Cirus designed just anounced the Gen 3 Cirrus SR22. Almost a total redesign, more dihedal, more fuel capacity, a few more kts, more payload due to the new carbon fiber wingspar that shaves 53 lbs from the empty weight. Not to mention the CAPS system.

For a relatively new company, the seem to be rolling out the product enhancements at a lightning speed which makes Cessna and Piper look slow and un responsive.

Could Cessna be in danger of extinction, the new kids on the block are showing the way.

Cessna have a whole new generation of piston singles in the advanced stages of development.

A prototype (which looked kind of like a high-wind cirrus, or much updated, composite 177 Cardinal) did a fly past at Oshkosh last year.

Certainly, Piper products are starting to look old.

Guptar:

I don't think Cessna will stop making singles. But they may have to get used to being number 2.

However, there are some companies that may go the way of the Dodo;

1st to fall may be Columbia, they go head-to-head with Cirrus and have no other range to fall back on.

As you said, Piper may find the going tough - their low end metal competes with the C172 and not the Cirrus. The PA28 still sports a carby Lycoming for crying out loud!.

Diamond and Cirrus seem to be leading the way.

Cirrus......should cessna, Piper, Beech be worried.
Sure they should, especially if Cirrus start building a six place aircraft!:ok:

Its called COMPETITION folks, and it improves the breed.

Based on my extremely limited aviation expereince, I'm not sure that there are major improvements that can be made without adding a whole lot of technology and complexity to GA aircraft.

If you look at a road test of the Cirrus vs. the Bonanza and the latest crash comic, it appears that there is little difference between the offerings in terms of efficiency if not performance. ie: You want to go fast? Add horsepower. You want short takeoff and landing? Lower wing loading, and so on and so on. All designs are a compromise, and they seem to be optimised to meeting FAA rules with a direct drive, slow revving engine and a not too complex structure and controls.

It seems to me that improvements are going to continue to be incremental unless someone pulls out a technology circuit breaker that changes the rules.

I guess this might be an engine that can produce 300-400 HP for takeoff, yet still operate highly efficiently at say 30% power. Couple this with an airframe with a high wingloading but with massive high lift flaps for takeoff and landing coupled with spoilers, retractable gear etc. etc.

Anyway, tell me I'm dreaming.

There is a new light aircraft in the late design phase that will indeed to that - set a new technology benchmark. It's in the Czech Republic where many other high quality aircraft are designed and manufactured. It's called the "Arkus" and is a 2 seater that will cruise in excess of 200+ knots on a 115 hp turbo charged Rotax engine. It's sleek, fast, sexy and has a slow stall speed for those that were going to ask that. I'll ask the future importer if he knows more when he gets back. He's OS right now. It must be in prototype phase by now.

As for the Cirrus, yes Cessna do have something to worry about. They need to get their new models out there quickly before Cirrus takes over. The Cirrus is a very nice aircraft, pretty easy to fly and lots of new gadgets and features that people like that are available as options, like those stated earlier, Aircon, De-Ice, Seatbelt airbags, etc.

Looking at a recent video about their little LSA entry they are quite a while off. They are still tossing up between the continental and rotax power plants suggesting that the Rotax was not built for aircraft and the Continental was, however the continental is some 30+ pounds heavier.

Is anyone thinking about producing a new multi-engine aircraft that can happily climb with a dead engine at MAUW that is NOT turbine powered?

There is quite a shortage of new aircraft in this area.

*Technam twin as yet has only appeared in this country on paper.
*Diamond diesel would struggle on one engine.
*Not sure of Seneca V performance.

Awaiting correction...
ECT?

Often thought that my self, apart from the above aircraft there seems to be little on the horizon. Wonder if the up coming G10 'Super Van' could be fitted with two noise makers?.....maybe somthing along the lines of a N22 GoMad but with those V8's hanging of each wing?:}

Having been a Cirrus driver since we picked up our baby from the factory in 05 I declare a bias. I think the bigger companies (if Piper qualifies as bigger any more) should be more than a little concerned. Cessna have recognized the trend and are well into their composite entry. Piper...not so much. And Beech - well they have a good product that suits many missions plus they make lots of bigger iron so they probably arent worried.

