Sport Pilot Talk

Would love to hear from the group on this. Thoughts, opinions, predictions, etc welcome...

Cessna ends dealer network: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... c_sect=tts

I think it's an absolute necessity for survival. It allows the manufacturer to pick up a few points of margin, which is crucial.

Most importantly the manufacturer is not reliant upon a dealer network for their success or failure.

First the Skycatcher, then this. One can only imagine what's next.

.......

A dealer network makes sense when you're pushing 500 units out the door a year. Not so much at 5. For a while during lean times, Cessna got aware with making dealers buy aircraft for "inventory", but that's not going to work now.

Here are the sales by manufacturer by number of units delivered.

Sorry, not sure I can shrink the image after posting!

Glasair's Merlin seems to me to be almost identical to the Skycatcher in fact I could say quite a bit improved.

Made mostly of composites it features the Rotax 912iS engine and Dynon SkyView as well as a chute option. Still in development and running late to market it could be a quality LSA made in the USA. Prices around $160k.

Cluemeister wrote:Sorry, not sure I can shrink the image after posting!

Textron itself reported 290 piston sales for Cessna and Beechcraft (after March 14, when the acquisition was complete). The rest must be turbines. Beech long ago dropped the dealer model.
http://www.textron.com/assets/resources ... ation.html

Nomore767 wrote:Glasair's Merlin seems to me to be almost identical to the Skycatcher in fact I could say quite a bit improved.

Made mostly of composites it features the Rotax 912iS engine and Dynon SkyView as well as a chute option. Still in development and running late to market it could be a quality LSA made in the USA. Prices around $160k.

It looks like it fixed the two big Skycatcher weaknesses.

- Changed to Rotax
- Lowered the Weight

It appears to compete with the P92 Eaglet most closely.

.......

Cluemeister wrote:

Nomore767 wrote:Glasair's Merlin seems to me to be almost identical to the Skycatcher in fact I could say quite a bit improved.

Made mostly of composites it features the Rotax 912iS engine and Dynon SkyView as well as a chute option. Still in development and running late to market it could be a quality LSA made in the USA. Prices around $160k.

It looks like it fixed the two big Skycatcher weaknesses.

- Changed to Rotax
- Lowered the Weight

It appears to compete with the P92 Eaglet most closely.

It would be smart if Glasair offered the 912ULS as well as the 912is (Sport). The ULS is less expensive, lighter and still gets 4-5 gph.
The weight saving from the 912ULS option would likely offset some of the additional weight of a chute.

The weight reduction means better empty weight than the Cessna and the only real option other than the chute is the second Dynon screen package. I don't know if the Glasair has adjustable rudder pedals or if the seat slides back and forth.

SportPilot wrote:I prefer the Continental engine (and I fly both). I also prefer the metal construction.

It is my understanding that that your attitude was shared by Cessna dealers when the Skycatcher was being designed. Their pressure created a airplane that was some what limited in its utility. In my opinion that is why it was not a big success.

Edited to add:
I have nothing against Continental engines, and own a airplane with one. They certainly have their place. My thoughts are when designing a new clean sheet airplane for the flight training market that weight should be a major consideration. I'm not suggesting reducing weight and sacrificing reliability, I am simply saying they could have made better choices. When you leave 60-100 pounds on the design table to please the dealers it is not a good thing.

3Dreaming wrote:

SportPilot wrote:I prefer the Continental engine (and I fly both). I also prefer the metal construction.

It is my understanding that that your attitude was shared by Cessna dealers when the Skycatcher was being designed. Their pressure created a airplane that was some what limited in its utility. In my opinion that is why it was not a big success.

Edited to add:
I have nothing against Continental engines, and own a airplane with one. They certainly have their place. My thoughts are when designing a new clean sheet airplane for the flight training market that weight should be a major consideration. I'm not suggesting reducing weight and sacrificing reliability, I am simply saying they could have made better choices. When you leave 60-100 pounds on the design table to please the dealers it is not a good thing.

Just a guess, here, but the operating parameters between the 162 and 172 are quite similar. My guess is the 162 was to be an introductory trainer, and encourage the new pilot to "move up the line" to a more capable (and more popular) aircraft.

.......