What should Cessna do?

[Tantalum]

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.

I think I saw a video somewhere of a Tu-154(?) landing and the pilots were crazy on the controls but the plane was very precise. Any plane can be flown precisely by the right pilot, my point was more:

In a Cessna 172/182 if you do not have the ball centered, most pilots do not 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)

Exactly. The Skyhawk will forgive someone for not being precise while a Cirrus will let you know that you were off

At any rate, back to the OP's point. The 172 and 182 will be hard to "make better" without a dramatic overhaul.. but it is (was?) do-able. Plenty of people love high wings.. I think it's obvious that they're just more interested now in the bigger pie, IE, NOT the GA world. It's too bad

 

[tspear]

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

I would be all over a Mooney if they had two doors. For some irrational reason, that is a deal breaker for me.

Tim

 

[tspear]

At any rate, back to the OP's point. The 172 and 182 will be hard to "make better" without a dramatic overhaul.. but it is (was?) do-able. Plenty of people love high wings.. I think it's obvious that they're just more interested now in the bigger pie, IE, NOT the GA world. It's too bad

Actually, the 172/182 could be made significantly better without a clean sheet.
A few examples:
1. Make the chute an option from the factory
2. Redesign the wing spar so no struts are needed
3. Put descent wheel pants on the plane so there is a lot less drag
4. Fix the cowl design, it currently lets in way to much air and adds a crap load of cooling drag
5. Round the windshield and lengthen it for a better slope for drag reduction.
6. Put in decent handle points so people stop pulling off the panel covers.

I am sure there is a lot more on the product side. I have no real idea where to start on the manufacturing, but Cessna like Cirrus should focus on making the 172/182/206 as identical as possible. Cirrus uses the same wing spar and wings for both the 20 and 22 (most model years, not sure about currently) for example. The wing structures, or maybe the complete wings and most of the fuselage should be shared between the three models for Cessna. Take a page from Ted Smith, make all three tail feathers the exact same part...

Tim

 

[denverpilot]

@tspear I get it. I do. But there’s airplanes that are a LOT more unforgiving than a Cirrus. To cross over the line from “this thing needs a bit more care” to “this thing teaches me to be a better pilot just because my instructor doesn’t want to die, and let’s me get away with chit in a Skyhawk” is where it goes a little over the line into marketing wank and fanboy-ism.

If someone wanted to say soloing a Pitts made them a better pilot, I’m more inclined to agree with that than someone saying the Cirrus did it for them.

Or something so high powered that won’t even allow a full power takeoff because there literally isn’t enough right rudder authority to keep it on the runway.

Those are extreme examples, but I use them because the Cirrus is far from extreme.

@Ted DuPuis has way more chit to think about and handle in his MU-2 than any Cirrus pilot.

Most of the precision and desire for precision is driven by the standard the instructor sets, and can be accomplished in a “forgiving” or “unforgiving” aircraft. Problem is, a lot of instructors won’t demand precision. They’ll suddenly demand it when the airplane is going to kill them and their student instead of demanding it in all airplanes.

That’s a human factors thing more than the airplane being “better” because it’s fussy. Don’t demand precision in a Skyhawk you’ll have to break bad habits later in anything bigger and faster or more complex.

Landing a nosedragger while being blown sideways across the runway has to be just as “wrong” as doing it in a taildragger when teaching. It’s just that the taildragger will bite both the student and instructor square in the ass if the instructor allows it. So magically the standard “changes”. Or does it? Nope. The standard was always there. The instructors just let people get away with chit flying when it won’t kill them too.

And sadly one of the highest fatality rates in the Cirri taken by themselves, is when you remove weather related numbers is the base to final turn. Usually WITH and instructor on board, which just floors me. Something is wrong with the building blocks stacked in two peoples heads, one who’s supposed to be teaching them, for that accident to occur.

I get it when someone says they’d rather see someone trained in a less docile airplane than most trainers. But usually that also means they themselves get it, that the standard itself needs to be maintained in all aircraft. It’s an attitude and it starts at the first lesson.

