New Cessna

[gwengler]

I talked to someone who has seen a drawing of the new Cessna line of
models. It will be high wing and it is planned to have four doors. Up
to six seats should be possible. The cabin width will be 54". The
interior will be more "automotive" style with G1000 avionics. It will
be as fast as the Cirrus airplanes. The engine hasn't been decided,
but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A
turbo charged engine will be an option for sure. Plastic or metal
hasn't been decided either; however, Cessna's long term aluminum
supply contract will end in 2007.

Gerd

[[email protected]]

Interesting. I read a while back that SMA or Thielert was talking to "a
major OEM airframe mfr" about providing engines for future aircraft.

The four-door idea is curious though, I don't recall Cessna ever doing
that before in a single.

>>>Plastic or metal hasn't been decided either; however, Cessna's long term aluminum
supply contract will end in 2007<<<.

Is this the same company (Alcoa?) that sold them bad stock that ended
up on the '97 model year 172/182? I can't imagine (although I'd love to
see it) them building a composite aircraft because of the high
development cost involved(?)

>>>It will be as fast as the Cirrus airplanes. The engine hasn't been decided<<<

Seems that maybe they ARE thinking glass? To go that fast with a diesel
would require pretty high HP and a slick airframe IMO. It would be neat
to see Cessna break the mold in a big way and come out with something
really spectacular.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Seems that maybe they ARE thinking glass? To go that fast with a diesel
> would require pretty high HP and a slick airframe IMO. It would be neat
> to see Cessna break the mold in a big way and come out with something
> really spectacular.
>

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

Matt

[[email protected]]

gwengler wrote:
> The engine hasn't been decided,
> but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A

That's the part that doesn't sound right to me, unless Cessna really
has got religion about doing something completely new. They are
probably the only company in the world that could make this work. But
it's one hell of a gamble for them, too. Like I said, that doesn't
sound like the Cessna we know.

> turbo charged engine will be an option for sure. Plastic or metal
> hasn't been decided either; however, Cessna's long term aluminum
> supply contract will end in 2007.

Considering that Cessna will still be producing aluminum Citations
after 2007 I think that's pretty much a red herring, no?

-cwk.

[Darkwing \(Badass\)]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> gwengler wrote:
>> The engine hasn't been decided,
>> but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A
>
> That's the part that doesn't sound right to me, unless Cessna really
> has got religion about doing something completely new. They are
> probably the only company in the world that could make this work. But
> it's one hell of a gamble for them, too. Like I said, that doesn't
> sound like the Cessna we know.


Not to mention that Lycoming and Cessna are owned by the same parent
company, why buy (the engine) from a competitor?

--------------------------------------------------------
DW

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more easily made
using composites.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Ash Wyllie]

Badass\ opined

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> gwengler wrote:
>>> The engine hasn't been decided,
>>> but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A
>>
>> That's the part that doesn't sound right to me, unless Cessna really
>> has got religion about doing something completely new. They are
>> probably the only company in the world that could make this work. But
>> it's one hell of a gamble for them, too. Like I said, that doesn't
>> sound like the Cessna we know.


>Not to mention that Lycoming and Cessna are owned by the same parent
>company, why buy (the engine) from a competitor?

Because you might not be buying the best engine, and in the long run that
would be a very expensive mistake.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Newps]

wrote:

>>>>It will be as fast as the Cirrus airplanes. The engine hasn't been decided<<<
>
>
> Seems that maybe they ARE thinking glass? To go that fast with a diesel
> would require pretty high HP and a slick airframe IMO.


The 210 already goes as fast as a Cirrus.

[cjcampbell]

Darkwing (Badass) wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention that Lycoming and Cessna are owned by the same parent
> company, why buy (the engine) from a competitor?

Besides, Lycoming *could* be developing a diesel engine. :)

[George Patterson]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Besides, Lycoming *could* be developing a diesel engine. :)

They were working on one a few years ago, but I haven't heard anything about it
recently. IIRC, they proposed using water-cooled heads on air-cooled cylinders.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Dave Stadt]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:4HF0f.3921$WD5.549@trndny06...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.
>
> No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more easily
made
> using composites.

Slickest and fastest are made of metal.

> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Seth Masia]

As of last spring, Lycoming was talking (again) about introducing a diesel,
and soon. See
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/apr/lycoming.html

Seems to me that five years ago they were talking about a TDIO-360 of about
200hp. With six cylinders, that would be a 300hp TDIO-540.

