Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:39 GMT, "Frankie"
wrote:

The Cirrus is a great plane, but its not a really pretty one. I
parked next to a new Columbia the other day, and that airplane is
really pretty....

Straying off topic......I think the Cirrus looks better than the Columbia.
The only problem with the Cirrus is its landing gear: the main wheels are
too far apart and the nose strut looks chunky since it's straight. Install a

Wide gear is good. Narrow is bad.
Just think in those terms.
Wide means stability on the ground.

nice arched nose wheel strut - like on the Grumman Tiger - and move the main
gear together and the problem would be corrected.

The proportions of a Columbia just don't look right to me, especially the
window lines. It looks too much like an experimental (still) - kinda goofy.

You're right about Cardinals: they look great and have much airspeed
potential if cleaned up.

To me the Cardinal is the niced plane Cessna built, right after the
310.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Frankie

The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Now sweep the tail, install a stabilator, saw off the
struts, make the
tiedown rings retract, and use mostly flush rivets and your high wing
airplane is now a stunner, with far more ramp appeal than a clorox
bottle with wings. In other words, make a Cardinal.

Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal. Although I doubt Cessna
would build another retract because of product liability(?) Besides,
look how fast the SR-22 and Columbias go with fixed gear. Apparently
retracts are not required any more to make a plane go fast.

wrote

Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.

My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is set
up for.

I think there would have been some talk among the community, of composite
guys, or equipment, or companies being pulled in.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message news:EBI%
wrote

Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.

My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is
set
up for.

I think there would have been some talk among the community, of composite
guys, or equipment, or companies being pulled in.

Fly a Cirrus. It's free. Then wait for the Cessna version.

moo

Morgans wrote:

wrote


Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.


My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is set
up for.

Yes, there is hydro and stretch forming technology now readily available
that could make a very sleep aluminum airplane. Look at the Venture
homebuilt for example. The technology was just too espensive to support
a low volume homebuilt, but think what Cessna could do with it.


Matt

When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
ahhhh, not just pilots either….

Most people don't give a rodent's petunia where the wings are as long as
they stay on. High wing planes have lots of comfort and visibility
advantages, things I'd rather have for my pax as opposed to a certain
"look".

Cessna obviously knows how to make high wing small planes; why fix something
that isn't broken?

"ET" wrote in message
...
[...]
Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
& slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

That's silly. People who actually *care* about something like speed look at
the specs, not the wing position.

Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400 and
500 come to mind.

To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
"look" to it.

Well, when the public at large are buying the airplane, then maybe they
might want to worry about that. But the public at large isn't, so Cessna
doesn't need to.

I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing...

Assuming the airplane provides the performance they expect to get, your
prediction will go down in flames.

[...]
When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,

Fortunately, most people have more sensible heads on their shoulders. Don't
mistake your own opinion for common sense.

Pete

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400
and 500 come to mind.


I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the Extra
400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because so few
are flying?

Very little 'buzz' on those planes.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the
Extra 400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because
so few are flying?

As far as I know, the 400 is no longer being produced, and the 500 isn't
certified yet. That information isn't exactly current though.

However, that doesn't mean that the airplanes aren't viable, and especially
not because of their wing position. Their lack of success in the market has
to do with issues like price, pilot qualifications, lack of "brand name" (in
the non-aerobatic world) and (in the case of the 500) lack of a deliverable
airplane.

IMHO, the price is the biggest issue. Just as they finally got the 400 into
production, the stock market collapsed, and around that same time several
light jet proposals appeared, promising twin-engine jet performance at the
same price as the 400. Given the slow production rate, I think a lot of
people figured if they were going to be on a waiting list, they might as
well wait for a jet.

I seriously doubt that the position of the wing has anything to do with the
relative obscurity of the 400/500 line.

Pete

Montblack wrote:

I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the
Extra 400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because
so few are flying?

Extra was in financial trouble. (I think they actually went bankrupt.)
At the Aero this spring I talked to a representant of them, they found
investors and are in production again, but I don't have any numbers.

Stean