Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

2087053905_mercedes2016.jpg.7c7b1ff01101f742384d192feb9e29bb.jpg

 

1564088194_mercedes1936.jpg.8ab61d383e0178ed149ea21498b68b11.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...