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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted Cessna
to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it was also
at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly
for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.


From "70 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE -
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY"

Citation Business Jets
In 1967, Cessna launched a new era in business aviation when it announced
plans to introduce the Citation. The new business jet was quieter, simpler,
more capable of operating safely in and out of short fields, substantially
more fuel efficient and much less expensive to own and operate than any
other business jet on the market or the drawing board.

Five years later, in 1972, Cessna delivered the first Citation. In 1976 the
company dramatically increased its leadership role by announcing three new
business jets: the improved Citation I; the larger, better-performing
Citation II; and the Citation III.

The Citation II quickly became the best-selling business jet in the world.
It was replaced in 1984 by the improved Citation S/II. The Citation III was
the first all-new business jet designed and produced in the United States
since the original Citation in 1972. More than 200 Citation IIIs entered
service after deliveries of the aircraft began in 1983. In response to
popular demand, the Citation II returned to the Cessna product line in 1987.
More than 800 Citation IIs and S/IIs were delivered by the end of 1994 when
the Citation Bravo replaced them in the Cessna line.

In September 1987, Cessna introduced the Citation V, a larger, faster
aircraft that has set sales records since deliveries began early in 1989. In
October 1989, Cessna introduced the CitationJet, a new aircraft tailored to
first time jet owners. The CitationJet was certified in October of 1992 and
the first delivery followed in March of 1993. The CitationJet quickly became
the most popular entry-level business jet in the world, and in July 1997,
the 200th CitationJet was delivered.

In May 1990, Cessna added two more aircraft to its business jet line: the
Citation VI and Citation VII, which were derived from and replaced the
Citation III. The first Citation VI was delivered in May 1991, with
deliveries of the higher-powered Citation VII starting in March 1992.

In October 1990, Cessna took another industry standard-setting step when the
Citation X was introduced. Flying at .92 Mach, the Citation X is the world's
fastest business jet. Among non-military aircraft, only the Concorde is
faster. The new Cessna flagship travels from Los Angeles to New York in
under four hours. The Citation X's first flight was in December of 1993 and
certification was received May 31, 1996. The first Citation X was delivered
to golf legend and Citation pilot, Arnold Palmer. By summer, 1997, the
Citation X fleet grew to over 30 and had accumulated over 10,000 flight
hours.

The National Aeronautics Administration recognized the Citation X's
accomplishments, bestowing upon the aircraft and its design team the 1996
Robert J. Collier Trophy. The Collier is awarded annually for outstanding
achievement in the fields of aeronautics or astronautics. Cessna has earned
the award twice, first in 1985 for the safety record of the Citation fleet,
and is the only general aviation manufacturer to have ever been honored with
the most prestigious award in United States aviation.

In 1994 Cessna introduced the Citation Ultra, an updated version of the
Citation V, and announced the Citation Bravo, a replacement for the Citation
II. Completing certification in 1996, the Bravo incorporates
customer-recommended improvements including upgraded avionics, trailing link
landing gear, more speed, range and payload. Deliveries began in February
1997.

In October of 1994, Cessna also announced the Citation Excel. The only light
jet to offer a stand-up cabin, the Excel approached the 200-order marker by
mid-1997. The Excel was certified in April 1998 and deliveries began in
early July 1998.

The Citation fleet of business jet aircraft, based in over 75 countries, is
the largest in the world as evidenced on September 10, 1997, with the
delivery of the 2,500th Citation - a Citation X.

At the National Business Aviation Association Convention in Las Vegas,
October 19 - 21, 1998, Cessna made the biggest new product announcement in
its history. Four new Citations were revealed: Citation CJ1, Citation CJ2,
Citation Encore and Citation Sovereign. The Citation CJ1 is the successor to
the best-selling CitationJet; the Citation CJ2 is a longer, faster version
of the CJ that seats 6 passengers; the Citation Encore inherits the
worldwide recognition and acceptance of the Ultra with new engines, a
trailing link landing gear and more; and the Citation Sovereign is an
all-new midsize business jet that will begin deliveries in third quarter of
2002.
----------------------------------------------

Yes, it many respects it WAS the aircraft, as a differentiated product, that
did catapault Cessna to the top of the BizJet market.

Learning in a 152 and flying a 182 or 210 is a world apart from the bizjet.
Cessna could not have "cornered" the market with a mediocre product.

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
TaxSrv wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.

Matt


Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
$12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?

OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted
Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it
was also at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's
who now fly for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.


