I’m also seeing renewed interest and funding for aviation careers

In Northern Iowa…

https://www.niacc.edu/2025/05/22/niacc- ... fall-2025/

Before you go all doom and gloom, you should check the numbers.

Per FAA numbers, 2013 had 199,927 aircraft, 2023 had 214,222 aircraft in the GA fleet, a 7.1% increase in 10 years. The GA fleet is NOT shrinking. Whatever losses there have been, the flow of new aircraft has more than replaced it.

Per the FAA, 2013 had 22.9 million GA flight hours, 2023 had 28.6 million GA flight hours, 24.9% increase. Planes are getting flown more and more.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviat ... ion/cy2023

Airplane values are up, flying is up, mechanics are busy, upgrades are happening, etc. I see more GA happening than ever before.

I thus question your statement that GA is shrinking.

Mike C.

Norman,

Great write up. How are the legacy/vintage taildraggers of the 40s-50s doing in regards to pricing and value? About the only plane I have in mind are the Cessna’s, Luscombes of that era.

I see the same pattern over and over the past 10 years. Summer time transactions are down, it's a GREAT time to buy. Not much business gets done, aircraft (turbines) are relatively slow to move. After labor day when people return from their summer homes and business picks back up the market resumes and goes into frenzy in Q4 before the end of the year.

Happens every year, clients of mine hold off, miss the great deals over the summer, then ultimately end up overpaying for a good plane or miss out entirely in late Q4 as they waited.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

Exactly. We’ve had the bandwidth to do more the last few months, now with BD it will pick up and then after Labor Day we’ll be slammed and I’ll be wishing we could have done some of the heavy lifting in Q3.

Most in that category experienced major price increase quite a few years ago. Starting with Cubs and eventually the rest including Luscombes and Ercoupes followed. There was a second price surge when the light sport category was created.

Many barn finds have been restored and prices have been relatively stable over the last ten years or so. There still seems to be quite a few hangar queens that feed the market from estate sales. Most all are hangared and in fairly good condition despite low usage and are simple enough to put back in service as long as they don’t have any corrosion or bad fabric issues. Stinsons have come up considerably as they are being utilized in Alaska. Especially those with engine conversions.

There is always a larger market for lower priced planes and even project planes. I was recently out bid on an Ercoupe that had been sitting neglected in a shade hangar for 15 plus year then completely submerged in fresh water from Helene. IIRC I bid about 7K. And a straight tail 172 with storm damage to a wing. I bid 24K and someone else got it for 28K.

A fair amount of derelict 150s have been parted out due to the value and demand for 0200s.
Tri-Pacers and straight tail 150s and 172s have increased considerably in the last couple of years as they have been appreciated more as classics. All in all probably a safe (and fun) place to park extra cash as long as you can hangar them. I don’t expect to see major price fluctuations in the foreseeable future. Probably just a slow and steady increase in values.

The upcoming MOSAIC announcement will certainly have an impact on older 4 seat models like 182s that will reportedly be included.

Market feels soft to me. Last fall I sold a Cardinal RG. Put a towards the top of the range price on it, got a lot of inquiries, took a while to sell as I held onto my price but eventually got asking.

Fast forward to early summer this year and was selling a nice 172. Again, put a top of the range price on it but this time got very few inquiries. Shockingly few. The price was high for what it was but not out of line and I would have gladly taken offers on it, however nobody was even asking questions. And it was an M model 172, which just a year or two ago flight schools were cold calling owners to buy. Eventually sold it to a local flight school for a little below asking (I was happy).

Problem is that with the price of upgrades (particularly engines) it's really hard to discount right now. As a seller I'll sit on my plane and wait for the market to recover, knowing that every day the airplane becomes worth more because the price of engines, props, etc... are outpacing inflation and I'm already locked in.

2013 to 2023:

GA aircraft: +14,295

Experimental: +5,196

LSA: +951

Non exp and LSA: +8,148

It is simply not the case the growth is just experimental and LSA.




The hours per airplane for jets, turboprops are relatively unchanged.

Piston singles improved from about 80 hours to near 120 per airplane, twins steady at about 125-130 hours per airplane.

Your interpretation of the chart doesn't match the numbers used to make it.

Piston twins have declined 1530 units, but piston singles increased by 3175 units. So this could be described mostly as a shift to singles, not a "considerable" decline in both.

In any case, GA is fine, there are more airplanes and they are being flown more, even for piston aircraft.

Mike C.

2013 to 2023:

GA aircraft: +14,295

Experimental: +5,196

LSA: +951

Non exp and LSA: +8,148

It is simply not the case the growth is just experimental and LSA.




The hours per airplane for jets, turboprops are relatively unchanged.

Piston singles improved from about 80 hours to near 120 per airplane, twins steady at about 125-130 hours per airplane.

Your interpretation of the chart doesn't match the numbers used to make it.

Piston twins have declined 1530 units, but piston singles increased by 3175 units. So this could be described mostly as a shift to singles, not a "considerable" decline in both.

