http://www.cessnaowner.org/forums/topic.html?id=13312

Cessna 180/185 back in production!

" Cessna announced today they would reintroduce the skywagon line.There has been lots of interest in international markets the spokesman said.They will be equipped with a 350 h.p. lycoming .

I wish this were a headline for January 2015, but sadly it was only an April 2005 April Fools joke on the official Cessnaowners.org website. Well, it has been 10 years now, and despite a lot of new aircraft, certified and otherwise, having been introduced, still no 180/185.

I wonder if Cessna will ever reintroduce the 180/185 or perhaps consider licensing it’s manufacture to another corporate entity either here in the US or overseas. The 172., 182, and 206 are already back in production. If sufficient market demand were to be identified, new 180/185 production surely could not be that difficult to resume.

Tom Cruise in the movie “ Risky Business" once said, " Porsche, there is no substitute ! "
Here is the link to the short video clip : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-COBUIBY16U

Substitute “180/185” for “Porsche” and you probably won’t get many disagreements here on BCP. A modern refresh of “some” of the 180/185’s features, including engine technology, would surely be welcomed. So if the lawyers, and/or costs and other market factors are keeping Cessna from building a new 180/185, maybe there is a foreign option.

The old Winchester Model 1892 lever action rifle is now made in Japan. Yeah, really.
http://ingunowners.com/forums/long-guns ... ester.html

Apple has iPhones made in China, and the more recent Cessna 162 Skycatcher was made in China as well by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. Shenyang is a subsidiary of Aviation Industry of China, which is a consortium of Chinese aircraft manufacturers. Therefore, maybe it is not too big a stretch of the imagination to ponder whether a Chinese made Cessna 180/185, or “ 180/185 Clone” certified aircraft with a Continental engine might be lurking in the future. Cirrus and Continental (Teledyne Continental Motors TDM) are now also Chinese owned (China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co. (CAIGA) of Zhuhai, China and Technify Motors, a subsidiary of AVIC International, a Chinese government-owned holding company).

The 180/185 is an iconic work of art, much like the Jaguar XKE, Winchester 1892, and the Piper SuperCub. Today in 2015 the Jaguar Type F is made by Tata Motors of India, the Winchester Model 1892 rifle is made by Miroku in Japan, and Supercubs are now made in Texas, Washington, Wyoming, the Czech Republic, etc. Yeah buddy .....

I’d love to see the 180/185 go back into production, whether in Kansas or elsewhere. . Wikipedia in reviewing the Skycatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher reported: “The decision to produce the aircraft in China was controversial and Cessna received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers. “ Taking a page from the the AirBus Industries playbook, maybe Cessna could have specific sub-assemblies manufactured overseas with final aircraft assembly, Lycoming engine mounting, and avionics installation done in Kansas.

Ach ja, bitte …I haff allmohst vergotten zu mention...how about a German MT Composite 3 blade propeller



“ 180/185, there is no substitute.”

[c] [/c]

I'm afraid that a new 180/185 would be in the range of $550,000 to $650,000, like the current 182s to 206s are. That's a lot of money to put into an airplane that is used like a flying Jeep. Except for the high rollers in the back country crowd, that would keep most from considering it.

Cary

An older friend of mine claims he tried real hard to get Cessna to make them. The way he tells the story he had offered them a deposit for a whole bunch, enough to make it worth while and they said not interested. He is a pretty serious guy and I tend to believe the story, but who knows. Liability and all that jazz.

Cessna isn't even selling many new Skylanes any more (or at least what they pass off as a skylane). There isn't enough market for them to turn a profit on a sole bush plane. Reintroduction of a tail dragger is a pipe dream at best.

Cary wrote:

I'm afraid that a new 180/185 would be in the range of $550,000 to $650,000, like the current 182s to 206s are.

I am afraid you are 100% right. I suppose that begs the question, can a foreign manufacturer basically clone the 180, sort of like the Canadian Super Cyclone Kit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Super-Cyclone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Cyclone

http://www.produitsaviatech.com/?l=2&section=1&page=31&idVolet=24&scriptAffichage=2



and introduce it at a much lower price.