When you tour the Cirrus factory (and I am told the Diamond factory is similar) you see the investments they have made and continue to make in efficient engineering practices and they really can't afford to stand still... so they don't, or at least haven't to date. Personally I am sticking with my current non turbo 22 until they increase the gross weight of the G3 SR22 by a hundred or so pounds (its a rumor only). You sort of come to expect these sort of refinements from Cirrus - not so good for resale here in the US but good for new shiny toy focused pilots. They are great planes - we have flown ours all over the US and its performed better than all the other money pits, excuse me, aircraft we have had.

There seems to be a bit of a revival in GA singles.

If Beech were smart, they would bring out the G33 to compete directly with the Cirrus etc.

Few would opt for a lump of plastic over a Bonanza!

Dr:cool:

A G35 would be a lot sexier than a G33, bit the V-tail does have C of G issues!

So what is the cost of a G36 STDK...........and is it really still a 4 seater?

Mind you the Cirrus is only a 3 seater, unless the back seat is for kids only.

Still a sexy plane 40 yeears on.

J:ok:

Cirrus is a great machine except for the fact that they had to put a parachute in it to get it certified. :yuk:

HAD TO??????:eek:

Care to explain........

J:ok:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142994&highlight=cirrus+lancair

Why should I restrict myself to a piston aircraft? There are turbine homebuilt aircraft available from AeroComp up to ten seaters! Maybe I should give myself an early Christmas present. Ha ha.

There are even single seater helicopters that are turbine powered - the de-rated turbine weighs only 35 pounds, yet delivers 110 horsepower! I had the opportunity to have detailed inspection and chat to the owner a year ago. Shame about the turbine's thirst for Jet A-1.

Maybe a mainline aircraft manufacturer should look at copying this idea from the homebuilders? Comments welcome as to the value of a light turbine aircraft.

ECT?

What time is ECT?

Maybe a mainline aircraft manufacturer should look at copying this idea from the homebuilders? I can assure you they have and will continue to do so, but, you will only see it happen when they think it can be economically sustained.

Helicopters and turbine engines were made in heaven for each other.

And no the mainline manufacturers are not worried, in fact they welcome the likes of Cirrus, Diamond et al to help grow the market.

Cessna have never forgotten nor will they, that the continuing success of their business was and is built on new pilot entry.

Gaunty is correct.

That's why Cessna is looking at selling a Rotax powered two-seater trainer for under US$100k!.

It will be a loss-leader but will give Cessna one over the likes of Cirrus/Columbia/Piper/Mooney/Beech who don't currently (and are unlikely to) offer a two-seat aircraft to their range.

Even with an old fashioned, outdated product range, Cessna will continue to be number 1 or 2.

http://se.cessna.com/lsa/

My annual jaunt is to the outback in winter, doesn't really matter where, but the owners of nice shiny Cirri and similar aircraft sort of look at me funny if I ask if I can take their pride and joy to the 700m gravel strip at Arkaroola:}

As I understand it (talking to a seriously biased engineer) Cirrus have little tiny wheels and little tiny brakes that have resulted in at least one brake fire at YMMB when the aircraft has been landed a little fast, and they are definitely not for outback gravel strips.

Come to think of it, they are a little too fast for me anyway, I'll stick to the Lance.

Saw the Grob DA50 superstar at AERO 2007 last w/end. That looked very Cirrus-like with some oneupmnaship by way of the lcd panels in the seat backs for rear pax entertainment.

dont get me wrong the cirrus is an awsome machine, as is the lancair columbia too.

again there are some problems..

one the material thye are made off..... you vs lighting! ....good luck to you!!

but the main thing is>> sooo many inexperienced pilots are getting there hands on them. they have a very very high stalling speed compared to what they have eben on, and landing them is much faster and harder.... they are being ridden off by inexperienced pilots all the time!!

stick with a cessna thanks!

The next generation of GA planes are starting to emerge some are not half bad.. Anyone seen the new proposed single engine piper jet?

