About the time that Cessna announced that it was putting some of it's piston engine aircraft back in production, the CEO of Cessna was asked publicly if and when that Cessna would put the 180/185 back in production.

His response was that, considering the recent (at that time) court decision in Cleveland v Piper Aircraft Corporation, he could not envision Cessna ever building a tailwheel airplane again.

I'm sure that Piper feels the same, especially since they're the ones who lost that case.

That case seems to me to be an illustration of a defendant apparently assuming that the facts of the case were so bizarre that no jury would ever find for the plaintiff.....but this one did. Piper really didn't put forth a good defense, and they paid for it.

A link to the case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19892430890F2d1540_12206

Essentially, one of the assertions of this case was that the tailwheel aircraft is inherently hazardous by design, because it's hard to see out of. Cleveland also asserted that Piper should have required shoulder harnesses, and they should have prohibited flight from the rear seat. Note that Cleveland did not have a current flight review, had modified the airplane without the benefit of a mechanic's certificate, etc, etc. He hit a van that was parked at about the mid point of the airstrip while towing (or trying to tow) a glider aloft, and smacked his head on the video camera he'd mounted in place of the front seat.

BUT, in addition to this bit of insanity, consider that Piper does not build fabric covered airplanes now. The Super Cub would be the only aircraft in their production that featured rag and tube construction. That requires personnel with specific and unique skills, and equipment, etc.....

As to the 180/185...where's the market? At one point, Aviat Aircraft was considering building a four to six seat tailwheel airplane, similar to the 185. I couldn't see the market for such an airplane. Turned out, after considerable engineering and design work, and at least partial construction of a prototype, they dropped the concept.

Look at the Found/Bushhawk aircraft. That airplane was resurrected from a sixties design, somewhat redesigned and put back into production. They didn't sell well at all. The company went into bankruptcy, assets were liquidated and sold off.....that airplane will never be produced again. Why didn't they sell??? They advertised, they appeared at ALL the fly ins and airshows.....price point was $500 to $600 K. They did have some design hiccups, and not my favorite plane, at least on floats, but.....no market.

A Cessna 206 H is north of that price now, and they're not selling either. A couple of reasons:

1. A commercial operator can't purchase that expensive an airplane and make it pay the loan off in revenue generated. Just can't happen.....you'd have to charge $1000 an hour. The plane can't carry enough passengers or freight to pay those loans off.
2. A long time ago, Cessna completely gave up on selling airplanes to commercial operators. The airplanes all got leather interiors (heavy), fancy avionics (heavy and $$$), and more and more features (heavy). And, Cessna was acquired by Textron, which also owns Lycoming. Cessna moved to an all Lycoming powered fleet, for obvious reasons (Lycs are ALL heavier than Continentals). As a consequence, compare a new 206 H or 182 to a 1970 version of the same airplane. The new model will weigh a couple hundred pounds more than the older one. That's a couple hundred pounds of freight/pax that you can't carry.

If Cessna were to put the 180/185 back in production, it'd have a Lycoming engine (heavy), a leather interior, including side panels (heavy, $$$), and a G-1000 instrument panel (heavy and $$$$$$$). It wouldn't be a four place airplane, legally.

And, if anyone ever killed themselves in one, you can bet that the "injured party" would sue Cessna in a heartbeat for building an "inherently hazardous" design of airplane.

Oh, and finally, I can do pretty much anything with a properly equipped 206 that can be done with a 185, including going into some pretty rough spots......granted, maybe not quite as ugly as a 185 could handle, but do you seriously think ANY manufacturer wants you going into those kinds of places with their aircraft?

MTV

Maule does...granted a Maule is a little bit less than a 180 in function...but it seems like it is really the only larger-than-tandem aircraft where there is an intent to provide for the bush market.

Troy Hamon wrote:Maule does...granted a Maule is a little bit less than a 180 in function...but it seems like it is really the only larger-than-tandem aircraft where there is an intent to provide for the bush market.

BD Maule was once famously quoted as saying that if anyone were to sue Maule successfully, they'd wind up the owner of a little bitty airplane factory in Georgia. I think the quote was actually a little more colorful.

Their biggest advantage when it comes to liability is that they're small, and they simply aren't an attractive target for litigation.

Same goes for companies like Aviat, Cub Crafters, etc.

But, consider Cessna, a subsidiary of Textron, a huge multi national conglomerate......big target.

Maule also builds one product, essentially. Couple different models, but basically the same product, with minor variations.

