BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 14:25

Username Protected wrote:

Beech makes their money off of the King Air line. I can guarantee that when beech was sitting at the table during bankruptcy no one said ''we need to focus on the bonanza line.''

In 2009, Beech had sales of propeller driven aircraft totaling $891 million... $30 million, about 3% was piston powered aircraft. You can't put money into piston product development when the elephant in the room is the King Air. As I said before, it is pathetic that you can buy a brand new G36 and upgrade it. The upgrades should be standard but Beech will not work reasonably with the vendors that hold the STC's. I know this for fact. They will not make any product improvements unless they own the STC's... very sad.

I have always felt the piston division should be spun off and operated as a stand alone company but I have been told that much of the tooling used for the Bonanza is also used for the King Air. I wish someone could clarify this for me.

We have a lot of people in this community that could pony up funds to buy the piston line. Beech has said for years that they sell King Airs based on product loyalty but I really find that hard to believe. An "owner flown" King Air is the exception not the rule and without having a cabin class piston as an intermediary in the product line, I just don't think the brand loyalty argument holds water.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 14:28

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah -- I don't get the point of all those avionics.

I mean, I own and fly a Citation Jet. We just flew a big long 2 week round robin trip around the county -- and we (pretty much) had lousy weather the whole time. We put more than 40 hours on the jet and flew in *all* sorts of weather -- I mean, we shot 3 ILS approaches to minimums [one in CYOW], flew non-precision approaches without radar coverage (KMAL), flew DME arcs, flew lots of T-Storms. We flew in northern Canada, we flew in NYC. I mean, we basically did it all.

Know what we had for avionics? We had a (one!) GNS400, a King color radar, foreflight and steam gauges. No MFD. No PFD/EFIS. No WAAS. All analog equipment. That Sperry autopilot will fly and ILS to minimums no sweat. Turbulence -- no problem.

So, a twin engine jet can scoot around the country @ 360kts and FL410 in complete safety using one GNS400, a 1970's vintage auto pilot, two ipads and two six packs... Why is a piston single engine airplane "all about the avionics"?

I mean, we don't have a six pack or an "overbank" corrector or a parachute -- and I would put the safety record of the Citation over that of the Cirrus any day of the week.

And its more comfortable.

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

No you're not crazy... you're a pilot and not an airplane driver.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 14:31

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah -- I don't get the point of all those avionics.

I mean, I own and fly a Citation Jet. We just flew a big long 2 week round robin trip around the county -- and we (pretty much) had lousy weather the whole time. We put more than 40 hours on the jet and flew in *all* sorts of weather -- I mean, we shot 3 ILS approaches to minimums [one in CYOW], flew non-precision approaches without radar coverage (KMAL), flew DME arcs, flew lots of T-Storms. We flew in northern Canada, we flew in NYC. I mean, we basically did it all.

Know what we had for avionics? We had a (one!) GNS400, a King color radar, foreflight and steam gauges. No MFD. No PFD/EFIS. No WAAS. All analog equipment. That Sperry autopilot will fly and ILS to minimums no sweat. Turbulence -- no problem.

So, a twin engine jet can scoot around the country @ 360kts and FL410 in complete safety using one GNS400, a 1970's vintage auto pilot, two ipads and two six packs... Why is a piston single engine airplane "all about the avionics"?

I mean, we don't have a six pack or an "overbank" corrector or a parachute -- and I would put the safety record of the Citation over that of the Cirrus any day of the week.

And its more comfortable.

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

No. Lucky! :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 14:35

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah -- I don't get the point of all those avionics.

I mean, I own and fly a Citation Jet. We just flew a big long 2 week round robin trip around the county -- and we (pretty much) had lousy weather the whole time. We put more than 40 hours on the jet and flew in *all* sorts of weather -- I mean, we shot 3 ILS approaches to minimums [one in CYOW], flew non-precision approaches without radar coverage (KMAL), flew DME arcs, flew lots of T-Storms. We flew in northern Canada, we flew in NYC. I mean, we basically did it all.

Know what we had for avionics? We had a (one!) GNS400, a King color radar, foreflight and steam gauges. No MFD. No PFD/EFIS. No WAAS. All analog equipment. That Sperry autopilot will fly and ILS to minimums no sweat. Turbulence -- no problem.

So, a twin engine jet can scoot around the country @ 360kts and FL410 in complete safety using one GNS400, a 1970's vintage auto pilot, two ipads and two six packs... Why is a piston single engine airplane "all about the avionics"?

I mean, we don't have a six pack or an "overbank" corrector or a parachute -- and I would put the safety record of the Citation over that of the Cirrus any day of the week.

And its more comfortable.

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

No. Lucky! :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 14:51

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah -- I don't get the point of all those avionics.

I mean, I own and fly a Citation Jet. We just flew a big long 2 week round robin trip around the county -- and we (pretty much) had lousy weather the whole time. We put more than 40 hours on the jet and flew in *all* sorts of weather -- I mean, we shot 3 ILS approaches to minimums [one in CYOW], flew non-precision approaches without radar coverage (KMAL), flew DME arcs, flew lots of T-Storms. We flew in northern Canada, we flew in NYC. I mean, we basically did it all.

