RIP Cessna...Skycatcher

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:53:24 -0700, Newps wrote:



wrote:


Yeah, but what about the plane itself?

Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework

We can hope so, but remember all the quality control issues when they
first went back into the single engine prop plane business.

and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
Mustang.
Roger (K8RI)

On Nov 28, 12:53 pm, Newps wrote:
wrote:
Yeah, but what about the plane itself?

Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework
and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
Mustang.

Way back in the 80s there was a Word processing program called
Wordperfect. At that time it was the market-leading word processing
software. It was actually inferior to a number of other programs, but
it had really great technical support and lots of people used it
because they needed the support. The Skycatcher strikes me the same
way. It has some real liabilities compared to other LSAs on the
market, but it will have the Cessna network behind it and a lot of
people will probably buy it for that reason.

Eventually Wordperfect lost out in the market to superior products.
Time will tell if this happens to the Skycatcher. I think if Cessna
had really done their homework they would have designed a plane that
was a little more competitive.

Phil

wrote:
Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

My theory:

When Chris Heinz designed his first aircraft, he designed it so that _he_
(a non-machinist) would be able to build it on his own. All other
requirements were secondary to the "easy manufacturability" requirement. No
doubt he maintained that principle in subsequent designs.

By contrast, the designers of the Skycatcher almost certainly didn't have
"easy manufacturability" as their primary requirement. Probably way down
the list. Assuming the Skycatcher uses solid rivets (first invented back in
the Bronze age), that already causes a labor cost disadvantage over the
blind rivets used in Chris Heinz designs.

wrote:
Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

I'll wager a guess that it might make
more sense if we knew what Cessna's
definition of "profit" is.

My concern, aside from the lack of jobs in Kansas, is weight. The LSA must
be light and lead paint is heavy.




"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...
|
| "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
| ...
| Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
|
|
| I have seen some pretty damn good airframes that were built in third
world
| countries. Plus, it is going to be supported by Cessna. Don't knock it
until
| you have seen it.
|
| Vaughn
|
|

writes:

Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

What Cessna probably means is that they cannot build the aircraft with the
profit margin they want in the U.S. To maximize profit they must build
abroad.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

Right. Like you would actually get in one if it was made in the U.S. and
someone offered to let you fly it for free.

A Chinese aircraft is likely to be even less safe than an American aircraft.

john smith writes:

According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying that
by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than it would
cost to build in the USA.
I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is labor?

And how much is profit?

James Sleeman writes:

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.

Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
presented itself.

The most profitable, you mean.

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia.

Sometimes xenophobia is justified.

On Nov 28, 11:07 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
China now...

Jay, I didnt know you could read.