Cessna/Textron commitment to small GA.

[RalphInCA]

I get the feeling that Cessna / Textron would love to be out of the small piston GA market.

They recently canceled the diesel 172 a year after it was certified, they are cutting back on Cessna pilot/training centers, they have priced the 172 and other small piston GA airplanes at unrealistic prices.

Are they just hanging in there waiting for the right time to kill the whole thing?

 

[flyingron]

They gave up a commitment to small GA back in 1980. What makes you think now is any different. They've even managed to buy up other light manufacturers so they could kill them.

 

[Datadriver]

Surprise! No one wanted a diesel 172 for 3 quarters of a million dollars or whatever it was priced at

 

[Bell206]

I get the feeling that Cessna / Textron would love to be out of the small piston GA market.

Don't forget to add Beechcraft to the header. But I doubt Textron wants out as they still sell a lot of piston aircraft with 274 units sold last year alone. A better guess would be that they're done with designing new piston versions. Now if turbine, vertical lift, or snowmobiles new models are on the way. But don't take my word. Here's a transcript to the Textron Q1 2018 Results - Earnings Call. I'll let you count how many times they mention GA aircraft.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...elly-q1-2018-results-earnings-call-transcript

 

[steingar]

Textron is committed to one thing and one thing only. Making money. If those who count their beans think making airplanes will make them money they'll make airplanes. If they think it won't, they'll sell or shutter the whole thing. Simple as that.

If they sold 274 aircraft each worth a sizable fraction of a million dollars they've made a dent on a billion dollars. Not exactly chump change, even for Textron. Moreover, there is the potential for future earnings, since one never knows when the military might come calling for some sort of aircraft that fits their bill.

 

[frfly172]

When the market gets saturated with well kept used airplanes,the manfacturer starts to re consider making new airplanes of that model. Why would most people purchase new ,when there are good used airplanes available ,at reasonable prices.

 

[GRG55]

They gave up a commitment to small GA back in 1980. What makes you think now is any different. They've even managed to buy up other light manufacturers so they could kill them.

I am an avid follower of your posts @flying Ron, but I don't agree with these observations.

Starting with your point #2, it would appear the ones they bought up, notably Beechcraft and the Lancair Columbia program, had already killed themselves, all by themselves.

I seriously doubt the Columbia would have survived in any form if Cessna hadn't stepped in. Even after the Mexico QC fiasco Cessna still made a big effort to try to develop the TTx into a viable product. And I wonder who else would have bailed out Beech and kept the Bo and Baron in production a little while longer? More than a decade ago, when Beech was building them, a G1000 Baron was already past $1.1 Million, so we can't lay the high cost of manufacturing, marketing and supporting light GA planes entirely on Textron.

There isn't enough market. All time US production of GA aircraft peaked in 1978 at 17,817 aircraft. By 1981 it was down to 9,457 aircraft, in large part due to the onslaught of very public, company bankrupting liability awards and the skyrocketing cost of liability insurance premiums - over $100,000 per airframe by 1988 according to the US BoL. Then came the double hit of the two recessions in 1981 and 1982. How many people here who have financing on their planes could afford that plane at 15% or higher interest rates? In 2008/09 GM & Chrysler got taxpayer funded bailouts and buyer incentives for their products, on a fall-off in volume no where near as dramatic. To say Textron/Cessna gave up its commitment to GA in 1980 is specious at best. Any company that truly HAD given up its commitment to GA wouldn't still be building GA airplanes 38 years later.

Where are we today? Total worldwide GA count in 2017 was 2324 planes (the numbers in the paragraph above are USA figures only from that time). That's 2017 all in, everywhere in the world, including turbo-props and business jets. Piston accounts for roughly 45% of that.

Many so-called GA piston manufacturers are running "hobby companies"; they don't make enough airplanes each year and they can't grow that number enough to ever generate a return that is greater than their cost of capital. These are not viable businesses. I don't need to name them, everyone here knows who they are.

On this board the only new piston airplane that seems to garner any widespread admiration is Cirrus. I don't see anybody here clamouring to buy a new Bonanza, Mooney or even a Piper Archer. And Cirrus is today selling only one-half the number of piston aircraft annually they sold a decade ago.

That's the market. So what are Textron's options? Pour development funding into a new piston design in an effort to take market share away from Cirrus and Piper (the only other companies with any real piston market share)? That doesn't seem a sound strategy at all. Cut the prices and margins of the existing designs to do the same? That's sounds more like a charity than a profitable business. Besides, they have no doubt already sharpened their pencil as they have to compete with Piper and the SR-20 for the only significant market left...what Nate calls the "puppy mills".

If the market is such that it can only absorb a small volume of personal airplanes each year, if you make them they better be high-value, high-margin units. Mooney sold 7 piston airplanes in each of the past two years. During 2017 Piper sold 47 turbo-prop Meridians, and Daher sold 57 TBMs. Daher got out of the piston airplane business in 2005. Piper sold one turbo-prop for every two piston airplanes it flogged last year. Where are these companies really making their money? Mooney never figured out the market was changing, and it won't survive.
Textron isn't making the same mistake.

