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

When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
ahhhh, not just pilots either….

Most people don't give a rodent's petunia where the wings are as long as
they stay on. High wing planes have lots of comfort and visibility
advantages, things I'd rather have for my pax as opposed to a certain
"look".

Cessna obviously knows how to make high wing small planes; why fix something
that isn't broken?

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

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, high wing and shoulder wings come to mind...
AV8 Harrier
FA18
F14 Tomcat
B52
FA22

Probably more but I'm not a military type... Let others chime in...

A-7
F-8
F-111

Stefan wrote:

You mean like this:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...80638909QTqtNi

Here, kitty kitty kitty.

- Andrew

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 =----

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

"ET" wrote in message
...
[...]
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??

That's silly. People who actually *care* about something like speed look at
the specs, not the wing position.

Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400 and
500 come to mind.

To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
"look" to it.

Well, when the public at large are buying the airplane, then maybe they
might want to worry about that. But the public at large isn't, so Cessna
doesn't need to.

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...

Assuming the airplane provides the performance they expect to get, your
prediction will go down in flames.

[...]
When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,

Fortunately, most people have more sensible heads on their shoulders. Don't
mistake your own opinion for common sense.

Pete

Stefan wrote:

You mean like this:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...80638909QTqtNi

Just remember that it's the co-pilot's job to do the preflight. :-)

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.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400
and 500 come to mind.


I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the Extra
400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because so few
are flying?

Very little 'buzz' on those planes.


Montblack