Instead of a Cessna C-185, I guess I am wondering if a foreign manufacturer, Chinese or otherwise, can clone and produce what you might call a Harbor Freight HF-185

Why does Cessna need to make you a Skywagon if you're thinking about Part 91 operations? <ahh you beat me to the post>

What would it cost you to buy a Cyclone 185 homebuilt aircraft kit + engine + avionics and have a qualified person put it together for you? Whatever that number is, multiply it by 3 and that is probably what Cessna would charge for a new factory model C185 with modern avionics.

Plus a factory model would cost you an arm and a leg to maintain. At least with a E-AB Cyclone you can use fairly priced non-cert parts without the red tape attached... Not to mention the cost if you wanted it customised to your personal tastes.

Even if I had a million dollars to spend on an aircraft for private ops, I would still go homebuilt and keep the rest for gas / mods.

AV8r wrote:

Reintroduction of a tail dragger is a pipe dream at best.

If say the Chinese produced them, I was wondering about not just the US markets, but others including some of the under developed countries, middle east, etc.

It still may be too small of a market for even the Chinese. Then again, if they want to push into small aircraft production, they might consider doing so for strategic reasons even if there are no immediate profits.

I have never understood why the Canadian Cyclone and Super Cyclone 185 kit built clones were never more popular. Not many around at all.

I don't even think that they could do it. The marketing turds would insist on every scrotum-tickler and nut-scratcher that the Citation guys get and it would end up weighing 2600 lbs empty with a 900 lb FADEC engine that burns 36gph in climb. And yes, it would be priced at $650000... But then again, who would think that Aviat could sell Huskies for 350k?

Denali wrote:Cary wrote:

I'm afraid that a new 180/185 would be in the range of $550,000 to $650,000, like the current 182s to 206s are.

I am afraid you are 100% right. I suppose that begs the question, can a foreign manufacturer basically clone the 180, sort of like the Canadian Super Cyclone Kit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Super-Cyclone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Cyclone

http://www.produitsaviatech.com/?l=2&section=1&page=31&idVolet=24&scriptAffichage=2



and introduce it at a much lower price.


Instead of a Cessna C-185, I guess I am wondering if a foreign manufacturer, Chinese or otherwise, can clone and produce what you might call a Harbor Freight HF-185

I can't believe I've never heard of this kit before. I like the fact that the wing extensions they did on this kit are at the root, so you get an extra foot of flap on both sides, too - a total of 2 feet more of big fat chord and fowler flap. That's really cool. I couldn't find any info on kit pricing, however. The only stuff I saw was in the Wikipedia article and seemed pretty dated.

Here is Cyclone that Super Sportsman put together a couple of years ago. Nice plane.

Steve

CapnMike wrote:

Denali wrote:Cary wrote:

I'm afraid that a new 180/185 would be in the range of $550,000 to $650,000, like the current 182s to 206s are.

I am afraid you are 100% right. I suppose that begs the question, can a foreign manufacturer basically clone the 180, sort of like the Canadian Super Cyclone Kit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Super-Cyclone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St-Just_Cyclone

http://www.produitsaviatech.com/?l=2&section=1&page=31&idVolet=24&scriptAffichage=2



and introduce it at a much lower price.


Instead of a Cessna C-185, I guess I am wondering if a foreign manufacturer, Chinese or otherwise, can clone and produce what you might call a Harbor Freight HF-185

I can't believe I've never heard of this kit before. I like the fact that the wing extensions they did on this kit are at the root, so you get an extra foot of flap on both sides, too - a total of 2 feet more of big fat chord and fowler flap. That's really cool. I couldn't find any info on kit pricing, however. The only stuff I saw was in the Wikipedia article and seemed pretty dated.

They are nearly $80k and that doesn't include the cowling and a bunch of other stuff. You'd be easily over $150k to build one of these on the light side. But considering the cost of a nice 185 that is on par if not slightly less and everything is brand new. The resale value is not the same obviously and the insurance might be a bit on the high side. Here is their website

http://www.produitsaviatech.com/?l=2&se ... ffichage=2

I'd love to build one and nearly bought a kit out of Oregon a year or so ago. Kind of wish I would have done it.

I love my 185. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a production 185 again. More planes in service means more parts and more aftermarket mods.

And while the skywagon is a completely badass airplane, it has its shortcomings that I would hope Cessna would fix if it were to re-enter the tailwheel bush-plane market. The plane needs flaps and ailerons like a 206, not a 172. It needs a more effective rudder to compensate for the vertical stabilizer area. Give it a real baggage door. And maybe something other than the spring gear....with some ability to dampen the recoil.

