fly_tornado Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 100 odd unsold 162s worth about $16M a fair loss on the part of Cessna. They sold 300 odd 162s so they are bound to break even but Cessna probably want to kill the whole project and make the parts expensive so they airframes get written off.
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Speculation ft, Or do you have inside information? I can't see how having whole large chunks would be a workable idea. If there are faults there would have to be an inspection and possible repair process stipulated. Nev
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 The cessna 208.. Probably the most versatile aeroplane ever invented.. :) IMHO Powered by the most reliable engine. The mighty PT6!!
eightyknots Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Both Cessna and Piper have bailed on the LSA market, it reflects how bad the US economy is and how much competition is in the LSA market. In 10 years, 134 approved designs about 1 a month. Much easier to sell a turboprop or a Jet. I agree with you on this issue FT.
eightyknots Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 .... or merde absolument for those who are more direct. Using this intensely crappy phraseology in another language is not direct either! 2 2
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 This is only opinion but I think that Cessna would rather spend money on research, design and development on the Cessna caravan and their business jets than piston singles. Possibly - but since NACA did all the research on light singles in the '20s and '30s, why can't Cessna read? Designing for spin resistance was done to death - remember the Ercoupe? 1
Ultralights Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Nev, i know the cessna singles line are great workhorses, and the 182 and 206 are great haulers, the 182 will get 4 adults off a 700 mtr strip with full fuel. but they are boring and heavy to fly.. after flying the Savannah, and an Alpha 160, the 182 feels as manoeuvrable as a flying barge and as heavy as pushing a fridge up some stairs. 1
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 The cessna 208.. Probably the most versatile aeroplane ever invented.. :) IMHO Powered by the most reliable engine. The mighty PT6!! I inspected the one ditched at, er, Green Island? Flameout of the mighty PT-6... and versatile Cessna had only Alodined about half the internal structure, boo hiss... an operator up there found the slot-lip ailerons resulted in poorer payload factors "hot & high" than Cheiftans...
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 What a vicious, pathetic, gratuitous and entirely predictable dig at Jabiru. Cessna are a part of Textron - a huge company. Rotax engines are a part of Bombadier - another huge company. Both have annual revenues in the multi $billions area. Bombadier don't produce an LSA-class aircraft, they couldn't be arsed to produce in the sector.Then, you compare the performance of one of the last remaining Australian companies to actually produce a product - that has an export $$-earning performance - in the high-tech sector. We have as of today NO future Australian car manufacturers. Jabiru is one of two Australian-owned export-earning aircraft manufacturers (Seabird is just hanging in there, GippsAero is now owned by Mahindra). You - and a few others - have no other agenda in life than to destroy Jabiru. Nobody, including me, suggests that Jabiru could not do better than they do, but at least most of us express our feelings in terms of trying to exhort them to do better by encouragement of support if they do. [removed] If you are successful in your campaign to destroy Jabiru, the Rec Aviation scene in Australia will be decimated for support of competent aircraft that comprise something like 30% at least of the total fleet. I cannot think of a better example of a Pyrrhic victory. But when rotax put plastic caged bearings into the 532, and they melted, that was alright because it was german Engineering (even if a Canadian-owned Austrian company)... and the average of ~40 Service Bulletins for every significant model of Lycoming flat engine is irrelevant... if Jabiru EVER get anything less than perfect, they deserve universal condemnation and an eternity listening to Hansard... because! 1 3
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Possibly - but since NACA did all the research on light singles in the '20s and '30s, why can't Cessna read? Designing for spin resistance was done to death - remember the Ercoupe? Very true - one can't help thinking that the professional engineers in the design dept. might be able to read, but the sales people couldnt - and guess who won? However, the category weight limit is simply too low to build a Cessna-style aeroplane with sufficient useful load. In a sense, Cessna shot themselves in the foot - the GAMA manufacturers seem to have been determined to keep the recreational airplane sector tied down to such restrictive MTOW that they would not be a threat to their baseline trainers. Seems they succeeded. Poetic, actually - if extremely short-sighted.
