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

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

I suspect it goes something like this:

Wife: "We need a mini-van to haul these kids!"

Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
mini-van!"

Husband: (To wife) "Hey, I've got an idea..."

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:14:34 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:


"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."

Harley, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini owners combined are an
insignificant percentage of total motorcycle and car owners.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Besides, last I checked,
Harley owns ~35% of the US market...which is far from "insignificant".
And that is based on market share in sales...not all bikes. Back in the
60's, they owned something like 80% of the market. And all of this
ignores used sales. Needless to say, Harley sales are significant
based on its perception of quality. Sadly, quality is an oxymoron when
talking about Harley. Which, is exactly the point I was making. MOST
people buy based on perception.

Harley has
been almost out of business numerous times during it's history.


And yet are going strong today. You ask the American masses, especially
the blue collar guys, and they'll tell you they want the POS that is
Harley...because of its perceived strengths. The fact that it's a total
POS in reality doesn't seem to impact its sales or its preception of
quality. Which was my point. My point is, people often buy name brands
based on a perception of x.


Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.


I agree with you, but it doesn't address the nature of humanity. Most
people do buy based on perception. I would guess that those that read
usenet groups are also those that tend to be swayed more by facts and
analysis rather than perception. On the other hand, if you find those
that have lots and lots of money, buying based on perception is not
uncommon.


Greg

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

Matt Whiting wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
@news1.epix.net:

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.


OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....


--
-- ET :-)

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

ET wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
@news1.epix.net:


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.



OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....

Well, few, if any (I can't think of one), of the modern jet fighters has
the wing anywhere near the pilot's head. It is usually 10 or more feet
behind the pilot's head.

Yes, all of the above have the wing out of the pilot's line of vision
unless they are looking pretty much backwards. And almost all light
airplanes have the wing in the pilot's line of vision, be they low or
high wing. I could see downward and navigate and make select emergency
landing sites MUCH easier in my Skylane than I can in the club Arrow I
now fly. Yes, the Arrow makes it easier to see the runway during the
approach to landing, but I spend 95% of my time enroute, unless I'm
doing touch and goes in the pattern. I'd much rather be able to see
well 95% of the time than less than 5% of the time. And even in the
pattern, you can see the runway better all but a small fraction of the
time when you are turning. And when you roll level on base, you can
easily see the runway again to time your turn to final. I'm always
amazed at pilots who can't seem to handle this without seeing a constant
view of the runway.

Matt

ET opined

Matt Whiting wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
:

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.


OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....


Whether jet fighters are high wing or midwing is an interesting question...
But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

1. biplanes don't count.

Ash Wyllie wrote:

But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

There were several. The Fokker D-8 was an excellent fighter for it's day. France
made another in the 30s.

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.

PZL P.11 and P.24
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/pzl.html

Northrop P-61 (okay, it's arguable)

Fokker D.8

The Russians also had an oddball fighter that was a biplane for landing and
takeoff but retracted the lower wing into the upper wing for cruise and
combat. It was pretty vulnerable during the retraction process . . .

Seth


"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
ET opined

Matt Whiting wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
:

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.


OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....


Whether jet fighters are high wing or midwing is an interesting
question...
But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

1. biplanes don't count.

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??


The perception is entirely yours. Most jet fighters have high wings --
more room to carry ordnance. High wing aircraft are easier to preflight
and get in and out of.

The general public does not buy airplanes. Pilots buy airplanes. If
what you want is another $350,000 ornament to show off, go get yourself
a sports car. Hardly anyone comes out to the airport to admire your
airplane.

Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
installed.

That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.

KR