Cessna/Textron commitment to small GA.

Dan Thomas said:
"A car feel?" Why? It wasn't so many years ago that carmakers were trying for that "airplane feel." Lots of instrumentation and other cockpit-like touches that were supposed to sell cars to folks who wanted to impress thir friends with their technology. Now we want an airplane that has a cockpit that looks and feels like a car's?
Click to expand...
^sales figures speak for themselves. Yes, people want a modern comfortable leather trim product to sit in that feels similar to getting into their car. I *would* say Lexus, Merc, BMW, etc., but these days even the most basic new Kia, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, etc., have an overall decent product to offer. So yes, people want that in their planes. It's quite frankly embarrassing to bring people up into most club renters, even the "cleanest" Skyhawks and Archers in most clubs, even relatively new planes only a few years old, just seem so old school tech to the average person

Car makers were trying for that "airplane" feel and plane makers for the "car feel" but in different senses of the word. For aircraft manufacturers that means something comfortable, IE, it has a nice fit and finish inside, you have some decent elbow room, and just overall feels "natural" to sit in. And guess why, because Cirrus realized that most girlfriends, wives, etc., don't really enjoy flying and that many pilots want to share their hobby with family.. so they strove to make the plane feel as natural as possible and threw a chute in it. Car makers on the other hand were never looking to make a tiny noisy cramped ****box with air vents falling out of the wing root.. rather, to car makers the "airplane" feel meant cool tech, toggles, switches, heads up displays, performance (or the illusion of it), etc. Two different things.

Dan Thomas said:
The best-flying airplanes are airplanes, designed as airplanes, kept light, and so on. And some of those are definitely clunky-looking.
Click to expand...
How do you define "best" ?
The "best" GA plane for me and my mission is the Cirrus. It's more comfortable, faster, and overall for my mission is the best way to get from A to B in the sky. I've looked at Bonanza and 210 clubs and partnerships, etc., but none of them has been as comfortable or fast. For someone else though that could be a kitfox, a 182, etc. And that's fine.. I'm glad we have this diversity in the market place. But the sales figures support that most buyers want that car-type feel in their plane. You don't see Bonanzas getting sold by the hundreds, or really anything else, especially if you remove flight school sales. The buyer group has evolved. I find it funny that there's a group of people violently hanging on to this notion that the only "real" plane or "best" plane is one that is a 1950s design. Why is innovation a bad thing? Hell, the best part of all this is that even back in the 1960 and 70s aircraft manufacturers were already trying to make their planes more car like.. wasn't that the Cardinal's big alleged mission, was to make it just as comfortable as the family sedan?
 
Dan Thomas said:
"A car feel?" Why? It wasn't so many years ago that carmakers were trying for that "airplane feel." Lots of instrumentation and other cockpit-like touches that were supposed to sell cars to folks who wanted to impress thir friends with their technology. Now we want an airplane that has a cockpit that looks and feels like a car's?

Same with styling. There's only so much one can do to an airplane; it still needs wings and a tail and an engine and propeller, and the shape has to be aerodynamic or it won't fly. The interior is about the only place where some styling can be adjusted, and Cessna and CIrrus have done a lot of that, and added a whack of weight in the process.

The best-flying airplanes are airplanes, designed as airplanes, kept light, and so on. And some of those are definitely clunky-looking.
Click to expand...

If you want to take an engineers perspective, you will never understand.
This is about marketing, branding, feelings and comfort.
Until you realize that four seat and higher aircraft are not just planes, they are methods of transportation. If you have a passion for airplanes like some people have a passion for sports cars, then get an Extra 300. If you want to involve others, than realize they view it like the family car or minivan. Comfort, style and branding matters.

Look at Van's Aircraft, they have created the branding.
Look at Cirrus, they have created the feeling of safety, of like you are stepping into a new high end car.
Look at the new Mooney planes, they are compared to high end BMWs with the interior quality, they also have changed significant portions of the body to composites and at the same time made subtle adjustments to the lines of the plane so it is more stylish, including two doors, larger doors for easier entry and loading....

The basic plane you mention, does not sell. If you want one, go buy a new Piper Archer. How many did they sell this past year?

Tim
 
Tantalum said:
yeah, I still listen to their music sometimes though


oh, you meant the plane. Are they really done? 4 years ago they already had a flying example that they were spinning with 4 adults in it. Looks like they're still around, granted it has been almost over a year since they've had a news update: https://www.panthera-aircraft.com/news
Click to expand...

I think it was two years ago, they said they were waiting on the Part 23 rewrite to be complete before they go for certification.

