Cessna NGP (Next Generation Piston)

October 12, 2008

Glenn Pew speaks with Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales, John Doman, about the company’s Next Generation Piston proof-of-concept (NGP POC) aircraft.

Duration : 0:5:19


Comments

25 Responses to “Cessna NGP (Next Generation Piston)”

  1. pauljs75 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Neat little plane. …
    Neat little plane. Diesel sounds like a neat idea, because that way they can start to use electronic engine management but without a wiring nest and extra testing that redundant igniton systems would require. (Probably why aviation piston engines are a good ways behind the automotive sector. Knock retard, easy cold starts, flex fuel, etc. are all taken for granted in modern fuel injected car engines.) The other advantage would be using JP fuel. That might make things safer in a crash too.

  2. USSCessna on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    My 5 Stars to You …
    My 5 Stars to You Cessna. you became great Legend in to the Skies of America.

  3. ccoraxfan on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Why do they make …
    Why do they make only leaded and not low-lead? Are there aircraft in Hawaii that need leaded fuel, and they take precedence?

  4. chengloki on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Hey ccoraxfan, …
    Hey ccoraxfan, guess what. In Hawai’i all you can get is the green stuff. No one makes blue here. Our refineries are limitted, so they only make green. It’s not cheap. =Stefan=

  5. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    I have no idea what …
    I have no idea what your talking about. Your right about the oil based fuels being similar my observation is that Kerosene and Jet-A are close in Spec/gr, ICE/lf, Flash point, pour point, and many other lube factors. The engine manufactures determine which fuel should be used. Some use diesel some use JP-8c.

  6. Soldier0117 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Jet-A is like the …
    Jet-A is like the best fuel out of the tower

  7. SenorSpode on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    There is very …
    There is very little difference between diesel and jet fuel. In fact, the M1A1 Abrams tank, powered by a turbine, can use either. Your belief is shot down by Thielert’s inverted V-4 diesel engine, already in use on aircraft throughout Europe and on the DiamondStar already in use here. As far as using plain diesel: Tell that to the FAA; They will tell you to go back to harvesting corn.

  8. SenorSpode on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    So, you want to fly …
    So, you want to fly the same ancient technology into the 21st century? It’s not gonna happen. Composites are coming, as well as diesels and FADEC. Changes in technology are always more pricey than the technology it replaces, but that goes down over time. The market and suport will change with this. It’s done it with everything else.

  9. GAAdvocate on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Cost, cost, cost! …
    Cost, cost, cost! Repair costs of glass airplanes far exceed that of aluminum airplanes. The number of local shops qualified to repair glass or carbon fiber is minimal. This trend is going to continue the movement of new aircraft far outside the cost range of evenyone except the most well funded individuals or groups.

    Wrong direction Cessna.

  10. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Cont: I an not sure …
    Cont: I an not sure if an effective octane booster is out there, and if it is I would consider its use very carefully. A engine failure in an aircraft worth 7 figures (not to mention repair parts not readily available) would be a disaster.

  11. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    I really don’t know …
    I really don’t know if its still out there in the general market. FFZ Falcon Field in Mesa Az. used to sell the stuff because of the Champlain fighter mueseum. Many old supercharged engines required 145 (purple) and 100/130 was a trade off that limited manifold pressure ie performance. The 100ll was so far below the required octane level that engine damage was a great concern.

  12. ccoraxfan on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Used to? Can you …
    Used to? Can you still get the green stuff anymore? Anyway, I’m sure that must be mighty expensive gas if you can find it! Then I suppose with all the classic piston aircraft still being flown, there must be either a way to get the right fuel or additives that will improve the blue gas.

  13. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    True
    At most …

    True
    At most airports that is the rule, as with auto fuel. We are resourceful we can do it. My uncle has a P51-d which runs better on 100/130 (green gas) and we used to travel to another airport and fill 2 55gal drums. We would hand pump it in the plane (just like the old days).

  14. ccoraxfan on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Yes, diesel engines …
    Yes, diesel engines burn diesel fuel. But ordinary diesel fuel is a bit rare at airports… Jet-A, however, is found everywhere, and is cheaper than 100LL.

  15. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    1000/yr.
    1000/yr.

  16. bmxer193 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    how much does …
    how much does insurance cost about on small single prop thats about 20 years old??

  17. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Best selling …
    Best selling aircraft?
    You should check your story a little better. Besides who wants the best selling aircraft, I for one want the beat made aircraft. When Cessna stopped production of their 172 all the really skilled people moved on .They never went back and the fit and finish of the crap they build now is testimony to that fact.

  18. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Diesel engines run …
    Diesel engines run on diesel fuel not Jet-A.
    I know most diesels can run on jet-a, but why would they?? You can feed your puppy prime cuts if you want, but on the sales block its still just a dog (much like Cessnas).

  19. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    I bought a 1963 P …
    I bought a 1963 P type Bonanza with a timed out IO-470 in 1997 for 43K. With a lot of TLC and another 40K the plane is worth about 125K and will fly rings around a 210. Low insurance cost, and a dependable aircraft that any A&P can fix is still possible but will require some effort.

  20. bmxer193 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    this was taken in …
    this was taken in like april, they have change it to a double prop

  21. bmxer193 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    its suppose to cost …
    its suppose to cost $109,200

  22. cjthse on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Looks like a high …
    Looks like a high wing columbia 350!

  23. sicchevelle8 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    “Their inability to …
    “Their inability to maintain sales over the course of their history is testament to this fact”

    better go down to kansas let ’em know they’ve been building and marketing the worlds best selling aircraft all wrong for the last 50 years

  24. sundog47 on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    This is great, but …
    This is great, but It’s not likely it will be priced to sell. Cessna has a long history of building aircraft that are way overpriced Their inability to maintain sales over the course of their history is testament to this fact. However this does make a 20 year old Beechcraft look really good.

  25. flyinhighrogerKBTR on October 12th, 2008 7:20 am

    Nice cab, like the …
    Nice cab, like the tri prop, i think it should have a cessna 182 wing design.

Got something to say?