 

[GRG55]

I get the feeling that Cessna / Textron would love to be out of the small piston GA market.

They recently canceled the diesel 172 a year after it was certified, they are cutting back on Cessna pilot/training centers, they have priced the 172 and other small piston GA airplanes at unrealistic prices.

Are they just hanging in there waiting for the right time to kill the whole thing?

The Cessna (and Piper) pilot training centres were based on a well known behaviour that pilots would most often purchase the same make of airplane they trained in. Those days are long gone. No point in Cessna sponsoring low margin training schools for starving student pilots if they are going to buy a Cirrus when they grow up.

As for the "unrealistic prices", unless you have some insight or facts about the manufacturing, marketing and all the other costs to support these new planes, I would would suggest it isn't Cessna that is being unrealistic. The new aluminum tariffs aren't going to help anybody cut costs either. Cessna has undoubtedly sharpened their pencil as they have to compete with Piper and Cirrus for the "fleet sales" to what Nate calls the "puppy mills"...that is the dominant market for these new planes today. And fleet sales in any industry are not known to be great money makers.

Textron has a bit of a dilemma. Killing off an iconic model such as the 172 or 182 carries some considerable reputational risk for the Cessna brand. But Cessna cannot easily spin off or dividend out the piston aircraft business without the Cessna name being attached to those same models. That's not an option. But I do expect they are going to separate out the piston manufacturing at some point, maybe after the next recession kills off more of what is left of this activity we enjoy.

And Textron has to plug the single turbo-prop hole in the lineup (Denali) before it kills the Beechcraft piston airplanes, or it leaves too big a move up gap for its dealers. I think they were expecting the TTx to be the plane to replace the Bonanza and Baron, but that didn't work out as Cirrus got there first, and took most of the retractable buyers (Arrow, Bonanza, Mooney) away with more attractive offerings in the market's verdict.

The Klapmeier brothers may have intended to expand the market for piston singles when they set out to develop their better mousetrap. But that is not what happened. The Cirrus SR series is arguably the single biggest reason sales of new retractable singles hit the dirt. Instead of an expanded market, it just shifted most of those buyers across, and retractable single piston airplanes are today even more of an endangered species than piston twins.

 

[denverpilot]

The Klapmeier brothers may have intended to expand the market for piston singles when they set out to develop their better mousetrap. But that is not what happened. The Cirrus SR series is arguably the single biggest reason sales of new retractable singles hit the dirt. Instead of an expanded market, it just shifted most of those buyers across, and retractable single piston airplanes are today even more of an endangered species than piston twins.

We could also mention the “lifestyle” marketing of Cirrus and a number of others which is both how they survive (extremely wealthy buyers) and simultaneously drives more people away from GA who think it’s only a playground for the uber-rich.

Cessna and Piper in their heyday were marketing to the “average Joe” even if they knew quite well that the average Joe couldn’t afford a new airplane. “Land-O-Matic” and ads for cramming four normal businessmen into a Piper and all...

I don’t think the “lifestyle” marketing of Cirrus is helping in the really big picture at all. It attracts a certain personality type and carries an air of “eliteness” that feels like any other “luxury” branding in other products, and that’s fine, but it turns off a whole lot of above average blue collar folk who don’t exactly want a wine and cheese party for their first intro to what it might be like to buy an aircraft.

To somewhat prove the point, prices on “backcountry capable” aircraft and “low and slow vintage” aircraft have remained steady and even climbed quite a bit. Owners of Cessna 185s will dump incredible amounts of money into them to go play in the dirt and camp in a tent in the middle of nowhere. Granted, Cirrus isn’t building anything for that market, but it’s a different sort of “lifestyle” than their pressed shirt marketing folks are chasing.

With pickup trucks being the hottest thing going in automotive sales for quite a while now, you’d think one of the manufacturers would think about it and market to that crowd. They’re willing to spend $70,000 ... for a freaking pickup truck. Something that can take a bit of a beating, haul crap, and still maybe have some creature comforts in the cabin.

The 182 or the 206 would be the perfect airplane to do this with, but they’ve played the “keep up with the Joneses” thing with the avionics, and made them much much heavier since the 70s with some of those creature comforts, and that was kinda the wrong direction. Think Jeep. Think I can hose it out if I track mud into it at a dirt strip. Think comfortable but utilitarian and fairly tough interior that won’t bother the passengers too much and seem spartan, but isn’t plush leather either.

I dunno. That’s my thoughts anyway. Numerous things about the Cirrus work well. Someone just needs to make the “overly comfortable Jeep”.

As an aside, an aircraft built and marketed like that could replace a lot of aging gear in the parts of the world where small singles are still used for real work, etc.

If Cessna could put out a 182 or 206 that was put on a serious diet and cut the price tag significantly down from the current heavy leather massive integrated avionics panel versions, and market those as rugged aircraft, they might find they’d sell.

This seems to be what people with too much money on their hands who fly a lot do to their Cessnas anyway. Decent avionics, fix up the old interior a bit, and then start doing stuff like slapping big nose forks and larger tires on them, STOL kits, and upping the horsepower.