Tim
 
Dan Thomas said:
There's only so much one can do to an airplane; it still needs wings and a tail and an engine and propeller, and the shape has to be aerodynamic or it won't fly. The interior is about the only place where some styling can be adjusted, and Cessna and CIrrus have done a lot of that, and added a whack of weight in the process.

The best-flying airplanes are airplanes, designed as airplanes, kept light, and so on. And some of those are definitely clunky-looking.
Click to expand...
Tantalum said:
the best part of all this is that even back in the 1960 and 70s aircraft manufacturers were already trying to make their planes more car like.. wasn't that the Cardinal's big alleged mission, was to make it just as comfortable as the family sedan?
Click to expand...

In the early 1960s the 172 was still selling well, but the (comparatively) sleek new Cherokee was proving to be a hit. Somewhere in Cessna upper management it was decided that the 1967 172H would be the last year for the "clunky" strutted design, to be replaced with a modern new Model 172J for 1968. The thinking likely went something like this:

First requirement for the 172J: No wing struts, so the competitors can't mock our old-fashioned look in their ads. That means a carry-through spar structure in the upper cabin. That's heavier than a strutted construction going out the gate. So where do we put the spar? It has to be at or near the thickest part of the wing. The low-wing guys have it easy; they just run it under the seats. But put a strutless wing on a 172, and the maximum airfoil thickness, and thus the spar carry-through, is right where the pilot's head is. So we have to somehow move that spar aft, where the bulge in the cabin ceiling will be out of the way. How to do that?

First, we can use one of those NACA 6-series "laminar flow" airfoils, like the Cherokees, Comanches and Mooneys. The maximum thickness is further aft than on the 172's old reliable 2412. So the 172J won't have the same slow flight, stall and short-field qualities as the strutted model. But hey, all the competitors' ads say "laminar flow" is faster. But we know that though it reduces drag some on something like a P-51 or maybe even a Centurion, it doesn't make much of a difference on a typical low-power bugsmasher with imprecise production tolerances and oilcanning, lightweight skins.

Next we have to move that wing as far aft as we can, resulting in a forward CG of only 5% of mean aerodynamic chord, much further forward than a legacy 172. Our customers like big flaps, so we're gonna need a LOT of pitch authority to land tail-low with full flap and that forward CG. That means a long tail arm (more weight) and a stabilator (more weight and complexity, not to mention different handling qualities).

This thing is starting to take shape, and it looks slick. It's obviously going to be much different from the old 172, so the model number gets changed to 177.

Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 8.59.19 AM.png

Now with the wing (and fuel tanks) so low and so far aft, we can't count on gravity to deliver adequate fuel pressure to the engine in extreme nose-up attitudes. So add engine-driven and auxiliary electric fuel pumps and a header tank (more weight and complexity).

Flight tests show we need more lateral stability, so make the vertical tail taller (more weight).

The weight is adding up alarmingly, so we choose to go with thinner skins and lighter components in places. Still, it's about 150 pounds heavier than a 172H. And it's more expensive and labor-intensive to build than a 172. But 2,000 150 hp O-320-E2As have already been delivered from Lycoming, with an option for 2,000 more, so by cracky, we're gonna use 'em. To hedge our bet, though, we'll keep the strutted 172 line going and convert that old relic to the Lycoming engine, too.

Now fast forward to the mid 1970s. The Cardinal has gotten a bigger engine and some aerodynamic makeovers, but 177B sales are lagging, while Lycoming-powered, strutted 172s keep tooling along. The 177B Cardinal has been filling a gap in the catalog between the 172 and 182, but not cost-effectively. So the company finally decides to pull the plug and replace the Cardinal ... with a big-engine 172, an Americanized version of the French-built 210 hp FR172 Reims Rocket. The "Plane of The '70s" did not survive its decade.

In 1968 Cessna also flew a prototype of a Model 187, a larger, Cardinal-like replacement for the 182. Performance was not significantly improved over the old reliable 182, and the 187 project was canceled. They also tried an experimental Model 182M, putting a cantilever wing on a legacy 182 airframe. Again, increased weight and production cost made it unfeasible.

None of this is to knock the Cardinal, an airplane I really like. But it just goes to show that changes in design philosophy result in many unexpected consequences. Often, especially in this class of airplane, "clunky" works.
 
The biggest misstep with the Cardinal was the undersized and under power engine. Cardinals with 160hp engines are an improvement and 180hp O-360 makes a huge difference in performance. Many agree that first 1968 Carninal 177 with the 150hp engine tainted the reputation of the plane for the remainder of its production life. The 150Hp version resold poorly and affected the depreciation of the remainder of the fleet. This impacts the ability of the plane to be insured and financed correctly back in the day.

