What should Cessna do?

I'd partner up with a car company or otherwise that has one of those super huge sheet metal stamping tools and figure out a way to build an all new modern design that takes minimal hand assembly.

If they could bang out brand new modernized 152 and 172 with fuel injection and glass cockpits starting at 30k up to 75k that could jumpstart the aviation industry
 
The only place I see a market for a manufacturer is to deliver something with RV-10 performance at an RV-10 price with modern avionics comfortable interior, a FADEC controlled motor, and optional chute.
 
TCABM said:
The only place I see a market for a manufacturer is to deliver something with RV-10 performance at an RV-10 price with modern avionics comfortable interior, a FADEC controlled motor, and optional chute.
Click to expand...

So, a few 10's of millions in R&D and certification costs to capture, what? 500 planes per year (1/2 the market)? Let's say it was $20,000,000 in development cost plus $20,000,000 to set up a real production facility & line. They sell for $200,000 each (killer deal in today's market). Gross Profit of 5% (pretty high, but for easy math...). They have to sell 8,000 planes to break even. That's 16 years worth. Assuming no further R&D required nor any warranty, etc. costs.

Don't sign me up.
John
 
jsstevens said:
So, a few 10's of millions in R&D and certification costs to capture, what? 500 planes per year (1/2 the market)? Let's say it was $20,000,000 in development cost plus $20,000,000 to set up a real production facility & line. They sell for $200,000 each (killer deal in today's market). Gross Profit of 5% (pretty high, but for easy math...). They have to sell 8,000 planes to break even. That's 16 years worth. Assuming no further R&D required nor any warranty, etc. costs.

Don't sign me up.
John
Click to expand...

What is that trite phrase? How do you make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a large one...
A good example of the math above.

Tim
 
Great thread, I love posts and questions and discussions like this

StevieTimes said:
Here's where I think Cessna is at; Cirrus has a better product. It is safer, faster, and more modern in appearance. The used market offers more value. That leaves Cessna duking it out with Piper for some training airplanes, and let's be honest, most FBOs are going to buy used, right?
Click to expand...
Cirrus built something new and innovative, that doesn't just rely on a G1000 to "breath new life into it" (I cringe every time I see a Flying Mag article "XX breathes new life into a 70 year old design by changing the lights to LED and giving it a G1000!"). Cirrus did years of market research and built a product that fits the bill very nicely for what most people want (as proven by the sales figures). That is a comfortable interior, decently fast airplane, that looks and feels modern and is safe (hey it has a chute!). Yes, there are (some) planes that can do certain things better (new Moonies and TTx are faster... but they're smaller, no chute, etc.), there are planes that like back country flying, etc., but ultimately the Cirrus built something that is a very nice compromise.

In addition, they built a strong brand around it.. there is a whole Cirrus "swag" shop and the whole #Cirruslife, while oft ridiculed, is strong branding. There is no Piper or Cessna shop or #skyhawk life. The biggest thing, they bring aviation virgins into flying. I have brought people up in the Piper and the Skyhawk (including near new ones) and people aren't that impressed... it's like "oh cool, you're a pilot and we flew this crazy esoteric thing and didn't die".. when I bring virgins in the G5, they tell me "holy crap, this thing is nice! What do you need to fly it? How much are they to buy?" and on and on. Take a person who makes it big in their thirties, gets their license, and wants to buy their first plane. I can guarantee that just about all these people will be looking at Cirrus if they're buying new

StevieTimes said:
So the question is; who is buying a BRAND NEW 172 or 182? Why would you possibly want to do that? The used market will give you so much more for your money. I know that is likely true many places, but seriously, who here would spend close to $400,000 for a 172?
Click to expand...
I have no freaking idea. The fact that anyone would pay more than barely above used prices for what is effectively the same 1960s slow aluminum can POS is absolutely bonkers to me. "Hi, yes, I spent $400K to go 110 knots (or 135 knots in the 182, wow!) in a plane that, outside of Garmin's help, has had zero innovation since 1970" Don't get me wrong, a 172N or 182P, etc., are great rental planes and could make awesome planes for first time buyers. I have many fond hours in them. But expecting to pay $400K for one is like crudely jamming a TomTom GPS into a 1991 Suburban, giving it a swoopy paint scheme, and expecting it to go for Porsche Cayenne prices.

