BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:18

Spill the beans. I've done all the math.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:21

You made us wait for months, and you want me to spill the beans!! Lol.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:23

Username Protected wrote:

Hey guys,

In an earlier post I made a crack about flying a G5 today if the tornadoes permitted. We took off before the rain and flew for an hour and a half. After landing we discovered all hell had broken loose here. Sadly, it looks like thousands are homeless and dozens dead in the terrible storms this afternoon.

I had planned to give you an extensive Pirep on the G5 but frankly my excitement at flying a truly amazing aircraft is deeply dampened by the tragic loose of life. I am just thankful that it looks like our 5 agencies in the affected area, and employees, are all safe. They will be very busy in the coming days.
It reminds me that what we passionately debate here really does not matter that much and that we need to put our trivial disagreements into the proper context.

I will say, about the G5, that it is truly amazing. I flew it, by hand, through the entire envelope. In fact I was a little queasy toward the end. We did all I could think of and tested every system (except CAPS). It is all that Jason said and a lot more in my opinion. I encourage all of you, even those who will NEVER fly anything but a Beech until they pry your Medical from your cold lifeless fingers, to go try it. If for no other reason than the sheer aviating fun of it.

+1. It is very easy to lose sight of our common ground on BT. That is that 99%+ of the world's population could give a rip about us.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:33

Username Protected wrote:

:

To be fair, Beechcraft was selling 80-90 Bonanzas a year up thru 2008 when the economy and HBC hit the fan.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:42

Username Protected wrote:

As a potential buyer very soon, I think everyone is missing a very important fact. The new G36TC will not even carry 4 adults and baggage with full fuel, and its not pressurized. It's not even on my radar. If I'm spending over $1million ( and it will be) , its going to have at least 800lbs. Payload with full fuel and be pressurized.

Doug,

It won't be pressurized so I guess that will do it for you. But the Max Gross weight will be increased an additional 100lbs to 4200MGTOW. That is a very respectable capability.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 May 2013, 22:53

Username Protected wrote:

To be fair, Beechcraft was selling 80-90 Bonanzas a year up thru 2008 when the economy and HBC hit the fan.

Chris,

Cirrus wasnt saddled with Hawker and a ton of debt like Beech was but they are still selling 300 planes a year...[/quote]

So what is your point Tony. HBC was never able to produce 300 Bonanzas a year.
The wait time to take delivery for a new Bonaza from order date was four months. HBC was never going to produce 300 units a year.[/quote]

Chris,

I'm sorry. My point is that while Beech faced significant challenges financially due to their structure, and their focus of manufacturing and marketing operations, they didn't sell more than 80 Bonanzas in a year prior to the downturn because they couldn't. They were "never going to produce 300 units a year" not because they didnt want to. If they could have sold them they woukd have found a way to build them.
They aren't selling more now because they can't.

It's too bad. But in the marketplace their current offering apparently isn't very competitive.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 00:13

Username Protected wrote:

Agreed. Not an option. The current airframes are great.

If you want a Cirrus, the most you can really go back is 10 years and then you're stuck with an non-upgradable plane and orphan avionics. If you want a new Bonanza you can go to the factory, but you can also buy a clean low time airframe, strip it with a beautiful new custom leather interior, send it to Copeland for a better than factory paint job, send it to EAM for a stunning new panel with touch screens which is more modular and better than the G1000, send it to Ada for a new 550 and a TAT upgrade, and for all intents and purposes you'll have a brand new better than new Bo for $350k or less, and you'll probably be done in less time it takes the factory to build you a new one. That's what I've done with my Baron, and it's actually been pretty fun.

Maybe the real issue is that Beech is competing against 50+ years of it's own airframes which are STILL just as great.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 07:45

Username Protected wrote:

Agreed. Not an option. The current airframes are great.

