4 ms·
(pilot here) Cessna was a badass plane 50 years ago, but it is no longer; for the past 20 years is is lagging a lot behind in terms of weight, engine power and
by AdrianB1 6y ago
(pilot here) Cessna was a badass plane 50 years ago, but it is no longer; for the past 20 years is is lagging a lot behind in terms of weight, engine power and fuel consumption.
I have very little time on 152 and 172, definitely not an expert, but from the ~ 10 plane models I flied as pilot the Cessnas were at the bottom 3. For 2 seaters an 152 is twice as heavy as the other planes, the engine is obsolete giving low power with high fuel consumption, practically for a 2-seater Rotax 912 powered LSA's are better from any point of view: lighter, faster, cheaper to buy and operate, have shorter take of and landing (better power to weight ratio), fly longer (better mileage) and nicer to fly (fast and agile).
For the 172 there is no much competition and that is a very bad thing; this is the only reason the 172 is so popular. When a two-seater can be bought for less than $100k new, a 4-seater is crazy expensive for no particular reason.
A legend among the pilots and plane owners is that for every plane sold Cessna was covering the manufacturing cost with half of the money and litigation with the other half. I read that in a couple of magazines too, it is hard to confirm if it is entirely true but there is something there. Also the biggest recent fail of Cessna, the 162, was built in China and still extremely expensive - almost double the price of a similar plane built in Europe (Comco Ikarus and Flight Design in Germany, Pipistrel in Slovenia or Evektor in Czech Republic).
Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world: the company that is going on inertia building obsolete products based on a brand image built decades ago.
- mikorym 6y ago> Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world Not in terms of safety. I mentioned below somewhere that the main feature of a Cessna 182 is probably the very slow stalling speed. Cost of operation and cost ratio of the engine is maybe where your argument is true.
- AdrianB1 6y agoSafety in aviation is a different story, I never said Cessna has planes that are not safe. In this class all the planes have very low stall speed, Cessna is not better than others. If you compare with much faster planes (cruise and top speed), they also have higher stall speeds, they tend to go together.
- cjrp 6y agoLSAs are generally characterised by low stall speeds. Something like a Diamond DA-20 (arguably a competitor to the 152, used a lot for primary training) stalls at a slower speed in fact.
- asdfman123 6y agoI would imagine their brand is also strong because of the used market. If I were in the market for planes I'd probably be in the market for cheaper, used planes.
- Stevvo 6y agoThey tried building modern aircraft; the Columbia 400 was very competitive with the SR22T, but hardly sold any. Seems like people enjoy their tin can airplanes just fine.
- AdrianB1 6y ago$700k for a 4-seater is not competitive with anything. Even Pipistrel Panthera at $500k is not popular, even if it is a very good plane. I am comparing with a $100k 2-seater, going 2 times larger for 7 times the price is bad math, considering you have a single engine, fixed gear,etc/ Yes, it compares with a SR22, but it is not what the market is expecting, a scaled-up 2-seater getting to 4 seats at $150k. That would be the killer plane, not the overly expensive ones at $500-750k available now.
- Stevvo 6y agoIn that category experimental is a much better option than a certified aircraft; your 'killer plane' is an RV-10 or Sling TSi.