What’s a diesel BMW X6 got in it? I’ve driven one of those quite a bit. It’s a nice enough car although it’d be ridiculous waste of my money to buy one with any engine. Automobile fuel cost is not a big factor in my monthly budget. Others can spend their money how they like 
I dislike the soot and smell from Diesel engines, mainly because I’ve breathed a lot of Diesel soot riding motorcycles.
Silvaire,
looks like you’ve never driven one of the Mercedes or BMW 3 liter turbo diesels. (The Alfa Romeo, which I had too, does not compare well) If you had you’d judge them differently. My 350 CDI has the SAME performance as a 1992 Porscher Carrera, only that it’s a bit faster. And the max consumption i have managed in three years was 10.5 liters/100 km. Normally it’s never above 8, when I drive fast that is.
I have no inside information about their pricing structure, but didn’t they sell the 150/152 at a calculated loss in order to increase the fleet and draw costumers to the brand?
I think this strategy is sound. After all, like car companies, they surely make the largest profits in aftersales.
To the costumer, a “new” 152 sold for say 220.000 USD with IFR usability and so on seems like a far better proposition than a “LSA-castrated” 162 for 150.000 USD.
But that’s daydreaming, they have long ago made a decision to the contrary 
…
Blueline,
a new, american-built 152 (once recertified) would cost something like 250.000$. Possibly a bit more.
The 162 was primarily designed for the US market and I think Cessna now can’t be bothered chasing a US LSA market that hasn’t materialized except maybe for the Cub replicas. Cessna’s LSA product was not the best (I think Tecnam does that type of aircraft well) but if it was important to Cessna as a business they could have refined the plane. Tecnams and the like aren’t selling in the US either. Cessna ‘got the market wrong’ by hoping that LSA had US broad potential.
I think the current limited market for LSA aircraft in the US is largely individuals who can’t get a 3rd Class medical. If the proposed removal of the medical requirement for lighter certified aircraft materializes, even that LSA market will vaporize. Small flight schools can buy existing used aircraft and do the job cheaper, and big flight schools want bigger aircraft. The broader US GA market is to individuals, not groups or clubs, so capital cost matters.
Repeating what’s been posted elsewhere, when you can otherwise build or buy an RV for half the price, fly as fast as anything going, climb faster, do aerobatics, fly VFR or IFR, travel thousands of miles all over the country, maintain it yourself and not be constrained to the airframe manufacturer for parts, it hugely limits the US marketability of factory built LSAs. Fifty years ago you’d have seen RVs being sold in factory built form but today’s certification cost and (more so) inflexibility for both manufacturer and owner make that relatively unattractive. That’s true for either LSA or FAA certified types.
In Europe it’s a combination of heavy aircraft regulation, bureaucracy & complexity associated with long distance travel by aircraft and outrageous fuel taxation that drives the market to low power engines and LSA type aircraft. Man made stuff all, at least as long as the actual untaxed cost of fuel isn’t the limiting factor.
I keep wondering why their former CEO (Jack Pelton) is that highly regarded in American pilot circles. A lot of things they have done in his era just don’t make sense to me:
- they developed the NGP, which looked great, exhibited it and then suddenly dropped it
- they acquired Columbia, transferred production to Mexico, (allegedly) ran into serious quality problems there – and all the time never managed to properly position the aircraft iin the market
- they managed the whole Skycatcher affair in a terrible way, from the very beginning. Market communication (hiking the price, transferring it to China etc.) couldn’t have been worse.
Concerning the Skycatcher, it would have been wiser to re-introduce the old 152, fit it with some new avionics and perhaps make it a few pounds lighter by using composites here and there …
Well, I’m pretty sure they’ve had that discussion among themselves, would be interesting to eavesdrop…
I’m guessing they just didn’t design the right package. Couldn’t be used for flight training in Europe for example, there are hundreds of other LSAs out there and most LSA buyers are probably not traditionally Cessna customers.
The aircraft has been officially discontinued.
Interesting that Cessna got the market so wrong. Can anyone suggest as to how it happened?
PiperArcher, both your points line up pretty closely with my observations. I think the primary reason for the EU 'green' government agenda (mania?) is to enforce a trend towards long term energy security.
One thing I like about flying, is that when you go down to your local flying school, it generally doesn't matter if you are a high powered exec, or a middle income earner with an aspiration to fly. Both generally sit happily together in their cramped Cessna or whatever.
I couldn't agree more. My friend the FAA A&P IA (the one with the economics degree who works in engineering for an offshore aircraft engine manufacturer :-) was joking about this on Saturday: he pointed out that unlike in the 'real' world, socialism works fine at our airport. Money, work orders, invoices, strict time accounting etc do not feature greatly in our little world of flight instruction, aircraft maintenance and parts trading. It works inside the airport fence, among a group that self-qualifies by interest and mutual respect, fed by very wide-ranging businesses and jobs. We're glad our world at the airport is unfettered by bureaucracy and legal, and if it weren't we'd do it regardless.
Once one has his (or her) PPL, then those with more money can upgrade their choice of machinery to something much better - but its probably higher up the market range that a 162. Where I fly from, the fleet is expanding, but its not new Cessna 162's - its more 1970's PA28's because its a buyers market for those kind of machines.
Yep. In the same stimulating conversation with my mechanic/economist/engineer friend, he suggested that I will end up with a Bonanza some day. He does this for entertainment. I've decided it will more likely be a Bellanca Viking, and more than 5 years from now, because in spite of the vintage Bonanza's fine attributes, (in his words) "you don't want to own any aircraft Steve McQueen wouldn't have chosen" Suitably satisfied with that conclusion (accusation?) we arranged a date for my next free-of-charge BFR. He's also a flight instructor who actually extracts payment in the form of vintage motorcycle advice.
I wonder if there isnt so much pressure on the US to be 'green'. Thats why they dont have a problem driving around in 5.0 V8's all day long. In the UK, and presumably most of Europe, there are green taxes and other moral factors being pushed out from everywhere discouraging the use of petrol, and giving gold stars to people who buy 1.0 diesel cars. I'm still trying to resist that and maintain my two petrol 6 cylinder vehicles, but one is penalised for it.
With regards to schools. One thing I like about flying, is that when you go down to your local flying school, it generally doesnt matter if you are a high powered exec, or a middle income earner with an aspiration to fly. Both generally sit happily together in their cramped Cessna or whatever. Once one has his (or her) PPL, then those with more money can upgrade their choice of machinery to something much better - but its probably higher up the market range that a 162. Where I fly from, the fleet is expanding, but its not new Cessna 162's - its more 1970's PA28's because its a buyers market for those kind of machines. The depreciation will be tiny.