Now, before the bashing starts, remember what I said, "I love my 185. Don't get me wrong...."

10-4 on the baggage door. While we are wishing, the other 4 inches in width that the later 182's have, would be nice too.

Steve

Squash wrote:I love my 185. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a production 185 again. More planes in service means more parts and more aftermarket mods.

And while the skywagon is a completely badass airplane, it has its shortcomings that I would hope Cessna would fix if it were to re-enter the tailwheel bush-plane market. The plane needs flaps and ailerons like a 206, not a 172. It needs a more effective rudder to compensate for the vertical stabilizer area. Give it a real baggage door. And maybe something other than the spring gear....with some ability to dampen the recoil.

Now, before the bashing starts, remember what I said, "I love my 185. Don't get me wrong...."

Why not just ask Cessna to build a Courier?

Scolopax wrote:I don't even think that they could do it. The marketing turds would insist on every scrotum-tickler and nut-scratcher that the Citation guys get and it would end up weighing 2600 lbs empty with a 900 lb FADEC engine that burns 36gph in climb. And yes, it would be priced at $650000... But then again, who would think that Aviat could sell Huskies for 350k?

Where can I get one of those scrotum ticklers?

A guy named Bud Morrison tried to come up with a homebuilt180 with his Liberty 181. Never seen one in person, just photos, but IMHO it doesn't look a helluva lot like a skywagon except for the big tail.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Morrison ... 0845738/M/
Looking at the wiki description, it sounds good (200 sq ft of wing with a 40' span, 3200# gross) but heavy at 1890 empty with only 230 hp. Kinda homely too. I guess most folks figured why build an imitation when they can just buy the real thing.

This thread has really got me thinking. Everything I say is obviously conjecture and just my opinion, and no doubt the thoughts will be random and disconnected.

Will Cessna ever bring back the 180/185, or any taildragger model?

Why would they? Make absolutely no sense financially. Think about it. What person in their right mind would want to own a taildragger? They cost more to insure. They are harder to learn to fly. They ground loop at the blink of an eye, go up on their nose, or over on their back. In three-point configuration forward visibility is poor at best. Case in point. Tuesday, over at Llano, a 195 was put on its back in the grass next to the runway during the takeoff run with a 1,000 feet of runway remaining.

Taildraggers made sense when strips were unimproved and round in shape so pilots could always takeoff/land into the wind. Neither is the case today. The only persons who "need" a taildragger are those pilots that take clients to off airport locations where a nosedragger absolutely can't go. How many of those locations really exist, and how many pilots are there that fly into them? A very tiny number I'd imagine. Others, with apparently a few loose screws, just "want" a taildragger, they don't "need" one.

And, there are plenty of 180/185's still in existence, and they cost one-fifth or less then a new one would. We will know the inventory of existing 180/185's is getting low when they stop bringing them to the lower 48 from Canada, and instead take them to Alaska, and they are off the market in a day or two. What backcountry charter business would spring for the cost of a new 180/185 when for the same amount of money they could buy five used ones? Especially when Murphy's Law tells us that the plane will break down in the peak of the business season. Better to have extra used ones around then one brand new one.

And, thanks to the FAA's onerous, draconian, prehistoric regulations - new certificated aircraft have become so expensive that only the very rich can afford them. $500,000 for a 152? Really?

Cessna dropped their piston line once. I believe they will do it again. The only certificated piston engine market that's worth pursuing from a business standpoint is flight training. And that could be very well served with refurbished legacy aircraft, or with a single certificated piston aircraft manufacturer, or both.

Piper SuperCub. What about this model? Why would Piper drop it when clearly the SuperCub market is on the rise? Probably for the same reasons outlined above. Again it's a taildragger. But one with an even narrower mission scope then the 180/185. And there are still enough of them for commercial operator needs.

So what about the growing market for SuperCubs. Who or what is responsible for the growth and doesn't Piper see it?

The who or what that triggered this growth is first the Internet, and secondly Loni Habersetzer and Greg Miller (and to a lesser extent other guys like them). I'm not joking. Without the Internet, and YouTube specifically, nobody would have seen what these experimental SuperCubs and their pilots were doing. Okay I know Greg flies a Maule, not a SuperCub, but you know what I'm talking about. I'm an excellent example of their impact.

