Just for Laughs and Giggles - random aisle seat thoughts..

[SoonerAviator]

Brought to you by Boeing’s 737 Max team

Lol, the C172 could use MCAS, right?

 

[jsstevens]

If Cessna had done that, the 172 would be a million-dollar+ airplane. The Cessna Corvalis/ttX/400? whatever they called it was an example of runaway costs. And it was just a fixed-gear, four-place airplane, just with more power and a CS prop. Its cost sank it.

Restarting the 172, with mods to fix the known weak areas and to comply with revised FAR23 rules. was the cheapest way to go. They already had all the tooling and jigs for the entire airplane and didn't need to change too much stuff. Didn't need to clean-sheet the whole thing.

You do realize Cessna didn’t design nor initially manufacture the TTX, right? They bought it, design, type certificate, tooling and staff when Lancair (?) went bankrupt. So saying Cessna gold plated the design is not accurate.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I realize that the 177 has it's problems, but what aircraft doesn't? Even the beloved Bo has a host of expensive issues and unobtanium parts depending on the model. The point is that you could take the C172 and refine it . . . which is basically what the C177 did. Swap for a fixed pitch prop and you have a C177 that is an updated C172. The point isn't to revisit history and what sold vs what didn't at the time, it's to take an existing type certificate and refine it to restart production. I can almost guarantee that, if the C177 were reproduced today (and the P2010 didn't exist), that there would be buyers for it. Now, that all depends on the price point. I might even venture to say that if the C177 and C172 were both still produced currently by Cessna at the same price (or close to it), that the C177 would outsell it on looks/speed alone. They are trying to compete with Cirrus and Diamond, which don't look like they were made back in the 1950's like a C172 does.

Maybe. And maybe, probably, like the restart 172s, it would gain 300 pounds and be an anemic airplane again, requiring 200 HP, and who is going to put a fixed pitch prop on 200 HP? And you need CS to get the speed anyway.

The original 177 has a gross of 2350, just 50 pounds more than the concurrent 172. Yet its performance was poor, with exactly the same engine as the 172. Even with less drag. It had a laminar airflow wing that needed more power. The 177A and B were 2500-pound gross airplanes, on 180 HP. Just imagine FAR 23 seats, Garmin glass, and beefups of the weak areas adding 300 pounds, forcing a GW of at least 2750 so as not to have a two-place airplane. Most Cessna 180s were 2800-pound gross airplanes and had 230 HP. Now we're into Cessna 182 territory, and flight schools don't buy them for trainers.

I just can't see it as a viable restart. Cessna didn't seem to, either, since they had already cancelled it eight years before they shut down the piston single production altogether. It's a nice airplane, easier to get in and out of for an arthritic old guy, and looks real good, but that's about it. It's a small airplane that needs a lot of power. And it's still a riveted-aluminum airplane, not a swoopy composite that really sells based on looks.

 

[Dan Thomas]

You do realize Cessna didn’t design nor initially manufacture the TTX, right? They bought it, design, type certificate, tooling and staff when Lancair (?) went bankrupt. So saying Cessna gold plated the design is not accurate.

I know that. But they did make plenty of changes. I maintained one for a few years.

From the TCDS for the ttx (official designation LC41-550G):



The Cessna A185F grosses at 3350 pounds and has similar power. Its empty weight is usually 1750 or 1800. Massive useful load, although it has no Garmin glass. The ttX is a heavy airplane, and you find that out real quick when trying to push it around. No struts to push on. The one I maintained had the weeping-wing anti-ice and you couldn't push there, so the prop and towbar were it. I did not like that at all. Seemed to me that a good used 185 was a far better bet, able to go more places and had more seats and more baggage capacity.

Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned, but I think airplanes should be light.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Maybe. And maybe, probably, like the restart 172s, it would gain 300 pounds and be an anemic airplane again, requiring 200 HP, and who is going to put a fixed pitch prop on 200 HP? And you need CS to get the speed anyway.

