The New Innovators: Cessna? by Robert Goyer

Ten years ago a small, nimble, entrepreneurial company called Cirrus Design began to make a name for itself by doing small airplane stuff differently, things like installing whole-airplane parachutes in every airplane; pioneering the low end of the flat-panel market (kudos to Avidyne on that count, too); and almost single-handedly legitimizing the fixed-gear high-performance market. Make no mistake: Cirrus has been great for innovation.

But there's a new leading player in that game to give the folks from Duluth some competition in that regard, and, surprise, surprise, it's Cessna, the old, staid, button-down mega corporate player who, over the last few years, has shown that it's in the little airplane game not just to participate but to compete to win, and it's doing that by changing the way it does business at the light end of the market.

When Cessna announced more than ten years ago now that it was getting back into the little airplane game, thanks to legislation that limited its liability tail, there was widespread optimism that the company would come out with an exciting, dynamic new lineup of singles.

It didn't.

What it did, however, was come out with a completely updated lineup of its former stars, the 172, 182 and 206, that featured upgrades across the board, from better interiors, avionics, fit and finish, and safety, and at attractive price points.

It was a smart, conservative response to the challenge of restarting an entire line. But it was unimaginative, and many were disappointed by the lack of new models. None of which stopped Cessna from resuming its place at the top of the piston single marketplace.

But there are signs that Cessna really is doing things differently these days, and there have been signs for a while. They were the first major manufacturer to adopt seat belt airbags, they bought into the Garmin G1000 avionics suite early on, they've jumped into the LSA market with the SkyCatcher, they're developing a lineup of composite singles, and they just announced their intention of acquiring the Columbia lineup of composite piston singles. Not only that, but they're near certification with a diesel powered Skyhawk, an airplane that will be worth the effort internationally if they never sell a single one in the USA (though they'll sell a lot of them).

What's up with Cessna? Two words, one name: Jack Pelton. The company's president is an airplane guy--he regularly flies himself around and his wife, Rose, has dibs on the first SkyCatcher--he knows and respects the history (his personal bird is a beautiful vintage Cessna 195--and he has a keen understanding of the corporate world and the demands of big money and big business--after all, Cessna's light airplane business is a very small part of this giant bizjet maker's picture. But most of all, Pelton seems to understand that standing still in the lightplane world, with all of the exciting innovation in every corner of it, is a surefire prescription for failure.

So what will Cessna do next? I used to think I knew. Now, the only thing for certain is that surprises will ensue. A single engine jet? A turboprop four-seater? A new light twin? At this point, I wouldn't rule anything out.

Comments

[PlasticPilot]

I fully agree with what you laid down in this post, Robert. Pilots are not always good managers (many european airlines can testify...) but having someone that know what planes are about (and not only what money is about) at controls of aircraft manufacturer is always good.

The other perfect example I can think of is Christian Dries, the CEO of Diamond. This started a new company out of nothing, brang new ideas, created a new line of modern GA planes... and he's always on board for maiden flights !

Other companies should be well inspired to follow this example...

PS: The diesel 172 are already flying in Europe, with a retrofit Thielert Centurion 1.7 (http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2007/05/11/plastic-engine-cessna-172/)

[PlasticPilot]

Correction to my previous comment, my post on the C172 retrofit can be found at http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2007/05/11/plastic-engine-cessna-172/

(No parenthesis in the URL... if redaction can correct...)

[Denis]

Why are so many aviation journalists going GAA GAA over Cessna's LSA?? There is nothing innovative about it! It's just an updated 150. Cessna was one of the last companies to get on the LSA bandwagon, and they did it with a rehash of an old design. There are much better designs available.

[Dave]

The Cessna Skycatcher LSA is not an unpdated 150. It is a completely new design intended to make learning to fly more affordable for everyone. Neither the 150 nor the 152 were LSA's.

[Steve]

One thing Cessna is changing,Building the 162 in another country. Clyde is doing barrel rolls in his grave.

[Art]

One of the great things about Jack Pelton is that he understands the concerns of light aircraft owners. His parents had a 140 that was a financial reach for them to maintain. As a result, he understands how important is is to still supply parts for your 1967 150. It is also reassuring to know that if you buy a 2008 diesel 172, your kids are likely to be able to get parts for it in 2048.

I hope Cessna gets Columbia, as I suspect it would be the best possible result for Columbia owners

[PlasticPilot]

Steve said "One thing Cessna is changing,Building the 162 in another country. Clyde is doing barrel rolls in his grave."...

Sorry Steve, but what about all the Cessna's that have been built in Reims (France)... ?

[MP]

Oh PLEASE! Innovative? Using essentially the same engine as the 150/152? Constructed of Aluminum? With a gross weight at the top end of the range? What a wasted opportunity! Kudos to Cessna for offering Diesel on the 172 though.

