Cessna - Next Generation

[VORTIME]

Hi Guys,

What is everyone expecting from the Cessna NG?

Personally, I'd like to see -

- active/passive noise reduction
- doors that close like cars
- less rivets
- air con as standard
- FADEC
- "Comfortable" Seats
- Jet-A Engine
- much lower maintenance requirement

It appears from the photos to have four doors which is v. interesting.

VT

[Rod1]

Just to prove that one mans feast is another mans poison:)

A low wing
A canopy (doors are for cars):E
Composite construction
Aerobatic
150kn ecs
Air con
A reliable and proven JetA1 fuelled piston engine or Mogas if this is not possible
Much lower maintenance requirement

Rod1 (unlikely to ever own a Cessna ever again)

[IO540]

Based on the pics that have come out recently, it looks like one is getting the same 1950s design, with slightly more rounded corners, and of course a glass cockpit.

Doors that close like on a modern car are mechanically impossible to do on a typical GA spamcan because the structure isn't stiff enough and isn't built accurately enough. Modern car doors work because they are within the box section based structure so everything is very stiff, and production methods ensure accuracy. Whereas the "body" of a spamcan is just one sheet of aluminium, probably about 1.5mm thick, riveted onto some struts, and no two are the same dimensions.

I don't think mogas is a starter unless you want to cripple the operating ceiling and nobody wants to do that on a certified plane.

FADEC would be good but the reliability of present stuff (Thielert) isn't great.... anyway Cessna are American and in America fuel isn't anywhere near expensive enough yet.

[BroomstickPilot]

Guys,

I think some of you haven't read the question which was;

Quote: 'What is everyone expecting from the Cessna NG'?

What I am expecting is,
1. a 1950's design with a few new minor tweaks (as IO540 says),
2. Soggy handling, ("make it like a car" - Cessna in the 60s),
3. Non-aerobatic and probably non-spinnable,
4. Old fashioned 1930s engine (just got to be an American gas-guzzling unit),
5. Fuel efficiency better than before, but still not very good,
6. Sit-up-and-beg sitting position,
7. Control yoke (when a stick would be better) that fouls the pilot's kneeboard.
8. Limited endurance (two and a half to three hours).

In short, I suppose you could call it a C153!

I bet they don't exibit it at Farnborough, we might all laugh.

Broomstick.

[172driver]

Well, Broomstick, the OP writes expecting and then produces a wishlist, so I guess we can all have a go ;)

As my handle suggests, I fly these things (the RG version though) quite a bit in their current incarnation. For any future model, I'd like to see:

1) no strut (although it helps to climb up and check the fuel), can't remember now, but I think the photos from Oshkosh showed it didn't have one anyway; could've been their new Light Sport Aircraft, though
2) Better ventilation (not these ridiculous push/pull tubes at the top of the windshield
3) glass cockpit
4) Jet-A engine, although I doubt that one will come to pass. In the US the difference between Jet-A and 100LL is simply too small to justify the price of a diesel engine. Plus, by all accounts, the Thielerts aren't exactly models of reliability
5) more SPEED ! while I get about 125 - 130kts out of the ones I fly, I'd like to see something capable of doing, say, 160-180kts in normal cruise.
6) as per above, choice of powerplants
7) oh yes, properly closing doors would be nice, but as IO540 has already pointed out, probably won't happen

Glass cockpit seems to be de rigeur these days anyway, so I guess that's a given.

Endurance: I know some models in the current lineup are challenged here (one of the ones I fly, an -N model, only does about 3 hours), but the long-range RGs easily do 5 hours to reserves. Just hope they offer the long-range tanks on the new ones.

I'm sure we won't see retractable undercarriage, as none of the new aircraft makers seem to go for it. Too expensive, I guess.

Anyone know when the new model's due out ?

[denhamflyer]

As an owner of one of the newer models (182) it is quite clear many "gripes" have already been addressed.

The doors are more car like - but a very nice 'lock down" (good for anyone who has experienced the automatic door opening on takeoff)

The seats are extremely comfortable for longer flights, the rear seats even recline!

The ventilation is mucho improved - nice twisty standard round airline vents.

Better seat belts (car like three point) , air bag etc. etc.

Now takes 87 Gallons at 15 gph@135kts - 2500 ft. Can go 145 but burns 19 gph at low altitudes.

