Jump to content

C4 To Be Made In USA


gbigs

Recommended Posts

assembled

 

 

Flight Design's Tom Peghiny said it makes economic sense to build the aircraft in the U.S. "More than 60 percent of the economic value in the plane comes from the U.S.," said Peghiny

 

Peghiny said they are now actively scouting locations for a plant and speaking with state and local governments about incentives. "It will be final assembly at least," he said, noting the Continental engine, avionics and some airframe components are made in the U.S

 

Meanwhile, the aircraft itself appears to be living up to its billing as a lower-cost alternative to the Cessna 172.  <- as I noted over a year ago, its Cessna 172 killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I noted over a year ago, its Cessna 172 killer.

 

Cessnas are popular because of the fanbase following and it's an OK plane (jack of all trades, master of none). A lower price won't kill it. In the same way that you blindly tout flight design, a portion of the cessna fanbase touts cessna.

 

Cessna is already losing market share to Diamond and Cirrus, FD isn't revolutionary, and price point isn't going to be all to end all as it's still 200+ thousand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cessnas are popular because of the fanbase following and it's an OK plane (jack of all trades, master of none). A lower price won't kill it. In the same way that you blindly tout flight design, a portion of the cessna fanbase touts cessna.

 

Cessna is already losing market share to Diamond and Cirrus, FD isn't revolutionary, and price point isn't going to be all to end all as it's still 200+ thousand.

 

So you contend a 'fan' of Cessna will be glad to pay twice or more as much for half as much aircraft?  Doubt it.  

 

The C4 cruises at 150ktas @ 9gph burn and has a full glass Garmin G3x cockpit and 1320lb useful load and BRS for $250k.  The 172 @ 135ktas and even the 182 @150ktas are nowhere near that price point or useful load and no BRS and only offer the antiquated G1000 cockpit as an option for yet more money than their already double to triple price bases.

 

Diamond and Cirrus make low wing, high performance 4 seaters in the $800k range.  Cessna has one product in that class - the TTX which is a rehash of the certified Columbia 400 rehash of the Lanchair ES.  Cessna as usual is priced highest in that class - north of $900k.  They sell a handful a year no matter how fancy they paint them - Cirrus owns that niche.

 

I am not a fan of FD.  I am a fan of better products for lower prices.  You know, a good consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Confused... didn't they announce a new assembly facility in 2013 in Rhode Island, with the big Jay Peak, Ariel Quiros thing???  Really confused..... :wub: 

 

  • In December, the two partners announced expanded plans for the Newport Airport. Originally Quiros and Stenger and intended to construct new hangars for the assemby of new aircraft, but at a December 20 press conference, Quiros announced that a new commercial enterprise, Flight Design Americas, LLC, had been established and will be based at the Newport Airport. Flight Design Americas has secured the exclusive production, assembly and distribution rights for North, South and Central America for the Flight Design C4 aircraft, a state-of-the-art four-seat plane.  Flight Design Americas has also secured the exclusive distribution rights for the U.S. and Canada for other products manufactured by Flight Design GmbH., a Stuttgart Germany based company.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you contend a 'fan' of Cessna will be glad to pay twice or more as much for half as much aircraft?  Doubt it.  

 

The C4 cruises at 150ktas @ 9gph burn and has a full glass Garmin G3x cockpit and 1320lb useful load and BRS for $250k.  The 172 @ 135ktas and even the 182 @150ktas are nowhere near that price point or useful load and no BRS and only offer the antiquated G1000 cockpit as an option for yet more money than their already double to triple price bases.

 

Diamond and Cirrus make low wing, high performance 4 seaters in the $800k range.  Cessna has one product in that class - the TTX which is a rehash of the certified Columbia 400 rehash of the Lanchair ES.  Cessna as usual is priced highest in that class - north of $900k.  They sell a handful a year no matter how fancy they paint them - Cirrus owns that niche.

 

I am not a fan of FD.  I am a fan of better products for lower prices.  You know, a good consumer.

 

 

Diamond sells the DA-40 for 260,000 base price. Cirrus SR20s are 400-500k. A fully loaded 172 is around 400k. A fully loaded 182 is around 550k. Where are you getting your prices?

 

A lot of universities have contracts with Cessna too, which nets them a decent discount on top of parts.

 

As for a good consumer: I would argue a loyal consumer is a good consumer. A bargain hunter consumer is not.

 

As for "better" products, it's purely subjective. Can quote stats all you want, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the universe doesn't rank anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the C4 less expensive than a C172?  YES.  Is it "twice" as expensive?  NO.  More like  20-25% more.  Why is it more?  Part 23 certification, which is something the C4 has skipped.  FD is betting that there will be changes to the certification rules that will allow things like G3X avionics, etc.  Heck, the Cessna's G1000 avionics are most if not all of the price difference!