 

[denverpilot]

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?

I think that’s why they went LSA. And it’s a long term mistake. But at least for now, until more of the 70s mega-fleet is wrecked or parted out, so is buying a $100K LSA.

Eventually it’ll make sense. All of the other stuff they’re doing does.

They have another thing going for them. A fleet manager isn’t going to buy European LSAs they can’t get replacement parts for quickly. Those who have, have paid for it in downtime. If they can ship in a few days from WA, they’ve beat a major problem the local LSA operators have had more than once.

Again though, that’s up against junkyards full of Cessna parts. If there’s no requirement to purchase new aircraft.

 

[James331]

LSAs, at least the designed from scratch to be a LSA, don't make sense, won't make sense, hence basic med.

 

[tspear]

@denverpilot

Never considered the aspect of variable standard due to equipment vs human nature. But yeah, I agree.

Tim

 

[labbadabba]

Make the 180/185 again. Basic stripped and light!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or a canard 182...

 

[labbadabba]

Cessna could purchase the Symphony 160 line to replace the 172. That always seemed like a slam dunk. Better performer than a skyhawk, 2-seater that can carry full fuel and 2 fat guys, decent panel, and more modern looking.

 

[Tantalum]

But there’s airplanes that are a LOT more unforgiving than a Cirrus

Totally. It really isn't even that demanding to be honest. It's more that Skyhawks let you get away with (almost) murder. My (slight, okay maybe more than slight) fanboyism I think is in response to everyone else's auto-i-hate-it response. In reality if the thing flies I'm happy with it. There's a 172N/180 conversion at our club that I really like, it has a GTN650 and is probably the nicest flying high wing I've been in. But more than 2 hrs flight time, or have wife with me, or any real extended IMC.. I'll take the Cirrus

Problem is, a lot of instructors won’t demand precision

don't doubt that at all. Not so much a fault of the airplane as maybe just lazy instruction.The difference in a CFI who is 24 and just wants to build hours one summer, vs, the guy who is older and does this as his passion, often retired. Not always the case, but in my experience the older instructors were calmer, and yet also made me a better pilot

@tspear , it could be made a lot better, you are right, I agree with a lot of your points.. but maybe from a marketing perspective it needs that overhaul. But with so many used airplanes out there it's a miracle anyone can sell a brand new plane

Incidentally, Extra at one point made a high wing (Extra 400), actually a pretty legit plane at least per the numbers. 6 seat, pressurized, FL250 ceiling, 210 KTAS cruise... thing was an utter failure though
Allegedly the LIQUID cooled engine by Continental was the killer. Frankly it was also pretty goofy looking

 

[tspear]

@Tantalum

Cessna should follow Cirrus. Make the 172 G1 by removing the struts.
Two years later, make the G2 by fixing the windshield....

Basically, Cirrus followed the car company example. Gradual, and continuous improvement in the product. Likely due to regulations, the Cirrus changes are every two to three years on average for the larger items with smaller changes mid year (mostly related to warranty claims or manufacturing savings).

Tim

 

[SoonerAviator]

Actually, the 172/182 could be made significantly better without a clean sheet.
A few examples:
1. Make the chute an option from the factory
2. Redesign the wing spar so no struts are needed
3. Put descent wheel pants on the plane so there is a lot less drag
4. Fix the cowl design, it currently lets in way to much air and adds a crap load of cooling drag
5. Round the windshield and lengthen it for a better slope for drag reduction.
6. Put in decent handle points so people stop pulling off the panel covers.

I am sure there is a lot more on the product side. I have no real idea where to start on the manufacturing, but Cessna like Cirrus should focus on making the 172/182/206 as identical as possible. Cirrus uses the same wing spar and wings for both the 20 and 22 (most model years, not sure about currently) for example. The wing structures, or maybe the complete wings and most of the fuselage should be shared between the three models for Cessna. Take a page from Ted Smith, make all three tail feathers the exact same part...

Tim

So then, bring back the C177 with a parachute? Lol.

 

[tspear]

So then, bring back the C177 with a parachute? Lol.

