Glenn Pew speaks with Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales, John Doman, about the company's Next Generation Piston proof-of-concept (NGP POC) aircraft.
Why did Cessna stop making retractable gear single engine aircraft. I hate that they are all fixed gear.
id say yoke or side stick imo
keep the yoke! not the joystick!
Sky Catcher, the 350 and 400 low wings, now this new Cardinal? Two handfuls of Citations? 172, 182, 206, Caravans etc. Why not reduce the mix and make something great? All nice, but nothing great like the 1976 172M ot the 1976 or 1977 177 Cardinal RGs. Why did they wait 3 years to try Thielert? They could have bought Thielert years back. Now they start over, they waited too long. Some strategy! A high wing line that uses lots of the same parts could be built like cars.
Wow - a new 177 - Cardinal. Finally! Needs a yoke, turbo Diesel and retracts and a price tag of $99,999 with G1000 IFR! 200kts? 1500ft/min? Useful load of 1000lbs with full fuel? 1500 nautical miles range? No, no, it will have a stinkin stick, have an unefficient Lycoming and cost about half a million US$. Sunvisiors extra! It will go about 155kts and burn 17GAL/h. With full fuel it will be single pilot, maybe one passengers and most of it will be made in China! "General Aviation" my ass.
because the size of the plane and the over wing configuration leads to a weak retractable undercarriage design which is neither safe nor practical. :-D
Neat.
Okay, I've just watched the video with sound, and while they didn't mention performance, at the end it said this experimental model was being powered by a 315 hp Lycoming. Seems it is a high-performance aircraft after all (though like he says, it may change).
This is a nice looking airplane. I'd heard Cessna was going to produce a high-performance airplane a lot like the C210 (even though they already have the Cessna 350 and 400 Columbia). Is this the plane they were talking about?
Sorry, I currently don't have speakers, so I cannot hear what is being said throughout this video.
Why has Cessna stop making retractables for their piston line?
Neat little plane. Diesel sounds like a neat idea, because that way they can start to use electronic engine management but without a wiring nest and extra testing that redundant igniton systems would require. (Probably why aviation piston engines are a good ways behind the automotive sector. Knock retard, easy cold starts, flex fuel, etc. are all taken for granted in modern fuel injected car engines.) The other advantage would be using JP fuel. That might make things safer in a crash too.
My 5 Stars to You Cessna. you became great Legend in to the Skies of America.
Why do they make only leaded and not low-lead? Are there aircraft in Hawaii that need leaded fuel, and they take precedence?
Hey ccoraxfan, guess what. In Hawai'i all you can get is the green stuff. No one makes blue here. Our refineries are limitted, so they only make green. It's not cheap. =Stefan=
I have no idea what your talking about. Your right about the oil based fuels being similar my observation is that Kerosene and Jet-A are close in Spec/gr, ICE/lf, Flash point, pour point, and many other lube factors. The engine manufactures determine which fuel should be used. Some use diesel some use JP-8c.
Jet-A is like the best fuel out of the tower
There is very little difference between diesel and jet fuel. In fact, the M1A1 Abrams tank, powered by a turbine, can use either. Your belief is shot down by Thielert's inverted V-4 diesel engine, already in use on aircraft throughout Europe and on the DiamondStar already in use here. As far as using plain diesel: Tell that to the FAA; They will tell you to go back to harvesting corn.
So, you want to fly the same ancient technology into the 21st century? It's not gonna happen. Composites are coming, as well as diesels and FADEC. Changes in technology are always more pricey than the technology it replaces, but that goes down over time. The market and suport will change with this. It's done it with everything else.
Cost, cost, cost! Repair costs of glass airplanes far exceed that of aluminum airplanes. The number of local shops qualified to repair glass or carbon fiber is minimal. This trend is going to continue the movement of new aircraft far outside the cost range of evenyone except the most well funded individuals or groups.
Wrong direction Cessna.
Cont: I an not sure if an effective octane booster is out there, and if it is I would consider its use very carefully. A engine failure in an aircraft worth 7 figures (not to mention repair parts not readily available) would be a disaster.
I really don't know if its still out there in the general market. FFZ Falcon Field in Mesa Az. used to sell the stuff because of the Champlain fighter mueseum. Many old supercharged engines required 145 (purple) and 100/130 was a trade off that limited manifold pressure ie performance. The 100ll was so far below the required octane level that engine damage was a great concern.
Used to? Can you still get the green stuff anymore? Anyway, I'm sure that must be mighty expensive gas if you can find it! Then I suppose with all the classic piston aircraft still being flown, there must be either a way to get the right fuel or additives that will improve the blue gas.
True
At most airports that is the rule, as with auto fuel. We are resourceful we can do it. My uncle has a P51-d which runs better on 100/130 (green gas) and we used to travel to another airport and fill 2 55gal drums. We would hand pump it in the plane (just like the old days).
Yes, diesel engines burn diesel fuel. But ordinary diesel fuel is a bit rare at airports... Jet-A, however, is found everywhere, and is cheaper than 100LL.