The original 177 has a gross of 2350, just 50 pounds more than the concurrent 172. Yet its performance was poor, with exactly the same engine as the 172. Even with less drag. It had a laminar airflow wing that needed more power. The 177A and B were 2500-pound gross airplanes, on 180 HP. Just imagine FAR 23 seats, Garmin glass, and beefups of the weak areas adding 300 pounds, forcing a GW of at least 2750 so as not to have a two-place airplane. Most Cessna 180s were 2800-pound gross airplanes and had 230 HP. Now we're into Cessna 182 territory, and flight schools don't buy them for trainers.

I just can't see it as a viable restart. Cessna didn't seem to, either, since they had already cancelled it eight years before they shut down the piston single production altogether. It's a nice airplane, easier to get in and out of for an arthritic old guy, and looks real good, but that's about it. It's a small airplane that needs a lot of power. And it's still a riveted-aluminum airplane, not a swoopy composite that really sells based on looks.

Lots of assumptions on weight and engine requirements that we have no way to know since they never restarted production. The P2010 seems to be doing just fine for Tecnam when it occupies the exact same specs in speed/load that the C177 did . . . right between a C172 and a C182. We all know Cessna has zero desire to be in the SE piston market anyway, as they pretty much only sell C172 models to pilot mill outfits. They never would have bothered putting any more money into design refinement and updates if it weren't forced on them (FAR 23 seats, etc).

 

[Dan Thomas]

Lots of assumptions on weight and engine requirements that we have no way to know since they never restarted production. The P2010 seems to be doing just fine for Tecnam when it occupies the exact same specs in speed/load that the C177 did . . . right between a C172 and a C182. We all know Cessna has zero desire to be in the SE piston market anyway, as they pretty much only sell C172 models to pilot mill outfits. They never would have bothered putting any more money into design refinement and updates if it weren't forced on them (FAR 23 seats, etc).

They weren't forced to install Garmin G1000 or leather upholstery, but they did. They weren't forced to epoxy-prime all sides of every airframe part, but they did. They weren't forced to installed a fuel-injected engine, but they did. They weren't forced to go to integral tanks, but they did. They weren't forced to paint the thing with urethane, but they did. They weren't forced to install stainless-steel control cables, but they did. They spent a lot of money on refinements and upgrades and structural changes. I should know; I worked on them and flew one. They are not the same airplane as a 1986 model. They look the same, that's all.

 

[jsstevens]

I know that. But they did make plenty of changes. I maintained one for a few years.

From the TCDS for the ttx (official designation LC41-550G):

View attachment 106202

The Cessna A185F grosses at 3350 pounds and has similar power. Its empty weight is usually 1750 or 1800. Massive useful load, although it has no Garmin glass. The ttX is a heavy airplane, and you find that out real quick when trying to push it around. No struts to push on. The one I maintained had the weeping-wing anti-ice and you couldn't push there, so the prop and towbar were it. I did not like that at all. Seemed to me that a good used 185 was a far better bet, able to go more places and had more seats and more baggage capacity.

Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned, but I think airplanes should be light.

I did have a short discussion with a prolific home builder who said "Horse power's nice, but weight's the thing."

But I don't think the TTX was mostly Cessna's fault...

 

[Dan Thomas]

But I don't think the TTX was mostly Cessna's fault...

Well, they bought it and built it and marketed it. If it was too heavy when they bought it they should either have walked away, or lightened it up. If they added weight, that's on them. The ttx is around 350 pounds heavier than the Lancair 300 they bought. Who did that?

And it was too expensive. Considerably more than the Cirrus SR22.

 

[Dana]

The TTX was a mistake because it just doesn't fit Cessna's product lineup, and it's not the kind of plane Cessna buyers are interested in, and it's not built the way Cessna knows how to make airplanes.

 

[SoonerAviator]

They weren't forced to install Garmin G1000 or leather upholstery, but they did. They weren't forced to epoxy-prime all sides of every airframe part, but they did. They weren't forced to installed a fuel-injected engine, but they did. They weren't forced to go to integral tanks, but they did. They weren't forced to paint the thing with urethane, but they did. They weren't forced to install stainless-steel control cables, but they did. They spent a lot of money on refinements and upgrades and structural changes. I should know; I worked on them and flew one. They are not the same airplane as a 1986 model. They look the same, that's all.

