Well that was fast. Turbo Skyhawk JT-A is dead.

It can't help Cessna that Piper is cleaning their clock on big training fleet deals, including now doing a diesel Seminole.

asicer said:
Can't the IO360AF burn it?



I wonder how the diesel DA40NG is selling? I see that 5 of the Diamond diesels went to Ethiopia and 4 went to Finland but GAMA only lists combined DA40 shipments (60 in 2017).
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Diamond diesels do very well in the EU, and are probably gaining traction in Canada.
 
N1120A said:
It can't help Cessna that Piper is cleaning their clock on big training fleet deals, including now doing a diesel Seminole.
I'm pretty sure the Diamond diesels do very well in the EU, and are probably gaining traction in Canada.
Click to expand...

I am on a Diamond forum. Most of the DA40 owners who have posted and are buying new (even in the USA) are going with the Diesel engine. Diamond just managed to put together a really good package in the plane. The general comment is the Diesel costs a little bit in stall speed; which is already super low; however has better climb/cruise performance above 5K (turbos); and is much quieter and a lot less vibration.

Tim
 
GRG55 said:
LOL. You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand labour isn't the reason for high costs. And neither is materials.

I'll buy the materials argument. But just how many hundreds (thousands?) of hours of labour goes into building said RV-10...even a QB version? I'm sure Cessna bangs them together faster, but I doubt it's an enormous difference.
Click to expand...

I didn't contradict myself at all. I said labor and materials weren't the likely drivers of the high cost/price of a C172/182 aircraft. The high cost is the overhead (including legal) that Cessna decides to assign to the product line. As was mentioned, Van's could likely make an RV-model, assembled, and sell for $150K-200K while still making a profit. The difference in an RV-10 and a 172/182 is likely immaterial in terms of labor/materials, and Cessna should actually have a huge pricing advantage on the materials side simply due to Textron's clout/purchasing power and volume. If Cessna hasn't found a more efficient method of manufacturing 172/182 aircraft in 70 years, that's on them. Every panel should be pre-punched before it gets into the assembly area, sub-assemblies should be done where it makes sense to save time, standard wiring bundles routed with connections ready to go. Otherwise, it means that Cessna employees have disregarded every Kaison/Lean/Six Sigma/etc. process improvement method that has been introduced since they began production.

So, in short, the reasons for Cessna's high cost are far more likely to be their own indifference/self-inflicted wounds (including estimation of legal liability) than on the actual direct cost of producing the aircraft. Van's claims 2,000hr average for first-build times on the RV-10. I'd assume once someone has built a few-thousand of them, the time to build drops by hundreds of hours because there would be jigs/forms and detailed work instructions for every single segment.
 
Cessna made the SkyCatcher to Part 23 certification standards instead of LSA event though it was sold as an LSA.
PR at the time stated this was due to production of to many parts being on a shared floor area with Part 23 aircraft.

Part 23 PMA overhead is substantial; and is often underestimated. Part 23 is basically CMI level 5 for those in the IT space. The number of hours required in overhead and verification are substantial.

In comparison, there was a pretty neat video from Cirrus (I think avweb did the interview) which covered manufacturing efficiency and the FAA. It was really amazing the number of hours you have to save per plane in the manufacturing to cover the certification update changes with the FAA.

With the number of models Cessna has under production on the piston side, no single model has the numbers to cover the costs to make the changes.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Cessna made the SkyCatcher to Part 23 certification standards instead of LSA event though it was sold as an LSA.
PR at the time stated this was due to production of to many parts being on a shared floor area with Part 23 aircraft.

Part 23 PMA overhead is substantial; and is often underestimated. Part 23 is basically CMI level 5 for those in the IT space. The number of hours required in overhead and verification are substantial.

In comparison, there was a pretty neat video from Cirrus (I think avweb did the interview) which covered manufacturing efficiency and the FAA. It was really amazing the number of hours you have to save per plane in the manufacturing to cover the certification update changes with the FAA.

