User Profile Header
Heli Boy
,
WA
Comments
Displaying 1-3 of 3
Cessna 172: Still Relevant
from Heli Boy
wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago
I posted this on the Gallery comments page last week. But I'll re-post it here, now that I've found the 'main' comments page.
A new Cessna 172 sold for less than five times my annual wage when I was making minimum wage. Now I make what I consider an 'average' wage, and a new Cessna 172 costs more than six times my annual salary. So a new Skyhawk was actually more affordable when I was making minimum wage, than they are now with a middle-class income. If I were making minimum wage now, a new 172 would cost about 15 times my gross income -- more than three times what it cost in relation to my income when I started working. The Skyhawk is a middle-class airplane for middle-class people. It's the Honda Civic of airplanes. It should not be priced out of reach of its intended demographic group.
That said, I really like the 'retro' paint scheme. I don't care for the 'skyhawk' motif on the tail, but overall it looks much better than the recreational vehicle 'splashes' they've been using since its reintroduction.
Nice plane. Too bad Cessna have priced themselves out of their intended market.
Cessna 172: Still Relevant
from Heli Boy
wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago
davidvscott wrote: 'As a total aside, I would love to know why Cessna did not bring back the C-210. I owned two. In my humble opinion it was the best aircraft in its category by far. '
The Wikipedia article on the 210 says: 'The 210 was not reintroduced at that time as it was company policy that all re-introduced aircraft would be recertified to the latest FAR Part 23 standards instead of the original CAR-3 standards. Due to its single spar wing structure, the 210 could not meet the current certification standards. This left a gap in the Cessna line for a high-performance single engine aircraft that was quickly filled by competitors such as the Cirrus SR22 and Columbia 400 ... In November, 2007, Cessna acquired the assets of Columbia Aircraft Company. The Columbia 350 and 400 models were integrated into the Cessna single engine range and redesignated as the Cessna 350 and Cessna 400. These aircraft replace the Cessna 210 at the top end of the Cessna single-engine model line.'
So it looks like they could not certify the 210 under the new standards, and have replaced it with the Columbia.
Cessna 172
from Heli Boy
wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago
A new Cessna 172 sold for less than five times my annual wage when I was making minimum wage. Now I make what I consider an 'average' wage, and a new Cessna 172 costs more than six times my annual salary. So a new Skyhawk was actually more affordable when I was making minimum wage, than they are now with a middle-class income. If I were making minimum wage now, a new 172 would cost about 15 times my gross income -- more than three times what it cost in relation to my income when I started working. The Skyhawk is a middle-class airplane for middle-class people. It's the Honda Civic of airplanes. It should not be priced out of reach of its intended demographic group.
That said, I really like the 'retro' paint scheme. I don't care for the 'skyhawk' motif on the tail, but overall it looks much better than the recreational vehicle 'splashes' they've been using since its reintroduction.
Nice plane. Too bad Cessna have priced themselves out of their intended market.
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
