Cessna halts production of entry level jets

SteveC said:
Are you saying it is better to stay away from glass?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. But what I am saying is to many people rely on glass as a crutch to cure poor SA and basic airmanship. As you probably know, I am back at flight instruction/Corporate guy in Cirrus. Being back at teaching and hearing "But I have my I pad, I phone and all this cool technology in the airplane!!!" drives me nuts. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that stuff either have the battery fail, or just straight shut off in flight, and the student has no clue where they are at that point. I have also done a few transitions of people to the Cirrus where people rely wholly on the technology. At that point, I turn it all off and see where they are at with their SA, and most of them are completely lost. My point being, don't loose your SA because you put all your eggs in that basket.
 
mshunter said:
When you can buy a very nice used example of a Citation for less than $1m, you can buy a lot of fuel for the $1.5-2.5m you saved, so direct operating costs are a "skew" of the statistics. The t-prop comment was a bit brash, yeah, but these new little jets are not new, just smaller packages of the existing stuff out there.

I have seen the crutch. I went from flying a Metro to flying a Cirrus. It makes people lazy. And it makes it much eaiser to loose SA if the MFD goes tits up. "OH S! The MFD just went black. Where the hell are we on this approach?!?!?"
Click to expand...


I agree with Jim Norton in which I will take advanced instrumentation in the form of glass any day because of the superior situational awareness. This is the one of the reasons FredEx made the decision to remove round dials and replace those instruments with glass. The second reason was maintenance costs. Sufficient instruments remain in most glass cockpits for navigation and approaches. I have had more problems with round dial failures than glass of any kind. FredEx made me a believer in glass!
 
jmreii said:
I agree with Jim Norton in which I will take advanced instrumentation in the form of glass any day because of the superior situational awareness. This is the one of the reasons FredEx made the decision to remove round dials and replace those instruments with glass. The second reason was maintenance costs. Sufficient instruments remain in most glass cockpits for navigation and approaches. I have had more problems with round dial failures than glass of any kind. FredEx made me a believer in glass!
Click to expand...

Where did I say that it didn't give superior SA?
 
swisspilot said:
Entry level Cessnas have a huge market in South America, Brazil has more registered Citations 500s/525s/550s then all the ones flying in the US combined. Big Jets only really work in the US and over few routes around the world, where you have airports with massive ramps, FBOs and no landing fees. Most of the rich people I know in Brazil would never sit in a turbo prop, unless they are farmers.

My home town airport in Switzerland serves some of the richest community in the world, most of them own an entry level citations, works just fine, especially in Europe there are places where you can`t even go with something bigger, thing about Greek Islands, Spanish Islands, Italian Islands and many mountain resort locations.

Friend of mine flies for europ star most of their revenue comes from their side sales biz of selling entry level citations.

I think most of this market is satisfied by used planes, but still they seem pretty successful to me.
Click to expand...

So shall Cessna go under then because they are loosing money on an over inflated line of aircraft that may be selling well in some countries, but still not makeing a profit and costing the company money? Their line is TOO big. Reduce the amount of models they make, or fail.
 
mshunter said:
No, not at all. But what I am saying is to many people rely on glass as a crutch to cure poor SA and basic airmanship. As you probably know, I am back at flight instruction/Corporate guy in Cirrus. Being back at teaching and hearing "But I have my I pad, I phone and all this cool technology in the airplane!!!" drives me nuts. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that stuff either have the battery fail, or just straight shut off in flight, and the student has no clue where they are at that point. I have also done a few transitions of people to the Cirrus where people rely wholly on the technology. At that point, I turn it all off and see where they are at with their SA, and most of them are completely lost. My point being, don't loose your SA because you put all your eggs in that basket.
Click to expand...
I agree that the available technology might have a long-range effect on the ability to utilize traditional gauges. Beyond that, I disagree with you. The proper use of ALL available equipment is hardly a crutch.
 
mshunter said:
No, not at all. But what I am saying is to many people rely on glass as a crutch to cure poor SA and basic airmanship. As you probably know, I am back at flight instruction/Corporate guy in Cirrus. Being back at teaching and hearing "But I have my I pad, I phone and all this cool technology in the airplane!!!" drives me nuts. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that stuff either have the battery fail, or just straight shut off in flight, and the student has no clue where they are at that point. I have also done a few transitions of people to the Cirrus where people rely wholly on the technology. At that point, I turn it all off and see where they are at with their SA, and most of them are completely lost. My point being, don't loose your SA because you put all your eggs in that basket.
Click to expand...

Here's what you originally said:

mshunter said:
Personally, The "entry level jets" are all pieces of crap so far. They aren't much faster than the majority of compariably priced props out there, burn a crap ton more fuel, can't carry much, and can't go very far. If you want an "entry level jet" buy a nice used, or even a new Citation that is already on the market, and certified for single pilot operations. The new avionics, while nice, are being used as to much of a crutch.
Click to expand...

