A general aviation challenge: alternate Cessna 150 (sort of)

I've often wondered about this. The Piper J-3 and Cesssna 150, just frex, weren't very different (AFAICT) in spec, appearance, or performance from a number of less-successful types. Why not? Was it dealer network? Quality control? Sheer economies of scale (so lower price)? Or something else?

With that in mind, then, & with a POD not before 1927, the challenge is to have a company of your choice, other than Piper or Cessna, build a general aviation aircraft similar to the Cessna 150 (equal or better speed, range, payload, high wing, trike gear) before 1950, which ends up with sales as good or better, & stays in production as long or longer.

Soviet makers are barred... (Commanding production to continue is an unfair advantage.;)) War production (if any) is excluded from the final total.

Extra bonus points if this should lead to better equivalents of the Navajo, Norseman, Otter, Twin Otter, or 208. (More points still if it's a Canadian company.:p And my endless admiration if it also means the C.102 survives to become the #1-selling jetliner in history.:D:p)

Early use of the Wankel engine would be a nice bonus, too.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Well, from OTL there's the Aeronca Champion; similar configuration (a taildragger, but then so was the Piper Cub), similar but slightly lower performance, and more than 10,000 sold; it was certainly pretty successful by any reasonable measure (looking at the Wikipedia list of most-produced aircraft in history, it comes in as the #10 civilian aircraft, behind mostly Piper and Cessna products). Cessna also produced (and produces) a number of generally similar aircraft that vary in size, and had produced what was, to all intents and purposes, a taildragging version of the Cessna 150 in the 1940s and early 1950s.

As for why Cessna, in particular, was most successful, my guess would be a combination of factors. They were already pretty big by the time they introduced the 150, so they had a number of advantages more of their competitors (except maybe Piper, Beechcraft, and similar large GA builders) didn't, in terms of being able to meet demand, having established factories and factory-line procedures, and so on. Of course, they were also better-known, so it was probably easier for people to hear that Cessna had a new airplane out than many other makers, and later on their size was self-reinforcing, as more people had learned how to fly in Cessnas and were familiar with Cessnas and went with Cessna when they were buying or renting a plane.

Avoiding all of this with a PoD not before 1927 is easy, though; Cessna shut its doors early in the Great Depression and was only revived two years later (in 1934) by outside investors. Just have them pick some other company to bail out, and Cessna will, of course, not be able to build the 150.
 
When my grandbabies were small, I taught them to identify aircraft. A four year old can identify aircraft. As long as you only asked them to identify Cessnas, and they usually were Cessnas. Some were close. One of these a/cs are making a comeback, but why did it go?

00000000000001.jpg
 
Workable Goblin said:
Well, from OTL there's the Aeronca Champion; similar configuration (a taildragger, but then so was the Piper Cub), similar but slightly lower performance, and more than 10,000 sold; it was certainly pretty successful by any reasonable measure (looking at the Wikipedia list of most-produced aircraft in history, it comes in as the #10 civilian aircraft, behind mostly Piper and Cessna products). Cessna also produced (and produces) a number of generally similar aircraft that vary in size, and had produced what was, to all intents and purposes, a taildragging version of the Cessna 150 in the 1940s and early 1950s.

As for why Cessna, in particular, was most successful, my guess would be a combination of factors. They were already pretty big by the time they introduced the 150, so they had a number of advantages more of their competitors (except maybe Piper, Beechcraft, and similar large GA builders) didn't, in terms of being able to meet demand, having established factories and factory-line procedures, and so on. Of course, they were also better-known, so it was probably easier for people to hear that Cessna had a new airplane out than many other makers, and later on their size was self-reinforcing, as more people had learned how to fly in Cessnas and were familiar with Cessnas and went with Cessna when they were buying or renting a plane.

Avoiding all of this with a PoD not before 1927 is easy, though; Cessna shut its doors early in the Great Depression and was only revived two years later (in 1934) by outside investors. Just have them pick some other company to bail out, and Cessna will, of course, not be able to build the 150.