Seth

"Darkwing (Badass)" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> gwengler wrote:
>>> The engine hasn't been decided,
>>> but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A
>>
>> That's the part that doesn't sound right to me, unless Cessna really
>> has got religion about doing something completely new. They are
>> probably the only company in the world that could make this work. But
>> it's one hell of a gamble for them, too. Like I said, that doesn't
>> sound like the Cessna we know.
>
>
> Not to mention that Lycoming and Cessna are owned by the same parent
> company, why buy (the engine) from a competitor?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> DW
>

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.
>
>
> No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
> easily made using composites.

Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
production equipment. If hydroforming or stretch forming equipment is
used, compound curves in metal are much faster to make than in composite
materials. It is hard to be essentially a pressing/stamping process for
speed, once you make the capital investment required to do this.
Detroit makes all sorts of compound curves in metal at costs much less
than for composites. Ask GM which is cheaper to produce, the metal body
for a large sedan or the fiberglass body of the Vette.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.
>>
>> No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
>> easily made using composites.
>
> Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
> production equipment.

But that's what you're doing if you're building light aircraft.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[revdmv]

But the technology can be scaled correctly with good planning.

Plus all of Cessnas current talent is in metal fab. I don't see them
moving away from that without some serious financial carrot.

This sounds like the Stallion
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/stallion/stallion_02.html

[[email protected]]

>>>The 210 already goes as fast as a Cirrus<<<

It certainly does. My point was that kind of speed requires HP (and a
clean airframe) and IIRC the highest power aviation diesel now is the
230hp SMA. I'm not sure if that's enough for a 180kt cruise. I'd love
to see an updated Cardinal with flush-riveted skin and the latest aero
tweaks, if that's what Cessna has in mind.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> George Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
>>> easily made using composites.
>>
>>
>> Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
>> production equipment.
>
>
> But that's what you're doing if you're building light aircraft.

Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment. And they could
always subcontract this to a metal stamping company that has the
equipment. And then if they used stir welding or another more modern
assembly technique rather than driving thousands of rivets, I'll bet
they could make a sleek all-metal airplane for much less cost than a
Cirrus composite.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

>>>>The 210 already goes as fast as a Cirrus<<<
>
>
> It certainly does. My point was that kind of speed requires HP (and a
> clean airframe) and IIRC the highest power aviation diesel now is the
> 230hp SMA. I'm not sure if that's enough for a 180kt cruise. I'd love
> to see an updated Cardinal with flush-riveted skin and the latest aero
> tweaks, if that's what Cessna has in mind.
>

Yes, a metal version of this airplane would be nearly ideal. :-)

Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
> suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment.

I agree that a thousand a year would justify the equipment. I just don't think
they will sell that many. Obviously, I could be wrong.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Morgans]

"revdmv" > wrote

> But the technology can be scaled correctly with good planning.
>
> Plus all of Cessnas current talent is in metal fab. I don't see them
> moving away from that without some serious financial carrot.
>
> This sounds like the Stallion
> http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/stallion/stallion_02.html

<chuckle> How perceptive of you! I would be surprised if it did *not* come
out looking very much like the stallion! Better lose the retracts, though,
at least for part of the production run.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
> suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment. And they could
> always subcontract this to a metal stamping company that has the
> equipment. And then if they used stir welding or another more modern
> assembly technique rather than driving thousands of rivets, I'll bet
> they could make a sleek all-metal airplane for much less cost than a
> Cirrus composite.

The only problem I see with friction stir for Cessna singles is the fact
that they will get bent with some regularity. Not so with the "other" big
users of the technique, we hope.

Any shop out in "GA world" with a rivet gun can fix a rivet, but with FS
welding, off to a very specialized shop, or the factory.

Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> I talked to someone who has seen a drawing of the new Cessna line of
> models.
>

Someone with a background in airplane design needs to clue me in here: Is it really
likely that there are serious drawings (as in construction drawings, not "studies")
without the basic building material having been decided on? I would think that's
highly unlikely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gwengler]

Look here:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/484-full.html#190722

I obviously talked to a dealer who was at the conference referred to in
the above link. Cessna showed drawings of a new design. Drawings like
drawings in a study. Even if you draw something on a paper napkin,
that could probably be considered as a drawing as well.

Gerd

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!

