If the piston line were sold off, you could nickname it "Mooney". No production, just parts.




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.

For years, I flew worldwide with 2 VOR's, 2 NDB's, 2 VHF radios, 2 HF radios and a sextant.

On my Bonanza I have a panel full of the latest avionics. Why? Because I can and it's neat and I marvel at the technology every time I fly. OK, the downside is that my kids will inherit a little less money.

Doug,

I heard down in Knoxville that an outfit in Wisconsin has a 300 or greater diesel that fits the Bo. Apparently a very high tech shop. Not to put anybody on the spot, but that came from a sponsor of this forum. I will allow him to respond with details.

Hell, Jim...you are living the life! However, you have a bit of a math problem in my very humble in this case opinion.

Ok. We depreciate the Cirrus $174K. Fair enough. The tax on purchase is (in AZ) as you say, $68K. And the Cirrus burns 18gph of gas, so that's another $10,800 a year (100 hours a year just as a reference point). So, using your math...take it up to $91K a year to keep a Cirrus hanging around.

Your Citation? No depreciation. Won't argue. $500K purchase, so Citation sales tax is $46.5K. Over three years...$15.5K. Fuel cost: $60K (for our same 100 hours). Oh wait...we're up to $75K a year just to keep the Citation around. Not considering annuals, phase inspections or the like on either airplane (but I'd be willing to bet this year's salary that the maintenance comparison between airplanes would favor the Cirrus.

But wait! Brand new Cirrus? Bonus depreciation. Something on the order of $245K in tax savings the first year. Add that to your three year math and we get...$81K a year in tax breaks. So now, we are at $10K a year for the first three years to keep it hanging around.

You get some depreciation (for tax purposes) on your Citation...7 year line? So, (based on the same 40% tax bracket as above) $28K a year, cutting the Citation down to $47K ownership costs. Not counting maintenance.

Of course, this is all apples to watermelons...no comparison in aircraft at all. But...it ain't nearly as clearly in favor of the Citation (wrt costs) as you suggest. And of course, and again, there is no realistic comparison. But the Cirrus satisfies all my missions. Not sure the Citation would.

Not quite the no-brainer you'd imply.

Jim

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

First Jason's Pilatus burns the same as his Bo and costs less to maintain, now a CJ is cheaper than a Cirrus...

Any argument just so, God forbid, somebody doesn't actually BUY a Cirrus!

Jim

Not that I'm buying in any way, shape, or form that the CJ is cheaper to own and operate than the Cirrus, but...

Do remember that the CJ goes twice as far on its 120gph than the Cirrus does on its 18gph.

He goes faster, but not 6.85times faster.

...unless of course he gets vectored all over gods creation.

Washington DC 2W5 ---> Williston,FL X60 615nm

Cirrus
25min climb 120kts 32gph 13gal (50nm)
cruise 190kts for 2.95hrs 17gph --> 52gal (560nm)
Total 65gal

CJ
18min climb 160kts 120gph 36gal (48nm)
cruise 360kts 120gph for 1.54hrs 189gal
Total 225gal

If you fly the Cirrust 120hrs/year, you are still going to fly the CJ 75hrs/year for the smae missions. It's 2100Gal vs. 9000Gal. Even if you save a buck fifty per gallon with contract fuel, you are looking at spending 11760 for the Cirrus and 40,500 for the Citation.
For the Cirrus, your ongoing training requirement is maybe an IPC in your plane ($300), for the jet its going to be a trip to the sim for what, $3500 recurrent.
Now you haven't turned a single wrench yet.

Florian is right...as usual. Really, tho, there is absolutely no comparison between the two airplanes. When I was thinking my business trip was 1200nm...the Citation looked pretty good. Of course Hindi said: "when you land in a bo, they say: "what can we do for you...." when you land in a Citation they say: "what can you do for us" The inference being that everything costs more...and of course it does.

But now that my business trip is on the order of 300-500 miles...brand new Cirrus sounds pretty good.

Jim

He goes faster, but not 6.85times faster.

...unless of course he gets vectored all over gods creation.

Washington DC 2W5 ---> Williston,FL X60 615nm

Cirrus
25min climb 120kts 32gph 13gal (50nm)
cruise 190kts for 2.95hrs 17gph --> 52gal (560nm)
Total 65gal

CJ
18min climb 160kts 120gph 36gal (48nm)
cruise 360kts 120gph for 1.54hrs 189gal
Total 225gal

If you fly the Cirrust 120hrs/year, you are still going to fly the CJ 75hrs/year for the smae missions. It's 2100Gal vs. 9000Gal. Even if you save a buck fifty per gallon with contract fuel, you are looking at spending 11760 for the Cirrus and 40,500 for the Citation.
For the Cirrus, your ongoing training requirement is maybe an IPC in your plane ($300), for the jet its going to be a trip to the sim for what, $3500 recurrent.
Now you haven't turned a single wrench yet.

Doh, I forgot.

Gotta go back to controller, checking out those 200k Learjets

If I had a business use but limited opportunity to take advantage of bonus depreciation, I would look for a normally aspirated '09 with known ice. Depreciation should flatten out a bit at that point.

[/quote]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?[/quote]

I think most of us utilize this site for pleasure, because we love the Beechcraft aircraft and enjoy learning from others.

If I ever won the lotto or hit it big then having a Piaggio or Pilatus would be nice!

I will be happy with a nice V-tail with new avionics.

Thanks, Nick. It's tough to put any face to Beechcraft these days. I hope there are plenty more of you in the company.