With the number of models Cessna has under production on the piston side, no single model has the numbers to cover the costs to make the changes.

Tim
Click to expand...

Completely believable. One more reason certified aircraft regulations for aircraft like the 172/182-series need to be rolled-back a bit, especially related to liability.
 
tspear said:
In comparison, there was a pretty neat video from Cirrus (I think avweb did the interview) which covered manufacturing efficiency and the FAA. It was really amazing the number of hours you have to save per plane in the manufacturing to cover the certification update changes with the FAA.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t pass the smell test unless they were changing a process in such a way as it might threaten changing the final product.
 
denverpilot said:
Hahaha that was one of my old bosses and mentor’s phrases.

“That sounds great. If we can’t bill for it, it’s just a hobby.”

Strangely he’s retired now and I hear myself saying the phrase in staff and management meetings. :)
Click to expand...

Just used that same phrase in a sponsor meeting the other day; “Great idea, until there’s a business case, consider that a hobby for your spare time”.
 
tspear said:
Part 23 PMA overhead is substantial; and is often underestimated.
Click to expand...

Yup.

What you get when you take a $100k RV7 and add a couple seats? A $150k RV10.

What do you get when you take a $150k Tecnam P2008, add a couple seats and certification? A $360k P2010.

What do you get when you take a $150k CTLS, add a couple seats and certification? Vaporware.
 
One of the issues Cessna faced when it restarted production in the mid 1990s was finding skilled workers who knew how to build 172s, or how to train others to build them. Most of the experienced, long-time Cessna employees who had built the legacy singles had long since retired or gone on to other jobs.
 
BTW, one other thing. Just for your amusement, here's how the price of ACA Champ was changing since I started tracking The Cheapest Part 23 Certified Aircraft in America (remember that no Primary Category aircraft are sold anymore[1], that only leaves Normal Category aircraft, and Champ is the cheapest of them all -- even cheaper than Sky Arrow):

2011 $109,000
2012 $115,900
2012 $120,900
2014 $124,500
2015 $129,900 (Special Order Only from 2015 onward)
2016 $132,900 (S.O.O.)
2018 $135,500 (S.O.O.)

I'm pretty sure they would try to sell cheaper if they only could.

[1] A gyro came back to become the sole available Primary certified design in 2018. The 162 was never sold with white certificate. GT 500 and S-7 are not sold with white certificates anymore - S-LSA only.
 
zaitcev said:
BTW, one other thing. Just for your amusement, here's how the price of ACA Champ was changing since I started tracking The Cheapest Part 23 Certified Aircraft in America (remember that no Primary Category aircraft are sold anymore[1], that only leaves Normal Category aircraft, and Champ is the cheapest of them all -- even cheaper than Sky Arrow)
Click to expand...
I love the idea of the Champ, a throwback to the original 7AC concept. Problem is, the current product is neither fish nor fowl, and it's in an awkward niche in the market. It's Part 23 certified as you say (same type certificate as other Model 7 Champs, Citabrias and Decathlons), but sold with an artificially-low 1320 lb. MGW so that it can be flown with only a Sport Pilot certificate. As such, it's 50 pounds heavier than the purpose-built S-LSA CubCrafters Sport Cub with the O-200-A engine. That leaves the new Champ with a useful load of less than 400 pounds. That's a 293 pound payload with full (17 gallons) fuel. The original 1964 7ECA Citabria with the O-200-A engine had a gross weight of 1650 lb.
 
tspear said:
I am on a Diamond forum. Most of the DA40 owners who have posted and are buying new (even in the USA) are going with the Diesel engine. Diamond just managed to put together a really good package in the plane. The general comment is the Diesel costs a little bit in stall speed; which is already super low; however has better climb/cruise performance above 5K (turbos); and is much quieter and a lot less vibration.

Tim
Click to expand...

They also burn half the gas, so there is that. I don't see why anyone wouldn't go with a diesel when buying a Diamond, unless they were based at an airport that only sells AvGas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top