My first airplane was a Stearman. I initially planned on buying a 337, a practical airplane (don't go there ), so I could take my wife to Denver to dinner. Not sure why Denver but that was really my thinking. My wife informed me she wasn't interested in that. I was sad for five minutes then I realized I could get anything I wanted. A Stearman it was, jumping into the taildragger abyss with both feet with one of the most difficult taildraggers to fly. Landings terrified me and were very frustrating. But after a 150 or so I started to get the hang of them, and enjoying the satisfaction of surviving them, and sometimes looking good in the process, although never when someone was watching.

At some point I stumbled onto the Valdez Flyin and Loni Habersetzer's videos on YouTube and thought "Wow these guys are amazing. That is so cool. Wish I could do that."

Anyway, eventually I rode in a little tire 180 to go flyfishing in Colorado. That trip showed me the need for a practical, trip airplane, so I could go flyfishing. Of course practical would have been a 182, or a 210, or even a 337. Anything but a taildragger. So I bought a 185, put big tires on it and took it to the Idaho backcountry. And I continued to watch Valdez, Habersetzer, and Miller videos.

Those videos got me more and more interested in their type of flying, especially when they stopped to do some fishing. So I bought the SQ-2. Okay the story is really much longer then that but I figure you getting tired of reading my dribble. Flying was even more fun then ever before. I understood the Experimental SuperCub craze.

Apparently a bunch of other pilots saw those video's too. So many that lots Experimental Backcountry Plane manufacturers sprung up, including the big one, CubCrafters.

I'm sure Piper saw this, but again, the FAA's onerous, draconian, prehistoric regulations kept them from being competitive in bringing their certificated SuperCub back to market.

All this brings the piston engine aircraft industry to a very interesting place. Limbo.

Again, thanks to the FAA's onerous, draconian, prehistoric regulations, new certificated aircraft are too expensive to produce, too expensive to purchase, and too expensive to maintain. Legacy certificated aircraft are getting very long in the tooth. Although reasonably priced to purchase, they are becoming too expensive to maintain with each passing day as parts become harder and harder to find. And they can not legally benefit from new technologies.

The Experimental market enjoys the benefits of a reasonable purchase price, modern technology throughout, and low cost to maintain. But you either build it yourself, hire someone to build, or buy one already built. The first requires a large time and talent investment. The later requires faith and trust in the builder. This keeps the Experimental market from growing like it could.

A huge shot in the arm for Part 91 would be to allow a certificated aircraft owner to put the aircraft into the Experimental category, allowing him/her to install, maintain, and repair using modern parts and technologies, dramatically reducing the cost of maintaining and repairing the aircraft, while taking advantage of this century's advancements in technology and safety. I don't understand the downside.

Full circle and back to the idea of a new 180/185. Think I'd prefer a design from the 2000's, not the 1940's, and I too love my 185 - obviously. Perhaps something like a scaled down version of the Sherpa, sized near the 185, but wider of course. Or maybe the plane soon to come out of the Mackey/Goza Skunkworks.

I met and had a few hours to talk with an executive at Cessna last summer. He was selling his 180. I asked him the question if they would ever produce another 180/185 or any other taildragger. The answer was pretty emphatic - no way in hell.

jus by a mall

Squash wrote:I love my 185. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a production 185 again. More planes in service means more parts and more aftermarket mods.

And while the skywagon is a completely badass airplane, it has its shortcomings that I would hope Cessna would fix if it were to re-enter the tailwheel bush-plane market. The plane needs flaps and ailerons like a 206, not a 172. It needs a more effective rudder to compensate for the vertical stabilizer area. Give it a real baggage door. And maybe something other than the spring gear....with some ability to dampen the recoil.

Now, before the bashing starts, remember what I said, "I love my 185. Don't get me wrong...."

My original thoughts on this thread I guess also focused on someone aside from Cessna bringing back the 180/185. Hence my reference to the Harbor Freight HF-180/185

The Chinese have lower manufacturing costs, and may have other objectives such as starting up their Aviation manufacturing industry. Their marketing strategy may include selling to the underdeveloped countries. Of course the Chinese already own Teledyne Continental Motors.

So maybe one day a foreign made 180/180 equivalent or clone may yet come to pass. I never thought I'd see a South Korean made car sold here is the US, or Hondas and BMW's made in the USA for export abroad.