StevieTimes said:
So you are now the CEO of Cessna; what's the plan? Do you try to breathe some life into the venerable 172 and 182 models (faster, sleeker, "new Mustang" feel, maybe a 'chute), or do you cease production and focus on your real moneymakers?
Click to expand...
Let the brand die. Spin off a new brand (kind of like what Hyundai Genesis did). Don't abandon your base, there are some die hard high wing people out there and those who love the ruggedness of the 182, 206, 210, etc. Don't try to be Cirrus, be something else. I would:
-metal body for rugged (but composite wing) high wing singles with BRS as part of the plane from initial design point
-no RG, no prop control, ditch the vernier knobs once and for all
-onboard O2
-don't pretend to be luxury, give yourself a strong price advantage over Cirrus
-cultivate a brand image (okay, you're not Range Rover, big deal, maybe you can be an F150 or Explorer)
-give it 6 seats
-offer a few basic grim packages, IE, a basic model, a step model, and a top trim model.. give it a "bush" model, maybe with some added ground clearance, additional lift enhancing devices, maybe even a little survival pack built in or cooler... cheap gimmicky things that make you stand out)
-push for a 170 KTAS minimum KTAS for the higher end turbo models.., make it a great performer for short fields, slow flight, etc. Slats and flaps? Etc.
-use what you know from decades in the industry to save costs. There are well known Contis and Lycos out there, so that's a done deal. The G1000 is the standard, okay, and for the wings and frame composites aren't that new anymore and they have enough knowledge to design an airfoil.
^^in that approach, you probably wouldn't even have to take more than 20%-30% of Cirrus sales, if that even, but could pull a lot of new people in by offering something that has its own edge and talents, not just a Cirrus-copy-but-isn't-really-a-Cirrus

Ryanb said:
Cessna has been behind the innovation curve for awhile now. Products like the Skycatcher and soon to be released Denali are just unimpressive compared to the competition.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I can't figure out what the Denali is trying to be. Seems like a waste. Honestly, Piper and Cessna have both given up innovating. Why would you buy a Denali vs a PC-12? What does the Denali offer that the PC-12 doesn't? Genuine question here. The Caravan is an obvious plane that fits a different role.. but the Denali?

SkyDog58 said:
Shutting down the TTx was dumb.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think that was a very clear sign "we don't give a crap about the GA owner market. Big schools will buy our planes, and people can buy those used. We won't even pretend to cater to the higher end owner market with a fast plane. F off. But here is a $400K Skyhawk if you are dumb enough"

SkyDog58 said:
Shutting down the TTx was dumb. They should have added BRS and convinced people that it was better than Cirrus which it really was.
Click to expand...
While I agree, I think the TTx didn't really fit the "Cessna" image or product lineup so marketing that and taking Cirrus' sales would have been hard. So the people who love the 182, 206, 210, etc., probably aren't the same people looking at TTx or Cirrus. Even if they're loaded they're buying those used. And if someone wants a fast low wing, they're going to be looking at Cirrus (or maybe Mooney, but in that case you can buy a fast Mooney for $100K, used).

What's tough for Cessna is that the 172 and 182 do their jobs REALLY well, so it's a hard plane to make better. The 172 makes an *excellent* trainer, and the 182 makes an excellent rugged slightly faster step up. To make those products "better" yet stay honest to their role and buyer pool is a hard bill to fit. Why I think letting them die altogether and offering something a little different (but has the same core talents) would be a shoe in. Build 6 seat metal fuselage, composite high wings, large door. I think that would sell like crazy.