Yeah, but call it a 172 G3....
Recall how many people talk about Cirrus branding. The 172/182 have a solid brand but are really aged, and not well. The 177 has no brand.

Tim

 

[labbadabba]

@Tantalum

Cessna should follow Cirrus. Make the 172 G1 by removing the struts.
Two years later, make the G2 by fixing the windshield....

Basically, Cirrus followed the car company example. Gradual, and continuous improvement in the product. Likely due to regulations, the Cirrus changes are every two to three years on average for the larger items with smaller changes mid year (mostly related to warranty claims or manufacturing savings).

Tim

My understanding is that removing the struts wouldn't be an iterative change. It would amount to a wholesale change to the plane.

I think finding a way to strip they plane down, make it lighter while still maintaining a decent build quality would go a long way.

I like the idea of cleaning up the cowling and the windscreen, this I think would make a huge difference in performance. Clean up the plane aerodynamically as much as is reasonable. If a P2010 can claim 130ktas and close to 1,000lb useful load with an IO-360, make that your target, not a SR22.

 

[mondtster]

Cessna could purchase the Symphony 160 line to replace the 172. That always seemed like a slam dunk. Better performer than a skyhawk, 2-seater that can carry full fuel and 2 fat guys, decent panel, and more modern looking.

If the Symphony was so good, why hasn't it really caught on?

A friend of mine owned one. It is long gone and one of the many planes replacing it is a brand new Archer. That says something to me because he can afford any light airplane he wishes to own. No clue what he didn't like about the Symphony, but he obviously didn't like it or else it would still be here.

 

[Tantalum]

Personally to me, outside of some unique or specialty applications, two seaters for GA are dead on arrival. Even if you rarely have people in the backseat, that extra payload ability is nice, and it is nice to be able to bring some friends and family up flying from time to time and use those back seats. I know everybody has a sweet spot for the 152 and 150 aerobats, but I think most new pilots realistically want something a little more substantial and have at least four seats

 

[mondtster]

Personally to me, outside of some unique or specialty applications, two seaters for GA are dead on arrival. Even if you rarely have people in the backseat, that extra payload ability is nice, and it is nice to be able to bring some friends and family up flying from time to time and use those back seats. I know everybody has a sweet spot for the 152 and 150 aerobats, but I think most new pilots realistically want something a little more substantial and have at least four seats

On the whole I think you're right, most people seem to want the biggest, fastest airplane they can afford so they can go on trips and feel like they're getting somewhere.

I wouldn't say that two seaters are completely dead though. Look at the demand for Super Cubs and copies of them and you'll see that there are desirable two seat airplanes.

 

[denverpilot]

Personally to me, outside of some unique or specialty applications, two seaters for GA are dead on arrival. Even if you rarely have people in the backseat, that extra payload ability is nice, and it is nice to be able to bring some friends and family up flying from time to time and use those back seats. I know everybody has a sweet spot for the 152 and 150 aerobats, but I think most new pilots realistically want something a little more substantial and have at least four seats

I think two seaters plus NO baggage is DOA. Or two seats plus light bags and have to leave all the fuel off.

The vast majority of Skyhawk users never use the back seats for anything but piling crap that can’t be put all the way in the tail.

@ericjensen has mentioned that his LSA meets his 2 plus light bags needs, quite well over the years.

But two plus REAL WIFE BAGGAGE (LOL!) plus reasonable fuel, is really the sweet spot.

Unfortunately that ends up above the LSA weight limit by nature of the real world physics when you put an engine in it that’ll lift that.

The vast majority of airplane owner/travelers are two people until they have kids, and then they’re all here asking about six seaters so they can do two adults, two kids, and real baggage for that troupe.

They need that sized particular model of airplane for about 20 years max. Then they want to go back to two plus bags.

And for as few true family vacations as are taken in the six seaters, an awful lot of folks with limited budgets would be fine with the two plus bags $100 faraway-hamburger-run machine.

 

[SoonerAviator]

For me, a two seater should be sporty like an RV, rugged like a Husky, or good for aerobatics like a Decathlon. I don’t see the allure of a 152 or similar.