Ah, so they did a bunch of stuff that sent the price sky high without much tangible benefit? Cool. No wonder they cost half a million today for an aircraft that doesn't do anything more than the 1970s models did, less in most cases.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Ah, so they did a bunch of stuff that sent the price sky high without much tangible benefit? Cool. No wonder they cost half a million today for an aircraft that doesn't do anything more than the 1970s models did, less in most cases.

The G1000 alone does a thousand times as much as the 1970s models did. Back then we had an ADF and a VOR, maybe an ILS and marker beacon if you were really rich. And steam gauges that the pilot had to interpret to get a visualization of where he was and where he was going. The structural beefups make the airframe more crack-resistant, and the internal/external priming will inhibit corrosion far better. In short, it's a much better airplane, even if it's heavier. The fancy interior added nothing useful.

When I was learning to fly in 1973 I went into the Cessna dealership and asked what a new 172 cost. "Horrible," he said. "$23,000." Well, in '72, $23K bought a new three-bedroom house in that city. Now a new 172 is $500K Canadian and that old house sells for more than $500K now. A new house will cost plenty more. Allowing for the inflated prices of homes, the new 172 is still as much as a new house across most of Canada, and that new 172 is a lot better than the '73 model.

We could debate this forever. I speak as a retired commercial pilot and flight instructor and an aircraft maintenance engineer (A&P/IA equivalent). Lots of experience on 172s, old and new, as well as the other singles. Those who see the restart airplanes as the same as the old are just uninformed. And the new airplanes are built under much heavier regulatory and litigious regimes than in '73.

Still, I wouldn't buy one. I'm not promoting Cessna. I prefer simpler airplanes. Buying is only half the struggle; maintaining all that stuff is also expensive.

 

[flyingron]

The 152 can't legally get off the ground with full fuel.

Say what?

A 152 with two FAA standard people and full fuel is within limits with room to spare. A 152 at gross will outclimb a 172 at gross.

The answer to why some of the classic designs aren't coming back easily is just that the potential sales doesn't allow a reasonable return on investment. Even if you had all the tooling (some of these efforts do, some don't), the number of sales you're likely facing is going to swamp the price you could consider actually get for these things.

The Navion when through several people with eyes on putting it back into production. In some of these cases there were even an entire backlog of parts that were left over when the factory shutdown in the 70s. Still there was no hope of actually getting anywhere.

 

[Dry Creek]

Textron recently "acquired" Pipestrel.
Pipestrel makes the Alpha Trainer (among other models). So, there is a producer of two-place trainers out there. At a miserly 3 gallons an hour with the 80 HP Rotax, I could see that they are pretty well suited for a flight school. I think that you can get a brand-new one for less than $175K too.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Say what?
The Navion when through several people with eyes on putting it back into production. In some of these cases there were even an entire backlog of parts that were left over when the factory shutdown in the 70s. Still there was no hope of actually getting anywhere.

It's an old story. The Lake Amphibian line, which started out as Colonial Aircraft, is owned by Revo, Inc, and has been for sale for years. They last produced an airplane in 2007. One airplane. Now they have a few parts. The Aeronca line of aircraft was bought by Champion, then by Bellanca, then by Champion again, then by Tetelestal, then by FRA Enterprises, then by American Champion Aircraft, and ACA is producing very few airplanes. American Aviation (AA-series) was sold to Grumman, who sold it to Gulfstream, who sold it to American General who transferred to the American General Holding company, who sold it to Tiger Aircraft, who sold it to True Flight Holdings. Interstate became, I think, Callair, and I think there was one other name in there somewhere. Can't remember it.

How many POAers have even heard of some of these airplanes?

There are easier ways to make money.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

You do realize Cessna didn’t design nor initially manufacture the TTX, right? They bought it, design, type certificate, tooling and staff when Lancair (?) went bankrupt. So saying Cessna gold plated the design is not accurate.

Yeah. Cessna screwed that program up trying to move manufacturing to Mexico… among other dumb ideas. The Corvallis was an awesome airplane.