And as far as the large schools go, I’m sure they’d appreciate anything that had an interior that could survive a million butts with decent avionics. Not so simple they can’t train “future airline pilots” in It, but not “luxury car like” either. They’re certainly trying to go with “tough and utilitarian” by mostly buying Piper these days...

Other problem for Cessna is drag. The airplanes are just slow unless you feed them copious amounts of fuel. But “pickup truck buyers” buy “fuel hogs” as daily drivers because of either real or perceived utilitarianism of the vehicle. But the siren song of better fuel economy is out there in pickup trucks now with massively turbocharged smaller engines, which is a phenomenon that hasn’t kept up at all in light aircraft.

If you do it in aircraft, you need to pick a combo that’ll work and last a good long while and back it with a stellar power plant warranty. Probably come up with some FADEC for simplifying operation and simultaneously keeping the hamfisted from blowing them up under warranty as well.

Anyway just thoughts. Cessna has kinda chased Cirrus and forgotten why people bought Cessnas. MOST pilots didn’t buy 210s. There are and were better “go fast” airplanes.

They’re not cheap but heck, if you want to go as slow as a 182 with similar load capability you can get the Tecnam twin and burn LESS fuel running TWO engines as a T182T.

So, Cessna needs to figure out something. Something to be better at than Cirrus and Piper that the other two simply can’t do with their designs, and maximize it.

Buying Lanceair was the wrong market. The Skycatcher was also the wrong market. Look at what Cessna owners buy, drive, and do, Cessna.

 

[GRG55]

Last fall I got checked out in a 2011 G1000 equipped 182. I wrote about it in another thread. I logged seven cross country legs in that airplane, none of which were less than 2 hours (my plane was down for annual and some maintenance).

It had been a very long time since I had flown a Cessna single. And I really enjoyed the way that 182 flew, it was fun doing full flap final approaches into the wind inching to the runway with minimal ground speed. Hadn't done that in a while. But there's just too much crap in these new Cessnas. The fancy interiors are unnecessarily heavy and seriously cut into the useful load.

Some of my reaction to that plane is similar to what you posted Nate. I especially found the G1000 to be total overkill and in many respects an annoyance in a plane of this class. I would rather have a dedicated transponder in the center stack than have to hunt the right combination of identical little black buttons, partially hidden behind the yoke, to call up menus just for a friggin code change from ATC.

Hell, a pair of G5s would be, imo, a less expensive, less complicated and a more than capable set up in a stock 182.

 

[3393RP]

.

Denverpilot said:

"Other problem for Cessna is drag. The airplanes are just slow unless you feed them copious amounts of fuel. But “pickup truck buyers” buy “fuel hogs” as daily drivers because of either real or perceived utilitarianism of the vehicle. But the siren song of better fuel economy is out there in pickup trucks now with massively turbocharged smaller engines, which is a phenomenon that hasn’t kept up at all in light aircraft.

If you do it in aircraft, you need to pick a combo that’ll work and last a good long while and back it with a stellar power plant warranty. Probably come up with some FADEC for simplifying operation and simultaneously keeping the hamfisted from blowing them up under warranty as well."

.

There's nothing manufacturers can do about modernizing the single engine aircraft because the government prevents it. Before Textron pulled the plug, the cost of a new diesel Skyhawk was $75,000 more than a gasoline powered 172. There's no possible justification for that price differential, except the one coming from the legal department. Even Cessna showed how ridiculous the upcharge was with their published cost analysis, which showed that over a 6,300 hour operating history, the diesel engined 172 was only 2% cheaper than a gasoline powered Skyhawk. Why bother? And yes, I know that avgas isn't available in Africa and on Pacific islands. Please spare me these comments.

Maintaining older aircraft runs into the same brick wall. A few days ago someone posted that a replacement tailcone for a 100 series Cessna costs over $4,000. Why does that part have to be built by the manufacturer? Look at the example of the classic auto industry, where companies like Classic Industries and Auto Metal Direct are making body panels for dozens of old cars and pickups. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have licensed these firms to build the parts, and while Chinese replacement body parts pretty much suck, parts from CI and AMD are very close the originals.

Why can't control surfaces, cowlings, doors, and other airframe parts be manufactured by such firms? Computerized component measuring systems make it possible to exactly replicate an original within tolerances of a couple of thousandths.

How about engine components? I can buy a crankshaft for a big block Chevy from any one of a couple dozen sources, and unless you choose to buy the cheapest Chinese knockoff, the part will meet or exceed OEM standards. Bolt on automobile fuel injection systems replace carburetors, and have preprogrammed fuel maps and intelligent learning.

Electronic ignition and fuel system components for aircraft with MTBF lifespans of decades should be available to replace magnetos and Stone Age Marvel carburetors. These replacements could be installed in a couple of days, and work without maintenance for years.

A required initial review of manufacturing methods along with oversight of materials and routine inspections would assure the parts are compatible and safe replacements. A law enabling this, which should include strict product liability limits, would make the existing fleet safer and prolong the life of existing airframes.