I also don’t desire a 172 outside of training, as the 182 is a true 4-seater/load hauler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pilawt]

Actually, the 172/182 could be made significantly better without a clean sheet.
A few examples:
2. Redesign the wing spar so no struts are needed

They tried that, in 1967. The experimental Model 182M had cantilever wings similar to the 210G. It was heavier, more expensive to build and not significantly faster than the strutted 182. Plus, the spar carry-through on a cantilever high wing intrudes into the cabin ceiling (on a low wing it can be hidden under the seats). Cessna engineers have said that for the most part, increased weight of a cantilever wing structure offsets the benefit of drag reduction.

3. Put descent wheel pants on the plane so there is a lot less drag

If the fairing are bigger or cleaner, by nature they'll be heavier, more expensive and more difficult to maintain. I have the current-style Cessna factory wheel and brake fairings, and they're a pain. Next time they need repair they'll just come off for good.

5. Round the windshield and lengthen it for a better slope for drag reduction.

If the windshield of a 172 or 182 is extended any further forward (à la M20J) it will cover part of the cowl, making engine access even more difficult.

Cessna like Cirrus should focus on making the 172/182/206 as identical as possible. Cirrus uses the same wing spar and wings for both the 20 and 22 (most model years, not sure about currently) for example. The wing structures, or maybe the complete wings and most of the fuselage should be shared between the three models for Cessna.

That's pretty much what Piper did with the PA-28/32/34/44 series. But although many parts look alike, they are often different structurally. A wing stressed for the weight of a Dakota would be too heavy to use on a Warrior, for example.

 

[Pilawt]

I know everybody has a sweet spot for the 152 and 150 aerobats, but I think most new pilots realistically want something a little more substantial and have at least four seats

As much as I love the 150/152, I understand why Cessna didn't bring it back. For the major manufacturers, the two-seat trainers were always loss-leaders -- their value to the company lay in establishing brand loyalty in students so later on they'll come back and buy a bigger model from the same company. A 150 cost Cessna almost as much in labor and materials as a basic 172, but Cessna sold them for only about 2/3 the price of a 172.

 

[steingar]

I wouldn't say that two seaters are completely dead though. Look at the demand for Super Cubs and copies of them and you'll see that there are desirable two seat airplanes.

Were that true all the other tandem two-seaters would be equally desirable, and they aren't. I've said it before, the demand for Cubs is nearly irrational. The demand for Super Cubs makes a bit more sense, since they excel as bush planes. Then again, how many are actually operating as bush planes I don't know. I've seen those things doing landings in little turf strips here that all have long paved runways within a 5 minute flight. Could be more irrationality at play.

Like the man said, had the Symphony (a certificated version of a Glastar Sportsman) been that desirable, they'd still be making them. In the mean time Cessna still makes the Skyhawk.

 

[labbadabba]

If the Symphony was so good, why hasn't it really caught on?

A friend of mine owned one. It is long gone and one of the many planes replacing it is a brand new Archer. That says something to me because he can afford any light airplane he wishes to own. No clue what he didn't like about the Symphony, but he obviously didn't like it or else it would still be here.

I've never flown one. Just comparing book values between a C172 and a Symphony 160.

 

[Tantalum]

The other thing.. as analytical as pilots are, the decisions around what kind of plane we want to buy, fly, etc., tend to be fairly emotional ones... similar to buying a car, but much worse (no one needs to fly, and those that do do it because it's their passion). If every person just wanted to have the most pragmatic thing to drive you would only see Camry's / Prius on the road, for example

The Symphony 160, while having decent numbers, is a pretty boring plane if we're going to be honest and isn't exactly a looker.. plus it is totally unknown. Why buy that when you can get a 172? What's the advantage?

For a *new* product to bring in the sales it has to have more than just "reasonably good" book numbers. Just look at the planes that have been successful in the past (or really any successful product), they all brought something special and unique to the table

 

[LoneAspen]

The other thing.. as analytical as pilots are, the decisions around what kind of plane we want to buy, fly, etc., tend to be fairly emotional ones... similar to buying a car, but much worse

Tell me about it!