James331 said:
As far as "safety" cirrus is not more or less "safe" that's on the pilots
Click to expand...
THANK YOU. 100%. Quantitatively the parachute is always nice to have.. but at the end of the day it's up to the pilots to ensure safety
 
The TTX was the red-headed step child. It was designed, certificated, and built by Lanceair. I think Cessna decided that buying the remains of Lanceair was cheaper than designing their own composite airframe. But they couldn't sell very many for whatever reason, and I imagine there was no one there to defend it from the chopping block.

I might agree that Cessna isn't doing well. If we can't see a viable market for their products I can't see who will. And I agree, paying that kind of money for antiquated technology that is virtually frozen in the past is nearly ludicrous. And yes, Cessna could make new products. Cirrus did it with nothing. But I doubt they will. I doubt the folks who run Textron have any great love for personal airplanes.
 
A lot of great ideas for direction and new products, but as others have pointed out, the economics just aren't there. First off, the market (licensed private pilots) is shrinking and that existing market is accustom to spending less than $100K. Honestly, how many people can afford or justify spending $200K for an airplane? I don't see anyway a new aircraft described in the comments that is brought to market sells less than this and that's probably under priced by 100%. Sure, there are some that could afford an aircraft at that price point, but no way is there enough of those folks to make any new development profitable. I don't think people are sitting on the fence waiting for a new model. People would buy new existing aircraft models if they could afford it. Also, don't forget acquisition is just part of the cost. Wish it was different, but that's the reality...
 
Best thing you could do for aviation is roll the country back to the 50s laws and education wise, lower taxes and increase freedoms.

As more and more generations are basically potty trained at gunpoint, taxed into slavery and everyone is scared of their own shadow and of being sued or not having all the things over insured, this culture does not mesh with aviation or with aviation being affordable.

I think it's more a culture issue than a logistic issue
 
James331 said:
Best thing you could do for aviation is roll the country back to the 50s laws and education wise, lower taxes and increase freedoms.

As more and more generations are basically potty trained at gunpoint, taxed into slavery and everyone is scared of their own shadow and of being sued or not having all the things over insured, this culture does not mesh with aviation or with aviation being affordable.

I think it's more a culture issue than a logistic issue
Click to expand...

Um, taxes were much higher percentage wise.

Tim
 
SoonerAviator said:
It's not likely much of an impact. I'm sure Cessna can work out a decent bargain price on whatever avionics panel they want to throw in there. Even if they're spending $40K on the flat-panel G1000 NXi and could put in a 6-pack and radio stack for $10K, it doesn't come close to making enough impact to drop the selling price out of the stratosphere.

As far as a merger, Garmin would have to be crazy to consider it. They don't make aircraft, nor do they want to. I haven't ever looked at their financials, but I seriously doubt that aviation is their biggest market. Marine and consumer electronics may not fetch the same high prices, but they will have tons more volume. Cessna would just manage to screw up Garmin, too, lol.

What needs to happen (but won't) is the Part 23 re-write should be extremely aggressive in reducing costs of certification and removing it where not necessary. It's about the only way anything significant will ever happen in the new piston-GA market. Until then, experimentals and LSAs are the way to go.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was not seriously considering that Cessna and Garmin would merge as I agree Garmin is a far more sustainable company without the drag of GA tied to it. I was more considering and suggesting that for Cessna the opportunity to get discounts from Garmin by purchasing in bulk would be important.

Interessting that the cost is only around 30k for the avionics. I would have suspected more.
 
jspilot said:
Yeah I was not seriously considering that Cessna and Garmin would merge as I agree Garmin is a far more sustainable company without the drag of GA tied to it. I was more considering and suggesting that for Cessna the opportunity to get discounts from Garmin by purchasing in bulk would be important.

