Small planes in the future?

The first Jodel is an example of what may be only available in the future, as it was built of wood and a car engine in France right after WWII...the world economy is headed for a collossal train wreck, propelled by some things that have been happening for about 95 years now,
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jeky...ef=sr_1_2/104-0902654-7281534?ie=UTF8&s=books
and due to pass through a 'Kondratieff Wave Winter' in the next three years;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratieff_wave and our government has decided to continue the policy of smoke and mirrors and unlimited inflation to skim through it....My fear is that very few people here on this wonderful site will still own a cub unless they are out of debt now, and have gold and silver buried under their house..I fully expect to have to park mine for a few years at the least.
Sorry, I've only had one coffee this morning...

approvals

"I think the prohibition of field approvals without engineering backup came down from on high in an attempt to shut down any avenue that the lawyers thought might possibly have any effect on safety, since their avowed goal is zero accidents, made much easier if there are only Part 121 carriers left in aviation and all the rest of us are gone, disgusted, disgruntled, or flying our experimentals."

I agree and the end result is that one must "shop" for FSDO'S where there is a knoweldgable person in maintenence - not a rule reader. Post WW2 there was a lot of practical knowledge but those people are mostly gone. Try to find anyone who has ever even heard of Part 8. My favorite line from CAM 8 is "the experience of the operator shall be the determining factor...." A hundred bucks says you won't find one in a hundred who'll accept that.

Merry Christmas to all.

I have retired, and have sort of lost the real world somewhere. Let me see, in 1962 $1400 is now $25,000, so a J-3 has remained basically the same price. My salary in 1962 was a shade over $6000, for a low level drafting job at age 21 and no college. If my math is correct, a job like that pays $107,142 per year now.

Of course those bright-eyed young 21 year olds can afford Cubs. As a matter of fact, maybe I better go get one of those entry level jobs - my retirement is based solely on what my spouse socked away while I was driving Airbusi. And that 401K that I was afraid to put in the risky stuff.

bob turner said:

I have retired, and have sort of lost the real world somewhere. Let me see, in 1962 $1400 is now $25,000, so a J-3 has remained basically the same price. My salary in 1962 was a shade over $6000, for a low level drafting job at age 21 and no college. If my math is correct, a job like that pays $107,142 per year now.

Of course those bright-eyed young 21 year olds can afford Cubs. As a matter of fact, maybe I better go get one of those entry level jobs - my retirement is based solely on what my spouse socked away while I was driving Airbusi. And that 401K that I was afraid to put in the risky stuff.

Click to expand...

How are you calculating those numbers, bob? Using the Consumer Price Index, which is the most commonly accepted measure of inflation, $1400 in 1962 is equivalant to $9300 now and $6000/year is equivalant to about $40,000/year now.

I would have to say that just about none of those kids are buying airplanes with cash....if any are being bought at all...and, if you are using offical government figures, you aren't using good information, either...the good news is: they got rid of 9% of that 45 Trillion dollar debt this year....by taking it from you....oops......(by best approximation, since good data isn't available any more)

fobjob said:

...and, if you are using offical government figures, you aren't using good information, either..

Click to expand...

So what would be a better measure of inflation? The CPI is the one I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure not the only one. WHich inflation index do you think is better?

There is no published, offical index that can be trusted, anymore...confidence building, isn't it? They quit publishing M3 because it was getting too frightening, and most other indicies have been "adjusted" by excluding the things that make it look bad...when I said smoke and mirrors, I wasn't exaggerating....so, you just have to ask yourself the question:" what's in MY wallet?" Tough to do, actually...
There are people out there who calculate some indicies by the older methods, but you can't find them reliably...

I don't think Bob's off all that far:

"I have retired, and have sort of lost the real world somewhere. Let me see, in 1962 $1400 is now $25,000, so a J-3 has remained basically the same price. My salary in 1962 was a shade over $6000, for a low level drafting job at age 21 and no college. If my math is correct, a job like that pays $107,142 per year now."

I'm surprised that he made that much in that job. My dad was an Engineer ME nd made about that much.

I remember that a union carpenter foreman made $3.50 an hour in 1964. I also think that $1,400 or 1,500 would have bought a new ford or chevy pickup that would cost you $22,000 or more today.

That would have made Bob's wages about $88,000 a year in today's money. Not bad if it worked, but it looks like the truck has gone up more than wages to the working guy.