And, I'm not sure Maule is building many airplanes these days either. I hope they are, but.....

MTV

mtv wrote: and a G-1000 instrument panel (heavy and $$$$$$$). It wouldn't be a four place airplane, legally.

You'll find modern avionics are generally lighter than the steam-powered gauges and vacuum system they replace, provided you compare equal levels of functionality in each.
Of course a minimalistic steam panel would still be lighter than a typical glass set-up.

From an experimental instrumentation perspective, they are cost-neutral too.
I have never looked into a certified set-up from scratch, but would assume it costs some major body-part due to the certification headaches of new gizmos compared to proven steam technology...

@ Battson

That remark re the Garmin 1000 in Bob Barrows' plane was a tongue in cheek comment. I mean he loves to keep everything super light, no starter, minimal panel; maybe a handheld radio if that, ...you get the idea. A Garmin G1000 ( not just a G3X) would of course be the total opposite end of his philosophical spectrum.

Your BearHawk by the way is one of the finest examples I have seen. I have come to the sad realization that as much as I would like to, I probably will never end up building an aircraft. If i am lucky, I'll find a nice used Bearhawk like yours or a Cessna 180/185.

Maybe I'll wait a few years for the Official Bob Barrows 3D Printer Bear Hawk Kit to come out . Let the printer do it all and then just rivet, screw, bolt, and glue the thing together... The Bearhawk-3D model... that would work for me.

hotrod180 wrote:

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?

They got all kind of stuff like that in the back pages of gentlemen's magazines I'm told, but then again, they're not TSO'd......

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote: and a G-1000 instrument panel (heavy and $$$$$$$). It wouldn't be a four place airplane, legally.

You'll find modern avionics are generally lighter than the steam-powered gauges and vacuum system they replace, provided you compare equal levels of functionality in each.
Of course a minimalistic steam panel would still be lighter than a typical glass set-up.

From an experimental instrumentation perspective, they are cost-neutral too.
I have never looked into a certified set-up from scratch, but would assume it costs some major body-part due to the certification headaches of new gizmos compared to proven steam technology...

I used to assume that as well.

Then, Aviat showed up at an airshow with a Husky equipped with a Garmin G 600. I thought this should be lighter than a comparably setup with steam gauges, and asked Stu Horn that question........his response was that the G 600 setup wound up significantly heavier than a steam gauge (IFR legal) airplane that was otherwise identical.

Go figure.

MTV

mtv wrote:And, I'm not sure Maule is building many airplanes these days either. I hope they are, but.....

Maule skipped OSH in 2014 because they had a backlog that they couldn't meet while sending people to the show.

I've heard it was one large order, rather than a groundswell consisting of multiple orders, but still, they built some planes.

mtv wrote:

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote: and a G-1000 instrument panel (heavy and $$$$$$$). It wouldn't be a four place airplane, legally.

You'll find modern avionics are generally lighter than the steam-powered gauges and vacuum system they replace, provided you compare equal levels of functionality in each.
Of course a minimalistic steam panel would still be lighter than a typical glass set-up.

From an experimental instrumentation perspective, they are cost-neutral too.
I have never looked into a certified set-up from scratch, but would assume it costs some major body-part due to the certification headaches of new gizmos compared to proven steam technology...

I used to assume that as well.

Then, Aviat showed up at an airshow with a Husky equipped with a Garmin G 600. I thought this should be lighter than a comparably setup with steam gauges, and asked Stu Horn that question........his response was that the G 600 setup wound up significantly heavier than a steam gauge (IFR legal) airplane that was otherwise identical.

Go figure.

MTV

Huh. Oh well, I guess Garmin missed that opportunity in a big way?

The Dynon glass panels are significantly lighter than the equivalent steam set-up. I actually did the sums on each alternative before I bought, both in terms of install price and total installed weight. The answer was pretty much price neutral, but a huge weight advantage for the glass panel. I used to prefer steam gauges too....

Oh, I don't have any bias against glass panels. In fact I think they're great. I also have no trouble believing that Dynon's setup probably is lighter than comparable steam gauges. Bear in mind, however, that if you're talking certified, you still have to have backup instrumentation, at least A/S, ALT and Attitude for IFR anyway.

Experimental offers a lot of advantages, but there's no way I'd take one of those Dynons into IMC without backup. Nowadays, there are some nice backup PFDs out there, that're TSOd. as well.

MTV

A Dynon D6 or D10A is a fine set of backup instruments for not much money and fits in one hole.