F172Driver

Who else thinks that bringing back the Cessna 3 and 4 hundred series would be a great idea? Revamp the designs with modern technology and avionics and then bring em back. I know turbo props are kinda filling the void, but it seems that if they could keep the cost of the twins down they could have a new life. I personally love the Cessna Twins.

Cubdriver

Not going to happen.

1) Large-displacement composite-construction piston singles such as Cessna 400 "Corvalis" and Cirrus SR22 are as fast as the old 4-6 seat piston twins such as the Cessna 310 but at a cost far less in terms of fuel burn, insurance, maintenance, and recurrency training.

2) the niche market demand for 6-12 seat turboprops is presently dominated by the King Air Series passenger airplane. Cessna already has an airplane perfectly suitable for the slower passenger, cargo, and floatplane applications in its Caravan series.

3) the standard for comfort, reliability, and speed is much higher now than it was in the age of advanced piston twins. You can buy any of a number of very light jets that can do anything and everything a Cessna 310 or 411 did, even with updates, much better.

4) Piper still makes some piston twins as trainers and manages to dominate that weak but constant market. It is not a strong market because there are a large number of 4-6 seat piston twins still in operation after over 50 years of constant use. Airplanes do not rust.

I like your enthusiasm for the Cessna piston twins, but there is no support in present economic landscape for them. The only way Cessna piston twins could have been with us today would be if they had been protected from excessive damages extending from the beginning of the Age of Litigation. Unfortunately they were not. Technology marches on, and we have better airplanes today; there is no real loss to aviation and the best of the technology survives despite the collapse of the market segment.

I think the next phase in 4-12 seat general aviation aircraft will reflect the shift to renewable fuels and very high efficiency propulsion. You will see composite body, highly aerodynamic, 8-12 seat jet engine twins that have geared turbofans burning jatropha-A fuel. They will be beautiful, efficient, and probably very expensive as well. The shame of the matter is that moderately successful businessmen could buy a Cessna 310 back in the day and get a great airplane for not very much money. You will never be able to do that again. I am not one to say whether an inferior affordable airplane is better or a superior, unaffordable one.

deadstick35

The retail price for a new Baron is $1.2M. Can you imagine what a 421 would be? You can get a 200 for what that would cost and can you imagine the insurance?! They hate piston twins to begin with and now with a $2+M hull value?

FlyingChipmunk

Reims Aviation Industries

These guys bought all the rights to the retired cessna models and are making updated versions in europe.

FlyJSH

The days of an owner/operator are numbered for anything larger and a 206. I flew a family owned Caravan for a while. The difference in the cost of the insurance premium between owner/operator and having a professional pilot was roughly equal to my salary. So for the price of my perdiem, they had a pilot with 1000 hours in type, who wasn't likey to fall prey to the JFK Jr. get-there-its.

chongololo

When you look at what the 400 series Cessnas do in part 135 then it's hard to come up with a suitable replacement.
I look at freight operators with 402's and wonder what other plane is out there that could do the same thing without massive amounts of capital expenditure.
I fly a C-414 in an air-ambulance configuration, not many other planes will do the job for the same costs.
I say bring back the conquests, great planes to step up to from the piston twins.
Like others have said, it's probably not going to happen.
But then.........the twin otter is coming back.

F172Driver

Thanks for the responses guys. My main reason to bring them back other then that they are awesome planes, was that turbines are expensive. If Cessna could bring back the twins and keep them in the range of 500K-700K, that's still less then any new turbine so as said the moderately successful business man could still get alotta airplane for not an incredible amount of money. Plus operating costs im sure are somewhat less then the turboprops and jets.

jungle

Nice post. I had the chance to talk with some senior Beechcraft execs a while back and they told me they estimated the cost of litigation to be 50% of the cost of a new aircraft.

deadstick35

The Cessna 400 (Columbia) is a $600k airplane. You won't get that cabin class twin for that price. Refurbed PA31s are going for ~$1M. This is as close as you'll get.

stinsonjr

You know, a 310R with some small turbines on it would be pretty cool. The people that make the turbine Duke mod have recently created a turbine Baron, but I think the 310R would be awesome. Personally, I have always been a huge fan of 1959 C-310C's - that was the last year of the straight tail, but it had the 260hp IO-470's and the augmentor tubes extended all the way to the trailing edge. Polished alluminum would look nice.

As for the Cessna twin I want them to reproduce - I give you the T-50. Jacobs are being built again by Radial Engines Inc so powerplant shouldn't be problem. I also want them to restart Cessna 140 production, as well as C-195 production. I write letters every week...

Here is a T-50:


And they should change the corporate logo back to this: