mh – I wonder if you’d have the same trouble with a Partenavia P.66, the Italian 172 look-alike of 48 years ago. In other words is it the 21st century push for efficiency or Ing. Pascale that’s the problem? 
If your belly prevents full deflection of the elevator, then either the aircraft design or your BMI are at fault
Actually in the P2010 it’s my legs and deflection of the aileron. And I like ailerons. In the P2006 I can’t even fit a headset between my head and the roof. (There are many reasons to by a Phonak Freeport, but this shouldn’t be one of them.) Plus getting in and out is a nightmare and you can imagine the view – or lack thereof. Well, my BMI may be part of the reason I don’t fit (although it gives more information on height, than on health) but I’m very
wonder if you’d have the same trouble with a Partenavia P.66, the Italian 172 look-alike of 48 years ago.
I’ve seen it at the Aero, but didn’t take a seat. So I don’t know. The P.66 (or V-1 as it was called) made a way better impression to me than the P2010, though. Even on Tecnams demonstrator the interior was falling apart and was manufactured carelessly. Haven’t seen the C4 as the third “new” competitor to the 172, but I’m not too fond of the CT anyway, so I won’t expect much. I know, aviation press is all excited about the “new generation of Cessna-biters”, but then again these companies buy the ads… and appreciation for durability seems to decline in society anyway.
A student of mine recently told me he’d rather not concider an early DA40, because it would be a 12 year old plane. It may take some people a while not to impress product life time cycles of cars or cellphones on aircraft. Alas, the P2010 or the P2006 and alike have yet to show that they can age in style, like our ’61 C172 or our ’67 DR250 do.
A base price of $435,000 is absurd. The only customers, I can think of, would be super busy flight schools. Say the plane flies 1000 hr/year (optimistic), one would need to fly it more than 10 years, compared to a IFR equipped, 10 year old, C172 for $135,000 to make any business sense (not counting the much higher depreciation of a new plane over a used one). For Europe the ROI may be bit better. Still, which flight school has so much business, and would sink so much money into a trainer with such a 10 year ROI, when you can invest the difference safely elsewhere with 5% interest.
So one has to ask: what are Cessna thinking (or smoking)?
They are not a stupid company.
They may do big discounts for schools. When I was getting the TB20, in 2002, a school I hung around at was quoted GBP 140k ($210k) for a C172. If they bought a 2nd one it would be GBP 130k. If they bought a 3rd one it would be GBP 120k. These prices were from a UK Cessna dealer, CSE (gone bust since).
The 172 did have a Thielert STC early and there are many flying, so this is a logical thing to do. Basically the development is done, all there remains is the certification.
In the end the market will decide unless Cessna decides to dump the Avgas line altogether.
Tecnam are great airplanes but as it was said, they are for slender and not too tall people.
We can moan and groan as long as we wish about the “stone age” designs, yet most of what is developed newly seem to have other flaws, mostly price. That is why many flight schools and clubs today sell their new toys they can’t hope to make money with and buy up old 150’s or 172’s/PA28 in order to be able to offer reasonable rates and make money on the few customers they have left.
A 135 kt C172 with a 1000 NM range will be a very attractive all round airplane for folks who never graduated to anything past a normal 172 as well as for some who wish to fly a cost effective modern equipped but well proven airframe. I would be very surprised if the other producers will not try to match this offer in the very near future. The Centurion 2 is also suitable for the PA28 (Warrior) while it lacks power for the SR20. What is urgently needed is a direct (I)O360 replacement.
So one has to ask: what are Cessna thinking (or smoking)?
When there is no AVGAS at all, then this is a moot point. I was at the 6. October airport HEOC in Egypt. This is where Egypt air trains all its pilot on a fleet of C172SP. They import 100LL specifically for this and it costs $5.60 per liter (not gallon!). Jet A-1 is almost free. In other places with similar training schools, there is no AVGAS.
Look at how many C172 Cessna sells these days. Another 50 to Middle East / Asian flying schools makes a big difference.
The move clearly shows where the market is heading: towards diesel engines. It will take time but it is happening.
A 135 kt C172 with a 1000 NM range will be a very attractive all round airplane
There I have to ask what they are smoking. No way it will cruise at 135 KTAS. I’ve flown the Reims Rocket which is a C172 with a 210hp engine and it is barely any faster but it climbs very well. The C172 airframe is very draggy and they are not going to change it. Also the diesel needs more cooling airflow than the Lycoming, this will further increase drag. Cruise speed at “normal” altitudes will be the same or slower, only at very high altitudes they can get an edge due to the reduced drag and the turbocharged engine but that is hardly relevant for a C172’s mission profile. It will be the same 110kt aircraft as before.
“but this is the first with a rubber cam drive belt”
Imagine the outcry when we had the first rubber / metal wheels after 2’500-odd years of wooden wheels :-)
So one has to ask: what are Cessna thinking (or smoking)?
I think what they’re doing is building a limited production niche market product that can be sold to a few overseas schools.
Re cam belts – the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) actually had an investigation on the subject, because cam belt unreliability was perceived to be bringing Japan into disrepute. As a result of that and the subsequent consensus reached with Japanese auto manufacturers, their industry dropped rubber cam belts. They are still good for some engine applications, racing for instance with frequent rebuilds, and I have five vehicles equipped with them. An aircraft with a cam belt will not be joining them.
I occasionally employ a consultant who was building electric superchargers for Mazda rotaries about 20 years ago. The issue at that time was the high power required to drive the turbo.
Achim,
not exactly new that manufacturers are bragging, is it.
Nevertheless, even with 110-120 kt (ok, they can improve on the drag a bit with todays’ techniques I hope) and this kind of fuel flow, which is more or less known for this engine, it will be interesting. Also for the Chinese market which seems to be taking off quite a bit. I hear that 10 new Mooneys were just sold there, plus 3 in the US, as well as quite some Cirruses have found their way there, so I imagine there must be a training market there where a Diesel 172 with a G1000 might be just the thing.
Here in Switzerland there are several of the original converted Thielert C172’s and they do quite well for the clubs who own them.
What I would like to see however are renewed retrofit options using that engine.
Also for the Chinese market which seems to be taking off quite a bit.
And this is most likely the market they are aiming at. A friend of mine who runs a big FTO recently went to a pilot recruitment fair in China and came back blown away. China has an immense backlog in civil aviation on all levels. As they don’t have 100LL (or only in very, very limited supply), diesel is the way to go for ab-initio training there.
