Cessna quite building singles back in the 80's until a limitation on how long an aircraft manufacturer was liable was put into place. That's way off topic of glass, but relevant to cost I guess.

 

[MasterBates]

What Jim said.. Before lawsuits went crazy, if you could afford a nice 20-30 foot powerboat (within the realm of reason for JOs) you could afford a NICE plane.

Now, I can't even touch a Cessna for what a boat would cost, either in initial outlay, insurance, maintenance, or operating cost.

 

[statesman]

@Jim

I have to wonder if you hit the nail on the head...

Gator and eas kind of touched on it as well.

Aviation in general seems to be WAY more expensive than it needs to be. I understand that there needs to be a certification process, and that flying is much different than driving a car. Even so with all that said it seems there are things that are unnecessarily driving UP the cost of GA.

I see that as a real unfortunate reality. My personal take is that the FAA is likely failing in its mandate to promote the cause of aviation in America.

 

[eas7888]

If you really want to fly 'on the cheap' I would suggest you take up flying ultralights. Though not fast, they can be a hell of a lot of fun. I've wanted to try the powered parachute route, the fan backpack concept seems pretty cool.

 

[yak52driver]

If you really want to fly 'on the cheap' I would suggest you take up flying ultralights. Though not fast, they can be a hell of a lot of fun. I've wanted to try the powered parachute route, the fan backpack concept seems pretty cool.

A friend of mine has one of those and thinks it's a lot of fun. The toughest part is timing power and landing according to him. I guess there's no real flare, but others may know more about that.

 

[twobecrazy]

What is driving the cost?

I have put in many systems into various GA aircraft. I will tell you this much. The shop was charging $70 per hour for my services. The amount of time it takes to swap from your original cockpit into a glass cockpit can be long or short. The longest part of it was getting the wire bundles made, schematics made correctly, and installation done. You also have to consider the breakdown of the old system as well, in which everything needs to be accounted for. I've spent a month (typically more) on a single plane working 8 hours a day 5 days a week before I had an installation complete. Then again I have spent only a couple weeks on another installation. So it depends primarily on the systems you are trying to get installed and how much interface is needed. The interfacing causes the most problems from what I have observed. But once you finally get the systems installed then you have to check each system to make sure it operates correctly. You also have to send in all the certification paperwork as previously discussed. So many things are costing plenty of money not including the supplies needed or the components you desire to have installed.

 

[Gatordev]

So maybe I'm just looking at the wrong systems.

I was browsing through the Garmin website, looked up the G600. A couple of flying periodicals that came up when I searched for a price on Google suggested that this was a great value at "just under $30,000"

Maybe I'm a little off, but still, as Jim is saying, add up a decent instrument steam gauge stack and you're not that different with less "capability" (which of course, is relative...I don't need synthetic vision, but that's a whole other thread/rant).

The new 172 is dramatically overpriced, especially when you consider that you can purchase a 40 year old aircraft that performs nearly identically for less than 1/10th of the price, and retrofit it with whatever you want, and still come in well under $100k.

But at the end of the day, you're still flying a 40 year-old 172. I'll admit, I'm a snob about such things, but owning a 40 year-old plane has it's own issues may or may not be a big deal, but owning a 40 year-old 172? Can I get chlamydia instead?

 

[insanebikerboy]

But at the end of the day, you're still flying a 40 year-old 172. I'll admit, I'm a snob about such things, but owning a 40 year-old plane has it's own issues may or may not be a big deal, but owning a 40 year-old 172? Can I get chlamydia instead?

Enjoy your chlamydia! A 40 year old plane doesn't get to be 40 years old for no specific reason. Before I started seeding my wife for youngins I was seriously considering buying a plane. The only difference was age and cost, the biggest limiting factor was my ogre-ish ass being able to fit in them (older planes, in my experience, seem to be smaller in the cockpit).

 

[eas7888]

Maybe I'm a little off, but still, as Jim is saying, add up a decent instrument steam gauge stack and you're not that different with less "capability" (which of course, is relative...I don't need synthetic vision, but that's a whole other thread/rant).



But at the end of the day, you're still flying a 40 year-old 172. I'll admit, I'm a snob about such things, but owning a 40 year-old plane has it's own issues may or may not be a big deal, but owning a 40 year-old 172? Can I get chlamydia instead?

What a snob! :-p That's alright, in my flight training, I predominantly flew aircraft that were less than five years old (C172R and the C172R G1000), with the exception of the Bonanza and Baron, and I got spoiled. The flight club I was a member of had a couple of 172s that were 172N models that were just over 30 years old. To be honest, flying the older aircraft made me a much better pilot. I didn't have a GPS or autopilot, just the trusty VOR. It was a nice experience being forced to fly the airways and plan my routes accordingly, instead of just hopping in the plane and hitting direct to.

Granted, I love the convenience some times, but flying the older aircraft did have its benefits, such as the hourly rate that was nearly half that of the new aircraft. The perils of ownership might be quite different, however. I haven't had to navigate the nightmare of insuring an aircraft I own (Though I would love to have to worry about it, one day).

As mentioned by other people, flying is so expensive because of liability, and glass is so expensive right now for that reason, and the fact that people are willing to pay that much to add the capabilities to their aircraft.