 

The C4 is shaping up to be a great airplane, but in price comparisons with the C172 it's not an apples to apples situation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the C4 being primary category has other drawbacks. That means insurance will be higher, and it can't be used for hire. I am curious as to how this affects flight instruction as well, as information on primary category that I have states "may restrict flight instruction". I bet it will be an airworthiness certificate limitation if it doesn't allow flight instruction.

 

It will be a good airplane though, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Confused... didn't they announce a new assembly facility in 2013 in Rhode Island, with the big Jay Peak, Ariel Quiros thing???  Really confused.....

TIM,,that deal id dead...The Jay Peak guys have too many others projects to give the time for the C4.

 

too bad,,it was close...to me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the C4 less expensive than a C172?  YES.  Is it "twice" as expensive?  NO.  More like  20-25% more.  Why is it more?  Part 23 certification, which is something the C4 has skipped.  FD is betting that there will be changes to the certification rules that will allow things like G3X avionics, etc.  Heck, the Cessna's G1000 avionics are most if not all of the price difference!

 

The C4 is shaping up to be a great airplane, but in price comparisons with the C172 it's not an apples to apples situation.  

 

This is the plane the C4 is competing against, its price is $364,000....  That is $114,000 more than the C4.  http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-172S-SKYHAWK-SP/2015-CESSNA-172S-SKYHAWK-SP/1285159.htm

 

The C4 is certified, EASA....it will have a Part 23 cert as soon as the FAA gets off it's butt and gets the revisions done....not FDs fault.   FD is correct to make that bet, it's a done deal. EASA has already okay'd the idea, the FAA won't deviate.  The G1000 is 12 years old!  An antique compared to the G3X.   No doubt Cessna will expedite upgrading their products to the Garmin G3X as soon as they can.

 

Again, who would buy a slower plane (124ktas cruise versus 155ktas cruise) with far less useful load (350 plus pounds less) much older tech glass (non touch),  less fuel efficient (Cessna is 100LL only), half the range, no parachute, extra cost optional autopilot, extra cost optional synthetic view, much longer takeoff and landing distances, smaller cabin for $114k more?

 

Anticept says a 'fan' will do it.   I disagree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The C4 is certified, EASA....it will have a Part 23 cert as soon as the FAA gets off it's butt and gets the revisions done....not FDs fault.   FD is correct to make that bet, it's a done deal. EASA has already okay'd the idea, the FAA won't deviate.  The G1000 is 12 years old!  An antique compared to the G3X.   No doubt Cessna will expedite upgrading their products to the Garmin G3X as soon as they can.

 

 

So...it's NOT FD's fault that they decided to design around a certification standard that does not exist, and may *never* exist?    :blink:

 

The Skyview is at least 5 years old, it remains relevant because it receives incremental updates to functionality and features.  Don't you think the same is true of G1000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for certain.

 

We know a Cessna or an Ercoupe or a Bonanza or a Cub can last 60+ years and still be perfectly serviceable.

 

That type of known longevity and durability is important to some people, and really is quite impressive.

 

Can we picture what some of our newer designs will be like in 50 or 60 years? I certainly looked at some of the engineering choices on my Cirrus and wondered how long term durability would play out. Especially now that electronics tie in so closely with everything - electronics that may or may not be supported for decades nor easily replaced.

 

Since I won't be around that long, it's kind of academic. And in this world of disposable consumer items, maybe it's just not an issue to younger or newer pilots.

 

Not picking on the CT in any way. Maybe they will still be soldiering on in 2065 and beyond. We'll all just have to stick around long enough to find out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...it's NOT FD's fault that they decided to design around a certification standard that does not exist, and may *never* exist?    :blink:

 

The Skyview is at least 5 years old, it remains relevant because it receives incremental updates to functionality and features.  Don't you think the same is true of G1000?

 

 

Just flew a newer Cessna 172 with the G-1000 system.

Awesome.  Very complete, extremely integrated.

The Operator indicated that the G-1000 has evolved and Garmin just keeps making it better and better.  That's why new aircraft models coming out, such as Mooney and Piper, are still being equipped with it.  UND just took delivery of several new Seminoles which were equipped with the G-1000.  It was the preferred setup.

Of course, there are other systems out there, but no doubt, G-1000 is a solid performer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we picture what some of our newer designs will be like in 50 or 60 years? I certainly looked at some of the engineering choices on my Cirrus and wondered how long term durability would play out. Especially now that electronics tie in so closely with everything - electronics that may or may not be supported for decades nor easily replaced.

