I have tried not to comment since this thread started but it keeps drawing me in,so here goes.First off,Im not bashing anyone or their opinion only saying how I personally feel about a great plane and the company that built it.For me now and always my choice will be Beechcraft. I remember the days when you could take for granted anyone flying a Beechcraft was totally convinced of the superiority of their ship.There are more reasons I love these planes than The plane itself.I am proud of Beechcrafts service during WWII and the sacrifice the Beechcrafters made to turn out the planes /parts needed.Im talking History,real history.And the long Relationship Beechcraft has had with our Military also.Beechcraft represents what the Greatest generation was all about. Products were designed and built to last.Even though the Bonanza wasn't certified until 1947 it flew 12-22-1945{68 years ago}The planes and the company has proven itself even longer than that.We are flying Legends.To become a Legend takes time.Perhaps Cirrus and others are blazing the trail for the future and perhaps they will become an aviation legend, I hope so.But don't confuse any of these new planes at this point with a True LEGEND.They need to grow a soul and only time and endurance will do that.So when someone passes by me in what ever it is that's faster more modern or more in vogue I will know I am flying a real aviation legend that was built by an Aviation Legend.No matter if Im in a Bonanza,Baron,Beech18,C45 AT11 or Stag, I will still be convinced. These planes are still up there Bustin Bugs and will be for a long time.
Damn I feel better! If you agree{or not} Honk your Horn.
Ray J
Over and Out

I think you missed his math.....he just flys it half as much....so the cost is bout the same.

C'mon now Jason, I've got to call you out on this one. The PC12 is exceptionally fuel efficient but to say its fuel costs are on par with the TN Bo?

Let's forget everything else and just examine fuel cost per mile. Let's assume the G36 is 170 kts @ 17gph (very conservative) @ $6.00 / gal. Let's also do rough math and say the PC12 is burning 75gph (can vary greatly based on altitude) @ 270 kts and $5.00 / gal.

Using those estimates, the Bo is $0.60 / nm and the PC12 is $1.39 / nm. That's a 230% increase in fuel cost / mile and doesn't take into account climb burn rates and a host of other assumptions, which make that spread much higher.

Don't get me wrong, as that's a BARGAIN when you consider the cabin and performance differences between the two. I believe the PC12 is the best value available in the TP market. Still, you're paying significantly more for fuel now compared to the G36.

Perhaps in the near future Neal can share some insight on this Beech v. Cirrus debate.

Last week I had a chance to give a demo ride in my G36 to a very intelligent fellow who just sold his TBM and is considering whether or not to buy a G36 or a Cirrus.

Neal is representing this gentleman and so I will keep our test ride conversation in confidence until after Neal has concluded his business. This is not intended as a tease but rather a gentle prodding for Neal to share his views about what are the wants and concerns of buyers for these planes.

Best,

Chris

Chris: Great Suggestion

I am looking forward to Neal's input.

Im with Jason,
No need to change the airframe. Just update avionics, TC engine, TKS and options buyers want from the factory.
The TBM is mostly all metal, G1000 with keypade, FIKI, all in 1 package.






Oh, so you think Beech has years and years of money to develop this new plane?

If you're gonna do all that, just start a new company.

For the record, I like the Bo and Baron airframe. I don't think they need a carbon fiber version. They just need to get on the program with the engine and avionics goodies.

Back in the antediluvian, when I learned percentages, 1.39 was 131% more than 0.60 (not 231%). Is this the new math?

I need to be able to haul a 1,000lbs of payload 500nm with reserves and my A36 does it fine. But that said, if Cirrus had a comparably capable airframe, I would consider it. It would silly not to.

This is huge. Maybe back in the day labor was cheap, but not anymore. Check out this article and look at all the things Cirrus has continually done throughout the years to reduce its build time. A complete airplane now takes 18 days from start to finish. How long to build a G36?

http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/858 ... composites

This is huge. Maybe back in the day labor was cheap, but not anymore. Check out this article and look at all the things Cirrus has continually done throughout the years to reduce its build time. A complete airplane now takes 18 days from start to finish. How long to build a G36?

http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/858 ... composites

He only had one option, period.

Why do so many here think this thread is about bashing their Beech airplane, or an opportunity to bash Cirrus? This is about Beech's absolute failure - or refusal - to address the realities of the market for new high performance piston singles. The typical buyer in that market does not want to buy a project: they want a complete airplane at the point they accept delivery. The alternative of buying an older airframe and making it better than new is just a non-starter with that buyer.

Thus, 13 sales vs. 253. Personally I would have been one of the 13, but I'm an airplane nut who's already built a couple and is building a couple more. An essential rule in marketing is to never mistake yourself for your audience/market.

Back in the antediluvian, when I learned percentages, 1.39 was 131% more than 0.60 (not 231%). Is this the new math?

6000 hrs to build an G36 is simply killing them. They need to step back and remanufacture the airplane. Laser drill holes so that they cleco and go together like an rv10. There's no reason that joe blow should be able to build an rv10 in his garage in 2000 hrs and it takes a factory 6000 to build a g36

+1

To catch the attention of today's affluent new pilots, Beech needs a new design. Personally, I do not think that adding FIKI, TN, and avionics to the 36 airframe is going to turn that many heads. Just seeing a 36 on the ramp near a Cirrus, from the outside, is enough to make up most consumers' minds. Th Bo is beautiful, but it looks stale, old, outdated, etc.

However, the new design absolutely needs to preserve the Bonanza's look and legacy. And preferably its V-tail.

Here's a perfect example. Look how Porsche has evolved the look of the 911 over the years: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3426-the ... -iteration

Today's 911 still has a ton of DNA from the early years, but it looks modern. Nobody is going to say the old 911 is anything but gorgeous, yet a young rich dude in the market for a new car will choose the 2013 design 10 times out of 10. (Now an old rich dude, that's another story... )

This is the view from the lobby at the west Houston airport... 7 airplanes on the ramp total five of them cirrus. One was giving a demo ride in the new g5. Haven't seen a demo pilot from anywhere else in a while.

They (Beech) need to come up with a composite true four seat that has:
Pressurization
FIKI
TN550 or GE turbine option
250-300 Kt cruise
No W/B issues
RETRACTABLE GEAR
V-TAIL
1000 NM range
Under $1 million

Did I miss anything?