Interessting that the cost is only around 30k for the avionics. I would have suspected more.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the true cost for Cessna is, nor does anyone else who isn't in Cessna's procurement department or Garmin's sales department. However, it used to be roughly a $30K price differential between six pack+radio stack vs dual certified flat-panel. So even if you took that $30K out of the sales price, it's still a $350K C172. No one is lining up to buy them at any price in that range. Bulk-pricing from Garmin or not.

Last time I was in Cessna's independence manufacturing plant was about 25 years ago, and Garmin was barely in existence, much less making equipment for GA. :)
 
mscard88 said:
Yup, small flight schools have low margins. The one where I instruct has 4 of 5 planes on lease back, and one C172 owned by the flight school owner. They range from a '69 Arrow, '76 140 to early 80s 152 &172s. Avionics on most are 430s, 650.
Click to expand...

Part 61 I learned to fly at is pretty much this setup to the letter. I've watched them, slowly and carefully, add and upgrade over time... very slowly....
 
What aviation needs as a hole is to focus on volume to lower price. The manufacturers should work together to develop common parts, design principles, materials. Competition is good when volumes are high but destructive when they are low. Similar to how Toyota has rebadged Mazda’s and Subaru cars.
 
I have high confidence that the millennial generation will turn the GA market around. Millennials are so creative :)

Camo seats. Camo seats will save the industry.
 
James331 said:
Best thing you could do for aviation is roll the country back to the 50s laws and education wise, lower taxes and increase freedoms.

As more and more generations are basically potty trained at gunpoint, taxed into slavery and everyone is scared of their own shadow and of being sued or not having all the things over insured, this culture does not mesh with aviation or with aviation being affordable.

I think it's more a culture issue than a logistic issue
Click to expand...

I could not agree more! You need to look no further than the EU to see where GA is heading in the U.S.A...
 
Stewartb said:
Cessna needs to decide whether to build modern go-fast airplanes or stay with relatively slow utility airplanes. If it's the latter, they should lose the cushy appointments and maximize utility. They've carved a niche in between two ideologies and the market is leaving them behind. They have the ability to be kings of the industry. They lack direction to do so.
Click to expand...

The latter (utility planes) is what Cessna seems to have going for them. Since Textron owns both Beech and Cessna I'd focus the Cessna single engine lineup with utility in mind. Focus on offering 206s and 208s with appropriate appointments (no fluff) to operators and adventure seekers and drop the 172 and 182. I also think the Denali has merit and should continue to be developed.

Beech could cover the higher end performance and cushy appointments in the single and multiengine piston market for Textron. It might be time to revisit the bonanza/baron design to generate more interest and to make them competitive with Cirrus and Diamond. I suspect that the KA90 will eventually be discontinued but the 200 still has a place.

Cessna has the jets covered.

One thing I see from a maintenance perspective is that Piper seems to have better support for their older airplanes, and also better parts pricing. Textron/Cessna/Beech should take note of this and focus some effort there. With aging airframes there could potentially be an entirely new business model emerging, that of product support and refurbishment.
 
On the other side of the discussion? Cessna has the TCs and tooling for their SE line paid for many times over. They have no investment dollars at stake so they really don't need to sell many airplanes when compared to a new R&D effort and inventory for a new model (like the Jet A 172?) Milk that cow til she goes dry, and apparently that hasn't happened yet.
 
Make the 180/185 again. Basic stripped and light!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Steven Untet said:
Make the 180/185 again. Basic stripped and light!!!
Click to expand...

That would be a good start. Even if Cessna just did a limited production run of them like Piper did with the Super Cub, I'd bet all of them would be purchased relatively quickly.
 
exncsurfer said:
What about these guys, could they have the new '152' trainer? Or are they doomed as well?

https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger.php

New, glass panel, autopilot, roomy, for 100K?
Click to expand...

I think they missed the mark by 50 or 100 lbs on useful load. You need to be able to load up two 200 pounders, 3 hours of gas, and 30 pounds of baggage to make it at all useful as a trainer or a personal aircraft.
 
