Cessna don’t care about the SEP product – it just can’t compete with the Citation margins.
I doubt that the PA28 competes with PA46 margins either. But it is not either/or. They can all do both.
Now I understand – of course they didn’t sell any 182s, because they weren’t making any :-) But i am pretty sure that they would/will sell the Avgas version.
Citation? They sell so bad?
Repowering “unsaleable diesels with avgas”? Excuse me while I ROFL. These planes are made to order. It’s not like they went “oh let’s make a batch of 200 of them and try to sell them”.
What makes you think a 182 could not be sold? Looks like they sold + 200 172s and 206s, and I am pretty sure 50 182s can easily be sold p.a.. While that is not spectacular it’s more than ten times the number of Ttx’s they can sell. And for a reason: If I wanted a reliable, robust bush plane i might consider a 182 – but if I want a modern airplane I’d always order the Cirrus.
These planes are made to order. It’s not like they went “oh let’s make a batch of 200 of them and try to sell them”.
Quoting from the article under discussion: “I know from a source selling new and converted Cessnas that demand for the Skylane JT-A appears to be good, with 50 to 70 orders booked.” Its common practice to build against orders in anticipation of rapid delivery after FAA certification – that in this case never came. I see no reason now that Cessna wouldn’t convert any existing Skylane JT-As to certified Avgas form so they can be sold – just as the article says they are doing.
A similar situation occurred when Cessna stopped Skycatcher production – the company owned aircraft in that case (as many as 80 of them apparently) were disassembled for parts inventory. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/February/10/Skycatcher
I don’t believe this for the moment. It appears the Avweb columnist was a bit ahead of himself with his yellow press article. Cessna did react to it apparently:
P.M. Revison: Cessna spokesperson Lindsay Adrian phoned to say that while the diesel Skylane timing is indeterminate, Cessna is still committed to delivering diesel Skyhawks sometime next year. I’ve rewritten the blog to reflect that statement.
So Cessna simply does not know when they will finish this project due to the issues involving the engine but they have NOT given up.
It is strange to see how much gloating is going on when talking about Diesel engines. It is as if someone was trying to take someone’s candy stick away, but why? Just to say “I WAS RIGHT?” How petty.
Particularly over here, Diesel is the one way forward. The same goes for the Far Eastern Market. Cessna can not ignore that nor do they.
But it would be really good if an alternative to the SMA offering were to see the light of day. As it is now, they are giving the whole Diesel market a bad name. And that despite the fact that both the ex-Thielerts and Austroengines do pretty well indeed and are long past their initial development problems.
while the diesel Skylane timing is indeterminate, Cessna is still committed to delivering diesel Skyhawks sometime next year.
As I posted above, the 172 with a Thielert makes more business sense, and I think Cessna was wise to change direction. The diesel 172 is an optional configuration, a sideline product being developed with hardware they can get into service. It has a development risk level proportionate to a sideline product, intended for export sale to schools where the initial cost and additional periodic maintenance costs can be absorbed by a large number hours x a small hourly fuel saving.
I think they’ll increase 172 sales with the addition of a Thielert option, which by any measure is better than the zero sales volume the diesel 182 program created.
Yes, Diesel Skyhawks … but Diesel Skylanes (!) very unlikely now.
Now we’ll see what will happen to the CD-300 …
But it would be really good if an alternative to the SMA offering were to see the light of day. As it is now, they are giving the whole Diesel market a bad name.
Huh? How so? The SMA engine has an excellent track record, it’s been there for a long time and safety is excellent, TBO is very high with likely to increase again. I doubt there is any better choice for a C182. Cessna did the right thing. As certification goes, that usually takes longer and costs more than what you expect.
So this is after all just a stupid rumor. Some super-smart journalist saw Cessna removing SMA engines from already built 182s and concluded they will be replaced by Lycoming while they’re just being sent back to the manufacturer to apply a modification addressing the in flight breakup last year.
But if as you say this engine is so reliable (and with so few in service their can’t be much evidence for thus) why are they being removed and sent back.
SMA should be able to deliver a fully working engine out of the box I worry that they havent been able to.
I really hope this is just a minor set back and the SMA powered 182 goes into full production.
