Cessna Introduces New 350 and 400 Aircraft...


#1

Cessna Introduces New 350 and 400 Aircraft to World Wide Sales Force

Wichita, Kan., March 17, 2008 Cessna Aircraft Company, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, this month introduced the new Cessna 350 and 400 aircraft to its Cessna Sales Team Authorized Representatives (CSTAR) at a conference in Bend, Ore. where the 350 and 400 are produced.

The conference included briefings from Cessna executives, Cessna Finance Corporation, Cessna Aircraft engineers and sales representatives from the Bend Municipal Airport facility and the Cessna Advanced Aircraft Club. A tour of the production facility was also provided to the CSTARs.

Since Cessna acquired the assets of the Bend plant in December 2007, the production facility has received a full face lift including new signage, new lighting and a new customer center. The transition plan, which includes implementation of Textron Six Sigma, has reached 40 percent completion. Cessna expects to deliver 150 350/400 aircraft this year and plans to increase production rates in 2009 to meet customer demands.

Cessna’s 350 and 400 aircraft are low wing, composite aircraft designed for speed and efficiency. At a maximum cruise speed of 235 knots true air speed (ktas), the Cessna 400 is the fastest fixed gear single-engine piston aircraft on the market. Designed with safety in mind, both aircraft have dual carbon fiber reinforced wing spars, dual horizontal stabilizer attach-points and multiple hinge points for all control surfaces. The airframes are constructed entirely of fiberglass and carbon fiber. All control surfaces are carbon fiber, and only the stabilizer attach-spars, landing gear legs and engine mount are primary structures made of steel. Certification for the aircraft is under Part 23, Amendment 46 in the utility category. The Cessna 350 is spin resistant and the 400 is spin recoverable.

Equipped with a 310-horsepower Teledyne Continental TCM IO-550N, the Cessna 350 has a certified ceiling of 18,000 ft and a maximum cruise speed of 190 ktas. The twin turbo charger equipped, intercooled TCM TSIO-550C can allow the Cessna 400 to cruise as high as FL250. A 4-place, built-in oxygen system is included with the 400.

Like all current Cessna single-engine products and the Citation Mustang, the 350 and 400 are equipped with the integrated Garmin G1000 avionics system. The aircraft complement Cessna’s current product line well, filling the niche between the Cessna 206 Stationair and the Citation Mustang. Jet-like features of the 350/400 include speed brakes, bleed air heat and many fully redundant systems including dual alternators, dual primary electric power busses and dual batteries. The aircraft also incorporate a G1000 flight management data-entry pad similar to the Citation Mustang. Other unique features include 2 and 3 axis trim, side-stick controls, digital climate control, and remote keyless entry with step lights.

After learning more about the 350/400 and the aircrafts’ market potential, the CSTARs promptly placed orders for the remaining 2008 production in anticipation of strong demand from their customers.


#2

This is great, and they have done a good job with the purchase.

I hope Cessna’s pays attention to this market instead of neglecting it like they do every other piston plane. FORGET THE JETS FOR A SEC.

The 350/400’s have a few things that have to be ironed out. It is a great plane if they can figure out Evade. And of course, they should keep the planes with the times, for the future, when new technologies are introduced.

Personally, I think the price is too high compared to the Cirrus competition. The Columbia is built better, and uses better materials, but Cessna rose the price too much.


#3

Have they no sense of tradition? Why are they naming them the 350 and 400? If they are single engined aircraft then they should be in the 100 and 200 series (preferably after the 210 which, I think ,is the highest number in the Cessna 200 series of aircraft).

The 300 and 400 series model numbers have always been twins for Cessna (310, 340, 402, 414, etc).

This is the same thing as Boeing going 707, 717*, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, 888 (leaving out the 720 because that was a marketing gimmick and it happened a long time ago).

*The original 717, not the product formerly called MD95.


#4

I know, it is really confusing. But Columbia named these aircraft the 350, and 400. Maybe Cessna couldn’t 2 and 2 together and realize they already had planes with these names or similar names. Maybe it is for marketing?? You know it does take a lot of hard work to name a plane. :laughing:


#5

Low Wing?..Are they gonna be God-Awful Ugly like all Cessna Low Wings??..