And for crap's sake, can all of you POA nitpickers abstain from make dozens of posts explaining why this will never work? You understand the basic concept. I know there are hurdles to such a proposal, I don't need you to expound on that with excruciating detail. Try to avoid the urge.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

"Commitment to GA" Having a hard time with that thought. They are a business, not a 501(c)(3) so the emotion (possibly) implied by the descriptor must be inapplicable.

 

[Bell206]

Why can't control surfaces, cowlings, doors, and other airframe parts be manufactured by such firms?

But they already can, except the request needs to come from an aircraft owner. And there's FAA guidance behind it.

However, if you're stating why don't existing non-aviation firms with the capability to produce aircraft parts simply start building 100 Series tailcones, why would they. And it's not due to the FAA but supply and demand. Existing aviation OEMs don't even do that which is the reason for the high prices and long lead times. Somebody has to re-tool and produce the part.

 

[Clip4]

They gave up a commitment to small GA back in 1980. What makes you think now is any different. They've even managed to buy up other light manufacturers so they could kill them.

Let the prime rate go to 15% like 1980 and we’ll see how many airplanes you buy.

 

[Everskyward]

"Commitment to GA" Having a hard time with that thought. They are a business, not a 501(c)(3) so the emotion (possibly) implied by the descriptor must be inapplicable.

This. The money is obviously not in small GA and Cessna/Textron is not a charity. In the past, I think aircraft companies hoped to develop a loyalty among customers so they would stick with the same brand name when moving up to larger aircraft. I don't think that is the case now with Cessna.

 

[denverpilot]

This. The money is obviously not in small GA and Cessna/Textron is not a charity. In the past, I think aircraft companies hoped to develop a loyalty among customers so they would stick with the same brand name when moving up to larger aircraft. I don't think that is the case now with Cessna.

They killed that way back at the restart. What would a new buyer of a new 182 step up to? The TT before it was killed? They haven’t had a step up plan for decades.

 

[N1120A]

Part of it is, quite frankly, that Piper makes a better airplane. Yeah, I know Cessna people will hem and haw about the high wing giving shade and being able to see down, but the reality is that the Cherokee is a faster, more fuel efficient and more comfortable airplane, with the sole exception of the single door. Combine that with Diamond coming into the market and fewer people train in the old 152/172 combo. Those that do can do fine in old ones. Now, the 182 is a nice plane, though with some of those same Cessna imperfections, but the market isn't there to only support that (not to mention that the 182 was a much better airplane when they made the RG).

 

[GRG55]

Little anecdote. A few years ago our Club's FTU had two Diamond DA20-C1s with the Continental engine. We had them priced at exactly the same hourly rental rate as the 172s. They were each logging roughly 1/2 the time each month the 172 fleet average logged with the students. Go figure.

We sold them and replaced them with...172s.

 

[GRG55]

...What would a new buyer of a new 182 step up to?...

Citation M2. Of course.
It's the only explanation for the G1000 in a 182. To ease the transition.

 

[N1120A]

Little anecdote. A few years ago our Club's FTU had two Diamond DA20-C1s with the Continental engine. We had them priced at exactly the same hourly rental rate as the 172s. They were each logging roughly 1/2 the time each month the 172 fleet average logged with the students. Go figure.

We sold them and replaced them with...172s.

A Katana is never going to get the same audience as a Skyhawk. Too small, uncomfortable and too hard to learn on. Also, with all the people who have trained on 172s, you aren't going to get as many rentals.

Citation M2. Of course.
It's the only explanation for the G1000 in a 182. To ease the transition.

LOL

 

[steingar]

People love Skyhawks. I've posted about it before, there seems to be an irrational tug toward Skyhawks. Fine with me, makes the faster aircraft I like that much less expensive.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

People love Skyhawks. I've posted about it before, there seems to be an irrational tug toward Skyhawks. Fine with me, makes the faster aircraft I like that much less expensive.

I get a lot of laughs scrolling through Barnstormers at what some of these people think a Skyhawk is worth.

 

[SoonerAviator]

They gave up a commitment to small GA back in 1980. What makes you think now is any different. They've even managed to buy up other light manufacturers so they could kill them.

Well, they did the restart in '96, so that was probably the last time they had any "commitment" to small piston GA.

 

[Tantalum]

Great thread, lots of great posts! Some points and counterpoints below

"Commitment to GA" Having a hard time with that thought. They are a business, not a 501(c)(3) so the emotion (possibly) implied by the descriptor must be inapplicable.

The money is obviously not in small GA and Cessna/Textron is not a charity.

^you guys are both right^
But, companies can choose to go after a market segment and cultivate it.. even if the segment appears to be shrinking, if you are passionate about your product and its customer base you will find a way to invest in that and grow it (walkmans and portable cd players were on the way out, but there were no good MP3 players out there, or at least not many were selling in any big number. Apple revolutionized that with the iPod). If the Klapmeier brothers simply wanted to make money then aviation, especially single engine piston general aviation, is not where they would have planted their roots. The fact that so many people are willing to spend close to $1M on a single engine piston plane shows that there is demand and hunger out there for general aviation. I think the GA market will naturally shrank when all you offer it is 1950s technology at an absurd price. Honestly, if you are planning a 300nm XC it almost feels like a waste to blow $120/hr on a 172 rental or $175/hr on a 182 (unless you are doing back country stuff).. when you can spend $400 for an SR22T.. it's like spending $100K on a Corolla or $300K on a Ferarri. The Ferrari market would remain, but the Corolla market would disappear.. that's pretty much what's happening with GA. $400K for a new Archer or Skyhawk is nuts. I know we had the whole "LSA was supposed to save it" but obviously people are *not* jumping all over the idea of spending $200K+ on a tiny, ugly, small airplane. Rather than expand the GA pool and bring people in, LSA just kind of created its own little specialist niche. Like mopeds.