I had a flight lesson yesterday, and as we were walking up to the plane, I noticed it wasn't one of the SR20s we had been up in before. The instructor said we'd be going up in a new one they'd just gotten.

It was a brand new G6 SR20, and when I opened the door, I swear it smelled like a new car! For a brief moment, I had thoughts of selling my house, using the equity as a downpayment on one, living in the plane, and eating cans of Beanee Weenees for the rest of my life.

 

[zaitcev]

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

Vashon is trying to do just that, right now. The best they were able to do is $115k. There is no magic in the world that permits $30k for a 152. Not mass-production, not composites, not robots - nothing.

 

[zaitcev]

I would be all over a Mooney if they had two doors. For some irrational reason, that is a deal breaker for me.

No you would not "be all over a Mooney with two doors", because the current-production Mooney all have 2 doors. They sold... wait for it... FOUR of them in 2017. It's the cost that keeps you out of a Mooney, not the number of doors.

 

[stratobee]

Cirri do nothing for me. I must be immune to their charms because they arouse zero desire in me. But I have to give them them my full respect for not only changing aviation, but singlehandedly bringing new pilots into it. They've done a tremendous job of capturing the imagination of new pilots and buyers. I have nothing but respect for them and what they've done. I just won't be buying one myself - but I hope everyone else does.

 

[Tantalum]

I had thoughts of selling my house, using the equity as a downpayment on one, living in the plane, and eating cans of Beanee Weenees for the rest of my life

Call me a fanboy if it makes others feel better, but no other airplane has ever made me feel the way that a Cirrus does. It has certainly crossed my mind to just go buy a brand new G6 and live in depressing studio somewhere lol. But that's whats cool about aviation, others get that same feeling in a tailwheel, float, Cub, etc. That's awesome

It's the cost that keeps you out of a Mooney, not the number of doors.

Well.. it's more than *just* the cost. Just like Cessna and Piper they stopped innovating. I feel for them, they're a cool plane with a definitive style and a solid loyalty base.. but the company has been in flux for some years now, and from what I've read on here their marketing and sales team are dismissive, and as long as you can get a kick ass C, F, J used for WELL under $150K there is no real reason to spend $650K on a new one. An extra door alone is not worth $500K

 

[jaybee]

Vashon is trying to do just that, right now. The best they were able to do is $115k. There is no magic in the world that permits $30k for a 152. Not mass-production, not composites, not robots - nothing.

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

First of all -

If

Which is was in response to the original posted question - what should Cessna do?

But what the heck I'm just bored enough at the moment to play along...

While 30k was an arbitrary number it was picked because back in the hey day a 150 could be had for roughly 2-3 times the price of a new car. Since you can buy a brand new car for 15 - 20k nowadays I don't think its as big of a stretch as you do with our modern capabilities.

So a stripped down 2 seat VFR airplane for 30k isn't totally unreasonable for a couple of reasons. One, the aforementioned Vashon Ranger you brought to the table. They have made,in their words "Always Fully Equipped", for $99,500. Something that takes Cessna 300k to do(albeit a 4 seater...). So a small boutique aircraft builder can improve on a product to that degree but you don't think that a large manufacturer can improve even further? Poppycock.

Perusing the pictures of the Vashon, I see a lot of rivets. Zenith advertises 4 - 8000 rivets to build one of their aircraft. Some estimates say 7 - 11000 for a Cessna 172.

So... if you don't think that stamping large assemblies in mass production, replacing skilled labor and riveting with modern glue, etc, etc can't speed up the process and reduce costs along with bulk buying power then your imagination is limited at best.

Look at what Ford was able to do when pressed on the matter - https://books.google.com/books?id=DCo-z42tNZ0C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=aircraft+rivets+per+hour&source=bl&ots=4v26joei3v&sig=kcVP2iDnelW3d1Uh8C_g1rkklaE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigm6nywY_bAhULxoMKHY_tBhYQ6AEIhAEwCQ#v=onepage&q=aircraft rivets per hour&f=false

Maybe the loosening of the Part 23 rules will help, I hope.

