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

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

john smith wrote:

I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella
while loading pax and baggage.

Not to mention stepping up onto the wing to enter the cabin. I have been
flying more Angel Flight patients lately who are having a problem with
this.

That is where the Cherokee Six/Saratoga are the most practical.
The rear doors are low enough to allow the pax to set their butts down
on the lower door sill and slide/turn into the cabin.

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

Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"

No, what drives sales is MARKETING!
How much money and "information" are presented to the potential buyers
is what makes sales.
There are more people with money than there are people with money AND
brains.

The BRS is a wife pleaser, no doubt about it.

My wife doesn't even know what a BRS is.
She still says, "Let's fly to ??? for the weekend."

john smith wrote in news:jsmith-6C8F3E.18045030092005
@news-rdr-02.ohiordc.rr.com:

Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"

No, what drives sales is MARKETING!
How much money and "information" are presented to the potential buyers
is what makes sales.
There are more people with money than there are people with money AND
brains.



My point exactly, thanks...

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

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."

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Greg

"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!

Great thread...

If you want to talk Ferrari's and such, yeah it doesn't matter utility at
all... charge what you want and make it sexy, exclusive and fast. Cessna
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

They could pull the same trick as the Japanese auto makers and start a new
brand (a la Lexus (Toyota), Acura (Honda), Infinity (Nissan)), but "Cessna"
as sexy would be a long expensive pull from a marketing perspective.

At the end of the day, the question Cessna should ask themselves, is what
niche do they want to excel at? Do they want to be the GA dream plane, or
do they want to be the most performing practical utility option? If they
try to be all things to all people, they will fail. I tend to think the
practical segment has more dollars in it, but Cirrus seems to have done a
good job at getting a good deal of practical into an attractive package.
It's up to Cessna to market themselves apart from Cirrus to make sure the
public gets the picture they want them to have.

Cessna needs, and should have by now, a wake up call regarding their ancient
designs, but they need not stray from what has made them "successful" for
decades.

"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."

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Greg

ET wrote:

How many of your wives out there would have (again, right or wrong)
climbed into the cockpit with you sooner if the plane had a BRS
installed??

Neither one of them.

In fact, if my Maule had had a BRS, I would not have bought it. The useful load
wouldn't have been high enough.

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.

ET wrote:
Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
wing....

Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
& slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
defines a high wing to me.


To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
"look" to it. I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing... no matter
how well it performs, it will still have at its heart, the look of a
150/172.....

Baloney. If Cessna makes a high-wing that performs even close to the
Cirrus for even close to the same amount of money, people will beat a
path to their door for a few reasons.

1. Because it is a Cessna.
2. High-wing Cessnas along historically have outsold all other low wing
makes and models combined.
3. Because a high-wing simply offers greater utility than a low-wing
and more people buy airplanes for utility than for pleasure flying.


When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
ahhhh, not just pilots either…. A high wing will design will not make me
feel like Maverick on "Top Gun"… (Tell me honestly you don't see almost
every Cirrus buyer playing "highway to the danger zone" mentally in his
head at some point while flying his new Cirrus…heh)

I doubt most Cirrus owners are this shallow or this deluded, but then I
don't know any personally...


And if it doesnt have the BRS or GRS or equivelent, it will also fail.
Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
installed (again, right or wrong, what is important in this level of the
market is perception... if it was all about money, they would all be
buying 20 year old 180's..)

What is important to most pilots is data, not perception. Last data I
saw had the Cirrus being at least a likely to kill its occupants as a
Skylane.


Matt