They killed that way back at the restart. What would a new buyer of a new 182 step up to? The TT before it was killed?

You are 100% right on this. The TTx, while an awesome plane, never really fit in Cessna's product line up. As you and others have noted, Cessna's strong spot is building that rugged, comfortable, and honest plane. Like the F150. They should never have killed off the 210 line.. I have never read one bad thing about that plane.. in fact AOPA recently-ish did a fly off between the 210 and the Bonanza, and the 210 pretty much kicked its ass. Cessna should have
*embraced the GA market via social media.. maybe not #cirruslife but along the lines of what Ford has done with F150, Raptor, etc. I know everyone hates millenials.. but them and Gex whatever are the people you need to approach if you want to sell your product #factoflife (mind you, I don't actually participate in social media.. but just making the observation)
*keep the 172 and 182 as honest workhorses. Ditch the Corinthian leather and G1000.. keep the price as dirt low as humanly possible
*keep the 210 as their step up plane, and offer that in a workhorse and LT trim package

People love Skyhawks. I've posted about it before, there seems to be an irrational tug toward Skyhawks. Fine with me, makes the faster aircraft I like that much less expensive.

Yeah. You are totally right. I get that many people are fond of the plane they trained in.. but the 172 crowd seems far more fanatical about their planes than the Cherokee crowd (maybe because the low wings folks know they have only one door?). At any rate.. the 172 pricing is bonkers. I was really impressed with how much better the 182 flies.. really goes to show me that Cessna was phoning it in hard with the 172 and geared the 182 much more for the owner market rather than trainer. The 182 is a great airplane

I get a lot of laughs scrolling through Barnstormers at what some of these people think a Skyhawk is worth.

Seriously! The prices on the 182 and 172 are absurd. I can understand the 182, that's a comfortable, if not sorta slow (but much faster than a Skyhawk/Cherokee), but very comfortable and honest docile cruiser. I logged about 5 hrs in a 182 last week and was very pleased with its flying qualities and overall ride. However, the 182P struggled with two people to climb up to 11K and, given that it has well over 200 hp, didn't seem all that powerful or fast (compared to that big healthy engine under the cowl). But for a comfortable cruiser I liked it a lot.. AND, landing between the Kern River Valley canyon at L05 this weekend I felt far more comfortable in a 182 there than I would have in a 160hp 172 or the Cirrus.. So the 182 I can understand for its loyalty base. The 172... that makes no sense.. unless you like going 110 knots and developing a leg cramp. The 172 should be squarely relegated to trainer role.

 

[N747JB]

This. The money is obviously not in small GA and Cessna/Textron is not a charity. In the past, I think aircraft companies hoped to develop a loyalty among customers so they would stick with the same brand name when moving up to larger aircraft. I don't think that is the case now with Cessna.

I guess I am the outlier my dad bought a new 182 in 1972 and all we've ever owned were Cessnas, but not another new one since 72, but a lot of parts!! I agree that the old days of learning in a 152, buying a 172 then a 182 are long gone! Unless we are talking about 30 year old birds! New airplanes have always been expensive, but now they are even more expensive compared to other forms of recreation and a 2018 182 can't really do anything that my 77 model can't do. Granted, I don't have a glass panel, which of course I could add, but speed and fuel burn is a wash, and my useful load is higher. Besides I can't justify paying more for a 182 than I did for a 425!

 

[Pilawt]

However, the 182P struggled with two people to climb up to 11K and, given that it has well over 200 hp, didn't seem all that powerful or fast (compared to that big healthy engine under the cowl). But for a comfortable cruiser I liked it a lot.. AND, landing between the Kern River Valley canyon at L05 this weekend I felt far more comfortable in a 182 there than I would have in a 160hp 172 or the Cirrus.. So the 182 I can understand for its loyalty base. The 172... that makes no sense.. unless you like going 110 knots and developing a leg cramp. The 172 should be squarely relegated to trainer role.

Gotta agree with you about the new 172 and 182. The new 172's only reason for being is as an ab initio trainer for the airline puppy mills. So stock it with a nice interior and a G1000 so these students won't be confused by steam gauges they'll never see in their airline career, and price is no object. The tooling and jigs at the Cessna plant were amortized back during the LBJ administration, so if an order is placed for a handful of trainers, Cessna won't turn it down.

But for a personal airplane, a lighter-weight, legacy-era 172 with a 180 hp engine is a worthy competitor to some 182s. Yesterday we took off at Show Low AZ (elev. 6415') with an 8800' density altitude and scooted right up to 12,500' for the trip home at 125 KTAS.

