T.V

So the empty weight is less by 88lbs despite the quoted CD-155 weight of 295.4lbs and the IO-360 weighing 296lbs to 332lbs. I wonder where the other 50lbs+ went? Supposedly the CD-170 weighs no more than the CD-155, it’s an impressive feat that the diesel weighs about the same as its gasoline equivalent, if not less. Shows how much of a dinosaur the old reliable horizontally opposed air cooled continentals and lycoming designs are, but I’ll bet nobody would want to spend a half million on a skyhawk just because it had a modern engine.

1 reply

thomas.boyle

I do not understand how a company not branded Cessna expects to charge more for a C-172 clone than Cessna could. I have no doubt that the Tecnam product is an incremental improvement over the 65-year-old competitor, but it also lacks the Cessna’s track record and installed base of maintenance facilities, parts and support. And an expensive diesel with that TBR is going to create headaches for flight schools running the hourly cost numbers. I wish them every success, but I’m wondering about the business case.

1 reply

system

If we look at a little closer, this is really more than a Cessna 172 and not quite a 182 aircraft. You can put 4 people in and still go somewhere, you can’t do that in a 172. The 172 will lose out in every way to this aircraft (service and parts out of the equation). If I had the money to spend there is NO WAY I would purchase a 172. The 172 in my opinion is NOT the greatest aircraft of all time as some people tend to suggest. Pilots (let’s call them customers) aren’t always right. I owned a 172 because that’s what everyone recommended and then I flew a Tiger for the first time. The 172 went for sale the next day. It’s time the world moved on… Pleeease lets get some progress in aviation!!!

system

The business case is where 100LL is unavailable, or costs 2x the price of diesel fuel - mostly countries outside North America. In that case operating costs more than make up for the increased purchase price.

1 reply

system

Cessna introduced, and then dropped, its JT-A Skyhawk, so the business case wasn’t there for them, at least. Of course, Cessna doesn’t seem to care too much about any of their planes that don’t have a turbine under the bonnet.

FirstFlightMike

Jet-A is heavier than 100LL. 6.7 lbs/gal for Jet-A as opposed to 6 lbs/gal for 100LL.

1 reply

T.V

Per FAA guidance; empty weight includes only unusable fuel. Even with full tanks the difference in density between Jet A and Avgas would not amount to 50lbs.