[Larry the Tech]

Looking at the Cessna website today, I see the Columbias are officially rebadged as Cessnas. It's a little strange to look at low-wing single engine Cessnas, but they should be a good fit. The technology will hopefully manifest itself through the line.

[Fred Hensel]

What about giving some steroids to the Skymaster? 300 Hp on each end and a slightly larger cabin? As an engineer and pilot, that would be a really cool bird.

In response to "Plastic Pilot", Rheims Aviation has been a licensee of, not manufacturer for, Cessna. Apparently, building the 162 in China's government run aircraft factory will save $71,000 per unit.
Coincidence or no, the number of pilots and/or private aircraft owners declines in the financially troubled U.S. as the number of billionaires and student pilots (as well as Cessna aircraft at Chinese training schools) increases. Textron Inc. CEO, Lewis Campbell, states that this business decision is a foothold into the blossoming (Chinese) market. Could this business decision be the first wound of the death for American aircraft manufacturing? Continuing to export our standard of living to benefit the few at the top of the food chain may very well result in Cessna's (Textron) long-term success, but will your kids or grandkids be able to afford to order that replacement part from China in 2048? Just food for thought . . .

[Woody]

I don't think it's too big a deal for Cessna to outsource to China, Boeing's been doing it for years. If it saves $$$$$ I say go for it, just have tight supervision over those 'coolies.' Boeing underestimated how difficult it is to outsource the Dreamliner (787). There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2008
about their problems and the resulting 6 month delay.
Unions and bad management are just two factors for the inevitable decline of Amerika.

[Steve]

I have always been wary of the effect on our economy when we export manufacturing jobs.The declining dollar is a direct result of that practice.In1964 my father bought a home for his family of seven in southern Ca. He was an electronics tech. The day he retired as an engineer he told me he could never afford the same home for just him and my mother.The wood, glass and stucco of the home had'nt gotten more valuable; inflation had robbed the dollar of it's buying power.Exporting manufacturing jobs creates more competition for the (mostly service) jobs that remain.The consumer benefits in the short term,but lower wages,and a less skilled workforce become a nearly powerless economic and political force.

[Oscar Flyer]

I personally prefer a Certified Aircraft, instead of an LSA. You can't log the flight time as pic in a LSA airplane. I rather have an used 152 in good condition, saving money, than a Skycather, or betther a moneycather!

[Larry the Tech]

Maybe Cessna could get the Adam twin and turn it into the 21st century Skymaster.

[Nicholas]

It would be great if Cessna would offer the Skycatcher with an option for floats!

[rodger]

That's it for me, I won't be buying one. Cessna's decision to build them in China is a pretty poor one. With all the recalls on other products, I won't be putting my or my family's life in the hands of chineese assembly workers. Sorry. i'll pay more and buy German. See, If the Germans are already selling their amazing aircraft (Remos and CT) at the same price as Cessna's skycatcher, and that's with the big difference in Euro/dollar exchange rate, the Germans should now open a production facility here in the states and then be able to slash that 30-50% exchange rate cost. Imagine a Remos or CT that would sell for $70-80k....it would just about kill the Cessna plane in its tracks. They're so much better than the Cessna designs and at that price.... I would run out and buy one. but I'm not running out to buy a Cessna Chineese piece of crap. What a mistake Cessna. I hope the Germans take my advice and start licensing here to build them here.

[SkyCatcher Deposit Holder]

As a person who actually placed a deposit at Oshkosh '07 - and now deeply regrets it - I can categorically state that IF Cessna had revealed THEN that it intended to produced this airplane - in toto - in China, I would have run from it as if it was the plague. I believe they intentionally hid this from potential customers until they had secured the deposits of enough 'fools' to let the word out. I specifically asked "where will the airplane be built." I was told Europe and Mexico were in the running but NEVER that China was being considered. Had I even heard that, I would have run.

The Cessna SkyCatcher blog site for both Jack Pelton and Tom Aniello are literally overflowing with negative comments about the China decision yet Cessna still contends that the blogs are 50/50 ... I guess they don't know how to do statistical analysis there. How the heck can we trust them to handle control quality in China if they aren't smart enough to discern that most red blooded American customers are mad as hell at them!

Many of the positive bloggers can flap their jaws all they want ... very few put $5K down on an airplane they THOUGHT would be US built using a few foreign built subassemblies only to find they've been tricked. Show me your deposit letter; until THEN you can't extol the virtues of this decision! Until then, shut up! Your opinion doesn't count. Strong words to be sure.

Now comes the word that Remos is building a plant in Arkansas. HondaJet is building a plant in NoCarolina. RANS has certified the S-19 and plans to build it in Hays, KS. Cubcrafters, Legend Cub, AMD, et al, are built here ... why can't the largest private airplane manufacturer in the world figure out a way to do it in the good 'ol USA. Answer ... one word ... greed. And maybe they ARE giving up on the US market and readying for the massive Asian market?

