RIP Cessna...Skycatcher

wrote in message
...
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.

Probably Cessna's executives are MBAs so they need a much higher salary for
their important decisions.

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.

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.

Morgans wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
refunded?
Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).

If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
instead:

http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707

A lot to like, except......

the damn rotax.

Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
914? I have never had a nicer engine
in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.

If you have a Rotax 912 horror story,
just tell it.

Jim Stewart wrote:

Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
914? I have never had a nicer engine
in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.


If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.

On Nov 28, 3:53 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
instead:

http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707

A lot to like, except......

the damn rotax.
--
Jim in NC

I'll take that Rotax over an O-200 any day. We had nothing
but cylinder and valve trouble with O-200s in C150s and a Champ. It's
typical of the small Continentals. I've flown a 912 only once, but it
was smooth as silk and for about the same power-to-weight ratio, it
pulled much better than the O-200. I've long suspected that the 200
doesn't produce a full 100 hp. Even an old Aircoupe with a C90
accelerated better than the 150, again with about the same power/
weight ratio.

Dan
Dan

"DT" == Dan Thomas writes:
DT Even an old Aircoupe with a C90 accelerated better
DT than the 150, again with about the same power/ weight ratio.

Hey! That's my Aircoupe yer talkin' about. Correct, the Alon
Aircoupes (not so true of the ERCO 415 Ercoupes, the original and far
more common variant) are much more efficient than the C-150. It's not
the engine as much as the aircraft. On a
good day I can get 100kts TAS from my Aircoupe, but that's with a
cruise prop (52" pitch).

A friend has a 415 model Ercoupe with an O-200. I can still outrun
him but it's not quite a fair comparison, because I think he has a
climb prop. He will outclimb me, but not my a lot. The 415s are
fairly draggy.
--
Mythology is what we call someone else's religion.
~ Joseph Campbell

On 2007-11-28, Morgans wrote:
A lot to like, except......

the damn rotax.

What's wrong with the 4-stroke Rotaxes?
I've crossed the north Irish Sea numerous times behind a Rotax 914S,
a smooth and reliable engine.

I've also flown the Nangchang CJ6, which was built by the company that's
been contracted by Cessna. A very solidly built and good flying
aircraft.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

In a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed
top quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together.

Translation: Price was the only consideration.

"Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent facilities,
state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly experienced in
aircraft manufacturing.

Translation: We have to give the Chinese what few technological trade secrets
we possess as part of the deal, so that they can eventually make their own
airplanes and throw us out of business. That's more than one fiscal quarter
in the future, though, so we don't care.

SkyCatcher customers will get
an advanced design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product
support, all at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia Aircraft
has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it continues to pile up
record sales for its business jets.

Time to look elsewhere for safe aircraft.