Steven Untet said:
Make the 180/185 again. Basic stripped and light!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

With the dumbing down of aviation with the new ACS and the focus on training in the easiest planes possible, it'll be hard to find new pilots who could handle a skywagon.
 
exncsurfer said:
What about these guys, could they have the new '152' trainer? Or are they doomed as well?

https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger.php

New, glass panel, autopilot, roomy, for 100K?
Click to expand...

I think they have a shot. Because of one critical point. They do not expect to make money. The owners who started this already made their money, doing this for fun, had all the capital equipment and automated tooling to keep production costs low.
There was an interesting youtube video floating around with the founder of the company giving these details.

Tim
 
The one thing the 1950's had that we don't (besides Marilyn Monroe) was a large population of pilots trained by uncle Sam.
 
Tantalum said:
In addition, they built a strong brand around it.. there is a whole Cirrus "swag" shop and the whole #Cirruslife, while oft ridiculed, is strong branding. There is no Piper or Cessna shop or #skyhawk life. The biggest thing, they bring aviation virgins into flying. I have brought people up in the Piper and the Skyhawk (including near new ones) and people aren't that impressed... it's like "oh cool, you're a pilot and we flew this crazy esoteric thing and didn't die".. when I bring virgins in the G5, they tell me "holy crap, this thing is nice! What do you need to fly it? How much are they to buy?" and on and on. Take a person who makes it big in their thirties, gets their license, and wants to buy their first plane. I can guarantee that just about all these people will be looking at Cirrus if they're buying new
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm going to expose myself here and probably open myself up to all kinds of comments, so here goes...

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. When I first started investigating learning to fly a few years ago (but I didn't start until recently when I moved back to Colorado), I decided pretty early on that I wanted to train in a Cirrus, because if I ever was blessed enough to own a piston single, it would probably be an SR20 or SR22. I know initial training should be much more about the stick-and-rudder skills and the basics. I get that. But the type of aircraft still played a part in my decision. I wanted to train in something that I was likely to rent or own down the road, and something I enjoyed.

"they bring aviation virgins into flying" - yep, it did me.

"when I bring virgins in the G5..." - yep, my first discovery flight was in a G5 SR22 and I was impressed.

So as shallow and naive as it might be, especially for a new low-time student pilot like myself, was the Cirrus "allure" part of my decision to start training, and to train in a Cirrus? Yep. Yep it was.
 
I really like Vashon’s thinking. I just wish they hadn’t succumbed to the temptation to force fit it into the LSA weight restrictions. That limits what they can do too much.

The reason we all end up flying Skyhawks around here and not two seaters is performance in hot weather.

The rest of it, the automation in assembly, the “you can get it in any color as long as it’s white...” (shades of Henry Ford there) and the desire to make it rugged enough (in theory) for floatplane work (why isn’t there a factory demo already on floats on day one? - are they hoping for a weight increase like Icon got?), the Dynon “panel” in one device, all of that is good.

It’s the weight and climb performance problem that’ll keep that aircraft from being popular here.

If they could go a little heavier and hang something with a little more horsepower on the front, it’d work better at our density altitudes.

But they went LSA... sigh. And they didn’t do the Carbon Cub thing of “only use all of that horsepower for takeoff... wink wink nudge nudge...”

They’re competing against used 150s and 152s and those are cheaper than a used sports car.

Not trying to put too fine of a point on it, but more of those need to be wrecked for their business model to be much much happier. Even the “pilot shortage” and lots of training going on, won’t fix that for them. If a school can buy a used 150 at $30K vs a new Vashon at $100K, where’s the value proposition for the owner?

$100K is an incredible price for a new aircraft, but there needs to be a whole lot less used aircraft (and/or whatever is left needs to be in a lot rattier condition) before a buyer is compelled to pay the $100K... unless they want new, that is. And some do. But a business ... won’t.

You can buy 150/152 aircraft for nearly as low as the price of the inevitable engine replacement alone. That’s a huge damper on their target market.

