The Wall Street Journal reports:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196211 ... lenews_wsj
"Lewis Campbell, Textron's chairman and chief executive, said in an interview that lower manufacturing costs in China would allow Cessna to sell the airplane for $71,000 less than it would if it had built the plane at its factories in Wichita, Kan."
Cessna wouldn't have entered the market with a $180,500 S-LSA. What would thay have sold, maybe two?
Made in the USA? Ha!
Moderator: drseti
Good lord - it's official.
The 162 will be made in China.
"Cessna Aircraft Co. will become the first U.S. manufacturer to turn over complete production of an airplane to a Chinese partner, a move intended to cut production costs and foster a nascent private-aviation market in China. Cessna hopes manufacturing in China will help keep the price of the plane low enough to attract new pilots to counter the dwindling ranks of U.S. recreational fliers."
Guess I'm really dense, but how is having a new $110,000 airplane on the market going to increase the number of pilots? Won't it just increase the number of Cessna owners? If you're going to buy a plane, you're going to buy a plane. Somehow I don't think that someone will decide out of nowhere to become a pilot, because he/she can now buy a new Cessna for $110K.
Tom
The 162 will be made in China.
"Cessna Aircraft Co. will become the first U.S. manufacturer to turn over complete production of an airplane to a Chinese partner, a move intended to cut production costs and foster a nascent private-aviation market in China. Cessna hopes manufacturing in China will help keep the price of the plane low enough to attract new pilots to counter the dwindling ranks of U.S. recreational fliers."
Guess I'm really dense, but how is having a new $110,000 airplane on the market going to increase the number of pilots? Won't it just increase the number of Cessna owners? If you're going to buy a plane, you're going to buy a plane. Somehow I don't think that someone will decide out of nowhere to become a pilot, because he/she can now buy a new Cessna for $110K.
Tom
-
owenstrawn
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:44 am
The idea is that training in a new 162 will cost much less than training in a new 172. Lower cost should mean more students.
It remains to be seen whether training in a new 162 will cost less than training in a new Tecnam, Sky Arrow, CTSW, Allegro, etc. So far there don't seem to be a lot of places training with new S-LSAs, so I think it's fair to say that the market hasn't stabilized yet.
It remains to be seen whether training in a new 162 will cost less than training in a new Tecnam, Sky Arrow, CTSW, Allegro, etc. So far there don't seem to be a lot of places training with new S-LSAs, so I think it's fair to say that the market hasn't stabilized yet.
-
Jim Stewart
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm
I think you've touched on it Owen.
Light Sport training is almost always *more* expensive than PPL training. The PPL schools are using old $30k Cessna 150's for training and the LSA schools are using new $110k Sportstars and CT's. On top of that, the LSA's are harder to fly well and take more landing skill. The 40 hours vs 20 hours is silliness unless you just want to fly an ultralight. Otherwise you will end up spending at least as much dual and solo time in a light sport as a 150. And it will cost you more per hour.
Light Sport training is almost always *more* expensive than PPL training. The PPL schools are using old $30k Cessna 150's for training and the LSA schools are using new $110k Sportstars and CT's. On top of that, the LSA's are harder to fly well and take more landing skill. The 40 hours vs 20 hours is silliness unless you just want to fly an ultralight. Otherwise you will end up spending at least as much dual and solo time in a light sport as a 150. And it will cost you more per hour.
Jim,
Not sure what aircraft you have flown or what Light Sport flight school you are using but you definitely have been exposed to the wrong side of LSAs. We have over 13 instructors, all of which are CFIs who have taught in everything imaginable. All of them say the LSAs we use are easy to fly and great trainers. On top of that, our PPL renters prefer the ease of handling, the good performance numbers and the price.
As for the cost, the national average for a PPL is 60 hours not 40 hours. Our SP candidates can do it between 20-25 hours. Some may push 30 if they are not flying consistently, i.e. one a month or taking several months off.
Increasing the supply of LSAs in the market (especially at flight schools) will create new pilots and retain older pilots. Of our 100+ clients, we probably have 80 who are flying with us because of medical issues. I assume other areas of the country are experiencing similar statistics.
Not sure what aircraft you have flown or what Light Sport flight school you are using but you definitely have been exposed to the wrong side of LSAs. We have over 13 instructors, all of which are CFIs who have taught in everything imaginable. All of them say the LSAs we use are easy to fly and great trainers. On top of that, our PPL renters prefer the ease of handling, the good performance numbers and the price.
As for the cost, the national average for a PPL is 60 hours not 40 hours. Our SP candidates can do it between 20-25 hours. Some may push 30 if they are not flying consistently, i.e. one a month or taking several months off.
