Anybody else notice the reference to “johnny come lately” in back cover ad for the Cessna 182 in the latest issue of Flying Mag? I suspect this hints at a little bit of indigestion in the sales dept at Cessna since Cirrus has taken over the GA market. I guess we could say that, considering Cessna’s current production singles (although designed 50 years ago) came years after the Wright Flyer flew that they could be considered “Johnny come latelys” as well! And, a step further, their newest Citation series would qualify! Is GA supposed to stop and rest on the laurels of the fine early Cessna products or should we (Cirrus and others) be trying to do exactly what Cessna did in the 50’s with their then “state of the art” new GA products?
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t even notice the back cover. it is not clear in what respects the Skylane “continues to soar far, far above the rest”. If you look at the numbers it kinds of plods along below the rest. Maybe they will try a “real men don’t pull CAPS” gambit!
That ad also mentions “next-generation refinements throughout.”
According to a blurb in “Plane & Pilot”, those refinements include “longer life landing/taxi lights, polished spinner, 12-volt power port, and beefier 95-amp alternator.”
With cutting-edge advancements like those, I’m sure the Skylane will soon become the market leader 
-Mike
I was in my service center the other day checking on the progress of the annual on our SR22 and spotted a beautiful, brand new, Cessna Stationair TC sitting in the hangar. The shop guy said the owner was hopping mad because he had just bought it and he is now grounded (along with many others) by the Lycoming crankshaft AD, for a while. Maybe Cessna should change the name to Cessna Stationary.
It seems to me that Cessna’s ad, rather than indicating cluelessness or denial, rather clearly indicates that they are acknowledging new competition in the marketplace. For the longstanding best-selling manufacturer of single-engine aircraft to even imply that “Johnny” exists is remarkable…and they are saying it straight out in print. They must certainly be feeling the heat, and their ad indicates that they ARE paying attention. Their marketing message (reliable, proven, popular, etc.) makes complete sense.
Cessna is certainly a company that COULD design, certify, and build a new technology single. It would be interesting to see what their idea of a modern aircraft to replace the 182 would look like.
(I haven’t flown my 182, which I enjoyed immensely, since I took delivery of my SR22…it’s for sale. If I were Cessna I’d be worried, too.)
I’ll give Cessna’s ad agency credit for knowing http://www.whfreeman.com/universe6e/basic astronomy! If you haven’t seen it, the ad shows a Turbo 182 on the surface of the Moon (where you’d need a really good turbocharger), and the shadows cast by the airplane on the lunar surface agree with the phase of the Earth in the background.
And before anybody brings it up — yes, the Apollo astronauts really did land on the Moon (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.htmlclick here), and no, Neil Armstrong never said “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky” (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htmclick here).
Cheers,
Roger
What is amusing is the fact that on the VERY PRECEDING PAGE is the ad for Cirrus. It really does look like Cessna takes a “back page” to Cirrus!
Hey! All kidding aside, who among us who has flown or owned the 182, or even the 172, did not enjoy his time in the plane? They are still really good planes, just haven’t kept up with the competition.
Marty
Marty,
All very true! I love the '57 Chevy Bel Air as well, and with air bags, a CD player, a modern engine, and inertia-reel safety restraints it would be a fantastic car for the 2003 model year. But if Chevy sold a car like this today, I bet they’d worry about the other auto manufacturers as much as Cessna is worried about Cirrus.
Cheers,
Roger
The fact that the Cessnas have not been great planes was not my point…simply that they obviously harbor resentment toward those “johnny come lately’s” that would presume they can improve upon the perfect aircraft. With 700 hrs in a 172 and many in 182’s 210’s, etc., I’m a great fan of their products. But…to suggest or believe that Cirrus or Lancair or others that have produced “modern” planes don’t hold a candle to their proven product is what will keep them in the dark ages. Wouldn’t it be great to see Cessna tackle the design and certification of a new single?