Know what we had for avionics? We had a (one!) GNS400, a King color radar, foreflight and steam gauges. No MFD. No PFD/EFIS. No WAAS. All analog equipment. That Sperry autopilot will fly and ILS to minimums no sweat. Turbulence -- no problem.

So, a twin engine jet can scoot around the country @ 360kts and FL410 in complete safety using one GNS400, a 1970's vintage auto pilot, two ipads and two six packs... Why is a piston single engine airplane "all about the avionics"?

I mean, we don't have a six pack or an "overbank" corrector or a parachute -- and I would put the safety record of the Citation over that of the Cirrus any day of the week.

And its more comfortable.

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

Short answer is yes.

As much as you and others keep wanting people who can afford to purchase a new aircraft to stop the cycle of new technology. You will never win that argument.
The same could be said for cars, boats or any other device which does not provide food and/or warmth.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 15:03

Username Protected wrote:

I have always felt the piston division should be spun off and operated as a stand alone company but I have been told that much of the tooling used for the Bonanza is also used for the King Air. I wish someone could clarify this for me.

Couldn't the tooling be operated on some sort of rental/time share arrangement? I know less than nothing about such things, but this seems overcome-able.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 15:50

Agree that the new Cirrus SR22 with Garmin is quite nice and beautiful with the GTS package and fancy carbon fiber interior with leather. I sat in one last year and loved it. BUT I do agree looking at used Cirrus not encouraging they all look beat to hell like crap. Besides, if one is spending 600k plus on a plane, it darn well better be nice!

Buying used, nothing can touch a well maintained Bonanza! Mooney is fast but cramped and not as much fun to fly.

I looked at what I can afford for under 200k in used aircraft and not much for Cirrus versus Bonanza.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 15:53

Username Protected wrote:

I looked at what I can afford for under 200k in used aircraft and not much for Cirrus versus Bonanza.

Early SR20s are hitting the low 100s, G1 SR22s are in the mid 100s. There has been quite an evolution over the years, so 'you get what you paid for'. All the real goodies (e.g. known icing) are from G3 on out, those of course can't be had in that price range.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 15:53

Ben,
If you're buying new, they all look good. If you're looking at < $200K, then there are some that are well maintained and some that are "beat to crap". That's true of Cirrus, Bonanza, Mooney, and all the rest.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 15:55

Username Protected wrote:

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

Yes.

What is your hourly cost ? What is your annual all-in cost ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 16:05

18 "guests" on this thread.

Somebody's listening.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 16:15

Username Protected wrote:

18 "guests" on this thread.

Somebody's listening.

I hope that's true.

If some Beechcraft folks are reading this, we'd love to hear from you. It doesn't have to be much. I would be happy to hear "We want you to know that there are some people near the top of this organization that love Bonanzas and Barons. We appreciate and value the storied history of these airplanes, and are working behind the scenes to ensure their legacy. The economic reality is far more complicated than that presented here, but we are listening. Good things are coming. Stay tuned."

Wishful thinking?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 16:17

Username Protected wrote:

18 "guests" on this thread.

Somebody's listening.

I hope that's true.

If some Beechcraft folks are reading this, we'd love to hear from you. It doesn't have to be much. I would be happy to hear "We want you to know that there are some people near the top of this organization that love Bonanzas and Barons. We appreciate and value the storied history of these airplanes, and are working behind the scenes to ensure their legacy. The economic reality is far more complicated than that presented here, but we are listening. Good things are coming. Stay tuned."

Wishful thinking?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 17:02

Username Protected wrote:

Jim:

I love the fact that you made the leap and bought the Citation. Permanent man-card for doing that. :bow:

"We just flew a big long 2 week round robin trip"

I'm guessing that in part the purpose of the trip was to burn off some insurance required dual time. Well done! Soon, you'll be on your own.

For the rest of us stuck at 12,000', with only one engine (or little margin if one of two quits), having the extra resources on board is a way to manage the risks of single pilot piston operations.

Of course, you might help us see the light by giving some local BT bro's a ride in that screamer someday... :whistle:

... Actually -- I think that the whole insurance thing is trotted out pretty frequently as a reason not to buy a Jet -- don't listen to it -- its not that bad. Want to know what my insurance training requirement was for 5MM liability in the CE500? I needed to obtain a CE500 type rating. No mentor time. No dual requirement. Nothing. Total time training and taking check ride [in aircraft]? 5.3 hrs. SIC requirements? Approved by the underwriter. Our lowest time SIC (which I trained myself in the aircraft -- I am a CFI) is about 700hrs TT with no prior turbine time. Insurance premium per year: about 7k.

Save your money on Avionics -- don't spend 750k+ on a Cirrus -- go buy this instead:

http://tinyurl.com/o3jf6wt

You'll thank me in the morning...

Oh, BTW: If anyone from BT wants a ride -- shoot me a pm or email (jim.kane@gmail.com). Just chip in for some gas and we can shoot up to Vegas or LA or something (we get wholesale fuel too -- only 3.76/gal right now @ KSDL...) Just saying...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 May 2013, 17:26

Username Protected wrote:

And its cheaper to buy! I mean, 500k will get you a really nice 500 series citation...

I mean -- I love all the wiz bang avionics and all -- but I don't see why you would wan to *pay* for them...

Am I crazy?

Yes.

What is your hourly cost ? What is your annual all-in cost ?

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