Increasing the supply of LSAs in the market (especially at flight schools) will create new pilots and retain older pilots. Of our 100+ clients, we probably have 80 who are flying with us because of medical issues. I assume other areas of the country are experiencing similar statistics.
-
Jim Stewart
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm
No..we don't use CTSW or SportStar. I have flown and provided flight training on a CTSW and did not find it an easy aircraft to fly. So you statement about learning to landing it is accurate. We use Tecnam, SportCruiser and Sky Arrow. Our aircraft rent between $75-$95 depending on the aircraft, equipment and block rate v. hourly. Instruction is $35/hour.
I'm kind of flabbergasted that more folks are not outraged that Cessna is making the Flycatcher in China. To me China is against all joys & privledges that the FREEDOM of flight provides to us. Furthermore CEO Jack Pelton leaves one to believe that Shenyang Aircraft Corp is a privately held company actually it's owned by the communist gov't .
Also it's a insult to one's intelligence that to produce the C162 in Communist China costs 71K less than it would to produce here .
Cessna is basically saying that to produce a C162 here is the same as a C172.
What say u ?
Also it's a insult to one's intelligence that to produce the C162 in Communist China costs 71K less than it would to produce here .
Cessna is basically saying that to produce a C162 here is the same as a C172.
What say u ?
Opinions are like armpits everybody has a couple & they usually stink .
I can see their position on cost because a 162 and 172 have close to the same amount of material and airframe parts except for interior.
Wheels, brakes, lights, paint, instruments, bolts, engine mounts, prop. All pretty much the same between the 162 and 172. Same number of control surfaces.
that said I think the new 172 is way too expensive due to the amount of labor required to build one.
I can't remember if the 162 prototype was blind or solid riveted.
The 162 is a little better for mass production by design.
I think if Cessna paid a lot more attention to new technology for making matched holes and CNC, water jet, or laser cutting of parts the 162 could be made in the USA for less than the Chinese version.
Just need to automate the parts fabrication and then use human employees to assemble components.
The material costs, components costs and marketing costs don't change unless they are buying stuff made overseas also. After seeing the MS hardware and Indian tires/ brakes on my X air I'll pass.
Since the dealers all make some money, manufacturer makes money, manufacturers parent company makes money (TEXTRON), parts suppliers make money, Chinese gov makes money, shippers make money, workers in China get paid something even if it is very small.
The purchaser is at the end of a very inefficient chain.
Seems we could do better with a little thought and planning. Support some of our own.
Wasn't Cessna employing very cheap labor when they restarted 172 production in 1997?
I wonder how they will be shipped over and where they will be reassembled and test flown?
Will all engines be shipped to China and then shipped back to the USA?
I figure there is about $3000 on each airplane just to reassemble and test after it gets back to the USA.
about 40 hours work between paperwork, test flight, mechanical work, fueling, etc.
then it needs to get to the dealer. Years ago you flew out to Kansas and picked new Cessnas up on a big field full of airplanes. Sign the papers, grab the keys and go find your N number. Fly it home and put a sign on it for sale.
Depending on where you are in the country is what the costs are.
They may allow the dealers to do their own final assembly and ship the airplanes directly to them in containers.
Piper could ship cubs in rail cars at one time. Vagabonds went three to a container to England after WW II.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I'm a made in the USA guy.
Since LSA came out I purchased a lot of stuff from other countries. Very global and paid a lot of money.
Resale is non existant, support was non existant, parts supply was sketchy, paperwork and airplane specs were wrong and dealers lied about them. Aerodynamic and structural problems existed. Not to say all are like this but I hit the wrong ones
Never again.
Wheels, brakes, lights, paint, instruments, bolts, engine mounts, prop. All pretty much the same between the 162 and 172. Same number of control surfaces.
that said I think the new 172 is way too expensive due to the amount of labor required to build one.
I can't remember if the 162 prototype was blind or solid riveted.
The 162 is a little better for mass production by design.
I think if Cessna paid a lot more attention to new technology for making matched holes and CNC, water jet, or laser cutting of parts the 162 could be made in the USA for less than the Chinese version.
Just need to automate the parts fabrication and then use human employees to assemble components.
The material costs, components costs and marketing costs don't change unless they are buying stuff made overseas also. After seeing the MS hardware and Indian tires/ brakes on my X air I'll pass.
Since the dealers all make some money, manufacturer makes money, manufacturers parent company makes money (TEXTRON), parts suppliers make money, Chinese gov makes money, shippers make money, workers in China get paid something even if it is very small.
The purchaser is at the end of a very inefficient chain.
Seems we could do better with a little thought and planning. Support some of our own.
Wasn't Cessna employing very cheap labor when they restarted 172 production in 1997?
I wonder how they will be shipped over and where they will be reassembled and test flown?