 

 

Cirrus has an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours.  The factory states that they expect to increase that when aircraft start hitting it, but for now it's a hard wall.  Those old metal planes have no such limits in general.  And I doubt any composite structure will be in flying condition in 60+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cirrus has an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours.  The factory states that they expect to increase that when aircraft start hitting it, but for now it's a hard wall.  Those old metal planes have no such limits in general.  And I doubt any composite structure will be in flying condition in 60+ years.

 

The Piper Tomahawk has a 11,000 life limit on the wings, and has several other parts and pieces with life limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cirrus has an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours.  The factory states that they expect to increase that when aircraft start hitting it, but for now it's a hard wall.  Those old metal planes have no such limits in general.  And I doubt any composite structure will be in flying condition in 60+ years.

A number of Cessna's have life limited parts when in commercial service.

Q: When is the Supplemental Inspection Document to be released for my aircraft and what inspections will be required on my aircraft?

A: As of June 17, 2005; Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) have been issued for the following model airplanes: 310 thru 310D, 310R, T310R, 320-1, 320A, 320B, 320C, 401/402 thru 401B/402B, 402C, 411/411A, 414/414A, and 421 thru 421C. For detailed information refer to Cessna Service Newsletter SNL02-7 Revision 1 Supplemental Inspection Documents. SNL02-7R1 was issued on October 20, 2003. This SNL also provides the part numbers for the Service/Maintenance Manuals that have incorporated the SIDs. Refer to the current manual incorporating the SID for inspections that are required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, most of us have an appreciation for all aircraft.  We can embrace a new airplane while still appreciating all the other aircraft we have owned and/or flown.  If you're a rookie pilot who has zero experience in anything other than a CTLSi, and are totally bigoted with tunnel vision, maybe it's hard to see beyond your own ignorance.

 

I own two aircraft and have flown a half dozen other make and models - what do you own?. 

 

The C4 is obviously a far better product and costs less.  What applies to consumer goods in general also applies to aircraft.  Anyone buying a Cessna 172 over the C4 fit the phrase 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...it's NOT FD's fault that they decided to design around a certification standard that does not exist, and may *never* exist?    :blink:

 

The Skyview is at least 5 years old, it remains relevant because it receives incremental updates to functionality and features.  Don't you think the same is true of G1000?

 

The design standard exists...Part23 reciprocation has already been agreed on.  It's a done deal.  FD is smart to go ahead with EASA and not wait for the FAA bureaucrats. 

 

Say how buying a C4 now is any different than buying in in two years when the FAA gets done?   None.   Buyers will have an EASA certified plane and simply have a few hours on the product when the cert comes in from the FAA....

 

This same thing is happening to Tecnam, Pipistrel, Diamond and other European manufacturers getting EASA cert and having to wait for the FAA....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of Cessna's have life limited parts when in commercial service.

Q: When is the Supplemental Inspection Document to be released for my aircraft and what inspections will be required on my aircraft?

A: As of June 17, 2005; Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) have been issued for the following model airplanes: 310 thru 310D, 310R, T310R, 320-1, 320A, 320B, 320C, 401/402 thru 401B/402B, 402C, 411/411A, 414/414A, and 421 thru 421C. For detailed information refer to Cessna Service Newsletter SNL02-7 Revision 1 Supplemental Inspection Documents. SNL02-7R1 was issued on October 20, 2003. This SNL also provides the part numbers for the Service/Maintenance Manuals that have incorporated the SIDs. Refer to the current manual incorporating the SID for inspections that are required.

 

Of course many airplanes have parts with service life limits, and some airplanes (Like the Piper Tomahawk) even have limits on major components like wings.  Cirrus is the only one I know of with a limit on the entire airframe.  

 

We are not talking about parts.  IIRC the 12,000hr limit is on the entire Cirrus *airframe*, and essentially means when it hits that number it becomes unairworthy and cannot be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own two aircraft and have flown a half dozen other make and models - what do you own?. 

 

The C4 is obviously a far better product and costs less.  What applies to consumer goods in general also applies to aircraft.  Anyone buying a Cessna 172 over the C4 fit the phrase 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'

 

It looks like one of your airplane is just a "N" number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lifespan of composite aircraft is unknown because of the lack of empirical evidence as to their lifespan.  The limit has been increased every time the fleet has neared the previously set lifespan.  Like other airframe types, these will get inspected and judgements will be made.  As far as I know, there hasn't been any evidence pointing to a specific time of failure for composites.  Diamonds have no airframe life limits, and the Cessna Corvalis is rated at 22+K hours.

 

I personally get creaped out by some of the old aluminum skins I see out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...