Mooney MSE vs Ferrari 456GT

[Mike A]

Car and Driver posted this link from 1995 in their feed the other day;

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/fear-of-flying-ferrari-vs-plane-the-sequel-archived-feature

[Danb]

Fun reading on cold Friday morning. Prett cool, anyone now selling his Ferrari

[RJBrown]

Fuel was 2 bucks a gallon then.

What is real sad for pilots is how plane prices have skyrocketed, even when compared to cars built by Ferrari. The current 4 seat Ferrari an FF is now $295,000 and has four wheel drive and 651HP compared to the 436HP of the RWD 456 1995 car. Even in hand built cars the cost is more reasonable. 3300 Ferrari 456s were built from 1992-2003 so economy of scale can't be credited with the cost advantage.

 On a dollar for dollar basis the Ferrari would be racing a LSA today.  Both the 172 and the Archer cost more than the current Ferrari. Both would lose this race.

[Oscar Avalle]

That comparison explains a lot why there are less and less new planes around...

[Seth]

The $2 per gallon is what gets me.  Also, the fact that we don't have to worry about getting pulled over for going over 55, 60, 65, 70, or 75 MPH is nice.  That being said, it's in Texas, so a border patrol may get you these days!

 

I wish AVGAS cost only $2 per gallon.

 

-Seth

[Jeff_S]

That was great fun to read! Sounds like Ferrari's had quality control problems back then.  You would expect more of a $250K car!

[jetdriven]

Fuel was 2 bucks a gallon then.

What is real sad for pilots is how plane prices have skyrocketed, even when compared to cars built by Ferrari. The current 4 seat Ferrari an FF is now $295,000 and has four wheel drive and 651HP compared to the 436HP of the RWD 456 1995 car. Even in hand built cars the cost is more reasonable. 3300 Ferrari 456s were built from 1992-2003 so economy of scale can't be credited with the cost advantage.

On a dollar for dollar basis the Ferrari would be racing a LSA today. Both the 172 and the Archer cost more than the current Ferrari. Both would lose this race.

You take a brand new bonanza A36 in 1968 it cost 47,000$ fully loaded. A new G36, the same airplane with new glass screens and stuff, is north of 650,000. Now accounting for inflation, that money in 1968 is 300k today.

Go back to 1947, a new Bonanza was 7400$. That's 74k today.

Our 1977 M20J escaped the factory brand new for 68,000$. That's 254k today.

[aviatoreb]

You take a brand new bonanza A36 in 1968 it cost 47,000$ fully loaded. A new G36, the same airplane with new glass screens and stuff, is north of 650,000. Now accounting for inflation, that money in 1968 is 300k today.

Go back to 1947, a new Bonanza was 7400$. That's 74k today.

Our 1977 M20J escaped the factory brand new for 68,000$. That's 254k today.

 

The part that confuses me is that you would think that the original price had to account for the R&D and certification costs but after decades, that has been amortized, so it should be less expensive over time.  So what am I missing?  Why did it get more expensive?  Insurance against silly lawsuits?

[bonal]

I've always liked these comparisons they are fun. If you tried to do that in or out of the SF Bay Area the Ferrari would have a tough time. I have found the break even distance with our Cessna to be about 100 miles. We live 15 min from the airport and that includes time for fuel. With the Mooney it's around 50 miles but we have to take mountain roads to get out of our county.

[bonal]

A couple years ago I attended an AOPA summit at Santa Rosa airport one of the speakers was the president or Vice President of Cirrus. After the event I asked him how much of the price of each plane was for product liability his reply was about 65%

That's the bottom line

[ArtVandelay]

A couple years ago I attended an AOPA summit at Santa Rosa airport one of the speakers was the president or Vice President of Cirrus. After the event I asked him how much of the price of each plane was for product liability his reply was about 65%

That's the bottom line

That's insane!?! I'm sure he included the parachute system as part of that cost, but still.....

[aviatoreb]

Car and Driver posted this link from 1995 in their feed the other day;

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/fear-of-flying-ferrari-vs-plane-the-sequel-archived-feature

 

Anyone seen this Top Gear episode:

 

A Buggati Veyron vs a Cessna 182 race across Europe?

 

The Veyron is a $2.7M 16 cylinder, >1000hp quad turbo charged monstrosity expression of a muscle car.  It goes >250mph.  But it needs a special road to do that.

[Awful_Charlie]

Anyone seen this Top Gear episode:

 

A Buggati Veyron vs a Cessna 182 race across Europe?

 

The Veyron is a $2.7M 16 cylinder, >1000hp quad turbo charged monstrosity expression of a muscle car.  It goes >250mph.  But it needs a special road to do that.

 

That's a bit of a sore point for many based at White Waltham.  At the time, Mr May was still training for his PPL, and never seen is the instructor in the RHS. It also explains the lack of a night rating hence the need to finish off in the train. In all the 'Top Gear' "challenges" isn't it surprising that the car wins - at any cost

[aviatoreb]

That's a bit of a sore point for many based at White Waltham.  At the time, Mr May was still training for his PPL, and never seen is the instructor in the RHS. It also explains the lack of a night rating hence the need to finish off in the train. In all the 'Top Gear' "challenges" isn't it surprising that the car wins - at any cost

 

Yeah - I know awful...  And besides that "the car always wins" rule on Top Gear is "the contest is always close" rule of all their contests.  Yes, the contest was dumb.  Not to mention Mr May didn't use a Turbo Airplane so he flew around the Alps.  In a proper contest - if you get to spend $2.7M on a car like the Veyron, then I want to see how it does against a proper airplane with the same budget, like a TBM850.  Or maybe against a L39.  Then we will see...  Or even a Cessna 182T in the hands of a proper pilot.

 

But it was still fun.

 

I saw a Veyron in a mall in Berlin last year, behind rope, on display.  It had a clear engine cover so you could see the engine. It is a stunning car to look at.

[bonal]

65% that's what he said I was very specific with my question. I think it's ridiculous that a new Cessna 172 cost we'll over 300 thousand dollars. An aircraft that was designed over 50 years ago and not much changed over the years. I still think cost is the biggest reason there is a declining pilot population. If you take out the product liability the cost would be a lot more reasonable

[KSMooniac]

I think I've posted on here before when I was getting insurance quotes for manufacturing aircraft parts the ballpark range was ~15% of gross sales.  In an aircraft production supply chain that 15% gets compounded a few times typically before the plane flies away, so 65% is very believable to me.  Think about the cost of raw aluminum that gets sold to a sub-assembly shop and forms it into a control surface or a spar and then sells it to the OEM and adds it into the airframe.  Or a carburetor that gets sold to Lycoming and turns it into a complete engine package and then sells it to an airframer to complete the plane...  There are several steps in the liability trail and supplier gets an exposure, so the price goes up at each step.  It is sickening.