Things I would like to see are:-

1. Slightly better useable load ( Im on the bigger size..) and tend to take lots of luggage (or the family do).

2. Better cruising speed (160 would be nice :) )

3. Fixed undercarriage - there enough reasons for maintenance and failure as it is. ( And it seems the insurers seem to think retractables are a liability)

4. Lower instrument panel- better forward visibility

5. Nicer finish to the instrument panel (loose the "industrial look").

6. JetA1 Fuel since Avgas is likely to skyrocket as it become even more of a burden for the fuel companies.

7. Maintain the short field performance. The modern composites seem to loose out on this.

8. Extra seats! Somehow I always seem to need the a fifth seat, but 6 seaters (with a usable load only suitable for under nourished small people) dont seem popular in the uk.

9. Keep the glass - once bitten you wont go back.

10. Better attention to European requirements. ADF/DME - std. TAS not TIS etc.

The new trainer is bound to do acrobatics (albeit tame) - if they ever make it. Given the number of schools that use the antiquated 152 they would be mugs not to.

[IO540]

Now takes 87 Gallons at 15 gph@135kts - 2500 ft. Can go 145 but burns 19 gph at low altitudes.

That's even worse than I thought, for a C182. Is this leaned to peak or LOP?

A TB20 does 138kt IAS (low levels, say below 10,000ft) at 10.5 GPH. But it doesn't have the short field performance of a C182.

I think broomstick is right on the mark. Cessna can't possibly do anything else. It will be a Lyco engine, and the rest follows.

[172driver]

Are we talking the same gallons here ?? US vs UK..... Denham, pls clarify, I can't really imagine you're talking about UK gallons :ugh:

[denhamflyer]

yes US gallons - sorry I keep it that way since everything else on the plane is US gallons - 12.5 UK.

This is leaned although running higher rpm (24) - at higher alititude/lower rpm it can be leaned down to 12 gph ( 9.9 UK). It does lean off much better at not significantly higher altitudes, but UK flying is often very restrictive, especially with class A ceiling around here.

I do agree that from what I have seen of the Diesel engines they screw the short field performance. I see the CAA/GASIL are warning people to be more careful when shortfield working on diesel engines.

[IO540]

My comment was based on the USG assumption. The flow rates seem high.

The ability to lean should not be affected by altitude.

The DA40TDi has a poor climb rate at low levels, for its capability in other departments which the turbo gives it, but the POH figure should be accurate. I suppose most UK trained PPLs have never looked at performance data though, otherwise why tell them about the lower than expected climb rate.

[denhamflyer]

Wow - nice performance for the flow rate on the TB20. The leaning can be done at any altitude - but the higher altitude does give a better flow rate for the speed.

I am leaning using the G1000 and balancing the EGT/CHT, so it can be improved by the assist function and LOP ( reading the Lyco info they imply a 2-3 gph difference - but for maintenance reasons dont recommend LOP!). But Im not going to get anywhere near your figures. Im told by the salesman (:rolleyes: ) that he has got it down below 11 gph - but Ive not had the chance the play too much. Ive only done about 30 hours in her, with flights that have kept me very busy.

I spent ages going thru the performance figures before I purchased, it would dissapointing to think others wouldnt.

One of the interesting things I found when looking at planes (new and esp. used) was the difference between the quoted useful load and then real figures when looking at the actual weight certificates. They were much heaver than "promo" figures, especially on planes loaded with avionics.

I would expect the new Cessna's to be much better aerodynamically and improve on all of the key performance figures. And will probably launch with a Lyco. BUT even North America will start to suffer the problem of lead in AvGas (seperate transport etc.etc.) and they will either opt for lower octane unleaded or go JetA1? So the equations for performance wont be so clear cut.

[B2N2]

I would expect;

-No struts
-Composite construction w/ double wing spars
-Thielert 230/350 HP
-Glass cockpit (Garmin 1000)
- 1000NM range @ 70% PWR
- Cruise speeds of 160+ at moderate alititudes <10,000'


Too much maybe?

[IO540]

It's not possible to improve cruise speed/range/economy without compromising short field performance - short of finding a power plant which gives more power without weighing more, and a diesel most certainly won't deliver that.

Nobody "big" is going to stake their N American business on a Thielert engine, currently.

I would argue that Cessna's US sales are there largely of their built-in place within the "American Dream"; otherwise one could be charitable and say they sell because they offer good short field performance and are rugged, are very common, and a lot of people like high-wing. I don't think this package can be really transformed; there is no engine technology that would do that.

An incremental improvement is all you are going to get.