Marketing topic: Why Doesn't Cessna...

[slushie]

...produce an entry-level/trainer twin?

[boeing 777-300]

ive been thinking the same thing. I guess piper gets the dual covered.

I wonder what cesnna would name it....

Cessna Flyhawk

Cessna Eaglelane

Cessna DogBird

[FlySooner9]

that is a pretty good point i haven't really thought about that much befor now. I bet they could get a decent market share pretty quick if they developed one.

[meritflyer]

Great question. Most people other than Piper dont. There was the intro of the Diamond but I cant really think of another one off the top of my head.

First thought is the GA/training market for every manufacturer has historically been difficult. It makes sense for Piper to do it b/c they dont really have anything larger than their Meridian turboprop whereas Cessna has some fairly large jets. Why would they want to devote resources to a smaller cause?

Just a thought..

[FlySooner9]

that would be the only reason i could think of. To busy with their Citations and the entry to the VLJ market.

[slushie]

Yeah I think that the private-owner market for small twins is kind of weak givin the induction of the recent high performance singles (Cirrus, et al). Who needs the costly maintenance and insurance requirements of a twin when a fixed-gear single can get you there just about as fast?

[slushie]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Why would they want to devote resources to a smaller cause?

Just a thought..

No viable venture begins with the idea that it would be "devoting resources." It would have to be more like "increasing revenues and expanding your market." If you plan it right, a product addition can effectively be it's own animal and cause minimal interruption to the previous workings.

[dpilot83]

Originally Posted by slushie

Yeah I think that the private-owner market for small twins is kind of weak givin the induction of the recent high performance singles (Cirrus, et al). Who needs the costly maintenance and insurance requirements of a twin when a fixed-gear single can get you there just about as fast?

True that. A Baron doing 165 to 175 indicated probably isn't worth a lot more than a Bonanza doing 155 to 165 indicated and burning half the fuel. If you follow that logic though, why doesn't Cessna still make a 210?

[slushie]

Originally Posted by dpilot83

True that. A Baron doing 165 to 175 indicated probably isn't worth a lot more than a Bonanza doing 155 to 165 indicated and burning half the fuel.

I talked to the Beechcraft guy at the Tahoe airshow. The new Baron G58 goes 201 knots. (it'll only set you back $1.2 million!)
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beec...tons/baronG58/

[dpilot83]

Originally Posted by slushie

I talked to the Beechcraft guy at the Tahoe airshow. The new Baron G58 goes 201 knots. (it'll only set you back $1.2 million!)
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beec...tons/baronG58/

I wonder if that's true or indicated? I've got some experience in older BE-58s and I was under the impression that the basic airplane hadn't changed much over the years, just nicer avionics. At AirNet we always run them at 24 inches and 2400 RPM and rarely get over 175 indicated...I don't know much about what the new ones have for engines though.

[slushie]

(2) 300 hp Teledyne Continental IO-550-C

[dpilot83]

Originally Posted by slushie

(2) 300 hp Teledyne Continental IO-550-C

Ours have the IO-520's with 285 hp. I can see the extra ponies pushing it to 201 true but if you're saying 201 indicated I'll be truly impressed...heh...I guess I could probably look this stuff up if I weren't so lazy couldn't I?

Those things do look nice though don't they? Maye if if this whole crazy dream works out I could buy a used one someday...wishful thinking never hurt anyone right?

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Well another good question to ask is why didn't New Piper ever come out with small biz jet or even medium jets like the X?

[Van_Hoolio]

Isn't Piper supposed to be working with Honda on their jet?

[PGT]

Originally Posted by slushie

(it'll only set you back $1.2 million!)
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beec...tons/baronG58/

who do i make my check out to?

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by dpilot83

Ours have the IO-520's with 285 hp. I can see the extra ponies pushing it to 201 true but if you're saying 201 indicated I'll be truly impressed...heh...I guess I could probably look this stuff up if I weren't so lazy couldn't I?

The 58's I was in had 300 hp engines (can't remember model...540 maybe? I dunno) and they trued out around 195. Indicated was ~170 or so up at altitude. That was at 25"/2500 RPM.

The A36 would generally top out around 145 indicated (again 25"/2500 RPM), but that had to be perfect conditions. Normal range was 135-140. Plus, the BE58 could climb at 500 FPM at 150 indicated, I think that's where most of the performance of a twin kicks in.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by slushie

Why Doesn't Cessna produce an entry-level/trainer twin?

Because of Lawyers and product liability.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by slushie

No viable venture begins with the idea that it would be "devoting resources."

No disrespect man but have you ever worked for a large company with engineers, a 100 item line, and a certain manufacturing/R&D capability?

It absolutely comes down to devoting resources.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

Isn't Piper supposed to be working with Honda on their jet?

Yes.

[Champcar]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

Because of Lawyers and product liability.

I don't think that is the case, the 152 wouldn't have that problem witht the GA Protection Act.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Champcar

I don't think that is the case, the 152 wouldn't have that problem witht the GA Protection Act.

I *think* he's inferring that the added cost of finished product liability insurance pretty much makes it unfeasible from a business standpoint.

I remember reading that about half the cost of a new 172 (190k or so) goes toward insurance premiums. That's a lot of money off the bottom line. It looks like cessna is able to make money doing what they are doing, why fix something that isn't broken?

IMO the market for new multi-trainers is pretty limited. The big academies are pretty much the only ones that can afford them. Everyone else just buys used .

[slushie]

Originally Posted by PGT

who do i make my check out to?

Pay to the order of:
Slushie

[slushie]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

No disrespect man but have you ever worked for a large company with engineers, a 100 item line, and a certain manufacturing/R&D capability?

Nope...just an inexperienced man commenting on the viewpoint.

[bike21]

I once heard from the VP of Cessna sales (at a conference) that they had no intention of building a new RG or twin. The exact reasoning escapes me at the moment though.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I *think* he's inferring that the added cost of finished product liability insurance pretty much makes it unfeasible from a business standpoint.

Exactly

Originally Posted by Champcar

I don't think that is the case, the 152 wouldn't have that problem with the GA Protection Act.

I'm not sure what you meant comparing a new production twin with a 20+ year old C152. The General Aviation Revitalization Act (1994) protects manufacturers from liability of older airplanes. It would not protect manufacturers from lawsuits in the production of a new light twin. Cessna stopped all single engine aircraft production in 1986 and citing "potential expense of lawsuits involving product liability." AOPA-Oct 1996 After GARA was signed Cessna resumed limited production of their


"In 1985, Cessna Chairman Russell W. Meyer Jr., reported that between 20 and 30 percent of the cost of a new airplane represented product liability insurance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...ts_Association