Major LSA Ceases Sales and Production...

[johnm]

if you own a 162 you might as well make the most of it

 

I'd like to hear a 162 owner discuss its merits - after alll many purchased them so there must be some appeal lurking in that airframe

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I went back and read the Jab vs Skycatcher thread from 2011. Quite interesting looking back.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

On paper the jab smashes it.. Pretty much any jab.Performance, usable load, looks, price..

 

It's an incredible story whn you think about it. Both the big names in light aircraft failed in the LSA market, and they both took two different approaches.

 

Piper just bought an existing design ( sports cruiser) and Cessna threw millions into development of a new type. Both attempts were unsuccessful.

 

Piper stuffed up through mishandling the chzeck factory and also falling into the same trap that Cessna did, they didn't listen to what the market wanted.

 

They wanted to de option it, make it prett much stick standard with leather, ballistic chute, double glass , choice of 2 paint schemes. And stuck with the weak as p1ss castor ing nose wheel.

 

Cessna made similar mistakes, but in a nutshell, tried to make a little Cessna and it was obvious it wasn't working from the beginning I reckon.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Innovation and pursuing consumer demand has taken a second place to political solutions for the US corporation, those European LSA manufacturers are just a lot hungrier for business.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone on here bag a Jabiru airframe. In fact, the Jab 230 is viewed by a great many, including me, as the best aircraft overall for Australian conditions. The engines are another matter. My view of the engine has been formed by just missing out on losing one at 3500 ft - it failed 24 hours later, in the air. It was the fourth Jab engine to fail in the same Jab aircraft. A limited sample but enough to frighten the crap out of me. I know a person I would rate as one of, if not the most knowledgeable maintainers of Jabiru engines (not employed by Jabiru) has now washed his hands of Jab engines. He is so disgusted with Jabiru that he tells his customers to send their engine to Jabiru for fixes. He will no longer touch them. He himself still flies a Jab with the 3300 motor with no qualms because he has made changes to it that make it reliable. He and his mate (both qualified automotive mechanics/engineers) have engineered another 3300 motor that has run 1,200 hours - fault free - the last 200 hours on condition monitoring of course.

 

Jab engines can be made to work but it seems to me that Jab lack the will to do it. Hasn't Gammit now had a go at sorting the problems that everyone know are designed in?

 

In my view, nobody does as much damage to Jabiru as their own customer service and the adverts you see for Jab aircraft with TTIS 600 hours, Engine 250 hours.

 

And is it true Jab are now getting their engines built in China?

 

And why is it that Jabs in USA are a better aircraft than we get in Australia. Jab USA insist on Matco brakes but if you put them on a 24 reg Jab in Aus would not Jabiru chuck a wobbly?

 

And then there are the globally successful Australian manufacturers like Airborne.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The only success story I can recall on the J162 was that RNAC at YMND bought two on spec. in the very early days for the US$110k. Took years to be delivered and then they turned out to be a dud and the AUD:USD rate went nuts in favour of the A$. So perhaps that's not a success story after all.

 

 

[Oscar]

Don, there's a long and informative thread on the CAMit engine mods at: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ I understand that since then, CAMit have progressed both their development and their flying time experience to the point where the 'final' spec for documentation has been reached (or are certainly very close to that state). Fairly much the next step for them is talking to CASA....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You know GA is dead when Cessna walk away from it

 

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I think we had the best of it in the '60s. I consider myself lucky to have experienced that . . . Now, please wipe up the spilled beer & let's get on with what's next.

 

 

[magishme]

I think we had the best of it in the '60s. I consider myself lucky to have experienced that . . . Now, please wipe up the spilled beer & let's get on with what's next.

Sounds like my Grandfather.

 

 

[facthunter]

You are fortunate to have a tidy Grandfather. Nev

 

 

[Dieselten]

For the life of me I cannot understand why Cessna didn't drag out the old jigs for the 152, announce they were going to resume production, make 5000 of them and nail the price down to a realistic one, with a trade-in offer for old 152s (e.g. those airframes over 25 years old).

 

Every flying school currently using high-time, aging 152s would have jumped at the opportunity to get rid of their old aircraft and replace them with new units, and Cessna would have removed a lot of tired old aircraft from the skies, which has to be a bonus from the safety standpoint. I reckon they would have pre-sold the entire 5000 before they cut the first sheet of metal.

 

The crazy thing is they could still do this, but I see no evidence of any backbone in Cessna's management. Bewitched by the LSA market, which they grossly over-estimated, they then produced an aircraft which was marginally capable, overweight and far too expensive.

 

No-one else can make 152s, yet Cessna stubbornly refuses to resume production, hoping sales of the 172/182/206 series will justify keeping the single-engine piston production line open. A bad case of corporate tunnel-vision and neglect of a core market, in my view.

 

 

[facthunter]

I like them, but the cockpit is a bit too small. They might not be much cheaper to produce than a 172. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Cessna are in a different world now, they developed and built the Scorpion without any orders, at $10m a pop they only sell if Cessna can get the Pentagon to push them onto the client states that buy US weapon systems. The business they are in isn't anything like the LSA market where your product pretty much lives or dies on its merits.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Another large American Corporation dies in China - no surprise at all.

 

Seriously, a "Made in China" product that's more expensive than a lot of Western built offerings and no one purchases them - well there's some rocket science right there.

 

I made the comment in a car forum that the mid 1990's Executives of Ford Australia who gave the go ahead for the AU Falcon not only should have been sacked but I bet those Executives are actually still all there but in higher management positions now - same applies in this case for Cessna and a number of other Corp. examples I can waffle off. There's no chance in hell the root of the problem will be fixed because that would mean self examination, and exactly who is going to order that upon themselves?