In any case, GA is fine, there are more airplanes and they are being flown more, even for piston aircraft.

Mike C.

2013.........137,655

That's a decrease of 5,505 airplanes in one year from 2012 to 2013.

The large change from 2012 to 2013 should be a clue something was going on that wasn't just fleet size change. That's when the FAA finalized the requirement to periodically reregister airplanes. So what you see from 2012 to 2013 is a big drop but that's artificial due to the reregistration rule change causing unflyable airplanes to finally come off the registry.

The glass is way more than half full, but for the last 40+ years, there is always those who see GA as being in some sort of death spiral. It just isn't true and we now live in a great time for GA. More hours, miles, and people are flying GA than ever before.

Mike C.

2013.........137,655

That's a decrease of 5,505 airplanes in one year from 2012 to 2013.

The large change from 2012 to 2013 should be a clue something was going on that wasn't just fleet size change. That's when the FAA finalized the requirement to periodically reregister airplanes. So what you see from 2012 to 2013 is a big drop but that's artificial due to the reregistration rule change causing unflyable airplanes to finally come off the registry.

The glass is way more than half full, but for the last 40+ years, there is always those who see GA as being in some sort of death spiral. It just isn't true and we now live in a great time for GA. More hours, miles, and people are flying GA than ever before.

Mike C.

Well, that proves the point, there is so much demand for aircraft that they are expensive. That wouldn't be the case if GA was dying.

There are still plenty of ways to fly cheaply. It isn't going to be a 182 with full Garmin, however. The demand and the upgrades are what are making the old planes worth a lot.

You can find small inexpensive aircraft to fly. A Luscombe for $22.5K:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?listing_id=2439472

When corrected for inflation, that is the same as $6500 in 1983. You have to recalibrate your expectations of what the numbers mean today.

Gliders are also a cheap way to have a lot of fun in GA.

Mike C.

GA isn’t in decline—it’s evolving. Yes, some buyers are priced out, but new types of buyers are entering the market. What’s really shifting is the business model: profitability is driving a demographic change. That feels uncomfortable to some, but as Mike noted, the data suggests GA is more “half-full bottle” than dying industry.

The real threats aren’t new owners with different profiles—we’ve debated that plenty on BT. The bigger issues are:

• The continued uncertainty around leaded fuel
• Legacy manufacturers neglecting support for older aircraft

If these two vectors aren’t addressed, I see at some point, GA SEP increasingly moving toward Experimental or MOSAIC categories.

There are practical steps we could take:
• Accelerate serious adoption and support for unleaded fuel
• Create a vintage owner-maintained category with broader parts and engine options

One tiny example.

It’s absurd that something like the wing bolt cover on my aircraft, just a thin piece of aluminum, costs so much year after year because it must be “certified,” even though the clips break constantly. That kind of economics is what we need to rethink.

I have not read any of the recent drafts but does MOSAIC allow for "Owner produced parts" like the current regulations do if you can find the factory drawings and build the part to the drawings?

Does MOSAIC allow for the "Owner Maintenance" items we have with the current regulations?

For non critical parts does MOSAIC allow the substitutions of AC23-27?

These are all things that can be used today!

Will we think we are gaining freedom but actually get a muddled up mess of ATSM consensus standards that we will have to pay to subscribe to updates for. Where no outside agency ever reviews or test flies the designs only checks to see the the forms are filled out. And if support is ended by the manufacturer the airplane we paid a lot for in "Certified" form becomes "Experimental" but a type of experimental where you still need approval to install things and inspections because you were not the builder and it is not EXP AB.

With muddled up service bulletin lists instead of ADs that also never seem to be complied with even by the manufacturers.

Just like the Current LSA industry...

I think the current regulations just need to roll back to the original Part 23 or even CAR 3/4.
Those were the times that the most successful designs were made that have held up over time but as I read Part 23 there is not a lot I would say is not needed or was not put in there because of some prior accident lesson learned.

My main issue is the current rules are all interpreted and enforced in different ways by FSDOs and ACOs. I see what I would be in trouble for even suggesting as part of an installation with my local offices is "Approved" as part of other STCs. Not old ones either. Current recent STCs.

An example is an airplane with a Lycoming O-540 conversion to replace the old Continental O-470 "unsupported dash number" that came in for an annual. When I looked all the engine controls are flexible push pull cables to the engine. No problem except the cables are all anchored to the engine mount and then attached to the engine. All engine vibration is transmitted to the cable rigid ends. The housings should be anchored to the engine and move with the engine! This is a very basic thing but Throttle prop and mixture are all setup the same way! It moves a lot with the Dynafocal mounts But to fix it would mean deviation from the STC and a lot of welding of brackets and mounts. This STC was recent and the airplane was the prototype for the approval of the STC!

Carbon Cub kits for 400K!?!?
Just like fishin’; you build it, they’ll buy it.

I think it’s nutz.