If you want a Cirrus, the most you can really go back is 10 years and then you're stuck with an non-upgradable plane and orphan avionics. If you want a new Bonanza you can go to the factory, but you can also buy a clean low time airframe, strip it with a beautiful new custom leather interior, send it to Copeland for a better than factory paint job, send it to EAM for a stunning new panel with touch screens which is more modular and better than the G1000, send it to Ada for a new 550 and a TAT upgrade, and for all intents and purposes you'll have a brand new better than new Bo for $350k or less, and you'll probably be done in less time it takes the factory to build you a new one. That's what I've done with my Baron, and it's actually been pretty fun.

Maybe the real issue is that Beech is competing against 50+ years of it's own airframes which are STILL just as great.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:04

Quote:

I flew a 2013 SR22 Generation 5 yesterday. This plane is unbelievable. Makes my G36 Bonanza look like an old steam gauge Navion.

I likes my old steam gauge Navion. Another year and it qualifies for Medicare.
Robin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:32

Jason,
I understand all the fancy tech stuff is attractive, but don't I remember you saying how crummy the airframe held up after only a few years, saying that you couldn't imagine how anyone could buy a plastic plane compared to an A36?

Won't the current crop of fancy new G series Cirrus have the same inherent plastic plane problems?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:38

Username Protected wrote:

Jason,
I understand all the fancy tech stuff is attractive, but don't I remember you saying how crummy the airframe held up after only a few years, saying that you couldn't imagine how anyone could buy a plastic plane compared to an A36?

Won't the current crop of fancy new G series Cirrus have the same inherent plastic plane problems?

I was in a fractional Cirrus program. Those planes were rode hard and laid up wet. I do not think they are as durable as a Bonanza but if you bought one and flew it yourself and kept it hangared, I'm thinking it would be good to go.

With all the innovation in the Cirrus for the price, it's a no brainer. A new G36 is NA, no TKS and 2005 avionics. It doesn't make sense anymore.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:40

Username Protected wrote:

Garmin knows where the money is! It's not in installing 100 G2000/year in new planes that cannot be updated because they are certified by the manufacturer. It's installing Garmin equipment in 1000's of the existing airframes!

Not to mention G3X units/autopilots in experimentals.

Take a look at what a two screen G3X system costs WITH autopilot. Oh, yea, that includes full engine instrumentation as well.

Best,
Rich

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:47

Username Protected wrote:

Jason,
I understand all the fancy tech stuff is attractive, but don't I remember you saying how crummy the airframe held up after only a few years, saying that you couldn't imagine how anyone could buy a plastic plane compared to an A36?

Won't the current crop of fancy new G series Cirrus have the same inherent plastic plane problems?

I was in a fractional Cirrus program. Those planes were rode hard and laid up wet. I do not think they are as durable as a Bonanza but if you bought one and flew it yourself and kept it hangared, I'm thinking it would be good to go.

With all the innovation in the Cirrus for the price, it's a no brainer. A new G36 is NA, no TKS and 2005 avionics. It doesn't make sense anymore.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 08:55

Username Protected wrote:

Yes! It's incredible what you can get in the experimental world. Not many 4-6 seat experimentals out there however. I think the only one that would interest me is the RV10. I wish I could buy a Bonanza kit and rivet it together instead.

you mean like this one.... :eek:

http://www.bonanza.org/test/forums/inde ... opic=435.0

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 May 2013, 09:33

Username Protected wrote:

My hangar neighbor has a 10 year old SR 20 with about 1,000 hours. The interior is immaculate (cloth which I think actually holds up better). He had the parachute repacked last year and repainted the plane at that time. It looks brand new.

The airframe is well built and engineered I think. If its not I'd like someone to provide data. The skin is not metal. I can see where that has obvious advantages (weight, corrosion). I don't know about strength. If the plane is kept hangared I would expect a long life from it and the paint. If not I would expect it to look like the gel oat on a boat left in the sun. :shrug:

I just looked at a 2003 SR22 a couple weeks ago. It's had (1) owner since 2004 and has been kept hangered and well cared for. The interior looked new, I mean not a single flaw. I was absolutely stunned with how well it has held up. The paint was original as well and looked very good.

Any non-pilot who climbed inside would never guess it is a 10 year old airplane. They hold up quite well if cared for.

Cirrus is so far out in front.......