Av Web just informed me the Cessna Mustang will no longer exist. Apparently the M2 ate its market niche.
Although I don´t fly one and probably never will, its sad to see an airplane go down in history.

rgs

Patrick.

I just read that as well:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news ... stang.html

This is what Rob Scholl, senior vice president of sales and marketing, said:

“The Mustang proved to be an incredible success for our company and our customers, and we’re thrilled to celebrate the ingenuity and pride that went in to creating the world’s most popular entry-level light jet.”

So why would a company discontinue a product that was an incredible success?

I just read that as well:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news ... stang.html

This is what Rob Scholl, senior vice president of sales and marketing, said:

“The Mustang proved to be an incredible success for our company and our customers, and we’re thrilled to celebrate the ingenuity and pride that went in to creating the world’s most popular entry-level light jet.”

So why would a company discontinue a product that was an incredible success?

With over 450 Mustangs in the fleet new sales competed with used sales. All Mustangs are basically the same so little advantage in buying new unless you wanted the ITC and new aircraft smell.

I think it leaves a hole in the bottom of Cessna's Citation line with the M2 being the least expensive new Citation you can buy.

The bottom of the turbojet market has become fragmented with used Mustangs, Eclipse, SF50, used CJ's, and other aircraft all competing for folks who want to own a jet for under $3MM. Hard for Cessna to sell many new Mustangs around that price point and make money. I think they decided better to focus their resources on the larger aircraft that give better volumes and profit.

I just read that as well:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news ... stang.html

This is what Rob Scholl, senior vice president of sales and marketing, said:

“The Mustang proved to be an incredible success for our company and our customers, and we’re thrilled to celebrate the ingenuity and pride that went in to creating the world’s most popular entry-level light jet.”

So why would a company discontinue a product that was an incredible success?

A fleet of 450 will be around, and maintainable, for a long time. They filled a niche with 450 planes over 10 years. That's totally fine as a product cycle. The new ones couldn't compete with the other companies' newer designs, Cessna's newer designs, AND the used market of fairly new Mustangs. If somebody wants one, there will be used examples available.

I still remember when the light-jet development boom was going on - the FAA was afraid the skies would darken with thousands of sub-$1mm jets, companies like Vantage and Eclipse and Adam and many others were attracting billions in capital... but nobody was delivering on their promises.

Cessna made some much more realistic plans and promises, and delivered the Mustang more or less on spec, on schedule and on price. It turns out there wasn't a market for thousands of the light jets that could realistically be produced... just 450 Mustangs.

By the way, Cessna also did the same for light sport.

The markets did not develop as expected, but I commend Cessna for stepping up to the plate and taking a good swing. Few others could execute their plans, Cessna could and did.

Entry level markets commonly have lower margins and are only profitable in high volume. Of course, if one already has facilities to produce and this adds a line, it's easier to be profitable. It said volume was about 40 a year and dropped to 24. Makes if clear how a new product can affect an existing one. I really liked the Mustang when I test flew it. Just didn't want that much capital in an aircraft.
Beech was very worried about that when considering a single engine turbo prop; that it would take volume from the King Air.

All good points. It is generally a product life-cycle issue and there comes a point when it is no longer cost effective to produce product X or Y so manufacturing ceases.

UNFORTUNATELY, the Market Department has to put a positive spin on the event (think of lipstick and pigs) which results in reused text hoping that no one will notice.

I think all of the light jet development came about at a very tough time in the economy - and a good reason a number of the companies no longer exist. When the ideas were envisioned, the market looked GREAT and buyers were wanting and paying unheard of prices for aircraft. Then the downturn occurred and the market was flooded with over-valued aircraft. Even today, there are signs that the turbine market still has not recovered. It would be interesting to see the original marketing plan which supported the initial development along with related forecasts versus reality. I doubt that ANYONE at Cessna thought that 450 units would be sufficient justification for this project.

Good luck.

Might have something to do with that new SETP (Denali) they're developing. They want to sell either the Denali or M2, with no product in between them.

I recall one of the business models was that FBO's with small Part 135 operations, would buy VLJ's and sell flights to Joe Schmo for the price of an airline ticket. I don't think that would've happened even if the economy had been good.

You used the word "was" as opposed to "is" which is pretty significant. I think that is the answer.

Too small, too slow for a jet.
Jet owners want 8 or more seats and longer range in a jet.

I think this a probably for almost any "entry level" product. From planes to widgets. Consumers what a cheap bargain. But manufacturing costs aren't that much less than the step up model the allows for much more profit.

And always the same comparisons: new entry level vs used step up for the same price.

Because they haven't sold enough to keep the line alive in the last couple of years.

It can still be a success for the company in that they sold a bunch of them early on and they are a common stepping stone for people who eventually end up in one of their bigger planes.

One analyst I follow is Brian Foley who seems to be "spot on" with some of his earlier commentary regarding the turbine marketplace. Here is an article from several months ago about the impending demise of the Mustang. It supports many of the observations others have made.

http://www.kansas.com/news/business/avi ... 78877.html

What I found surprising is the radical change in numbers over the years. Shipments are now down to single digits! There is no way Cessna will support a manufacturing line for numbers that low.

Good luck.