As a dumb kid working his butt off for $1.25 an hour, when I wasn't rodeoing, (there's a career move !) I remember spending $2,900 on a tricked out ford pickup in 1968 ( first one in town with an 8 track and carpet) only to loose it when I was drafted and reduced to $56.00 a month( Pvt E-1)

" The money's not much, troop, but you'll have free health care for life" ---Lying b*****ds.

Some things haven't changed!

Hyrdflyr said:

.......................
I remember that a union carpenter foreman made $3.50 an hour in 1964. ............................

Click to expand...

Same union carpenter foreman makes about 10 times that now, at least in my area of western Washington. So a new $200K Husky or TopoCub wolda been $20K back then. A used 180 or SuperCub at around $80K woulda been around $8K. I just bought a pretty nice Toyota Solara last summer for around $23K, so an equivalent woulda been about $2300. Does that seem about right for 1964?
American Rifleman (I think) did an article a few years ago comparing the price of new rifles now, and back in the day--they concluded that prices were about the same based on real life buying power.
What about airplane of the future designs? Seems like they're going the way of the Cirrus for the affluent, and the Sting Sport (or similar) for the more financially modest. Composite construction,nosewheels, plenty of electronics.... not exactly my cup o' tea-- I like tailwheels,tube-n-fabric or monocoque aluminum contruction,fat tires,and basic instrumentation.

Rooster

I got you guys off on the wrong foot. Christina posted the $1300 Cub being $25 grand today. I merely used her numbers to point out the obvious. By my calculations, $3.50/hr was about $7200 a year, and as I recall, that was about right for a draftsman or illustrator with medium skill.

I made $2.00/hr the year before that digging ditches.

The point is - that Cub is now out of reach for a guy like I was. It was common for young kids to buy a J-3 or Taylorcraft back then - for cash - the seedier ones could be had for $800. Today, a good engineer with a masters degree might make a hundred grand, but a good J-3 (at least Sam's good J-3) is half that. Numbers don't add up.

And I am not sure about those pickup truck prices. I do know that I looked at a used 1960 truck in 1962, and it was $900. I wanted the Cub more.

Bought a new Corvette in 1966-$3200 Looked at a new one last week $47000.

aceherks said:

Bought a new Corvette in 1966-$3200 Looked at a new one last week $47000.

Click to expand...

Wow, that one must have been a stripped down model. We've got a 2007 Coupe on the showroom floor that's pretty loaded out. Stickers for $58,800.

The CPI understates inflation. It is compiled by the same people who control the money supply (the Fed) and have the power to devalue and inflate away the value of the dollar. It is like the fox guarding the hen house!

You have to look at the prices of hard assets, specifically gold as that particular commodity is the least influenced by supply and demand (since there are almost no uses for it in which it is "used up"), and because it is scattered in the earth's crust in such a scarcity that the extracted supply will grow approximately the same rate of growth as technology, which is used to find and extract it. Turns out that the rate of growth of technology drives economic growth proportionally (net wealth creation), and drives up the demand for dollars the same - keeping the value of a dollar constant. The founders of this country understood this and so did FDR, who confiscated gold and made it illegal to own so people couldn't protect themselves against his stealing the value of their dollars when he devalued it from $20 / oz to $35 / oz. Most economic PhD's today don't understand this as they were schooled in the false formulas of demand side (first popularized by Keynes), not the classical econ taught before the late 1930s.

Enough of this diversion, to read more you can check out my "Why Gold" paper I wrote as part of my MBA: http://www.christinayoung.com/pages/WhyGold.doc .

Given all that, if you still want to use the CPI, you have to realize that the dollar has lost 85% of its value since 1962 by that measure (the CPI also lags at least 2 years behind gold, which is a leading indicator).

The current CPI does not yet take into account the significant dollar devaluation in the past 2 years. That inflation is still "creeping into the system" and just started showing up in the recent PPI figures. Back to the fox guarding the hen house - why do you think that the Fed suddenly stopped publishing the M3 money supply numbers earlier this year, giving some lame excuse (see http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp)? It's because these numbers would show massive money going into the system right now, and massive devaluation occurring - which will show up in future CPI's. Gold shows it right now! It rose from just over $400 two years ago to about $630 today. That's a 36% devaluation in 2 years! If you add that to the 85% CPI devaluation since 1962, then you come up with roughly a 91% devaluation since 1962 (that's if you believe that the CPI doesn't understate inflation).