Will all engines be shipped to China and then shipped back to the USA?
I figure there is about $3000 on each airplane just to reassemble and test after it gets back to the USA.
about 40 hours work between paperwork, test flight, mechanical work, fueling, etc.
then it needs to get to the dealer. Years ago you flew out to Kansas and picked new Cessnas up on a big field full of airplanes. Sign the papers, grab the keys and go find your N number. Fly it home and put a sign on it for sale.
Depending on where you are in the country is what the costs are.
They may allow the dealers to do their own final assembly and ship the airplanes directly to them in containers.
Piper could ship cubs in rail cars at one time. Vagabonds went three to a container to England after WW II.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I'm a made in the USA guy.
Since LSA came out I purchased a lot of stuff from other countries. Very global and paid a lot of money.
Resale is non existant, support was non existant, parts supply was sketchy, paperwork and airplane specs were wrong and dealers lied about them. Aerodynamic and structural problems existed. Not to say all are like this but I hit the wrong ones
Never again.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
I believe costs of raw materials is less especially aluminium there's just less of it u have to use + an 0-200 costs way less than a new i0-360 .
It appears as if Cessna wants to just maximize as much profit as possible, at the cost of U.S jobs .
Cubflyer , I concur with a lot of your points well put .
It appears as if Cessna wants to just maximize as much profit as possible, at the cost of U.S jobs .
Cubflyer , I concur with a lot of your points well put .
Opinions are like armpits everybody has a couple & they usually stink .
-
owenstrawn
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:44 am
I expect the insurance on Skycatchers should be lower than on some of the other S-LSAs, which should lower the training rates some. Not necessarily based on actual in-use statistics (which I expect are hard to come by for these new fleets), but on insurance company expectations.
I can't guess how new 162 training costs will compare with used 152 costs, but OTOH I have heard some school operators complaining that they simply can't keep the old 152s going anymore.
FYI in answere to a comple of the comments:
The proof-of-concept airplane N158CS was made using mostly solid rivets with only a very few blind rivets.
Restart 172-182-206 airplanes are built at the Independence, KS plant. The workers there are non-union.
I can't guess how new 162 training costs will compare with used 152 costs, but OTOH I have heard some school operators complaining that they simply can't keep the old 152s going anymore.
FYI in answere to a comple of the comments:
The proof-of-concept airplane N158CS was made using mostly solid rivets with only a very few blind rivets.
Restart 172-182-206 airplanes are built at the Independence, KS plant. The workers there are non-union.
One of the biggest cost difference in building a Part 23 production aircraft versus and S-LSA is that Part 23 has to have certified production line and go through a lot more paper work. My guess is that Cessna would build their other aircraft in China if getting Part 23 status was not such a hassle. They can build the C-162 anywhere and then have it certified in the US.
As for materials, the C-172 has about twice the empty weight of the C-162. Therefore, I assume there is twice the materials going into the plane. Of course the engine probably encompasses a good portion of that number.
As for materials, the C-172 has about twice the empty weight of the C-162. Therefore, I assume there is twice the materials going into the plane. Of course the engine probably encompasses a good portion of that number.
-
owenstrawn
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:44 am
In response to comments:
(from AvWeek http://tinyurl.com/2g4v4s )
"After construction, assembly and flight test in China, the LSAs will be partially disassembled and packed in containers for ocean shipment to the U.S. Pelton said at least three of Cessna's authorized service centers - including one in Wichita - will reassemble the Skycatchers in this country for delivery to retail customers through Cessna dealers."
(from AvWeek http://tinyurl.com/2g4v4s )
"After construction, assembly and flight test in China, the LSAs will be partially disassembled and packed in containers for ocean shipment to the U.S. Pelton said at least three of Cessna's authorized service centers - including one in Wichita - will reassemble the Skycatchers in this country for delivery to retail customers through Cessna dealers."
Looks there are some unhappy folks letting Cessna know their thoughts about the SkyCatcher:
http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/95 ... ommentsDiv
Example: "AOPA member and PPL SEL since 1994. I am disgusted and astonished by this decision. How far does corporate greed have to go. In view of the fact that a large percent of manufacturing is already in the PRC, I find it hard to fathom this decision aside from just looking at the bottom line. "
If you try to open the SkyCatcher link above, be patient. It's been crashing a lot in the last couple days.
Tom
http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/95 ... ommentsDiv
Example: "AOPA member and PPL SEL since 1994. I am disgusted and astonished by this decision. How far does corporate greed have to go. In view of the fact that a large percent of manufacturing is already in the PRC, I find it hard to fathom this decision aside from just looking at the bottom line. "
If you try to open the SkyCatcher link above, be patient. It's been crashing a lot in the last couple days.
Tom