Thumb through Bill Thompson's books on the development of the legacy Cessna airplanes during the '40s, '50s and '60s. You read about the camaraderie among the engineers and test pilots, their enthusiasm for the product, their genuine desire to put out a product the customers really want -- even their tug-of-war with some of the marketing department's dubious ideas. I doubt that exists at Textron any more, except maybe where the high-end jets are concerned.

That's not to say that big airplane companies, and passion for little airplanes, is mutually exclusive. My CubCrafters Sport Cub was serial number 62. One day I met the owner of s/n 61, just like mine except it had a custom red-and-white paint job and a Washington State University Cougars logo on the tail. The owner was Scott Carson, then CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

 

[Tantalum]

a 2018 182 can't really do anything that my 77 model can't do

Another good point. The newer planes became less capable.

I get "regulation this, low demand that" - but honestly? For a plane that was developed in the 1950s I still can't get around why the entry level birds (Archer, Skyhawk, and step up Skylane) are as expensive as they are. All the costs associated with these things must have been paid off. Why these sheet metal parts can't just be stamped and assembled at this point is beyond me. Unless it's a giant F-U! to the owner market and they figure people like UND, Embry, etc., will happily fork over the money for new planes..

 

[Tantalum]

Thumb through Bill Thompson's books on the development of the legacy Cessna airplanes during the '40s, '50s and '60s. You read about the camaraderie among the engineers and test pilots, their enthusiasm for the product, their genuine desire to put out a product the customers really want -- even their tug-of-war with some of the marketing department's dubious ideas. I doubt that exists at Textron any more, except maybe where the high-end jets are concerned.

I think you perfectly captured what the OP was getting it. Nobody is expecting Cessna to become a charitable organization and give away Skyhawks. But there is a perception that the enthusiasm to build a great product for their customers seems gone. Like you said, all the equipment is paid for at this point.. the only advancements made now are putting Garmin's technology in it and giving it a nicer interior. Oh well.

I see more and more new Diamonds and Cirrus in the CA area being used for training, and virtually no new Piper / Cessna.. so maybe the tides are slowly turning?

 

[Everskyward]

I guess I am the outlier my dad bought a new 182 in 1972 and all we've ever owned were Cessnas, but not another new one since 72, but a lot of parts!! I agree that the old days of learning in a 152, buying a 172 then a 182 are long gone! Unless we are talking about 30 year old birds! New airplanes have always been expensive, but now they are even more expensive compared to other forms of recreation and a 2018 182 can't really do anything that my 77 model can't do. Granted, I don't have a glass panel, which of course I could add, but speed and fuel burn is a wash, and my useful load is higher. Besides I can't justify paying more for a 182 than I did for a 425!

I was not, and probably never will, be an airplane buyer, but I learned in a 150, rented 152s, 172s, and 182s, worked in 206s, 210s, and a 320, then after a digression to various other models, ended up in a 680. I don't think there is much similarity between the piston single line, the piston twin line, and the Citations, although there are some similarities within the groups.

If I were to pick an airplane to buy, it would be a high wing, although not necessarily a Cessna. I think the pleasure I got from flying was looking at the world from above, not going fast to a destination.

 

[Pilawt]

I see more and more new Diamonds and Cirrus in the CA area being used for training, and virtually no new Piper / Cessna.. so maybe the tides are slowly turning?

There's a TON of airline-academy flight training in this area. There are a lot of new Archers around here, mostly the CAE (Oxford) and UND schools at KFFZ, and Trans-Pac (callsign "Mesquite xxx") at KDVT. And Lufthansa-owned Airline Training Center Arizona, based at KGYR, is in the midst of transitioning from F33A Bonanzas to new Cirrus SR20s. Embry-Riddle, up the road at Prescott, is a major user of new 172s. (It was ERAU that originally special-ordered a fleet of O-360-powered 172s for its high-elevation KPRC operation years ago. That resulted in the factory-built Model 172Q (1983-85), and indirectly to the popular STC for 180 hp Skyhawks.)

 

[tspear]

Another good point. The newer planes became less capable.

I get "regulation this, low demand that" - but honestly? For a plane that was developed in the 1950s I still can't get around why the entry level birds (Archer, Skyhawk, and step up Skylane) are as expensive as they are. All the costs associated with these things must have been paid off. Why these sheet metal parts can't just be stamped and assembled at this point is beyond me. Unless it's a giant F-U! to the owner market and they figure people like UND, Embry, etc., will happily fork over the money for new planes..

R&D is yes, but ongoing production certification costs are a real problem. Not only do regulations need to be addressed, but years of guidelines and onerous add-ons need to be rescinded.

Tim

 

[GRG55]

Gotta admit, disagree completely with the views in a few of the posts on this thread.

