For Cheap But Affordable Airplane Rentals

[Oldman731]

From the reference quoted above, looks like $218,000 per airplane is probably all insurance cost ($100,000 per plane in 1988 is $216,000 per plane in 2010 dollars).

You're only quoting the pre-1994 figures.  Continuing with the same Wiki page:

"Following passage of the GARA, U.S. general aviation aircraft production, in units, roughly doubled in five years, but still remained far below the 1970s production quantities (see graph). Meanwhile, contrary to an implied goal of GARA, average general aviation aircraft prices continued to rise. This was largely attributable to the shift of GA manufacturers towards building high-end turbine (turboprop and jet) business and luxury aircraft, while keeping piston aircraft productions at a small fraction of their 1970s levels. The manufacturers were able to get increased income with smaller numbers of far-more-expensive airplanes (see graph)."

You only have to grab a copy of Flying magazine, or AOPA's magazine, or any of the other aviation publications, to see how true this is.  General aviation, with the notable exception of Wolfala's Cirrus products, is focused on planes that cost $1.5M and up (way up).  So it's now a chicken-and-egg thing:  The manufacturers don't get the economy of scale until lots of consumers buy little planes, and consumers can't buy little planes because they cost too much.

- jkw

[Wolfala]

You're only quoting the pre-1994 figures.  Continuing with the same Wiki page:

"Following passage of the GARA, U.S. general aviation aircraft production, in units, roughly doubled in five years, but still remained far below the 1970s production quantities (see graph). Meanwhile, contrary to an implied goal of GARA, average general aviation aircraft prices continued to rise. This was largely attributable to the shift of GA manufacturers towards building high-end turbine (turboprop and jet) business and luxury aircraft, while keeping piston aircraft productions at a small fraction of their 1970s levels. The manufacturers were able to get increased income with smaller numbers of far-more-expensive airplanes (see graph)."

You only have to grab a copy of Flying magazine, or AOPA's magazine, or any of the other aviation publications, to see how true this is.  General aviation, with the notable exception of Wolfala's Cirrus products, is focused on planes that cost $1.5M and up (way up).  So it's now a chicken-and-egg thing:  The manufacturers don't get the economy of scale until lots of consumers buy little planes, and consumers can't buy little planes because they cost too much.

- jkw

There is definitely been a pendulum shift toward the pressurized single engine turbo prop market and single owner jet. The SE turboprop has replaced the cabin class piston twin. The King Air is still marketable for corporate and freight and overwater haulers. However, Insurance companies over the last 2 to 3 years have recognized the huge amount of liability exposure they have with single owner jet operations and not flown by professional crews: I know more than one instance of a phenom 300 owner being refused coverage as a single owner even with an additional crewmember. They just don’t want him up front. Additionally FlightSafety does not like working with single pilot owners in the Cessna mustang VLJ series.

[Brooke]

You're only quoting the pre-1994 figures. 

I'm quoting the only insurance rates they give.

None of the stuff about increased sales or more are turboprops tells us anything about insurance cost.

[Maverick]

I pretty much agree with Brooke. The cost of production of the aircraft is influenced most by the cost of insurance. There hasn't been much of any technical shift in the product outside of instrumentation (glass vs steam gauges and radio gear). To be honest most of the radio gear is only about one or two steps above CB radios and a hand held GPS. The larger engines aren't that much larger for the basic Cessna 172 or even 182 and until you get into turbos still 1930's tech. A Lycoming 4 banger is still virtually unchanged in over 80 years in design, only some material changes in composition of alloys used in the metal mostly. Even the mags are old school. Once you get into A&P training the small plane maintenance is really dirt simple, like it used to be for cars back in the 50's and 60's. To comment on another poster here, there is more technology in a $25k KIA than a Cessna 172, and the KIA is more reliable.