New Cessna

"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.

As of last spring, Lycoming was talking (again) about introducing a diesel,
and soon. See
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont.../lycoming.html

Seems to me that five years ago they were talking about a TDIO-360 of about
200hp. With six cylinders, that would be a 300hp TDIO-540.

Seth

"Darkwing (Badass)" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

gwengler wrote:
The engine hasn't been decided,
but apparently Cessna is considering a Diesel engine as an option. A

That's the part that doesn't sound right to me, unless Cessna really
has got religion about doing something completely new. They are
probably the only company in the world that could make this work. But
it's one hell of a gamble for them, too. Like I said, that doesn't
sound like the Cessna we know.


Not to mention that Lycoming and Cessna are owned by the same parent
company, why buy (the engine) from a competitor?

--------------------------------------------------------
DW

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

The 210 already goes as fast as a Cirrus

It certainly does. My point was that kind of speed requires HP (and a
clean airframe) and IIRC the highest power aviation diesel now is the
230hp SMA. I'm not sure if that's enough for a 180kt cruise. I'd love
to see an updated Cardinal with flush-riveted skin and the latest aero
tweaks, if that's what Cessna has in mind.

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

wrote:

The 210 already goes as fast as a Cirrus


It certainly does. My point was that kind of speed requires HP (and a
clean airframe) and IIRC the highest power aviation diesel now is the
230hp SMA. I'm not sure if that's enough for a 180kt cruise. I'd love
to see an updated Cardinal with flush-riveted skin and the latest aero
tweaks, if that's what Cessna has in mind.


Yes, a metal version of this airplane would be nearly ideal. :-)

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.

"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