As long as we keep building aircraft in the same way with the same mentality as we did 50 years ago, then you would be right. If they can build a modern car with less than 8 man labor hours I'm quite certain they can improve on a spam can assembly process.

 

[asicer]

While 30k was an arbitrary number it was picked because back in the hey day a 150 could be had for roughly 2-3 times the price of a new car. Since you can buy a brand new car for 15 - 20k nowadays I don't think its as big of a stretch as you do with our modern capabilities.

The average price of a new car? Or the lowest price of a new car? Because the average price is $36,270. And 2-3 times that is $99.5k which is the price of a Vashon Ranger.

And don't forget that the 150 was purportedly selling for below cost as a loss leader back in the day . Can't do that anymore.

 

[tspear]

No you would not "be all over a Mooney with two doors", because the current-production Mooney all have 2 doors. They sold... wait for it... FOUR of them in 2017. It's the cost that keeps you out of a Mooney, not the number of doors.

ok, I could have been more specific. If there were older Mooney's with two doors. Is that better?
I refuse to buy new, not only can I not afford it, I am too cheap.

Tim

 

[tspear]

@jaybee

Problem is Ford spent how many billions on the factory to lower production costs? And how many billions in R&D to design the product with low production costs. They have the volume to cover the investment. Aviation does not.

Tim

 

[jaybee]

The average price of a new car? Or the lowest price of a new car? Because the average price is $36,270. And 2-3 times that is $99.5k which is the price of a Vashon Ranger.

And don't forget that the 150 was purportedly selling for below cost as a loss leader back in the day . Can't do that anymore.

No. Exactly what I said. "You can buy a brand new car for 15 - 20k." Why does everybody always want to put words in your mouth. Think something a Kia Rio with manual crank windows.

So as apples to apples as a car to airplane comparison could be - Stripped down econo car to stripped down 2 seater like the 150 Commuter of ye olden days.

 

[jaybee]

@jaybee

Problem is Ford spent how many billions on the factory to lower production costs? And how many billions in R&D to design the product with low production costs. They have the volume to cover the investment. Aviation does not.

Tim

Hi Tim.

Sure.

Which is why I said to partner up with someone that had the tools and experience in the matter.

Also, why I proposed such a low price point - getting butts in the seat(that volume thing). That's the only thing that will revive GA, butts in the seats and at the end of the day its all about money. Lots of people buy in the 30 - 80k range - i.e. Corvettes, Boats, heck I've seen people drop 30k on one of the Ranger ATV things but drop 300k on a new Cessna that's a little different story. Take someone and show them a ragged out spam can for 30k, airworthy or not they'll laugh at you.

All that started with an IF. My two cents anyhow.

Jeff.

 

[Tantalum]

As long as we keep building aircraft in the same way with the same mentality as we did 50 years ago, then you would be right. If they can build a modern car with less than 8 man labor hours I'm quite certain they can improve on a spam can assembly process.

We often hear the argument that "well it's impossible to build a plane for under $400K" or some absurd number. Frankly, that's assuming the consequence in my book, and not a valid argument.. and doesn't really open any doors for innovation. I get that regulations are out there and challenging, but they're not insurmountable, and they've been out there for decades. The automotive industry has some heavy regs as well.. so here are some thoughts

**YES, car makers have the luxury of insane volume so they can readily overcome these costs and keep their consumer prices reasonably low. GA new sales figures are a joke.. we're talking something like 500 total single engine piston sales last year, of which one manufacturer made up at least 300.. the remaining Cessna and Piper sales were mostly to schools. So the development costs, etc., are spread across a MUCH smaller number of units. That is all and well and understood.