In other words, your $25K J-3 would have been equivalent to $2250 J-3 in 1962. Sorry for getting off-track on this, but I just wanted to clear a few things up that seemed to through some confusion in the thread where my numbers came from.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to all!

Here's another interesting little blurb about the Fed massaging the CPI numbers - so the media doesn't notice:

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Articles/Inflation_noticed.asp

Buying the aircraft is the easy part. Hanger rent, insurance, fuel and maint is the expensive part anymore.

bob turner said:

I got you guys off on the wrong foot. Christina posted the $1300 Cub being $25 grand today. I merely used her numbers to point out the obvious. By my calculations, $3.50/hr was about $7200 a year, and as I recall, that was about right for a draftsman or illustrator with medium skill.

I made $2.00/hr the year before that digging ditches.

The point is - that Cub is now out of reach for a guy like I was. It was common for young kids to buy a J-3 or Taylorcraft back then - for cash - the seedier ones could be had for $800. Today, a good engineer with a masters degree might make a hundred grand, but a good J-3 (at least Sam's good J-3) is half that. Numbers don't add up.

Click to expand...

Bob, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. It got an interesting discussion going though.

Kase, so we're back to experimental, build it yourself, maintain it yourself, hang the insurance, fold the wings and drive it home(boy, would I like to fold the wings...).....and when the gumment gets too hostile: stealth, jamming(the subtle kind;you think I'm there, but I'm really over here), deployable decoys, flares, etc...to add to the excitement and sport of our weekend jaunts..., but they don't have to get hostile to ruin us, just keep printing money, and everybody goes broke and has to sell their cubs....and the only way out is: to get out of debt, buy gold, silver, food and ammo....

Yes - and even at ten to one, the Cub is much more difficult to purchase for a 21 year old kid today. Disregard insurance and tie-down; 21 year-olds rarely insure stuff. Somebody with a young kid with no college, please give us an idea of their earning power. We already know how much these ancient aircraft with unknown internal corrosion are worth.

Another thing to consider: at ten to one, what tax bracket was I in in 1962 at a shade over six grand? Would I be in the same tax bracket now with a salary a shade over sixty? How about SSI - hasn't that gone up? Shoot, my stupid water bill has gone from six bucks every two months to about a hundred thirty a month, and that is since 1976. It simply isn't the same world for the young college dropout.

Speaking of college dropouts, one might assume that they are at least as well equipped as those who didn't go further than the twelfth grade. I would rank a dropout as a potential member of the middle class, even today. I am not a dropout today - at least in that sense. I went back, and picked up four degrees, five jet type ratings, and at least that many careers. Still, purchasing Sam's Cub is not an option . . .

mmmmm....11.5% this year, according to George Ure, my favorite morning read while the coffee is kicking in:
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm , and I'm on a pension with no COLA....as if that would do you much good....

Lets see Pretend I am 19 and I have 6000 dollars to pay for a pilots license. Then I can rent a plane for 135 an hour. or buy one...no wait I just spent my 6000 getting this license... Or I can buy a crotch rocket for the same like all my buddies and put a sweet young thing on the back. What would you do?

fobjob
That website scares me. I don't know if I should read it and move my investments, or ignore it.

Tim

There are consequences to either choice....

I would say, at the least, to have a certain percentage of your investments in hard bullion(in your hand) as an insurance policy....that's what everyone used to do after the great depression....the Greater Depression will teach them all to do it again....too late...

here's annudder one....http://www.jsmineset.com/

fobjob said:

mmmmm....11.5% this year, according to George Ure, my favorite morning read while the coffee is kicking in:
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm , and I'm on a pension with no COLA....as if that would do you much good....

Click to expand...

I would caution against the use of M3 as a measure of inflation (it is not). The increase in M3 is the increase in the actual money supply, and says nothing about the money demand. In short, it is only one side of the equation. In order for the value of the dollar to stay constant, money supply must equal money demand. If money supply outstrips money demand, then inflation (which is a general price rise of everything in the economy, though not all at the same time) will occur. That is what is happening now.

Money demand is caused by economic growth (primarily caused by risk investment in technology), which can be enhanced by good govt policies (rule of law, property rights, low taxes & regulation) or destroyed by bad ones (high taxes, adverse legal / regulatory environment etc).

The good thing about gold is that it shows both sides of the equation - if the dollar price of gold is rising that means the money supply (by the Fed) is growing too rapidly, and if the dollar price of gold is falling the reverse is true. Over an extended period of time - single spikes don't count.

