New Cessna

"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. 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.

The only problem I see with friction stir for Cessna singles is the fact
that they will get bent with some regularity. Not so with the "other" big
users of the technique, we hope.

Any shop out in "GA world" with a rivet gun can fix a rivet, but with FS
welding, off to a very specialized shop, or the factory.

Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!
--
Jim in NC

Gwengler,

I talked to someone who has seen a drawing of the new Cessna line of
models.


Someone with a background in airplane design needs to clue me in he Is it really
likely that there are serious drawings (as in construction drawings, not "studies")
without the basic building material having been decided on? I would think that's
highly unlikely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Look he

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#190722

I obviously talked to a dealer who was at the conference referred to in
the above link. Cessna showed drawings of a new design. Drawings like
drawings in a study. Even if you draw something on a paper napkin,
that could probably be considered as a drawing as well.

Gerd

Morgans wrote:

Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!

When Cessna "restarted" the 172 production line, they did so with a new factory
and lots of new employees. If they do the same with this plane, there's little
reason to stick with the old production methods.

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.

Gwengler,

Look he


Thanks! Good marketing, well executed. There may be more - there may
not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

gwengler wrote:
The engine hasn't been decided, but apparently Cessna is
considering a Diesel engine as an option. A turbo charged
engine will be an option for sure.

The other possibility is one of the new engines from AES (formerly
Bombardier), that allow the use of both 100LL and unleaded fuel.
Although I prefer low-winged aircraft, I'm excited about any advances
that happen. Hopefully this will spur some further development by
other traditional manufacturers.

Mike

In fact, my contact reported that the AES/Bombardier engine was
specifically discussed.

Gerd

Hi,

Hypothetically of course: Let's take a 172N, make it composite, same 160hp,
no struts, flush antennae, with all the speed mods and a few other tweaks.

What kind of performance increase would we see? Along similar lines would
these changes turn the 172RG into a real performer? (FYI: I love flying the
Cutlass).

Also, if they used the same design, but used composite, would Cessna need to
run through the entire certification process again?

Just curious and I'm not suggesting Cessna will revamp the 172 (maybe, maybe
not).

Hilton

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

Morgans 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. 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.


The only problem I see with friction stir for Cessna singles is the fact
that they will get bent with some regularity. Not so with the "other" big
users of the technique, we hope.

Any shop out in "GA world" with a rivet gun can fix a rivet, but with FS
welding, off to a very specialized shop, or the factory.

Nothing says you can't use rivets to repair damage to a non-riveted
structure. Happens all the time on rusty cars in PA!


Besides, Cessna is very good at smashing rivets. Why change that? !!!

Because it is labor intensive even if you are very good at it. I
suppose it could be automated today with robots, but that would likely
cost as much or more than other techniques that have other advantages.
Also, there are places in an airframe where even humans have a hard time
maneuvering so I suspect it would take some pretty specialized to drive
and buck rivets automatically.


Matt