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

I am a partner in a Piper Archer and a Cessna Cardinal. I greatly
prefer the Cardinal, and my passengers like it even better.

Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, but with a new paint job
many of my passengers think my airplane is newer and faster than a
Cirrius parked on the same ramp. I know because I ask them to guess.
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 (at the cost of passenger comfort). I have to admit that
I might not have won that beauty contest.

The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.

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.

I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it
even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp
turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.

Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.

Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.

Jim Howard

I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it
even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp
turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.

Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.

Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.

Jim Howard

This was exactly the vision I had. Unfortunately I'll have to hope for winning the Sporty's Pilot Shop give away
version I'm afraid.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:03:02 -0500, "JJS" jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net wrote:


I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it

Suprisingly the early Cardinals didn't do well. They were underpowered
for one thing and I believe the 182 still out sold them even though
"to me" they were far superiour. The Cardinal just isn't a typical
representation of a high wing aircraft.

even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp

Awh, come on... Put in a 300 HP turbocharged deisel.

turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.

The one thing I hated about the Cessnas was the high glare shield.

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


Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.

Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.

Jim Howard

This was exactly the vision I had. Unfortunately I'll have to hope for winning the Sporty's Pilot Shop give away
version I'm afraid.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:
The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.


To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin
speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210.
Twin speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour.

I was day-dreaming out loud at a recent MAPA meeting about getting a C-206
as my "family wagon" (two adults, two kids, some friends {8^). A 210 was
sitting next to me, and seemed quite adamant that the 210 was a better
choice than the 206. But there were enough others around that I was never
able to get details.

So...why the 210 instead of the 206?

- Andrew

Wouldn't surpise me if that is what they have in mind is a Fixed Gear
Late Model 210.

Fixed gear simplfies the systems and pilot skills required. A
Cantelevered wing from the 210 would give some speed inprovement. It
would probably be a bit slower than the Cirrus for equivalant Horse
power, but you would gain almost 500lbs of useful load and probably 2
more seats.

Actually if the could sell compriably equiped late model 210's for the
same price as the Cirrus they would probably put a large dent in the
Cirrus sales.

Just my speculation

Brian

Andrew Gideon wrote:
I was day-dreaming out loud at a recent MAPA meeting about getting a C-206
as my "family wagon" (two adults, two kids, some friends {8^). A 210 was
sitting next to me, and seemed quite adamant that the 210 was a better
choice than the 206. But there were enough others around that I was never
able to get details.

So...why the 210 instead of the 206?


Faster, sexier...



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.


To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin speed and carrying capacity
at 13 gallons per hour.


Mortimer, you da man!

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote: "To my way of thinking, there isn't a
finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin
speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour."

Yeah but the back row of seats . . . ugh . . . I wouldnt wish riding
there on any adult. Just my opinion . . . but I did not like sitting
back there the one time I did it.

Blue skies

JP

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
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.

Frankie