It is true the Fed stopped publishing M3 numbers because they would scare people (and also show the Fed's incompetence or worse) - our economy certainly isn't growing by 11.5%!

I don't know how you "invest" in gold, other than realizing when the economy is really being squeezed (as in recession or stagflation) and realize the Fed must correct its errors sooner or later because if they continue to err it will become politically unsustainable (then brass and lead might be the best investments!). All you can really do is bet on what the Fed will do. Unfortunately.

Christina, 'investing' in gold for me has the goal of not losing my shirt or my cub....not becoming 'rich'.....although, I fear that anyone with an airplane five years from now will be rich by definition...

fobjob said:

Christina, 'investing' in gold for me has the goal of not losing my shirt or my cub....not becoming 'rich'.....although, I fear that anyone with an airplane five years from now will be rich by definition...

Click to expand...

Well I doubt that you would have kept your shirt if you had "invested" in gold in 1981 when it hit over $800 then subsequently fell back to below $400, and then to below $250 in 1999. Gold movements in dollar terms are almost purely a result of what the Fed does. In reality, gold produces no "real" returns, it is just a hedge against asset loss due to dollar devaluation.

I am certainly not as pessimistic as you regarding flying. I see more people than ever that can easily afford to fly and own a plane, it's just that there more competing activities than ever, most without the onerous entry requirements imposed by the FAA that involve a lot of hard work. When I drive to work everyday, the roads are crowded with expensive Hummers, Mercedes and BMW's - are you saying these people can't afford to fly?

Christina Young said:

I am certainly not as pessimistic as you regarding flying. I see more people than ever that can easily afford to fly and own a plane, it's just that there more competing activities than ever, most without the onerous entry requirements imposed by the FAA that involve a lot of hard work. When I drive to work everyday, the roads are crowded with expensive Hummers, Mercedes and BMW's - are you saying these people can't afford to fly?

Click to expand...

I agree. For me it has to do with what your priorities are and prioritizing your cash flow accordingly. There have been comments made to me about being "rich" because I own an airplane. Some of these comments from people driving expensive cars, owning lavish homes with three stall garages full of expensive toys. I live within my means and budget my money so I can own an airplane. ( don't get me wrong, I would love to have all of the above)

I often wonder how much is really "owned" by these people and how much the "bank" really owns.

harneymaki said:

There have been comments made to me about being "rich" because I own an airplane.

Click to expand...

That makes me laugh - it really is a widespread misperception. When my sister was visiting over Thanksgiving with her two kids, she was asking how much it costs to keep and maintain my super cub (I gave my young nephews rides). She was surprised to learn that my auto insurance costs almost as much as my insurance on the cub, even though I have a good driving record and only have liability on the car (it is several years old), and the cub is worth more than several times as much!

I think most people really don't know the costs - and think "private jet". Yes, the bank probably owns a lot of what those people with McMansions have, but they could also use the same strategy for purchasing an airplane now if they really wanted one - I noticed that there are 20 year aircraft loans now.

How many young folks even get off their butts anymore other than to waddle over to the fridge? How many kids are clamoring to get into the service to fly, turn wrenches or do anything for that matter? Our society has changed remarkably in the past thirty years. The number of folks who do outdoorsy things has greatly diminished. Camping is no longer camping. It's taking the double wide out sixty foot machine to a pine grove with water, sewer, cable and a deluxe fully stocked minimart and bar thirty yards down the asphalt footpath. How many folks have young kids hanging around the airport willing to anything for a ride or a lesson.
Worse, how many people have had the experience of worrying about being sued if something "happened" when they gave someone a ride?

I think lawyers and greed have just about killed everything that was fun in our society and now they are working on medicine, and a myriad of other things. How many times have you seen a lawyer suing another lawyer?

In europe and UK it is very difficult to bring a tort action unless there is egregious damage. Once we get that monkey off our back as well as the government out of our pockets and our business we all will be much better off.

Thanks to the democrats, the tort laws were modified in the early 60's to make it easier to sue for damages...along with federal support/control of education, we were pretty much slam-dunked as a society back then...I've pretty much spent my adult life watching the damage accumulate....

Small planes in the future

Seaworthy : Amen brother Amen !!! A few years ago I was told that in all of eastern Europe there were only 13 lawyers. Look at the thousands of lawyers in this country , and they are all hungry!!! Law schools are turning them out by the hundreds every year and we wonder why everybody is running scared !! John