**BUT, that does not explain why a Skyhawk is $400K. This plane was developed in the 1950s and the dev costs, etc., have long since been recovered. If Cessna can't build these things for $150K or less then they're doing something very wrong. You have all the forms, dyes, and tooling already there. Outside of saying "it can't be done" I need someone to tell me why not. Budget $50K for the engine, and $50K for avionics (come on, a Skyhawk does NOT need G1000, or offer as an upgrade option) and you still have $50K left for 1,500 lbs of sheet metal.. to be formed in honestly not very complex shapes (for which again, the dyes and forms already exist)... If volume is the problem, then stamp out 1,000 of these damn things and price them at $150K.. selling 1,000 at $150K is $150M right there

The real reason these things aren't happening is that Cessna and Piper just don't give a flying F* about the GA owner market. If I ever win the lottery or come into tons of money suddenly I am going to do it just to prove it can be done

The market is obviously hungry for it, if people are ready to spend nearly $1M for a single engine plane in (comparatively) very high numbers then there is demand. How many threads have we had here about how GA can be made great again, etc., and in each of these things it comes back to a hunger for the ability to buy a new plane that is not grossly overpriced

 

[labbadabba]

Tell me about it!

I had a flight lesson yesterday, and as we were walking up to the plane, I noticed it wasn't one of the SR20s we had been up in before. The instructor said we'd be going up in a new one they'd just gotten.

It was a brand new G6 SR20, and when I opened the door, I swear it smelled like a new car! For a brief moment, I had thoughts of selling my house, using the equity as a downpayment on one, living in the plane, and eating cans of Beanee Weenees for the rest of my life.

Would love a PIREP. I've seen so much about the G6 SR22s but very little about the G6 SR20s. Very interested in real-world performance numbers of the IO-390 in that plane.

 

[tspear]

**BUT, that does not explain why a Skyhawk is $400K. This plane was developed in the 1950s and the dev costs, etc., have long since been recovered. If Cessna can't build these things for $150K or less then they're doing something very wrong. You have all the forms, dyes, and tooling already there. Outside of saying "it can't be done" I need someone to tell me why not. Budget $50K for the engine, and $50K for avionics (come on, a Skyhawk does NOT need G1000, or offer as an upgrade option) and you still have $50K left for 1,500 lbs of sheet metal.. to be formed in honestly not very complex shapes (for which again, the dyes and forms already exist)... If volume is the problem, then stamp out 1,000 of these damn things and price them at $150K.. selling 1,000 at $150K is $150M right there

The real reason these things aren't happening is that Cessna and Piper just don't give a flying F* about the GA owner market. If I ever win the lottery or come into tons of money suddenly I am going to do it just to prove it can be done

The market is obviously hungry for it, if people are ready to spend nearly $1M for a single engine plane in (comparatively) very high numbers then there is demand. How many threads have we had here about how GA can be made great again, etc., and in each of these things it comes back to a hunger for the ability to buy a new plane that is not grossly overpriced

Piper's only business is GA. They are obviously paying attention. If they could lower prices and take over the market, I would expect that they would. Cessna is the only company which has the financial power to potentially accept a loss leader.
As for the 50K in sheet metal. Not that simple. The FAA requires Part 23 manufacturing to track the source of the metal. Then audit and verify the source, then verify it meets specification. Now for each rivet (and I believe there are 11K of them in a 172), you need to track the source of the rivet, and that it meets specification, who installed the rivet, who tested/verified the rivet, and who verified the audit (I am not kidding, there is actually a requirement to verify the auditing, and it applies down to each part join, which is a rivet).
This is a manual process, and is man power intensive.

At the end of the day, the regs and requirements are just crazy. Look at Pipestrel, they were going to build a four seat. The project has been making almost no progress since it depends on the Part 23 rewrite which has been delayed by a few years; Pipestrel just do not want to go down the existing Part 23 manufacturing requirements.

Tim

 

[jaybee]

*I think* (which means I, me, only this person ) that its been proven well enough in the Experimental Homebuilt that you don't need these burdensome regulations to maintain safety.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

*I think* (which means I, me, only this person ) that its been proven well enough in the Experimental Homebuilt that you don't need these burdensome regulations to maintain safety.

Heck, look at SLSA. There are plenty that are priced in the 100-150k range and built right here. There doesn't seem to a lot of them dropping out of the skies either.