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/piperjet-announced-team-giz-pumped-for-2010-delivery-208439.php

Apollo: The Cirrus is encased in wire mesh inside of the composite airframe for lightening protection. Unfortunately I have found out the hard way that it works. Fortunately it didn't fry the electronics when I got stuck in the middle of a lightning inspired light show. Although radio communiucation was not possible til I got to the other side of the cloud everything survived including me and the plane.

have there been a large number of reports of composite aircraft suffering failures as a result of a lightning strike??

Rich-Fine-Green:ok:

I don't think it is any secret but every C150/152 was sold at a loss which was wrapped up in the marketing budget. It cost near as dammit the same to build a C152 as a C172.

Teach the world to fly and they will buy your aircraft.

It is an article of faith at Cessna and the single biggest reason they continue to dominate the market.

Has anyone had any experience with the DA42? Will it be a good 3-4pax charter aircraft or is it really only suited to private and training work?

The fuel burn stats and airspeeds are very enticing to a charter operator.

Also with the DA20/40 are you able to remove the passenger side joystick?

have there been a large number of reports of composite aircraft suffering failures as a result of a lightning strike??

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

Don't feature in this type of thing without a chute

I wonder how the market will react in say 15 years or so when composite owners get an AD in the mail telling them to discard the aircraft, as prolonged exposure to UV, fuel, solvents, multiple heat/cold cycles and age have been proven to be a significant factor in hull losses.
this is still an emerging technology, and it still hasn't been around long enough to prove that its up to the grade over time.
Ever had a look at an eagle or grob over five years old?. they look like crap. the finish is oxidizing and powdery, questionable looking repairs, doubt as to how a repair will effect the whole structural integrity, stains on the finish, that cannot be removed without the removal of some of the surface material, Ect.
Would be a shame to invest 3-500K into an aircraft that has a 10 year life....... and you find out after 5 years of owning it.
I guess there is the repair issues to worry about as well. when you bend an aluminium part, you drill out the rivets and replace the damaged part. composites are a whole different story. usually including a whole integrated hull design, that will depend on the structure as a whole to remain intact, to retain its designed structural integrity. one hard landing or and over run or something, could potentially cost you a whole airplane instead of a few dents and a few bulkheads and skins being changed out.
Just a different viewpoint. :}

I wonder how the market will react in say 15 years or so when composite owners get an AD in the mail telling them to discard the aircraft, as prolonged exposure to UV, fuel, solvents, multiple heat/cold cycles and age have been proven to be a significant factor in hull losses.
this is still an emerging technology, and it still hasn't been around long enough to prove that its up to the grade over time.
I hope someone has told the makers of the A-380!;)

you mean the BRAND NEW A380?. I guess time will tell. Although I hardly think the 380 would make Cessna or piper shake in their collective boots on the competition side of things. apples and oranges. :}
Time will tell all I guess. :eek:

Was referring more to the fact that it is 25% composite, including the tail section!!:eek:

Do they make BRS that big?

It has a huge cargo door doesn't it?. they might just equip everyone on board with the personalized version. :}

As far as I know, the only three problems I am aware of with composite aircraft are :

1. Repair. I remember a Boeing graph showing the cost of repairs vs strength, and you never get the full strength back in a composite repair, no matter how much you pay. Aluminium, on the other hand doesn't have this penalty - drill it out and replace it, or if necessary shove a scab patch on it.

2. Temperature limits - composites lose strength at quite low temperatures, I gather the earleir DA20 (Diamonds) had temperature gauges because of main spar limitations.

3. Micro cracking. Not sure if this is a problem in Aircraft, but it sure is in boats. Take a top class racing yacht and beat the sh&t out of it in the Sydeny Hobart for a few years, after a while the hull sort of gets "soft' and you can't get the rig tension anymore because when you pull on the backstay it simply bends the boat like a banana (great trick is to wait till someone goes to the loo and then "lock" the door on them by pumping up the rig tension).

I'm not sure if this is simply a function of too light construction leaving too much flexibility or not. I'm also not sure where it might appear in an aircraft (stress concentrations?) Of course composites don't necessarily have fatigue limits like aluminium.

Thats pretty much what I said. :D
I reckon composites will eventually have a fatigue life when its been about long enough to study.