I had a hunch that would explain it, but thx for confirming.

As for closing Cessna, that's a start--but it doesn't help anybody else replicate...unless you mean that leads to Aeronca surviving. (I could live with that.;))
 

Driftless

Donor
If the POD were 1919, that likely changes the whole market. With so many relative inexpensive war surplus planes left over, that had to have some negative impact on developing some aircraft types for the general aviation market. To be sure, there's a chicken-or-the-egg situation with cheap surplus planes = more flyers = more planes. Still, it may have limited the development & sales of somewhat more advanced planes in the early & mid 1920's. The market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression finished off several manufacturers, or badly wounded them.
 
As for closing Cessna, that's a start--but it doesn't help anybody else replicate...unless you mean that leads to Aeronca surviving. (I could live with that.;))

Well, presumably there will still be demand for a pretty minimal light GA aircraft as war surplus wears out, so other manufacturers will move to fill the market. Could be Aeronca, could be someone else, could be several someones, who knows?
 
Cessna had an effective business model. It was the only aircraft company I can think of with a TV show, a western with Cessnas substituting for horses, called Sky King. There was also the Flying Doctor, Cutter's Goose, Twelve O'Clock High and Baa,Baa, Black Sheep, but they weren't marketing tools. There was a Canadian TV show featuring Beavers, but they were already out of production.
 
Driftless said:
If the POD were 1919, that likely changes the whole market. With so many relative inexpensive war surplus planes left over, that had to have some negative impact on developing some aircraft types for the general aviation market. To be sure, there's a chicken-or-the-egg situation with cheap surplus planes = more flyers = more planes. Still, it may have limited the development & sales of somewhat more advanced planes in the early & mid 1920's. The market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression finished off several manufacturers, or badly wounded them.
Except then you've changed the OTL conditions Cessna still managed to survive. Do that, virtually anything could happen.

I'm tempted to put the POD in 1940 or something, but I wanted to give the likes of (frex) Taylorcraft a chance. I also had imagined somebody like DH getting in the game in a bigger way.
Just Leo said:
Cessna had an effective business model. It was the only aircraft company I can think of with a TV show, a western with Cessnas substituting for horses, called Sky King.
Was that Cessna's idea, or did the producers just get a deal? Akin to "5-0" using all Fords in the '60s & '70s.
 
Was that Cessna's idea, or did the producers just get a deal? Akin to "5-0" using all Fords in the '60s & '70s.

The original Sky King "Songbird" aircraft was a Cessna Bobcat, a war-time training T-50, nicknamed the Bamboo Bomber provided by Paul Mantz. Along the way, a Panda got too close and the T-50 was no longer flight worthy. Cessna provided the replacement, a Cessna 310B, free of charge, flown by Cessna's sales manager for 310 sales, when the pilot provided proved less than worthy. Extra aircraft were also provided. Wiki says astronauts cite Sky King as being an influence on their career choices. Perhaps, it influenced their GA aircraft purchases as well. Had the TV show "Bonanza" been cast in an altered time frame, Beechcraft might still be around.
 
A Canada-wank would start with Fleet (Fort Erie, Ontario) having a better marketing department and selling more Canuck trainers immediately after WW2. Canucks may have looked like all the other fabric-covered flivvers, but their stamped aluminum ribs were far less labour-intensive to build than: Aeronca, Funk, Interstate, Rearwin, Taylorcraft, etc.

POD 1948, Cessna is busy with a military contract. Since they already have all the sheet metal tools, it is easy for Fleet to increase the percentage of pressed aluminum components. Fleet starts skinning Canuck wings with sheet metal, then introduces a nose-wheel version a year later. Another year later, they introduce an all-metal fuselage followed by a 4-seater version.