1. New piston single aircraft is a stagnant market. For the past 5 years worldwide shipments of piston GA aircraft have been in a narrow range between 1000 and 1100 units annually. That number is down by more than 60% from the already depressed 2006 pre-global financial crisis figure, and is staying there. And the much vaunted Cirrus sales figures closely mirror the industry as a whole, volume down by 51% since 2006. This does not support the conclusion that another "better mousetrap" is what's needed to turn around this moribund industry. Cirrus' success at retaining sales volume is only marginally better than all the other piston GA manufacturers together. No magic bullet there. What is the next recession going to do to these numbers? And why would anybody in their right mind think they can overcome that trend, no matter how pretty and cheap a plane they might produce.

2. The cost of the tooling of a legacy Cessna piston airframe is an irrelevant part of the total cost of building, marketing and supporting the airplanes. The cost of raw materials keeps going up (hello aluminum tariffs), the cost of labor keeps going up (hello employee medical coverage inflation), the cost of utilities keeps going up (hello green windmills in Kansas), the cost of certifying new avionics packages, the cost of dealing with tighter environmental regulations for such things as paint system volatiles, the high cost of aircraft engines due to low production volume (the real reason I think they killed the diesel) and a host of other factors in this most heavily of regulated industries completely overwhelm the "paid off tooling" Cessna might still be using (and those molds and stamping forms do not have infinite life either).

3. For those that lament that Cessna has not cut the cost of a 172 or 182 to something "reasonable", I would respond with "What is the price point at which you would make a firm commitment to buy an new Cessna 172/182 in the coming year?". Might make for an interesting PoA thread poll. But I'll bet the answers for cost and volume converge at something materially below Cessna's actual ability to deliver the combination. Maybe if Cessna was making as many 172s as Ford makes F150s the price might come down. Then again, maybe Cessna needs to bring back the simpler 140 instead? Any takers?

4. To put 3 in perspective, last year piston aircraft made up just over 46% of all GA aircraft unit deliveries. That significant percentage of units represented less than four (4) percent of the total revenues for all GA manufacturers worldwide. The other ninety-six (96) percent of revenues came from turbine sales. If you were investing in the GA airplane business (presumably to make a profit and grow your firm) where would you put your money? Even Piper (Meridian/M600), Daher (TBM) and Cirrus (jet) have figured that out. Textron/Cessna was there way ahead of all of them. Last year Cessna sold almost 2 Citation jets for every piston single Cirrus sold. Where is the money in GA? My prediction: After the next recession, if piston aircraft sales take another permanent hit, Cirrus will reduce the number of piston aircraft models it sells, probably by eliminating its more economical but slow selling, lower margin SR-20 (13% of last year's sales volume total for Cirrus).

5. "I see more and more new Diamonds and Cirrus in the CA area being used for training, and virtually no new Piper / Cessna.. so maybe the tides are slowly turning?" The tides are not turning; they are slowly and inexorably receding. The Cirrus and the Diamonds generally rent for more money than the venerable 172 (which apparently costs too much ), making flying ever less accessible for the private/recreational student or renter.

 

[Pilawt]

Many of the re-start 172s from the late 1990s and early 2000s, now depreciated out by the flight schools, are ending up in private hands. But is it at a rate that offsets the attrition of the legacy fleet?

 

[denverpilot]

3. For those that lament that Cessna has not cut the cost of a 172 or 182 to something "reasonable", I would respond with "What is the price point at which you would make a firm commitment to buy an new Cessna 172/182 in the coming year?". Might make for an interesting PoA thread poll. But I'll bet the answers for cost and volume converge at something materially below Cessna's actual ability to deliver the combination. Maybe if Cessna was making as many 172s as Ford makes F150s the price might come down. Then again, maybe Cessna needs to bring back the simpler 140 instead? Any takers?

Not sure on the commitment to buy new question, but in the same timeframe as my current 182 to the present, automotive prices have roughly doubled BUT the newer vehicle will also go nearly twice as long mileage-wise in total lifespan and will also not require almost any maintenance in that same timeframe other than fluid changes and tires.

Aircraft on the other hand have gone up five-fold with virtually no difference whatsoever in powerplant lifespan. Airframe lifespan was always better than cars.

TBO hasn’t risen considerably, and that’s a significant problem with a product that sells new for five times the price as a 40 year old used one.

I’m not saying I’m a buyer at $200K but I’m damn sure not a buyer at $500K. $500K puts the aircraft above the median house price here. Barely... now that we’re in a major boom housing market with too many people moving here, but it’s still above it. You can’t call anything optional like an aircraft “worth it” at that price.

Plus with the number of Skyhawks built in total, it’ll be a long time before so many are wrecked that you can buy the same aircraft and restore it for a lot less money than new. You could rebuild one “as good as new” including engine, for just under $100K if you shopped well. With identical tech going into the panel and engine on a new one as a 70s one, you can’t justify a five fold increase in price for no better maintenance longevity.

As far as a 140 goes, no.

Not enough performance at this altitude. They’re not even a good option used, here. Most Skyhawks get an STC upgrade to 180 HP if they didn’t already have it here, also. But because of DA, anything smaller than a Skyhawk gets marginal in the summertime real quick.

 

[Bell206]

The one denominator missing from this equation is the effect Tort law settlements had on the GA industry and how GARA restarted only a portion of it. Until there are Tort caps for GA incidents with a similar change to insurance coverage costs/availability, single engine GA will never recover to it's former levels. And with the increasing applications and low costs toward drone use, it will be interesting which direction future aviators will follow.