Fantastic plane the C177 with the right engine. But problem fixed too late for the model to ever recover to expectations of volume in sales.
 
@Pilawt

Curious, why not just make the cabin taller and have the spar go right over the pilots head? You could then sell the larger cabin as a plus and greater ability to carry stuff.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Curious, why not just make the cabin taller and have the spar go right over the pilots head? You could then sell the larger cabin as a plus and greater ability to carry stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... but then you have more frontal area (more drag and weight), higher C.G. for ground ops, and likely some aesthetic issues. The Cardinal already paid a price for the wider cabin with increased drag. Making the cabin taller would compound it.
 
Pilawt said:
The Cardinal already paid a price for the wider cabin with increased drag. Making the cabin taller would compound it.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing it and I just don't buy it, for a couple of reasons.

First, Cardinal has a wide cabin? That's laughable. I've been in planes that were more cramped, like Liberty XL2 and Sonex (before B-model). But beyond those hopeless examples, 177 is probably the worst of them. Maybe worse than 152, which is really narrow if you measure it. What did they do with that width if they could not use it?

Second, why is it that LSAs cruise 120 knots on a power of 100 hp Rotax and have a much wider cabin? The only reason CTLS is slower than Cardinal is legal limitations that prohibit the use of a CS propeller. I'm sure that the frontal area is detrimental, but evidently the design can make up for it.

The thing about thin skins was compounded with the large door that never closes right. The only other metal airplane that felt as insubstantial and flimsy as the Cardinal to me was Skycatcher. Even Tecnam P92 was built better.
 
zaitcev said:
Cardinal has a wide cabin? That's laughable.
Click to expand...
Guess we see it differently. I own a 172, and have flown Cardinals since the first '68s came out. The specs say the Cardinal is three inches wider at the elbow, and that's consistent with my observation. It is a little light in headroom for me, though.

The thing about thin skins was compounded with the large door that never closes right. The only other metal airplane that felt as insubstantial and flimsy as the Cardinal to me was Skycatcher. Even Tecnam P92 was built better.
Click to expand...
Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson wrote,

"As these many improvements were added, the empty weight of the C-177 grew alarmingly. Very late in the development program an all-out war against excess weight was started. This included reductions in wing skin thicknesses as well as shaving excess thickness of many other structural and non-structural pieces and parts, and reducing the mass balance weight in the stabilator at the expense of some stabilator (and control wheel) motion in very rough air. This was a painful process for designers, and it resulted in an airframe that seemed rather flimsy when compared to the C-172. In particular, interior controls and cabin doors could not take very much abuse, and customers often complained about quality."​
 
Last edited:
So if Cessna made a $350,000 Cardinal with a bigger engine today, would anybody buy it?
 
That is interesting, compare the 1968 cardinal to the 1968 172 nowadays and the 172 feel flimsy IMHO. The tiny yoke control shafts and bicycle chains tying them together make them feel cheesy and sloppy, even the 172XP feels that way, the 68 177 does not. The 177B actually has a real rudder trim almost identical to the 182, the 172XP isn't even close. The Cardinal feels a lot more like a 182 in physical build IMHO. Maybe they were complaining about the extensive use of plastic interior components, which exploded in later years of all models.

Performance wise, no 177/177B is a 182, never was.
 
sarangan said:
If there were only a few hundred Toyota Corollas manufactured per year, it would probably cost about half a million dollars each.
Click to expand...
Yes, a lot of people don't realize what a big deal economies of scale are in design and manufacturing. At the volume of sales that the major car manufacturers have, they can afford A LOT more engineering, and A LOT more automation in manufacturing. I became very aware of this during my decade of working for companies that made semiconductor wafer inspection equipment, which are even lower volume than aircraft.
 
zaitcev said:
Second, why is it that LSAs cruise 120 knots on a power of 100 hp Rotax and have a much wider cabin?
Click to expand...
Because Cessna and Piper stopped innovating back in the 1960s. I agree with you
 
Palmpilot said:
Yes, a lot of people don't realize what a big deal economies of scale are in design and manufacturing. At the volume of sales that the major car manufacturers have, they can afford A LOT more engineering, and A LOT more automation in manufacturing. I became very aware of this during my decade of working for companies that made semiconductor wafer inspection equipment, which are even lower volume than aircraft.
Click to expand...

The auto industry isn’t exactly a good example of economy of scale working right. They afforded quite a bit of stuff at the cost of not being able to afford their pensions and workers and needing a massive government bailout at the loss of their bond holders.