That sounded to me like you were saying that the avionics is one of the reasons to prefer the older style Citations. Maybe I read too much into it.


.
 
Moving away from the avionics for a moment, I'd like to address this as well (even though it has been partially covered already):

mshunter said:
Personally, The "entry level jets" are all pieces of crap so far. They aren't much faster than the majority of compariably priced props out there, burn a crap ton more fuel, can't carry much, and can't go very far....
Click to expand...

Reference attached comparison of a Citation Mustang and a King Air C90.
 

Attachments

SteveC said:
Moving away from the avionics for a moment, I'd like to address this as well (even though it has been partially covered already):



Reference attached comparison of a Citation Mustang and a King Air C90.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is obvious; your comparison is a lie.

Take that, Mr. Facts-On-The-Internet Guy!

(Though you've got to admit that turboprops clobber jets in hot and high takeoff's)
 
SteveC said:
That sounded to me like you were saying that the avionics is one of the reasons to prefer the older style Citations. Maybe I read too much into it.


.
Click to expand...

You did. The avionics sell these things. Having dealt with more than a few people who rely to heavily on them, I see it in my day to day dealings with aviation.
 
mshunter said:
You did. The avionics sell these things. Having dealt with more than a few people who rely to heavily on them, I see it in my day to day dealings with aviation.
Click to expand...

I've spent enough time behind glass that I couldn't just hop in a six pack aircraft and blast off into the soup safely without some retraining. That being said, I also know where I'm at without an MFD.

I'm dangerous.

topgungif1.gif
 
jtrain609 said:
I've spent enough time behind glass that I couldn't just hop in a six pack aircraft and blast off into the soup safely without some retraining. That being said, I also know where I'm at without an MFD.

I'm dangerous.

topgungif1.gif
Click to expand...
They have an odd habit of being broken on your side of the aircraft, no?
 
SteveC said:
Moving away from the avionics for a moment, I'd like to address this as well (even though it has been partially covered already):



Reference attached comparison of a Citation Mustang and a King Air C90.
Click to expand...

We could go round and round and round for hours on this with you pulling up comparisons, me pulling up comparisons, etc. Conklin and de Decker (boss just bought the software) shows numbers that are quite a bit different. And they have no sales pitch because they aren't selling a TBM850. We ran the numbers for a guy who is looking to purchase. And oddly enough, to make some money, reduce operating costs, etc., de Decker from the numbers we plugged in showed a KA200 was a better choice than a Mustang/Phenom/Eclipse when maintenence etc. were all factored in. But what really blew my mind was a Lear60 had the best margin of all the aircraft we were looking at. I was blown away.

Models we were looking at
KA90
KA200
Mustang
Phenom
CE550
LR31
LR60

A Pilatus was on the table for a while, but the buyer wanted an extra engine.

BTW, this is some serious thread creep!
 
When did we start talking about best aircraft for a specific mission profile? What you said was "They aren't much faster than the majority of compariably priced props out there, burn a crap ton more fuel, can't carry much, and can't go very far....". The numbers that I posted show that all three of those statements are wrong when comparing a King Air 90 to a Mustang, and using a TBM site as source for data struck me as pretty unbiased.

1. "...they aren't much faster..."
King Air long range TAS 202
Mustang long range TAS 317 (+115 knots)
King Air high speed TAS 272
Mustang high speed TAS 340 (+68 knots)

2. "...burn a crap ton more fuel..."
King Air long range specific range (nm/lb) 0.67
Mustang long range specific range (nm/lb) 0.68
King Air high speed specific range (nm/lb) 0.45
Mustang high speed specific range (nm/lb) 0.56

3. "...can't carry much..."
King Air 800nm cabin payload 1258#
Mustang 800nm cabin payload 1550#
(King Air is better at shorter range profiles)

4. "...can't go very far..."
King Air range 1300nm
Mustang range 1150nm

http://www.newavex.com/comparison.htm

Another source:
http://planes.findthebest.com/compa...-Hawker-Beechcraft-Beechcraft-King-Air-C90GTx
By the way, the Mustang costs around $2.8M, the King Air C90 is $3.6M, and a new King Air 250 is $5.8M.


As long as we've got the thread creep going, why would you be comparing planes with such different mission profiles?


.
 
Come on let's compare the C441 with the citation. There is a reason Cessna stopped making them. They hurt the citation line to much.
 
KDoersom said:
Come on let's compare the C441 with the citation. There is a reason Cessna stopped making them. They hurt the citation line to much.
Click to expand...
I sort of think that's a comparison similar to the Twin Bonanza and the Baron, back in "the day" when avgas was 71 cents per gallon.

The TwinBo guys pulled up as the Baron toads were unloading their bags, and had a higher TBO and overall cheaper operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top