コメント
Why did Cessna stop making retractable gear single engine aircraft. I hate that they are all fixed gear.
id say yoke or side stick imo
keep the yoke! not the joystick!
Sky Catcher, the 350 and 400 low wings, now this new Cardinal? Two handfuls of Citations? 172, 182, 206, Caravans etc. Why not reduce the mix and make something great? All nice, but nothing great like the 1976 172M ot the 1976 or 1977 177 Cardinal RGs. Why did they wait 3 years to try Thielert? They could have bought Thielert years back. Now they start over, they waited too long. Some strategy! A high wing line that uses lots of the same parts could be built like cars.
Wow - a new 177 - Cardinal. Finally! Needs a yoke, turbo Diesel and retracts and a price tag of $99,999 with G1000 IFR! 200kts? 1500ft/min? Useful load of 1000lbs with full fuel? 1500 nautical miles range? No, no, it will have a stinkin stick, have an unefficient Lycoming and cost about half a million US$. Sunvisiors extra! It will go about 155kts and burn 17GAL/h. With full fuel it will be single pilot, maybe one passengers and most of it will be made in China! "General Aviation" my ass.
because the size of the plane and the over wing configuration leads to a weak retractable undercarriage design which is neither safe nor practical. :-D
Neat.
Okay, I've just watched the video with sound, and while they didn't mention performance, at the end it said this experimental model was being powered by a 315 hp Lycoming. Seems it is a high-performance aircraft after all (though like he says, it may change).
This is a nice looking airplane. I'd heard Cessna was going to produce a high-performance airplane a lot like the C210 (even though they already have the Cessna 350 and 400 Columbia). Is this the plane they were talking about? Sorry, I currently don't have speakers, so I cannot hear what is being said throughout this video.
Why has Cessna stop making retractables for their piston line?
Neat little plane. Diesel sounds like a neat idea, because that way they can start to use electronic engine management but without a wiring nest and extra testing that redundant igniton systems would require. (Probably why aviation piston engines are a good ways behind the automotive sector. Knock retard, easy cold starts, flex fuel, etc. are all taken for granted in modern fuel injected car engines.) The other advantage would be using JP fuel. That might make things safer in a crash too.
My 5 Stars to You Cessna. you became great Legend in to the Skies of America.
Why do they make only leaded and not low-lead? Are there aircraft in Hawaii that need leaded fuel, and they take precedence?
Hey ccoraxfan, guess what. In Hawai'i all you can get is the green stuff. No one makes blue here. Our refineries are limitted, so they only make green. It's not cheap. =Stefan=
I have no idea what your talking about. Your right about the oil based fuels being similar my observation is that Kerosene and Jet-A are close in Spec/gr, ICE/lf, Flash point, pour point, and many other lube factors. The engine manufactures determine which fuel should be used. Some use diesel some use JP-8c.
Jet-A is like the best fuel out of the tower
There is very little difference between diesel and jet fuel. In fact, the M1A1 Abrams tank, powered by a turbine, can use either. Your belief is shot down by Thielert's inverted V-4 diesel engine, already in use on aircraft throughout Europe and on the DiamondStar already in use here. As far as using plain diesel: Tell that to the FAA; They will tell you to go back to harvesting corn.
So, you want to fly the same ancient technology into the 21st century? It's not gonna happen. Composites are coming, as well as diesels and FADEC. Changes in technology are always more pricey than the technology it replaces, but that goes down over time. The market and suport will change with this. It's done it with everything else.
Cost, cost, cost! Repair costs of glass airplanes far exceed that of aluminum airplanes. The number of local shops qualified to repair glass or carbon fiber is minimal. This trend is going to continue the movement of new aircraft far outside the cost range of evenyone except the most well funded individuals or groups. Wrong direction Cessna.
Cont: I an not sure if an effective octane booster is out there, and if it is I would consider its use very carefully. A engine failure in an aircraft worth 7 figures (not to mention repair parts not readily available) would be a disaster.
I really don't know if its still out there in the general market. FFZ Falcon Field in Mesa Az. used to sell the stuff because of the Champlain fighter mueseum. Many old supercharged engines required 145 (purple) and 100/130 was a trade off that limited manifold pressure ie performance. The 100ll was so far below the required octane level that engine damage was a great concern.
Used to? Can you still get the green stuff anymore? Anyway, I'm sure that must be mighty expensive gas if you can find it! Then I suppose with all the classic piston aircraft still being flown, there must be either a way to get the right fuel or additives that will improve the blue gas.
True At most airports that is the rule, as with auto fuel. We are resourceful we can do it. My uncle has a P51-d which runs better on 100/130 (green gas) and we used to travel to another airport and fill 2 55gal drums. We would hand pump it in the plane (just like the old days).
Yes, diesel engines burn diesel fuel. But ordinary diesel fuel is a bit rare at airports... Jet-A, however, is found everywhere, and is cheaper than 100LL.
1000/yr.