The city of Detroit still hasn’t recovered from the great job the automakers did managing their “scale”.

Semiconductor biz all moved to China for various economic reasons, but pretty much the same mismanagement. Not exactly a great example either.
 
You got it backwards. There was nothing wrong with their economies of scale as far as production was concerned - where they completely failed was agreeing to outrageous unrealistic union contracts that no economy, scale or otherwise , could support in the long run - if you end up paying your welders 3 times as much as a the market rate , you will go bankrupt, especially if competing with other automakers that don't do that.
 
tspear said:
Regardless of the perception of "real" pilots. A chute sells.
G1000 is almost a requirement for new planes (Arrow still has G500, Archer only recently got the G1000).
A car feel.
Fit/finish.
Styling of 1990 at least would help instead of 1970.

Something faster than 137 KTAS without a turbine and low seven digit acquisition price.

Look at recent training fleet announcements. Republic Airlines for example, Diamond is winning a lot of them with the Diesel engines.
So I like the fact that Piper is starting to offer Diesel, but it will take a long time to get a return...

Tim
Click to expand...

Last year the chute, the car feel, the styling sold 355 piston Cirrus airplanes, which from a manufacturing standpoint is sfa.

That's the point. There is no market to pay for any more of that. Cirrus may have 7000 airplanes in the air in 17 years, but they are adding to the fleet at half the rate they were a decade ago. Wake up folks. As a business building capable new piston airplanes sucks. As a business designing and certifying serious new piston airplanes sucks even more.

And now that the decade long era of Central Bank enabled "free" capital is ending tomorrow its going to suck even more than it does today. The next recession will be a survival test for this industry. And perhaps even some of the "innovative" players will find their balance sheets and income statements decimated.
 
GRG55 said:
And now that the decade long era of Central Bank enabled "free" capital is ending tomorrow its going to suck even more than it does today. The next recession will be a survival test for this industry. And perhaps even some of the "innovative" players will find their balance sheets and income statements decimated.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think the lesson of the last downturn is too recent for the manufacturers.
You already see Textron dumping lines (TTx, Skylane Diesel). Piper already dumped the jet, Diamond got outside investment and diversified, Cirrus has not announced any new major expensive initiatives, Pipestrel said the Panther is waiting on the Part 23 rewrite....
Basically you no longer see big pie in the sky initiatives. instead it is all incremental.

Now the LSA and dreamers like the Mollar Skycar or the Terrafuga or Icon are a different matter.
 
Warmi said:
You got it backwards. There was nothing wrong with their economies of scale as far as production was concerned - where they completely failed was agreeing to outrageous unrealistic union contracts that no economy, scale or otherwise , could support in the long run - if you end up paying your welders 3 times as much as a the market rate , you will go bankrupt, especially if competing with other automakers that don't do that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I figured they thought they could afford it because they were operating on “economies of scale”. :)

My point was what auto makers pay for things is often grossly twisted into looking like they’re doing scale things or whatever anyone wants to call them, but they’re losing money somewhere else to cover it.

And that it’s probably not a great idea to use industries that went broke via bad management at such a scale as to harm their own country, as examples of anything “good” in an economic textbook.
 
tspear said:
Basically you no longer see big pie in the sky initiatives. instead it is all incremental.
Click to expand...
When was the last time you saw one of these pie in the sky initiatives succeed?
 
denverpilot said:
The auto industry isn’t exactly a good example of economy of scale working right. They afforded quite a bit of stuff at the cost of not being able to afford their pensions and workers and needing a massive government bailout at the loss of their bond holders.

The city of Detroit still hasn’t recovered from the great job the automakers did managing their “scale”.

Semiconductor biz all moved to China for various economic reasons, but pretty much the same mismanagement. Not exactly a great example either.
Click to expand...
The generality that high volume manufacturers can afford to do things that low volume ones can't applies world wide. That's an advantage, but not a guarantee of success by itself for any particular company.

The company I worked for, KLA-Tencor, is a very successful wafer-inspection-equipment maker, which sells its equipment to major semiconductor manufacturers all over the world. However, their equipment is VERY expensive, which is inevitable due to the low volume and the technical challenge in doing what their equipment does. They can only dream of the efficiencies of even the worst of the major auto makers.
 
Everskyward said:
When was the last time you saw one of these pie in the sky initiatives succeed?
Click to expand...
Remember the Bede BD-1 (1964)? It was to have been a certified, factory-built two seater with available engines of 65 hp to 108 hp, fully aerobatic, with wings easily removable for trailering. With 65 hp it would cruise, the brochure said, at 112 mph. With 108 hp it would be a rocket; cruise 145 mph and service ceiling of 18,000'. Base price with 65 hp would be $2,500, at that time about a third of the base price of a new Cessna 150.

