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
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.
kingf…@hotmail.com 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
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.
<ckingsb…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128470082.443262.165430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 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.
Badass\ opined
><ckingsb…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1128470082.443262.165430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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?
kingf…@hotmail.com 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.
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.
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.
"George Patterson" <grpph…@verizon.net> 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.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> 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.
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
news:HoWdnUkukpG3vd7enZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> <ckingsb…@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1128470082.443262.165430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 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
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.
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
>>>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.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
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
kingf…@hotmail.com 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
"revdmv" <Rev…@aol.com> 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
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.
"Matt Whiting" <whit…@epix.net> 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
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)
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
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.
Gwengler,
> Look here:
Thanks! Good marketing, well executed. There may be more – there may
not.
–
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)