And up here, the schools won’t even buy the 150/152. They have to bump up to the 172. Nobody needs or usually uses the back seats in the things, we just need the performance when operated as a two-seater.

They should have built it as a Skyhawk replacement and truly kicked Cessna’s butt. New Skyhawk for $150K? Now you’re cooking with gas. You STILL have to compete with the vast used Skyhawk fleet, but you didn’t force fit the airplane into LSA weights and by definition, LSA performance numbers.

Looks like a great little airplane to fly. It needs more horsepower for up here.
 
LoneAspen said:
So as shallow and naive as it might be, especially for a new low-time student pilot like myself, was the Cirrus "allure" part of my decision to start training, and to train in a Cirrus? Yep. Yep it was.
Click to expand...
Not shallow and naive at all! We live in the 21st century, and the aircraft we fly should match the rest of the advances we've made in the last 70 years technologically. And I think it makes perfect sense to train in the airplane you plane to fly long term, *especially* with the Cirrus since its handling, while generally very stable and predictable, is slightly less forgiving of sloppy airmanship than a Skyhawk.. especially when you are on the lower end of the speed spectrum and maneuvering

LoneAspen said:
I know initial training should be much more about the stick-and-rudder skills and the basics. I get that. But the type of aircraft still played a part in my decision.
Click to expand...
I am going to say it, and am ready for the comments :devil: but I truly believe that learning to fly in a more complex airplane is a *good* thing. People like to say "you should train in a Skyhawk, learn basic stick and rudder, etc." but as far I know the Cirrus is not a fly by wire plane and requires more (not less) coordination and attention when hand flying it. I think I'm a better stick and rudder pilot because of the Cirrus, not despite it. The control feels and input and responses from most trainers is so muted it's a joke. You're not really learning "skills" when it takes 4 inches of control deflection to get a meaningful response from the airplane, and even then it's like "well okay Timmy, if you really want to turn left I'll give you a 15 degree bank"

Requiring precision and skill early on in your training is a good, not a bad thing. Planes like the Archer and Skyhawk are remarkably obedient to very sloppy flying. What happens when you have 90 hrs in a Skyhawk and you step up to a Cirrus? Guess what, you can't be cutting that turn to final with the ball off centered cheating it in a 45 degree bank. I think that is much more likely to bite you and get in trouble vs just learning in a discipline required airplane from the get go. Yeah yeah magenta line and autopilots, but most of your primary work is going to be hand flying steep turns, stalls, slow flight, etc. You won't really get into the AP stuff until you're doing cross countries and/or going for IR

I've heard people after transitioning up to a 182 be a bit out of sorts as well. Never mind engine management, but the slightly faster speeds and different landing and handling characteristics of a beefier plane catch a lot of people off guard.. so I have to ask, if you plan to fly a 182 long term, why not just train in that? Same goes for Mooney, Bo, etc. If you can afford it (which if you plan to fly something long term then the answer is generally "yes") then you should learn to fly in the plane you plan to fly. That's my (likely unpopular) opinion
 
denverpilot said:
If a school can buy a used 150 at $30K vs a new Vashon at $100K, where’s the value proposition for the owner?
Click to expand...
You're totally right. Unless you just really want something "new" then there isn't one

denverpilot said:
They should have built it as a Skyhawk replacement and truly kicked Cessna’s butt. New Skyhawk for $150K? Now you’re cooking with gas.
Click to expand...
Seriously! Right on!