BD-1_coverltr.jpg

BD-1_coverltr2.jpg

BD-1_pricelist.jpg

BD-1_app.jpg

The BD-1 was in many ways a sound design with innovative features. But it took the departure of Jim Bede from the program, and bringing in the grown-ups, to make it a certifiable and marketable product. It became, of course, the successful American Aviation AA-1 Yankee. The Yankee had respectable performance with 108 hp, if not up to Bede's promises; it was not aerobatic, and you couldn't easily slide the wings off to trailer it home. Its original base price of $6,495 was just a few hundred bucks less than a C-150 and about $2,500 under a Cherokee 140. The Yankee design was further developed as the Grumman American Trainer, Tr2 and Lynx, and was the basis of the four-seat Grumman American Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger.
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
Nah, I think the lesson of the last downturn is too recent for the manufacturers.
You already see Textron dumping lines (TTx, Skylane Diesel). Piper already dumped the jet, Diamond got outside investment and diversified, Cirrus has not announced any new major expensive initiatives, Pipestrel said the Panther is waiting on the Part 23 rewrite....
Basically you no longer see big pie in the sky initiatives. instead it is all incremental.

Now the LSA and dreamers like the Mollar Skycar or the Terrafuga or Icon are a different matter.
Click to expand...

So, how many new Cirrus aircraft it sells to individuals do you think are NOT financed with cheap credit? ;)
(Cue theme from Jaws).

Sales of piston aircraft to private individuals are probably going to slip as credit costs increase. And they will almost certainly get creamed in the next recesssion (which will probably be Federal Reserve induced from rising interest rates, as usual).

Fleet sales to commercial pilot training organizations might be the most resilient piston aircraft market segment as that inevitability unfolds. Which implies those dinosaurs, Cessna and Piper, might have it right after all. :eek:
 
tspear said:
SR20
SR22
SF50
TBM
PC-24

Avidyna PFD
Garmin G1000

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Depends entirely on how one defines success.
There is no friggin' way Cirrus has generated a positive ROCE for all the capital that's been poured into that company since the inception of the SR program.

If the Chinese hadn't bailed out the Arabs, who had bailed out the Klapmeier brothers I wonder if the company would even be here today.
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
Cirrus has not announced any new major expensive initiatives,
Click to expand...
Someone missed the SR-18 thread. Although, technically, they didn't actually announce it.
 
tspear said:
SR20
SR22
SF50
TBM
PC-24

Avidyna PFD
Garmin G1000

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I would agree about the SR20 and 22, but that was 17 and 19 years ago. The TBM is even older. The SF50 and PC-24 are too new to have any idea if they will be successful or not. I would put more money on the PC-24, however, it's not really a new concept.

The other two items you mention are avionics. No doubt electronics for airplanes and other items have advanced in recent years.
 
Success might have been too broad a term. I was referring to the project was a success and production is starting.
Assuming it is priced to cover at least production costs the largest investment and divergence of funds is over.
All my examples are now in production and assume the company covers its production costs it is much easier to ride the next recession.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
SR20
SR22
SF50
TBM
PC-24

Avidyna PFD
Garmin G1000

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How many of us can afford any of those?

I would bet that the glass panel makes way more profit than any engine or airframe. Most of that glass would be made with the same technologies as computers and TVs.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I would agree about the SR20 and 22, but that was 17 and 19 years ago. The TBM is even older. The SF50 and PC-24 are too new to have any idea if they will be successful or not. I would put more money on the PC-24, however, it's not really a new concept.

The other two items you mention are avionics. No doubt electronics for airplanes and other items have advanced in recent years.
Click to expand...

PC24 will be a huge hit for sure. Maybe not bought by a lot of individuals, but most certainly by small companies (maybe pilot-owned, maybe not). That thing is a beast.
 
Oh, and agree with the comments on the selling of the lifestyle / brand. I guarantee had I bought a 182 or Archer or whatever, the wife and kids would not have embraced flying nearly as much as they have. Cirrus did nail it there. They innovated not only with the planes themselves but the overall message. No one else in the piston market has done that, which is why everyone else is struggling.
 
MetalCloud said:
That thing is a beast
Click to expand...
It really is, it is not just another private jet. the functional innovation they put in that plane, as well as its performance capabilities are absolutely insane. Especially for single pilot certification you basically end up with a remarkably comfortable miniature airliner that will fly in and out of <3000 runways

If I had an extra 10 million kicking around this would be by far the plane I would buying
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top