New Cessna

wrote:

Seems that maybe they ARE thinking glass? To go that fast with a diesel
would require pretty high HP and a slick airframe IMO. It would be neat
to see Cessna break the mold in a big way and come out with something
really spectacular.


You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more easily made
using composites.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:4HF0f.3921$WD5.549@trndny06...
Matt Whiting wrote:

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more easily
made
using composites.

Slickest and fastest are made of metal.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

George Patterson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.


No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
easily made using composites.

Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
production equipment. If hydroforming or stretch forming equipment is
used, compound curves in metal are much faster to make than in composite
materials. It is hard to be essentially a pressing/stamping process for
speed, once you make the capital investment required to do this.
Detroit makes all sorts of compound curves in metal at costs much less
than for composites. Ask GM which is cheaper to produce, the metal body
for a large sedan or the fiberglass body of the Vette.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.

No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
easily made using composites.

Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
production equipment.

But that's what you're doing if you're building light aircraft.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

But the technology can be scaled correctly with good planning.

Plus all of Cessnas current talent is in metal fab. I don't see them
moving away from that without some serious financial carrot.

This sounds like the Stallion
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/stall...allion_02.html

"revdmv" wrote

But the technology can be scaled correctly with good planning.

Plus all of Cessnas current talent is in metal fab. I don't see them
moving away from that without some serious financial carrot.

This sounds like the Stallion
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/stall...allion_02.html

chuckle How perceptive of you! I would be surprised if it did *not* come
out looking very much like the stallion! Better lose the retracts, though,
at least for part of the production run.
--
Jim in NC

George Patterson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

You don't need glass to make a slick airframe.


No, but the slickest ones use compound curves, which are much more
easily made using composites.


Only if you are talking making them by hand or with low volume
production equipment.


But that's what you're doing if you're building light aircraft.

Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment. And they could
always subcontract this to a metal stamping company that has the
equipment. And then if they used stir welding or another more modern
assembly technique rather than driving thousands of rivets, I'll bet
they could make a sleek all-metal airplane for much less cost than a
Cirrus composite.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs. I
suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment.

I agree that a thousand a year would justify the equipment. I just don't think
they will sell that many. Obviously, I could be wrong.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Not for the volumes that Cessna could produce with the right designs.
I suspect a thousand a year would justify this equipment.


I agree that a thousand a year would justify the equipment. I just don't
think they will sell that many. Obviously, I could be wrong.

Nothing personal, but I'm hoping you are wrong! :-)


Matt