Matt

If you would research the subject you would find that since 1927 Cessna has
found markets not exploited by other manufacturers. It was and is the
airplanes. Dwayne Wallace had unbelievable insight into the market and his
list of hits from 1933 to the late 1970's is unmatched. The Citation line
alone disproves your theory much less the dozens of other models that do
what no other airplane can do. On the other hand they have had flops along
the way which is to be expected. That thing they called a helicopter is one
that comes to mind.

I don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that
catapulted Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively
quickly. I suspect it was also at least partly due to all of
the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly for, or own,
many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.

Matt

I have little clue on that, but I would say that these are
hard-dollar propositions, with many competitive choices, new or
used. A corp's flight dept, or outside consultant even, in an
ideal world should do a purely objective analysis for top
management. Nevertheless, I suspect a more common personal bias in
the process is where a turboprop may be the correct choice, but the
guys would really rather pilot a jet!

I dunno, but do you think where a company upgrades from the rather
ubiquitous King Air, they'll tend to buy a Beechjet? Comparative
jet shipment stats don't look conclusive in that regard. Maybe
there's a growing factor in the female voices I'm now hearing
working radios in these things. Not to stir up trouble, but just
what is the cutest bizjet they make? :-)

Fred F.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:14:34 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
To

If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
"perception."

Harley, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini owners combined are an
insignificant percentage of total motorcycle and car owners.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Besides, last I checked,
Harley owns ~35% of the US market...which is far from "insignificant".
And that is based on market share in sales...not all bikes. Back in the
60's, they owned something like 80% of the market. And all of this
ignores used sales. Needless to say, Harley sales are significant
based on its perception of quality. Sadly, quality is an oxymoron when
talking about Harley. Which, is exactly the point I was making. MOST
people buy based on perception.

Harley has
been almost out of business numerous times during it's history.


And yet are going strong today. You ask the American masses, especially
the blue collar guys, and they'll tell you they want the POS that is
Harley...because of its perceived strengths. The fact that it's a total
POS in reality doesn't seem to impact its sales or its preception of
quality. Which was my point. My point is, people often buy name brands
based on a perception of x.


Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.


I agree with you, but it doesn't address the nature of humanity. Most
people do buy based on perception. I would guess that those that read
usenet groups are also those that tend to be swayed more by facts and
analysis rather than perception. On the other hand, if you find those
that have lots and lots of money, buying based on perception is not
uncommon.


Greg

Dave,

Their
success speaks for itself.


Like with Microsoft? ;-)

IMHO there can be no doubt that they have done a lot to stall
innovation in the light-plane business through the 70s onward.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:49:44 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:



Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement. Most do
not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
safety aspect is suspect.

Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.

In otherwords, driving an SUV addresses the safety problem created by
those that drive SUVs. Go figure...

Greg

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:44:27 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
However, they may tow it every weekend.

Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where
I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that
about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same
proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that
had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be
towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to
offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool.

IIRC, you're not far off form the real stats. Again, IIRC, only 2 out of
10 actually tow/haul anything, ever leave pavement, ever have more than
four people in them. Basically, only 1/5 of all SUVs owners, own them for
anything other than status or coolness factors.

There is nothing wrong with a dual use vehicle. I attach the following as
an example:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-507.htm

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
[...]
Actually, every reference I've ever seen ignores area, because it is only
a factor in special circumstances and then it is related to the materials
failing, not to the underlying theory of friction.

Whatever. It should be painfully obvious that area DOES have an effect,
since you cannot decrease the area arbitrarily without affecting friction.
Make the contact point small enough, and friction WILL increase.

[...]
That is because you are wrong and didn't want to further show that.

Now you're just being stupid. I found a reference that showed I was wrong,
commented on that here, and you're accusing me of not want to FURTHER show I
was wrong? Just how much "wrong" do you need someone to own up to before
you are finished insulting them?

[...]
That is a somewhat specious description, but in any event tire pressure is
at best a second or third order effect, it isn't a first order affect.

No one said anything about whether it's "first order", "second order", or
"millionth order". You claimed it "makes little difference", when in fact
it does make more than a "little difference".

[...]
I still think it's a silly argument.

Yes, when I'm shown to be wrong, I usually think it was a silly argument
at that point as well. :-)

I was talking about the argument about whether SUVs are a valid choice for
any driver, genius.

Pete

("Greg Copeland" wrote)
Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.


Check the accident stats. Many fatalities are single car accidents. Now we
need to figure out if SUV's are more, or less, safe than "smaller" cars in
this category?

Single vehicle deaths is a healthy percentage of the pie.


Montblack