When Cessna "restarted" the 172 production line, they did so with a new factory
and lots of new employees. If they do the same with this plane, there's little
reason to stick with the old production methods.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> Look here:
>

Thanks! Good marketing, well executed. There may be more - there may
not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[cwby-flyer]

gwengler wrote:
> The engine hasn't been decided, but apparently Cessna is
> considering a Diesel engine as an option. A turbo charged
> engine will be an option for sure.

The other possibility is one of the new engines from AES (formerly
Bombardier), that allow the use of both 100LL and unleaded fuel.
Although I prefer low-winged aircraft, I'm excited about any advances
that happen. Hopefully this will spur some further development by
other traditional manufacturers.

Mike

[gwengler]

In fact, my contact reported that the AES/Bombardier engine was
specifically discussed.

Gerd

[Hilton]

Hi,

Hypothetically of course: Let's take a 172N, make it composite, same 160hp,
no struts, flush antennae, with all the speed mods and a few other tweaks.

What kind of performance increase would we see? Along similar lines would
these changes turn the 172RG into a real performer? (FYI: I love flying the
Cutlass).

Also, if they used the same design, but used composite, would Cessna need to
run through the entire certification process again?

Just curious and I'm not suggesting Cessna will revamp the 172 (maybe, maybe
not).

Hilton

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs.
>> I suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment.
>
>
> I agree that a thousand a year would justify the equipment. I just don't
> think they will sell that many. Obviously, I could be wrong.

Nothing personal, but I'm hoping you are wrong! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>> Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
>>suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment. And they could
>>always subcontract this to a metal stamping company that has the
>>equipment. And then if they used stir welding or another more modern
>>assembly technique rather than driving thousands of rivets, I'll bet
>>they could make a sleek all-metal airplane for much less cost than a
>>Cirrus composite.
>
>
> The only problem I see with friction stir for Cessna singles is the fact
> that they will get bent with some regularity. Not so with the "other" big
> users of the technique, we hope.
>
> Any shop out in "GA world" with a rivet gun can fix a rivet, but with FS
> welding, off to a very specialized shop, or the factory.

Nothing says you can't use rivets to repair damage to a non-riveted
structure. Happens all the time on rusty cars in PA!


> Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!

Because it is labor intensive even if you are very good at it. I
suppose it could be automated today with robots, but that would likely
cost as much or more than other techniques that have other advantages.
Also, there are places in an airframe where even humans have a hard time
maneuvering so I suspect it would take some pretty specialized to drive
and buck rivets automatically.


Matt

[Jose]

> What kind of performance increase would we see? Along similar lines would
> these changes turn the 172RG into a real performer? (FYI: I love flying the
> Cutlass).

Apropos of this (and I also love the Cutlass), I just got to spend some
time in a 172SP when the FBO's cutlass was unavailable. My experience
with 172s is that they are supposed to do 115-120 but don't always quite
match those performance figures. The Cutlass is supposed to do 135-140
knots, but this particular one has trouble doing 120 downhill, and this
tells me something isn't right anyway. That aside...

I thought the 172SP was "just another 172" with lawyer mods. But in
fact it does manage 140 knots on a good day, and 135 true on an ordinary
day. (Of course it probably helped that the aircraft was fairly new).
Seems to me that if they flipped the gear up they'd be able to tack on
another twenty knots, since that's what a (good) cutlass gains over a
172. Of course, maybe the extra twenty horses adds too.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

> Apropos of this (and I also love the Cutlass), I just got to spend some
> time in a 172SP when the FBO's cutlass was unavailable. My experience
> with 172s is that they are supposed to do 115-120 but don't always quite
> match those performance figures.

C172 speeds are greatly dependent upon the prop pitch.
One of the four C172's in the flying club of which I am a member has a
cruise prop on it. At 2200 rpm it indicates 118 kts while a C172 with an
intermediate prop at 2200 rpm indicates 110 kts.
The slow accelleration of the cruise prop equipped aircraft is
noticeable on takeoff.

[[email protected]]

>>>Seems to me that if they flipped the gear up they'd be able to tack on
another twenty knots, since that's what a (good) cutlass gains over a
172.<<<

Sounds about right. However I doubt Cessna would build a new plane with
retracts for liability & maybe cost reasons. Cirrus and Lancair have
shown that FG can go fast if the airframe is slick enough. Maybe that
300hp Bombardier turbo V6 might end up in the new plane. That would be
quite a combination IMO.

[[email protected]]

>>>Let's take a 172N, make it composite, same 160hp, no struts, flush antennae, with all the speed mods and a few other tweaks.<<<

Hmmm... kinda sounds like a Cardinal : )