As for larger bush-planes: deHavilland of Canada follows the original time-line with Beavers and single-engine Otters.
POD the US Army holds onto its stock of Korean War-surplus (piston-pounding) Beavers a few years longer, allowing the Turbo-Beaver to gain a foot-hold on the market.

Meanwhile Fairchild of Canada works the bugs out of the Husky, forcing deHavilland to up-engine the single Otter if they want to remain competitive. Initially, deHavilland fits 1,000 horsepower radials to single Otters, but by the late 1960s, single Otters are leaving the factory with PT-6A engines and nosewheels.
When the over-night courier business kicks off - during the 1970s - the big companies buy Turbo Huskies and Turbo Otters after they realize how expensive it is to insure light twins.

POD Canadian Car and Foundry refuses to bid on the Curtiss Helldiver contract. Instead, they build hundreds of Budd Conestoga military freighters with cargo ramps under the tail. By the end of WW2, CCF has worked all the major bugs out of the Conestoga, making it a reliable transport. With fewer surplus DC-3s available after the war, CCF continues building Conestogas and selling them to first and second world air forces. As demand increases during the Cold War, Fairchild of Canada starts building C-123 Providers.
After the RCAF pioneers Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System, neither CCF nor Fairchild of Canada can keep up with demand, so DHC introduces the Cariboo. By the 1960s, Canadian factories dominate the short-haul military transport market and Irvin Industries of Canada wears out record numbers of sewing machines trying to keep up with demand for LAPES fabric goods.
 
riggerrob said:
A Canada-wank would start with Fleet (Fort Erie, Ontario) having a better marketing department and selling more Canuck trainers immediately after WW2. Canucks may have looked like all the other fabric-covered flivvers, but their stamped aluminum ribs were far less labour-intensive to build than: Aeronca, Funk, Interstate, Rearwin, Taylorcraft, etc.

POD 1948, Cessna is busy with a military contract. Since they already have all the sheet metal tools, it is easy for Fleet to increase the percentage of pressed aluminum components. Fleet starts skinning Canuck wings with sheet metal, then introduces a nose-wheel version a year later. Another year later, they introduce an all-metal fuselage followed by a 4-seater version.

As for larger bush-planes: deHavilland of Canada follows the original time-line with Beavers and single-engine Otters.
POD the US Army holds onto its stock of Korean War-surplus (piston-pounding) Beavers a few years longer, allowing the Turbo-Beaver to gain a foot-hold on the market.

Meanwhile Fairchild of Canada works the bugs out of the Husky, forcing deHavilland to up-engine the single Otter if they want to remain competitive. Initially, deHavilland fits 1,000 horsepower radials to single Otters, but by the late 1960s, single Otters are leaving the factory with PT-6A engines and nosewheels.
When the over-night courier business kicks off - during the 1970s - the big companies buy Turbo Huskies and Turbo Otters after they realize how expensive it is to insure light twins.
I like most of this.:cool: Not sure about 1000hp radials, tho; I'd say most of the surplus ones are likely to be R2600s or R2800s, aren't they? (Okay, not a few R1820s...)
riggerrob said:
POD Canadian Car and Foundry refuses to bid on the Curtiss Helldiver contract. Instead, they build hundreds of Budd Conestoga military freighters with cargo ramps under the tail. By the end of WW2, CCF has worked all the major bugs out of the Conestoga, making it a reliable transport.
Strikes me that's a longshot... Plus the Conestoga was a dead letter anyhow. Now, licence the C-47, or the C-46, & add turbines immediately after the war...:cool:
riggerrob said:
As demand increases during the Cold War, Fairchild of Canada starts building C-123 Providers.
Now that I can (just about) believe.:) Except for the U.S. NIH mania...:rolleyes: So you probably need FCan to be a subcontracter, for fuselages or something. If there's (Canadian) turbine experience in *TurboDakotas, maybe that gets the contract when Boeing or Douglas otherwise would?:cool:
 
Top