The other problem is, that outside of changes in avionics, planes have, as a whole, evolved very little since the 1950s (let's just be honest). Ultimately it is still a fuselage and wings.. private jets and airliners have advanced more since there is more volume there, but with something like a 172, 182, PA28, etc., there is very little reason to buy new. Even if you want fancy avionics you can find well equipped planes on the used market, or just spend the $10K-$40K to outfit yourself the way you want it (GTN650, etc.) and still have a kick ass plane for a fraction of the cost of a new plane that is going to have the same performance (or in some cases better since the older planes tend to be lighter)

Mooney I think got hurt the hardest by this. You can find a *really* nice fast Mooney for under $150K. All things aside (BRS, size, Cirrus-this, Cirrus-that), I think that's a big reason Mooney sales have pretty much disappeared. Why spend $650K+ when you can get a really nice, fast Mooney for well under $150K

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/25403185/1983-mooney-m20j-201
I mean, seriously?! $105K and you get the following
-170 KTAS cruise speed
-GTN650
-Aspen
-JPI
-mid time engine
-leather seats

The low price of Moonies always amazes me. I'm 6'0, and while yes the panel is close to you, I don't find them as small as people portend them to be

Or, you can spend MORE money and get this... I'm scratching my head so hard I'm bleeding
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2N+SKYHAWK&listing_id=2293222&s-type=aircraft
Fine, it has a zero time engine... but that panel and interior are pathetic. Oh.. and you'll be spending more money to go 60 knots slower. Even if we back the price of the engine out ($30K) you still have a plane that's basically the same cost as the Mooney above, but has garbage for a panel, and garbage performance
 
denverpilot said:
They should have built it as a Skyhawk replacement and truly kicked Cessna’s butt. New Skyhawk for $150K? Now you’re cooking with gas.
Click to expand...

Tecnam added 2 seats to a $150k P2008 and ended up with a $360k P2010. I doubt Vashon could get a $150k 4-seater from a $100k Ranger. Maybe they're waiting for part 23 rewrite?

And as far as kicking Cessna's butt, how's the $260k Vulcanair V1.0 doing?
 
Tantalum said:
You're totally right. Unless you just really want something "new" then there isn't one


Seriously! Right on!

The other problem is, that outside of changes in avionics, planes have, as a whole, evolved very little since the 1950s (let's just be honest). Ultimately it is still a fuselage and wings.. private jets and airliners have advanced more since there is more volume there, but with something like a 172, 182, PA28, etc., there is very little reason to buy new. Even if you want fancy avionics you can find well equipped planes on the used market, or just spend the $10K-$40K to outfit yourself the way you want it (GTN650, etc.) and still have a kick ass plane for a fraction of the cost of a new plane that is going to have the same performance (or in some cases better since the older planes tend to be lighter)

Mooney I think got hurt the hardest by this. You can find a *really* nice fast Mooney for under $150K. All things aside (BRS, size, Cirrus-this, Cirrus-that), I think that's a big reason Mooney sales have pretty much disappeared. Why spend $650K+ when you can get a really nice, fast Mooney for well under $150K

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/25403185/1983-mooney-m20j-201
I mean, seriously?! $105K and you get the following
-170 KTAS cruise speed
-GTN650
-Aspen
-JPI
-mid time engine
-leather seats

The low price of Moonies always amazes me. I'm 6'0, and while yes the panel is close to you, I don't find them as small as people portend them to be

Or, you can spend MORE money and get this... I'm scratching my head so hard I'm bleeding
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2N+SKYHAWK&listing_id=2293222&s-type=aircraft
Fine, it has a zero time engine... but that panel and interior are pathetic. Oh.. and you'll be spending more money to go 60 knots slower. Even if we back the price of the engine out ($30K) you still have a plane that's basically the same cost as the Mooney above, but has garbage for a panel, and garbage performance
Click to expand...

Lol....125K for the Skyhawk...
 
Vashon went LSA because the certification process to make a real airplane would have made the project inviable. It would have driven up the cost to the point where no one would buy it. Still I applaud their efforts. A LOT of aircraft for the money, and they didn't try and push a computer drawing to lure investors. They just came out and sold airplanes.

There is something utterly irrational about Skyhawks, sort of like the irrationality surrounding Piper Cubs. The guys in the hangar across from me bought a Skyhawk XP. It has a bigger engine than my Mooney, so it burns more gas to go more slowly. Cosmetically it looked horrid (until they had it painted by the same guy who painted my Mooney back in the day!) , the panel is nearly nonexistent, and yet they spent more on it than I did on my Mooney. And these guys aren't an N of one, I've seen others.
 