 

[Tantalum]

R&D is yes, but ongoing production certification costs are a real problem. Not only do regulations need to be addressed, but years of guidelines and onerous add-ons need to be rescinded.

What a disaster. The fear is, where will it end?

 

[tspear]

What a disaster. The fear is, where will it end?

Actually I think the FAA is acting like it has two factions at war. Look at the recent Dynon STC for the 172. This was a complete end run on the old regulations. Same for the older AOA indicator guidance from a couple of years ago. The ElectoAir magneto replacement is another example. The old guard is still there, but between the legal requirements on the FAR 23 rewrite, public comments, and pilot advocacy the FAA is slowly (a glacier is faster) changing direction.

Tim

 

[Tantalum]

Thanks @GRG55 for the gentle take down lol.. pretty sure all your points were related to my post. Which is fine, I always learn a thing or two on these threads

Maybe that was my optimism speaking.. it's easier to blame one company for "abandoning us" then reckoning with the bigger picture of GA slowly fading away into oblivion due to overall economic and social factors

It's a sad thought

Luckily around my neck of the woods GA is pretty active.. we just flew 14 planes out to L05 with about 30 people, and MYF, SEE, and CRQ stay very active. The refreshing part is, I would say about half the pilots I meet on the ramp and across various GA events are earning, or earned, their license for recreation. That is refreshing to me.. for a while I felt like people only got their licenses to go work for an airline... which is fine, but if people are earning their license just for the fun of it that tells me that there are still people out there in the 25-40 age group that just want to fly

BUT.. depressing facts are that

-it's very expensive

-people are working more, working harder, and often times not earning an income that is commensurate with their skill level.. there are data science jobs out there that require PhDs and 15 years experience paying in the $75K to $100K range. Strictly speaking that income is not bad.. but 15 years experience and a PhD should get you more than that..

-the fleet of "price accessible" planes is old, and often in sorry shape. Which is fine if you're an enthusiast. I have no problem renting an old beater for a "a $100 burger" but there are many people who simply at this point just don't like the idea of the plane they're flying being that ancient. I can tell when I bring new people flying. An old school no GPS steam gauge plane they're pretty nervous about the whole thing.. an updated Archer II with GTN 750, and a G5, they're pretty interested, the plane is cool.. might have some questions about what it's like to earn a license, costs, etc. Bring them up in pretty much any G1000 plane, especially a Cirrus with the doors, and they're in love. But then you tell them the cost and the idea leaves their head as fast as it got there. **I do believe people are interested in flying, I don't think society is that doomed (yet) but the costs are just too high for most people.

-I am not old enough to know this, so maybe someone can correct me or educate me.. but has the aircraft purchase process always been that challenging? It seems that there are so many barriers to entry in buying an airplane that even if you can afford it is near impossible to own an airplane unless you buy direct new.. or are very patient, diligent, and resourceful

 

[GRG55]

Thanks @GRG55 for the gentle take down lol.. pretty sure all your points were related to my post. Which is fine, I always learn a thing or two on these threads

Maybe that was my optimism speaking.. it's easier to blame one company for "abandoning us" then reckoning with the bigger picture of GA slowly fading away into oblivion due to overall economic and social factors

It's a sad thought..

I wish it wasn't so, but that is the sad reality. I am really heartened to hear that recreational/private GA is still thriving where you are. We are doing everything we can in our Flying Club to encourage more private students and to get existing dormant PPL holders to come out, get current and try flying again. It is an uphill battle, for many of the reasons you mention...money, time, etc.

When a business goes from nearly 18,000 airplanes manufactured in a year to less than 2500, as today, that is an industry in a heap 'o trouble. It isn't ever going to come back like it was in the 1970s. Worse, it doesn't even look like its going to come back to where it was a dozen years ago.

I recall a line in one of the eulogy articles after the recent passing of Richard Collins. It mentioned he was editor of Flying Magazine during its heyday, when subscribers numbered nearly 500,000 and they sold 100,000 copies on newstands every month. I have trouble finding a copy of Flying at the airport news stands when I am travelling commercially these days.

 

[Tantalum]

I have trouble finding a copy of Flying at the airport news stands when I am travelling commercially these days.

Great point. I can't remember the last time I saw a copy of Flying Mag at a news stand. The sailing community is also shrinking fast. It is now reserved for hard core race enthusiasts, the Uber rich, and the occasional oddball. Granted.. you still see Sailing and Cruising World in many news stands.. but no more Flying

..I'm going to go cry now

PS, our club wasn't always like this, but we had a member join a few years ago who really took it upon himself to change that. He organizes happy hour events at the local Mexican restaurant and sets up fly outs that usually involve some other activity adjacent to the flying (fishing, hiking, rating, jetskis, etc.).. our first happy our and fly out had only a couple people and one or two planes, but it's caught on since then as word spread.. he found a way to set these up without them feeling tacky or corporate.. they feel really organic. Took some effort though and the stars do have to align. We're blessed with amicable weather to that end