fly_tornado Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 New Xcub is getting plenty of coverage XCub | adventure multiplied 1
facthunter Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 I'll have one if someone wants to pay for it for me. Don't rush now. Nev 1
ClintonB Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 That things awesome. Somehow don't think the "minister" will finance it though. I suppose could keep dreaming.
bexrbetter Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 X-Cub; "Why it's fast..." Cause it's fricken $300,000 For Goodness Sakes. What a joke, another overpriced under-subscribed aircraft that will get more coverage than it should. 1
facthunter Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Read your reply carefully and see if it make s logical sense. Nev
Marty_d Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 In 1938 a Piper Cub cost about $1,000. Average US income at that time was about $2,100, so roughly half a year's wages. Average US income as at last year was about $53,000, so this Cub is 6x that. So this Cub is 12 times more expensive than the original in real money terms. 1
facthunter Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Because of the materials used. It still looks like a Cub but instead of just being a "Conventional" build it's top technology. Very pricey, but not sure of your comparison being valid with the original in normal marketing situations. Some cheap special deals were done at times. Nev
fly_tornado Posted June 15, 2016 Author Posted June 15, 2016 1930s era Cubs had 65Hp engines, this new one has a monster engine
Marty_d Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Yes - I know it's a totally different aircraft so the comparison is perhaps not fair. Mind you by that reasoning we shouldn't compare early cars with their pathetic top speed, non-existent safety equipment and reliability issues with pretty much any new vehicle today. Example: Mercedes-Benz 500K roadster, 1936, cost 28,000 Deutschmarks (conversion to $USD = $11,290). Dividing into the 1938 average wage above = about 5.4 years worth. Now: Mercedes AMG SL65R Convertible, 2017 model, around US$220,000 (about 4 x average wage). Obviously the scale of production of cars has brought the price down far more than that of aircraft, but in terms of technology and performance I believe the comparison to the Cubs is valid.
facthunter Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 A 1938 Chev cost about 340 dollars. so the Cub, which is very basic equals 3 of them., so nothing much has changed there. Mass produced cars are cheaper all the time but not economically serviced for long (throw away) The exotic Cub is another thing . An expensive exclusive pleasure machine not built as an aerial Volkswagen for the masses to get about in. Nev
fly_tornado Posted June 16, 2016 Author Posted June 16, 2016 The problem with "average wages" as a benchmark is the top earners drag up the average amount, better to use median wage, as this ignores most of the top and bottom. 1
Marty_d Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 The problem with "average wages" as a benchmark is the top earners drag up the average amount, better to use median wage, as this ignores most of the top and bottom. I know, but I didn't want to spend hours getting the figures exactly right for an off-the-cuff reply. I figured that there were top earners back then as there are now - newspaper barons, mine owners, property tycoons etc... 1
fly_tornado Posted June 16, 2016 Author Posted June 16, 2016 65HP was pretty common for prewar Cubs and they were build with cotton fabric versus the newer nylons which are indestructable
Yenn Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 Since when have aircraft worn Nylons? I think you mean dacron. 1
Oscar Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 65HP was pretty common for prewar Cubs and they were build with cotton fabric versus the newer nylons which are indestructable Hopefully, there is no sentient organism on the Planet that actually reads your posts - let alone considers them to be viable information.
Guernsey Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 My Cub must have been nylon because I used to climb one of its ladders to refuel. The sheer joy of it. Alan. 1
fly_tornado Posted June 16, 2016 Author Posted June 16, 2016 Hopefully, there is no sentient organism on the Planet that actually reads your posts - let alone considers them to be viable information. Oscar, where are your pills?
Oscar Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 I don't need any, I don't have your problems. Actually, neither does anybody else. 1
AussieB1rd Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Very plush interior with the obligatory coffee holder, cost wise it could be worse, imagine the price tag if it was painted Lockhaven Yellow
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now