And now the International Association of Machinists has announced that IT is concerned about technology transfer to China. What has to happen before Cessna wakes up?

With all the negative press concerning the manufacturing decision, only a few astute writers are zeroing in on the fact that the performance specs for the C162 are abyssmal. Two full sized men will not be able to fly that airplane with full fuel and a hamburger in the back. Innovation ... bah humbug.

And no one is zeroing in on the fact that the deposit holders signed an agreement that allows Cessna to RAISE the final price based upon the CPI. If Cessna additionally insults its customers by exercising THAT option, I predict that most buyers will simply throw the towel in and lick their $5K wound on their way to the alternative airplanes. I'm wondering if - when a customer shows up to take delivery of his/her airplane - the CSTARs will inform them that the price isn't $109.5K but, rather, something much higher.

All of the money that Cessna CLAIMS it is saving is going to have to be spent trying to recapture the good name that Clyde gave it so long ago. RIP, Clyde ... WE will fight the good fight for you.

Cessna has only two options, as this deposit holder sees it. Co-produce US ordered airplanes IN the US (as they did with French Reims for European bound airplanes) and/or offer deposit holders - who feel strongly that the China decision is inappropriate - a one time opportunity to get their deposit refunded. IF they go that second route, I hope they have a staff of accountants ready because their shanghai'ed deposit holders will run like rats from a sinking ship. Only then will poor 'ol Clyde be able to rest in piece.

If Jack Pelton doesn't realize that he has alienated his potential target customer audience - and those that trusted they were buying a new US made Cessna at Oshkosh - and act appropriately and responsibly, HE needs to be replaced. Textron, are ya listening?

And I hope that Flight Design, Legend Cub, Cubcrafters, Remos, AMD, and all the rest offer Cessna deposit holders a $4K rebate during Sebring 2008. The $1K difference will be to teach the deposit holders a good lesson ... not to ever trust Cessna Aircraft ever again. THIS deposit holder would go for it instantly!

Jack ... you lied to us. I want my deposit back. I don't want a CHESSNA! I waited for your decision, I trusted your Company ... and you did me wrong.

Oh well, I have a pretty "kickoff customer" glass placque Cessna gift that cost me $5K...wonder if IT was also made in China?

[Paul B]

It seems we've all trained in Cessna 150/152/172s.

For me, that's all that is available locally as a renter. If I were to buy, I'd want something more exciting. The Cessena lineup is about as exciting as PopTarts are. Sure, now they've bought up Columbia...someone elses design.

Nothing about the LSA is exciting. Its a stripped down 152. Anyone recall when the "Yugo" came out in the mid-80s and somehow this car was going to make driving even more affordable?

There's a reason the Experimentals/Kit planes are so popular...their designs are exciting! But I am like many others...I do not want to build for 2-3 years THEN fly. I want to be a consumer...chose an exciting, quality airplane and go fly.

$234,000 for a *new* Cessna 172? I just can't fathom paying that for a boring design I can rent anywhere.

Exite me, Cessna, please. I triple dog dare you.

[Larry the Tech]

Y'all act like the light aircarft industry is over....was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???? HELL, NO!!!!! Cessna may have to go on double secret probation for this China thing.

[PlasticPilot]

Larry, the industry is certainly not over.

And by the way Pearl Harbos has been bombed by the Japanese...

[Larry the Tech]

Plastic, it's a joke...rent the dvd "Animal House"...watch and laugh.

[Steve]

My rough calculations add up to 1200 american jobs handed to the Little yellow guys!

[Bruce]

Let's see... a metal airplane with a 50-year old engine... and that competes how with cheaper composite and carbon euro-LSA's that carry more, use less runway and climb faster? No Raptor, no Delta Hawk diesel, not even a higher-tech Rotax, just an 0-200. This recipe sounds like a CAD Ford Fiesta with a Pinto engine trying to compete with a Mercedes Smart FourTwo. Yeah, we're all rooting for the good 'ol U.S., Robert, but a Thielert 172 and the Skycatcher ain't exactly out-of-the-park.

[Bruce]

Let's see... a metal airplane with a 50-year old engine... and that competes how with cheaper composite and carbon euro-LSA's that carry more, use less runway and climb faster? No Raptor, no Delta Hawk diesel, not even a higher-tech Rotax, just an 0-200. This recipe sounds like a CAD Ford Fiesta with a Pinto engine trying to compete with a Mercedes Smart FourTwo. Yeah, we're all rooting for the good 'ol U.S., Robert, but a Thielert 172 and the Skycatcher ain't exactly out-of-the-park.