BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:35

Username Protected wrote:

When I was at P&W; when developing a platform for a new aircraft, our No. 1 goal was: "AVOID INNOVATION".

While I understand and can appreciate the sentiment as a business owner, that is solidly European think. Maybe that should be broadened, but the majority of out of country business people I deal with are European.

By and large, Americans have a built in desire to push the envelope and innovate - to take risks, including financial. It's a boom/bust approach, and, from my visiting with business people from abroad, it's uniquely American in an overall sense. IOWs, even many of the lower level workers are thinking about what they could do to strike out on their own.

Not that there are not innovators in other place - a handful of incredible people come to mind without even thinking about it - but the overall personality is different.

That doesn't mean it's even better. Just different. We've talked a good bit about why, but that's not relevant. It's the observation of my little circle, right or wrong.

Personally, as a company, I try to do both. I am disappointingly low on the innovation side.

It's when everybody is saying there's not much innovation left in X field that a breakthrough happens.

Edit: I wonder if the ease of the web store and app development is changing the overall culture. The mindset I visit with is likely older generation, and may not be relevant to the younger.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:37

Username Protected wrote:

So how does high volume affect the incremental costs to build just a few now?

You can't make 10 cars on a line designed for 100,000 and have them cost the same. Just doesn't work.

There's significant cost to maintaining the machines, provide space for them, and training the people to use them.

And there is the cost of materials, always higher in low volume.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 12:41

Username Protected wrote:

Since every plane is a conglomerate of compromises, Cirrus chose to create a jet with the strong points that their customers want.

They wanted slow, low, short range, noisy, complex, no redundancy?

When those same customers went shopping for a piston single, they seemed to want high performance. Why the change?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

Since every plane is a conglomerate of compromises, Cirrus chose to create a jet with the strong points that their customers want.

They wanted slow, low, short range, noisy, complex, no redundancy?

When those same customers went shopping for a piston single, they seemed to want high performance. Why the change?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 14:08

The Cessna Mustang comes up a lot so did tried to find what I could on the internet to learn more about them. No suprise it created more questions. Basically what I read said the Mustang was certified on time, priced correctly, performed as promised and is supported by Cessnas exceptional service center network. Why did people stop buying them?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 14:16

Username Protected wrote:

Since every plane is a conglomerate of compromises, Cirrus chose to create a jet with the strong points that their customers want.

They wanted slow, low, short range, noisy, complex, no redundancy?

When those same customers went shopping for a piston single, they seemed to want high performance. Why the change?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 14:27

Mike's whole two turbines are cheaper than one argument hangs on just one data point -- the deal Eclipse got from Pratt on the 610F. That's like using Amazon's HQ2 deal to claim that office space in NYC is really cheap. Special deal, unique circumstances, you and I can't get anything close to that good.

There are several counter examples. In the Conklin and de Decker data I've posted before, the idea is shown to be false in jets, where the single SF50 is cheaper to run than every twin, even the EA 550, whose huge development costs were written off in the bankruptcy. It also shows it to be false in the PT6 world, where every single, even with a "large" PT6, is cheaper to fly than any twin, including those with "small" PT6s.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ting-costs

Perhaps the best test available of Mike's claim is the Airbus A330 and A340, near-identical airplanes introduced at the same time, the A340 with four smaller jets vs. the A330's two larger jets. But we see just the opposite, the "more engines" A340 was outsold by the A330 4-to-1 and ended production in 2002 while the A330 is still going strong. Among planes now flying the difference is even greater, the A340 is outnumbered 10-to-1 as airlines dump them due to, you guessed it, high operating cost.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 14:29

Username Protected wrote:

The Cessna Mustang comes up a lot... Why did people stop buying them?

Cessna made the M2 a better deal, basically a CJ relabeled.

Making Mustangs was not as efficient since it didn't share the same parts as the CJ line, so Cessna consolidated.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 14:52

Username Protected wrote:

Mike's whole two small turbines are cheaper than one argument hangs on just one data point -- the deal Eclipse got from Pratt on the 610F. That's like using Amazon's HQ2 deal to claim that office space in NYC is really cheap. Special deal, unique circumstances, you and I can't get anything close to that good.

There are several counter examples. In the Conklin and de Decker data I've posted before, the idea is shown to be false in jets, where the single SF50 is cheaper to run than every twin, even the EA 550, whose huge development costs were written off in the bankruptcy. It also shows it to be false in the PT6 world, where every single, even with a "large" PT6, is cheaper to fly than any twin, including those with 2 "small" PT6s.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ting-costs

Perhaps the best test available of Mike's claim is the Airbus A330 and A340, near-identical airplanes introduced at the same time, the A340 with four smaller jets vs. the A330's two larger jets. But we see just the opposite, the "more engines" A340 was outsold by the A330 4-to-1 and ended production in 2002 while the A330 is still going strong. Among planes now flying the difference is even greater, the A340 is outnumbered 10-to-1 as airlines dump them due to, you guessed it, high operating cost.