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Very true - one can't help thinking that the professional engineers in the design dept. might be able to read, but the sales people couldnt - and guess who won?However, the category weight limit is simply too low to build a Cessna-style aeroplane with sufficient useful load. In a sense, Cessna shot themselves in the foot - the GAMA manufacturers seem to have been determined to keep the recreational airplane sector tied down to such restrictive MTOW that they would not be a threat to their baseline trainers. Seems they succeeded. Poetic, actually - if extremely short-sighted. Very long-sighted - if any 'easy entry' category threatens GA production, the US of A will never recover from the post-ww2 depression - and that was 60+ years away!
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I inspected the one ditched at, er, Green Island? Flameout of the mighty PT-6... . Must have been operator error.. Or the LAME didnt know how to maintain it:) 1
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 U/L I agree about the feel and I don't the control wheels either, but the plane has to work and it does. It took me years to arrive at the conclusion. The PT-6 is close to a bulletproof engine, but with a lot of effort, bad maintenance, can make it less so. Nev 1
ExJourno Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 So what I am reading, is a 162 could probably be bought, near new, for a total bargain about now? 1
dazza 38 Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 So what I am reading, is a 162 could probably be bought, near new, for a total bargain about now? I dont think so, from what i read , cessna are keeping the unsold airframes and reducing them to spare parts.
ExJourno Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I dont think so, from what i read , cessna are keeping the unsold airframes and reducing them to spare parts. That accounts for the unsold ones... but what of the ones people already have and want rid of?
geoffreywh Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 They will be put up for sale . Those owners that can, or are willing, to take a real hit will sell them. But don't expect ( as some people infer) a giveaway price . They are ALWAYS Cessna's with a Continental 0-200 ..New cost $140k? Now? I guess $90k?.... The ones that can't sell will hang on to them fly them and avoid 20knts breezes!
frank marriott Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 The cessna 208.. Probably the most versatile aeroplane ever invented.. :) IMHO Powered by the most reliable engine. The mighty PT6!! I agree, I like the aircraft BUT nothing is 100% reliable - A 208 had an engine failure in IMC on departure from YBTL a couple of years ago. Luckily it was high enough and close enough at the time to make a glide approach return only needing a tow back to the parking area. In fairness to the PT6 it was a maintenance issue - a bracket of some sort broke off causing the fuel supply to be removed. Just goes to show if you lose a engine in a SE aircraft of any reputation, however good it might be, you are in a glider. The IMC conditions has no relevance other then to the pucker factor for the pilot.
ExJourno Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 They will be put up for sale . Those owners that can, or are willing, to take a real hit will sell them. But don't expect ( as some people infer) a giveaway price . They are ALWAYS Cessna's with a Continental 0-200 ..New cost $140k? Now? I guess $90k?.... The ones that can't sell will hang on to them fly them and avoid 20knts breezes! How is that not a bargain? Seriously?
fly_tornado Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Adam, you can buy better, that's why the 162s aren't selling.
geoffreywh Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I agree completely, but bring the price down to Jabiru levels and they will fly out the door:roflmao:
FlyingVizsla Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Aviation Trader page 5 - Cessna 162 Skycatcher. Work available $139,000 + GST = 152,900 Aus Find a plane 34 C162's for sale in US Dollars - $84,000 - $139,000 Not cheap Sue
Guest Pioneer200 Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 bloody ugly looking machines I reckon,the much older 150/152 series have far more eye appeal
Downunder Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Aviation Trader page 5 - Cessna 162 Skycatcher. Work available $139,000 + GST = 152,900 Aus Find a plane 34 C162's for sale in US Dollars - $84,000 - $139,000 Not cheap Sue That's why there's 34 of them.....
Oscar Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 You'd be buying an LSA-class aircraft with, at best, minimal manufacturer support. Given the restrictions on modifications, even minor changes in components, repairs etc. that are allowable under LSA rules, the chances of you finding yourself in a situation of needing support that you can't get for something that you need to keep flying, is rather large. If, for example, further airframe problems start to appear, is Cessna likely to tool-up to produce a fix-kit? A bargain flying machine you can't actually fly, is no more than an expensive garden-gnome..
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now