I imagine Cessna will see some additional sales now they’ve got the 182 back in production
The 182 has never been out of production (well, since they restarted in 1996), just nobody ordered one in 2014. The T182T (turbo, fixed gear) has been out of production for some time in anticipation of the SMA version but even before it sold next to zero.
So contrary to what was stated above, the Cessna 182 is a non-selling product.
PS: That also shows the market opportunity for all those aircraft where people supposedly plan a restart. If the 182 sells zero units, a TB20 would sell in similar quantities, less probably because the Cessna is popular all around the globe and has a dependable manufacturer behind the product.
220 isn’t such a bad figure ….
MY own flying club wants to replace the almost dead Robin R3000. They looked at several planes, including my Cirrus … but it almost scared them. What will they buy now? A 2008 Cessna 172 with G1000 (and, against my recommendation, with the KAP140 A/P, because they don’t really understand the difference).
And my best friend, whom i know for 40 years now, preferred to buy an old 182 with Steam Avionics, although i offered him that he can fly my SR22 on a fair basis. He refused, because the SR22 “scares him”. I cannot really understand why, but i find that often. I take pilots from my club up and they go “wow, how did you learn to handle all this” … when they see the modern avionics.
There will be a market for 172s and 182s for years to come, I am sure.
Edit: how many of those 220 were 182s?
Edit: how many of those 220 were 182s?
Zero, zilch, null.
http://www.gama.aero/files/documents/2014GAMAShipmentReport03202015.pdf
How much is a new C182?
Obviously nobody ordered a gasoline powered 182 in 2014 because Cessna was exclusively marketing something different, which has now failed to come to fruition. One of the articles this week said Cessna is now re-powering existing unsalable diesel 182s with avgas engines, making them ready for sale, and shipping the diesel engines back to the manufacturer. I imagine they’ll sell the re-engined 182s to somebody in 2015.
The diesel 172 seems to me a better export business proposition. It won’t sell in any great volume but will probably satisfy the non-US trainer demand with much less development effort. A better match of a sideline product with an existing engine.
There might also be nothing to it, it’s just a rumor.
I know that the crankshaft of the SMA engine failed in flight and it was due to a manufacturing error. It seems logical that all engines have to go to the manufacturer for replacement. I don’t think Cessna would open them up in the US.
I thought the SMA engine in the 182 was branded Continental ( CD-200 – previously TD-300) and produced by Continental under license, in which case it would be returned to a factory in the US?
If Cessna were to cease production of the SEP line, it would be a good thing for GA. Diamond (and Piper to a small degree) appear to still be interested in evolving their SEP product line and have products – DA40/Archer which are direct replacements for the C172. By eliminating Cessna SEP from the market, these two manufactures would pick up the orders from the flight training institutions who currently order from Cessna – thereby increasing their volumes and encouraging further innovation. Airplanes are like swiss watches – lots of manufactures producing ridiculously overpriced, mostly hand-made pieces. Less manufactures producing a sustainable volume would be better for the industry.
Cessna don’t care about the SEP product – it just can’t compete with the Citation margins. It’s not fit for this era (unless you’re of the age profile where you think it’s still ‘good enough’).
I thought the SMA engine in the 182 was branded Continental ( CD-200 – previously TD-300) and produced by Continental under license, in which case it would be returned to a factory in the US?
The 172 has the Continental branded Thielert for which the factory is in Germany. The 182 is supposed to get the SMA engine. The Continental licensed old version of the SMA engine is not found in any airplanes yet.
Diamond (and Piper to a small degree) appear to still be interested in evolving their SEP product line and have products – DA40/Archer which are direct replacements for the C172.
Now that’s interesting. In which way is an Archer more innovative/modern than a C172? I don’t see any difference there really, very comparable products with the C172 appealing more to the training market for various comfort and durability reasons.
Cessna don’t care about the SEP product – it just can’t compete with the Citation margins.
Problem is Citations aren’t selling well either.
I’ve always thought its a bit odd that it took so long to develop. It can’t take that long to bolt on a different engine and adjust the fuel system. My guess is that there is something wrong with the SMA engine and that’s why Cessna are giving up.