Mike hates it when data gets in the way of “his” data.
Reminds me of my math classes in college. My prof, who literally wrote the book, would famously often repeat: what would you like the data to show? I’ll give it to you that way.

I’ve been invited to go and see one and perhaps test fly it.
I’m very excited!

I have friends who own Eclipse, Phenoms, TBM’s, Pilatus, Mitsu’s and the like.
Have first hand experience with using them, not with owning them.
For between $1.5 and $2 MM, my mission, a new plane with new plane support and back-up..... not many choices, really....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 15:10

Username Protected wrote:

Mike hates it when data gets in the way of “his” data.
Reminds me of my math classes in college. My prof, who literally wrote the book, would famously often repeat: what would you like the data to show? I’ll give it to you that way.

I’ve been invited to go and see one and perhaps test fly it.
I’m very excited!

I have friends who own Eclipse, Phenoms, TBM’s, Pilatus, Mitsu’s and the like.
Have first hand experience with using them, not with owning them.
For between $1.5 and $2 MM, my mission, a new plane with new plane support and back-up..... not many choices, really....

As my father used to say, money talks and BS walks. When you are done walking I'd love to see your new vision jet. :duck:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 15:19

Username Protected wrote:

The Cessna Mustang comes up a lot so did tried to find what I could on the internet to learn more about them. No suprise it created more questions. Basically what I read said the Mustang was certified on time, priced correctly, performed as promised and is supported by Cessnas exceptional service center network. Why did people stop buying them?

Two things happened. Initially, Mustang sales were strong. Once it starting approaching market saturation, it slowed down. In other words, most of the people that were going to buy a new Mustang bought one. The second thing that happened was they replaced the CJ1+ with the M2 and lowered the price $1MM, which put the M2 right on top of the Mustang price point. In the end they were making money on the M2, not so much on the Mustang. When sales volume fell for the Mustang, they ended the program. The two airplanes were too close together in manufacturing costs. It was easier to end the Mustang than a 525 model.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 15:43

Username Protected wrote:

Two things happened. Initially, Mustang sales were strong. Once it starting approaching market saturation, it slowed down. In other words, most of the people that were going to buy a new Mustang bought one. The second thing that happened was they replaced the CJ1+ with the M2 and lowered the price $1MM, which put the M2 right on top of the Mustang price point. In the end they were making money on the M2, not so much on the Mustang. When sales volume fell for the Mustang, they ended the program. The two airplanes were too close together in manufacturing costs. It was easier to end the Mustang than a 525 model.

Which is a good illustration of how little the price charged to the consumer has to do with the cost to build a plane. If they were able to just lower the price on their entry level 525 by a million and they were still able to make money, it suggests that there was a lot of fat in that price before.

Same thing with Cirrus. The cost difference between building a SR20, SR22 and SR22T is minimal yet the price charged to the consumer varies by a factor of two. Are they losing money hand over fist if they sell a SR20 or are they raking it in on a SR22T ? Just no way of knowing. Its like 'kremnology', the skill to predict internal power struggles in the soviet union from the way how the puppets on the balcony were lined up at the MayDay parade.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 17:04

Username Protected wrote:

The Cessna Mustang comes up a lot so did tried to find what I could on the internet to learn more about them. No suprise it created more questions. Basically what I read said the Mustang was certified on time, priced correctly, performed as promised and is supported by Cessnas exceptional service center network. Why did people stop buying them?

Two things happened. Initially, Mustang sales were strong. Once it starting approaching market saturation, it slowed down. In other words, most of the people that were going to buy a new Mustang bought one. The second thing that happened was they replaced the CJ1+ with the M2 and lowered the price $1MM, which put the M2 right on top of the Mustang price point. In the end they were making money on the M2, not so much on the Mustang. When sales volume fell for the Mustang, they ended the program. The two airplanes were too close together in manufacturing costs. It was easier to end the Mustang than a 525 model.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 17:23

I love my Mustang. It's the perfect airplane for me. I've written about it before on other threads, so I'll try to minimize here. My typical mission is 500-800nm, although I've flown to the east coast a few times, which it will do with one stop. I do a number of 150nm flights as well. My average flight is 1.5 hours. I can fill the seats up to 600nm, but that's only a couple times per year for me. Typically, it's just me plus one or two.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Dec 2018, 19:57

Username Protected wrote:

Because it looked futuristic, a drive of the post war era, and maybe it was thought to have some performance advantages.

Exactly. Basically, they put the V-tail on the Bonanza pretty much for cosmetics reasons. Which means those purported weight and cost and complexity concerns are non-issues.

In reality, all those additional things they had to put on Cirrus due to single engine are peanuts. Except the chute. But chute has a value on it's own, and I am sure if Cirrus made SF50 a twin, it would still come with the chute.

Cirrus SF50