#6

Cessna may own & produce them now, but they are not Cessnas. They are Lancairs. It’s just like Gulfstream buying IAI Astra & Galaxy. They filled a product/economic gap but screwed up 40 years of brand heritage. Of course we have been doing & watching this happen for many years in aviation with all companies. I guess if they can stay in the light aircraft market with a profit then I will look the other way with them screwing up their lineage.


#7

Just like the HS-125 line and the Mitsubishi Diamond Jet…


#8

Did you bump your head on something? Forget the Jets? It’s the fact that Cessna has been making piles and piles of money selling those hundreds of Citations that allowed them to get back in the single engine business.


#9

I know its where they make their money, and they SHOULD focus more on the jet market. But does that mean that they should neglect the piston market. NO! The technology on the Cessna pistons is OLD. They neglected this market, and fell behind the times. They realized this and BOUGHT Columbia to get something that is up with the times, instead of designing their own plane (which most likely would have been more expensive anyway).

Anyway, I am not saying they shouldn’t focus on the jet market, but I feel they have done little to the piston line for Cessna. For me, I can’t take that, and will go to companies that focused around their piston lines. Of course with Cessna, you get reliability, a strong company, and trust.


#10

Cessna must be doing something right, because they sell more piston planes than the next closest competitor, Cirrus, and do so with a much older (and uglier) design. Let’s face it, GA is not so much a business as a labor of love. When you see the CEO of Cessna get in his 50 (?) year old perfectly restored piston aircraft when he could fly Cessna’s latest jets, it tells you why they are still in the business at all.


#11

I believe that one of Cessna’s greatest strengths is the fact that they haven’t messed with the classic single engine Cessna. You buy a 172/182/206 because they are simple, rugged, and reliable. If you want fast, buy a Mooney. If you want fast and built like a tank, buy a Bonanza. Cessna has taken great care to not mess up a classic product. The addition of the Columbia line is just smart business. Why let someone else buy Columbia ad lose the “step up” potential of current customers? And by the way, is it really a great tragedy that they have rearranged the typical numbering sequence? Did you folks wail in anguish when Gulfstream changed from the 4/5 to the 450/550? Just curious.


#12

For the market where they compete (4 seat piston aircraft), Cirrus delivered more aircraft than Cessna last year, 710 to 676. If you add in the Stationairs and Caravans, then Cessna comes out on top for piston aircraft.


#13

Or, maybe just add the Stationairs, as Caravans are turbine:) Did you mean to say single-engine aircraft?


#14

I forgot the Caravans were all turbine; they look just like a scaled up 206. :slight_smile:


#15

I was counting all piston, but not all single engine aircraft. Cessna sold 807 (806 if you subtract the one Cessna 350/400 included in their total by GAMA) and Cirrus sold 710. Cirrus and Cessna are about even if you count only four seat planes, which is amazing given the contrast between ancient and modern aircraft designs and technology.


#16

I don’t think the contrast between construction technology is as important as the end user market of the products. Cirrus are for travel. Cessna’s are utility aircraft that fulfill travel needs pretty well also. You don’t find Cirrus aircraft performing any utility type work


#17

:laughing: Like the 208 Caravan being a 206 on steroids?..Kind of like Pee Wee Herman as the 206, and Roger Clemens as the 208 Caravan? Oh, that’s right…the “Rocket” didn’t use performance enhancers did he… :open_mouth:


#18

I think one of the big questions with Cirrus will be the lifespan of the planes. So many pilots tell me of problems they have with 2-3 year old planes Cirrus’s. Will Cirrus’s from today be flying 20-30 years like Cessna’s are??


#19

He used so much, it’s oozing out of his wings! (Caravan now comes with TKS) 8)


#20

For those who haven’t seen, the new Flying magazine has a cover story on the updated 208. http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=919

Also a story about the 172TD (turbo diesel). To me, this seems like a very cool plane. The Flying article left me confused… with more questions then answers.
N172JF (172TD prototype JF=Jet Fuel)
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N172JF