 

 

[turboplanner]

You know GA is dead when Cessna walk away from it

GA? Have you looked at the Cessna website lately?

 

 

[Downunder]

It would have probably been easier and cheaper to buy Jabiru or take out a licence, fit the o-200 and maybe add yokes or something.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would go for the "or something". . No-one seems to be able to build anything in this category with any sophistication for less than $160K ..OTA bar Jabiru.. but it is not particularly sophisticated, but it works. From what I have seen CAMIT will improve the engine, so it's still a proposition. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

When Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth set up Jabiru, they developed a manufacturing business model that was, in retrospect, rather brilliant, based on a 'cottage industry' model. The fact that Cessna could go Chinese production and not even sell 200 aircraft (or thereabouts), for nearly three times the cost each of a comparable Jab (the 120) while Jab have sold, what - 7 or 8 times that number in total?, with even the 'top of the line' 2x /4x machines being substantially cheaper than the c162 and a way, way more competent aircraft, says that their business model was pretty damn smart.

 

Part of the whole Jab. 'smarts' has been keeping the basic aircraft simple enough to remain manufacturable by their original idea. The more 'sophistication' you have in an aircraft, the more complex and expensive it becomes to have processes that can maintain the required build standard. Sophisticaed aircraft become less and less cheap and easy to maintain and repair, insurance costs go up, operating costs go up... you end up paying a lot of money for not a lot more performance etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

Very difficult market to be in. You have very little control over what happens to it when you sell it. A marked difference to Airliners where an underperforming "customer" can be required to do things. Nev

 

 

[rgmwa]

I would go for the "or something". . No-one seems to be able to build anything in this category with any sophistication for less than $160K ..OTA bar Jabiru.. but it is not particularly sophisticated, but it works. From what I have seen CAMIT will improve the engine, so it's still a proposition. Nev

You can now buy an off-the-shelf RV-12 S-LSA for US$116-$123k depending on the options you want. Some are now being used in flight schools over there, and others for legal training on a commercial basis offered by some individuals. However, it's early days and time will tell how well they stand up to that environment. Not just their ability to take a beating, but also how easy they are to maintain.

 

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I like them, but the cockpit is a bit too small. They might not be much cheaper to produce than a 172. Nev

When asked why cars were getting so big, Henry Ford is reputed to have replied: " Small cars make small profits".

 

 

[bexrbetter]

You can now buy an off-the-shelf RV-12 S-LSA for US$116-$123k depending on the options you want.

I'll take the $40,000 option thanks, oh, and throw in the underbody rustproofing, seat protection and paint sealant.

 

120 THOUSAND dollars - rolls off the tongue easy when you're comparing it to $150,000 planes but man that's a chunk of money that I respectfully doubt many in this forum can get their hands on tomorrow. I think many LSA manufacturers and similar simply price themselves out of the market.

 

As an aside it's a bloody credit to Mr Vans and his marketing skills at his silly prices that some 8700+ planes are flying now, somebody ought to do something about that.

 

 

[rgmwa]

k

 

I'll take the $40,000 option thanks, oh, and throw in the underbody rustproofing, seat protection and paint sealant.120 THOUSAND dollars - rolls off the tongue easy when you're comparing it to $150,000 planes but man that's a chunk of money that I respectfully doubt many in this forum can get their hands on tomorrow. I think many LSA manufacturers and similar simply price themselves out of the market.

 

As an aside it's a bloody credit to Mr Vans and his marketing skills at his silly prices that some 8700+ planes are flying now, somebody ought to do something about that.

Agreed, it's a lot of money so it may be worth looking at in more detail. The kit price of a fully optioned RV-12 (autopilot, lights, wheel fairings, full interior trim, etc) is just under $71k. Add say $7k for the fancy factory paint scheme, and call it $78k all up. The parts that Vans mostly make themselves - empennage, wings, fuselage and finishing kit - come to $23k. Seems pretty reasonable to me and comparable to most other similar kit manufacturers. The expensive Rotax and firewall forward accounts for $28k and the avionics (10" Skyview, Garmin GTR200, Mode S transponder, ELT, etc) is $14k. I haven't included the ADSB as it's not required here yet. That leaves around $123-$78=$45k for labour. Vans say it takes about 900hrs to build an RV-12. Add say another 100 for quality control and test flying, so the labour cost works out at about $45/hr. The $123k all-up price, although expensive, doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a new S-LSA factory built in the USA. Last time I checked, a new similarly equipped 172 was around $450k and apart from more sheet metal and a bigger engine, I can't see much to justify the more than 3.5 factor on the cost of what is now an old design. It would be interesting to know what Cessna would charge for a new 152 (which is a heavier and tougher aircraft than any LSA), but the RV-12 and a number of other LSA designs will easily out-perform a Skycatcher at around $160k. As for silly prices, anyone who manages to get 8,700 aircraft into the air (only about 300 of which are LSA's, btw) must be doing something right apart from just marketing.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[facthunter]

I have had a look at a few of the RV's that fit into RAAus category, in various stages of build. I am an RV fan, but The thickness of the Al sheet. makes me wonder how it would stand up to "SCHOOL" work . Very few of the nosewheels are strong enough to stand up to "insensitive" use in a lot of these planes . Castoring nosewheels have their limits in crosswind taxiing too. The build is just a bit too light in most planes on offer that are sheet Al riveted.. Nev