More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer"

Read Thursday morning on AvWeb

AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities. Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.

Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
fixed gear though.

I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.

Marco Leon



wrote in message
oups.com...
Read Thursday morning on AvWeb

AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's
meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but
also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new
aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design
would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite
material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp
powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities.
Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would
cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at
cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over
properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower
maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.

Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
fixed gear though.




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Yeah, I'd pictured a 'glass Cardinal before reading this today.
Previously I wouldn't have though Cessna would consider composites
because of the development cost vs the size of the market - doesn't
seem big enough to warrant the cost of molds and tooling IMO. My guess
is it'll be a 200kt cruiser with 350hp... *Baron* speed with only one
engine to feed & maintain and no gear to fuss about.

Sounds almost like an Extra 400 with permagear...


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yeah, I'd pictured a 'glass Cardinal before reading this today.
Previously I wouldn't have though Cessna would consider composites
because of the development cost vs the size of the market - doesn't
seem big enough to warrant the cost of molds and tooling IMO. My guess
is it'll be a 200kt cruiser with 350hp... *Baron* speed with only one
engine to feed & maintain and no gear to fuss about.

Sure does except for the pull-up gear and the wet Continental..

In article ,
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:

I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.

Marco Leon

God, I HOPE not! IMHO, a BRS is more liability than asset, with
recurring (expensive maintenance, the ongoing hazard of pyrotechnics,
etc.

Also, remember that the reason FAA finally prohibited flare
installations is that there were too many mishaps with flares (hangar
fires, burned mechanics, etc.) that the risks outweighed the benefits.




wrote in message
oups.com...
Read Thursday morning on AvWeb

AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's
meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but
also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new
aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design
would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite
material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp
powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities.
Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would
cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at
cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over
properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower
maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.

Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
fixed gear though.




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
t...
Sounds almost like an Extra 400 with permagear...

And no pressurization.

At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
missing?

In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400 to me. The
high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty obvious
the similarity is strictly aesthetic.

Pete

At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
missing? In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400
to me. The
high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty
obvious
the similarity is strictly aesthetic.

My guess is the Lyc TIO-540 from the Chieftain. I can't think of a
normally aspirated engine with that kind of power (a detuned IO-720?)
As far as the comparisons to the SR22 or Columbia, I think that was
pretty much their target, seeing as Cessna & Cirrus are essentially
tied for piston single production.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
God, I HOPE not! IMHO, a BRS is more liability than asset, with
recurring (expensive maintenance, the ongoing hazard of pyrotechnics,
etc.

Apparently it's been very good for the aircraft's public perception of
safety. Also, there are more than a handful of pilots that have used the
chute "in anger" who will beg to differ with you.

From a marketing perspective, incorporating the BRS system will seriously
curtail Cirrus' differentiation strategy.

Marco Leon





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

But where is there a singe valid report of such an incident in any BRS
system . . . anywhere? Not just the Cirrus community but in the
ultralight community . . .

John