Thoughts just responding down your post...@tantalum

“Less forgiving” just means it’ll stall sooner. If proper stall avoidance is taught, it doesn’t create any particular benefit over something that doesn’t stall as crisply or build as large of a sink rate.

Cirrus isn’t a particularly complex aircraft. All the complexity is in the panel. Ignore the TV screens, it’s a stick, a throttle, and rudder pedals like anything else.

Control inputs on all airplanes become larger as speed and control effectiveness decrease. The amount of control input necessary in any particular aircraft is simply something you adjust to.

It’s not forcing or teaching precision per se just because it’s “touchy” compared to something else. There are plenty of pilots who can “paint the needles on” (paint the speed tape on? ha...) in a “sloppy” airplane with larger control movements, get out of it and into another that requires less control deflection, and do the exact same thing.

What an airplane with less control deflection WILL do is teach the student not to overcontrol a little faster. Downside is, they hop into something that actuallyneeds the control deflection and they don’t adjust and won’t just do it, so they don’t use enough control input.

Best plan: Teach students in ways that emphasize moving the controls “as much as it takes” to stop a particular flight path, or whatever. If the wind gust requires absolute all-the-way-to-the-stop full aileron, then use it. Don’t even think about how far the control yoke or stick is moving until it hits a mechanical limit. Just move it.

Nobody who flies different types cares whether that’s four inches of sidestick or turning a yoke all the way around to upside down. You get beyond thinking of it in terms of “how far” and “how much” and just move it until the airplane goes where you want it to.

The corollary here is, if you can’t get a Cessna rapidly into a 60 degree bank, you’re just way too timid on the controls IN A CESSNA. We have to adapt to the aircraft. Being able to flick a side stick isn’t teaching any better or worse airmanship, it’s just different. If you KNOW you’re slow in a Cessna and need large control deflections, then MAKE them. :)

I do agree with the assessment to fly what you’re going to fly the most. That builds both good and bad habits. Like you said, you flew Cirri and now you think moving the controls large amounts is some sort of problem or related to precision... it’s actually not, if you see what I’m saying. You can fly an airplane that needs large control movements very precisely.

Ask the B-17 drivers. Watch the yoke on one of those. Then see where their needles are. They’re not moving. The pilots are very precise. They don’t think about how much they’re moving the yoke, they just do it. But it’s moving. A lot.
 
@denverpilot

By sloppy feel I would guess @tatulum is referencing less about feel more about control. In a Cessna 172/182 if you do not have the ball centered, most pilots do not notice. If you are 5 knots fast on final, you might use an extra 100ft of runway. If you are late flairing, you go thunk on the runway. If you over flair, you drop onto the runway.
Try any of that in a Cirrus and the experience is rather different. 5 knots fast, you just floated 500ft down the runway. Not centered, you lose five knots of speed, and watch the stall speed climb on the blocked wing. Flair late, you bounce on the runway and could be looking at a prop strike... Over flair, your but will notice.

The basic point, both planes can flown precisely. However, the Cirrus is just less tolerant of sloppy flying. (Same could be said for Mooney)

Tim
 
steingar said:
There is something utterly irrational about Skyhawks
Click to expand...
Yes. They're irrationally expensive and irrationally desired.
Mooneys have the same on the inverse side, they're irrationally inexpensive and people tend to irrationally either love or hate them. I've gone to the Cirrus side now, but in another life I could see myself on the Mooney side. I have a friend currently in the process of buying an F
 
Unfortunately, what GA really needs is what got it going in the first place, which is Uncle Sam training a couple million pilots on his own dime. Get enough guys in the air and lots will buy airplanes, and they'll pass on the bug to some of their kids. Don't see that ever happening again, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top