"Prior to the war, one was supposed to be almost superhuman to fly an airplane and get a license. Pilots had a passion for representing themselves as 'pro' (professional) pilots. Ask one what that meant and his reply would be, 'I can fly anything.' Most of them had a QB pin (Quiet Birdman) and were thoroughly indoctrinated in the use of hard liquor while facing 'west' in remembrance of those who had departed. A prerequisite was to be able to fly with a hangover. In effect, the harder the plane was to fly, the more 'pro' pilot it required, which led to more job security. Some of the old airplanes had some really difficult cockpits to manage in emergencies, so the 'pro' pilots' egos were not totally lost.

"... I decided to approach the problem using my own ground rules. It had to be: NEW, DIFFERENT AND, ABOVE ALL, BETTER. IT SHOULD TRANSPORT PEOPLE FROM POINT A TO POINT B WITH THE LEAST INTERRUPTION OF THEIR NORMAL ENVIRONMENT. I was determined to take as much 'pro' out of our new airplane as possible."

–Ralph Harmon, "Birth of the Bonanza", page 146

Keep in mind Textron does a WHOLE lot more than build Beechcraft airplanes - in fact, they do a WHOLE lot more than aviation. It's definitely not an appropriate comparison.

I have to say, I have SuperCruise on my Denali, sales guy was all about it, like you I had zero interest. Then Amy and I took a long road trip.

My wife said “you want me to drive?” and I replied, “why so I can set over there with my hands in my lap instead of here?”

I use it anytime I’m on the highway, it hugs the centerline too much in curves, but other than that it’s awesome!

I haven’t driven the Tesla, but assume it’s even better.

If I was the designer I'd use a manual 4 position valve with Off, Auto, Left, and Right positions. In the Auto position fuel would be fed through two solenoid valves or (better yet but more complex) a two position valve actuated by two solenoids.

I'd also include some sort of monitoring capability that could detect when the automatic system fails either by monitoring the tank levels for excessive mismatch or by sensing the position of the automatic valve(s). It will be interesting to see what Cirrus did, but I'll be surprised if their design is as good from a safety perspective.

If I was the designer I'd use a manual 4 position valve with Off, Auto, Left, and Right positions. In the Auto position fuel would be fed through two solenoid valves or (better yet but more complex) a two position valve actuated by two solenoids.

I'd also include some sort of monitoring capability that could detect when the automatic system fails either by monitoring the tank levels for excessive mismatch or by sensing the position of the automatic valve(s). It will be interesting to see what Cirrus did, but I'll be surprised if their design is as good from a safety perspective.

It is an absolutely valid comparison. Textron has the ability to invest in many aspects of aviation including Beechcraft, Cessna, Lycoming, Bell, etc. They have proven to be very good at choosing the investments that actually make money.

I think its awesome. however since it costs 1m+ and that's just bonkers, and it won't haul my load anyways, I'll stick with my 60 year old T-bone.

If the company completes the IPO they were talking about last summer, then there should be some transparancy. However, as it is listed in Hong Kong, I doubt the financial disclosures would be a thurough or reliable as in the US.

On a podcast I heard recently, the commenter who had seen the financials said the proceeds are to expand production, which the company needs badly as their margins are 10ish%.

https://www.sportys.com/blog/episode-68 ... ian-foley/
-dan

Yes, $1M is a lot, but we aren’t their customer. We’ve had a considerable number of fresh PP’s that are flying right seat in turbine equipment they’re transitioning into. We have two guys who bought aircraft for their business, a King Air and a Pilatus, both caught the bug, went and got their license, one bought a Columbia 400 and the other a new SR22, these guys are their customers! Buy a $1M Cirrus and then easily transition into a small jet, then once you have turbine time you can move to whatever.

It is a shortcut and some of these guys will lack some real world “oh sh!t” experience, but as long as they are careful and know their limits, I don’t see a problem.

I’m typing something I never thought I would type, the team at Jet Acquisitions is spooling up to become SF50 experts, so we can start handling acquisitions of them. Our business model is built on repeat clients, and the move up ratio just makes too much sense to ignore.

Cirrus has NO interest in anyone on this site - not to be curt or demeaning. We are not their target market.

The COPA forum is even admitting as much, they are no longer Cirrus's target market for the G7 and beyond.

Look at all their new promotional advertising. They are targeting the non aviation mass affluent successful business woman. And by woman, they're advertising is using the avatar of woman, but in reality, it's the successful mass affluent. It's the person who has their own personal transportation, everywhere with 200 miles, but has to slum it on the airlines beyond that.

While, Textron and Piper are selling to "pilots", Cirrus continues to try to expand their market to a larger audience through reducing the barriers (the fear of and unfamiliarity of) to personal flying. They are selling the dream that this is no harder and as safe as driving to your lake house. It's becoming a 200 mph car.

There are cars that I can buy for $1M that will go 200mph.

Oh god This for sure is just to bait Mike C

Oh god This for sure is just to bait Mike C

Beech 38P

https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/wha ... lightning/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Lightning

The 38P even gets mention in this TBM article.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -takes-off

Does any of this technology matter if they can't get a good run of engines with no defects or service bulletins / Ads.

The target consumers are not tolerant of these types of surprises after years of near perfect car engine reliability.

It's not the technology adding safety. The weak link is repeated manufacturing defects of very mature reliable engine technology that brings down the airplane.