I agree ... if you want aerobatics or grass fields or a niche mission for which a jet is not suited you'll get a 2nd plane. But more common is using a jet in a place where it is merely overkill. In St. Louis, people love to go to KSIK for http://www.throwedrolls.com/

SUS-SIK is 30 minutes and 700 lbs of fuel. Ridiculous use of a jet ... that can go SUS-MCO on 2000 lbs of fuel. But a minor cost all in all - not worth keeping around a $200K cirrus to save 100 gallons of gas here and there.

What 4-seat travel plane was available in the market in 1995, the year of first flight for the SR20 prototype ?

Remember, at that time you couldn't buy a new Comanche, 182RG, V-tail or F33A. The only 4-seat aircraft available at the time were the Socata TB20/TB21 and the Mooney M20 variants. Used aircraft prices were appreciating as there was still a demand in the market but the youngest planes available were 10 years and older. GARA had just been passed and Cirrus saw that there was an opportunity to get into the certified aircraft business. Very different situation from today, with $9.85/gal Avgas and a society and political class hostile to GA and the rich people who fly planes.

What if you had stepped up to the 300 Jet instead of the PC12?

OMG!

Where are you buying gas? It's half that much here...

If it's really that much I'm in the market for an SR11!

Beechcraft airframe=

1. Highest quality of airframe construction of any GA aircraft. IMO on par with military aircraft.
2. Parts generally last longer than any Cessna or Piper I have owned.
3. Aerodynamically a success.
4. Could it be better with minor modernization. Yes.
5. Business model failed not the airframe
6. Time for a new design? More choices? More options? Yes/maybe (ala the C177,etc)
7. Again business model failed the airframe
8. All GA is stuck with TCM or Lyc for now.

Avionics have little to do with airframe success other than just stuffing enough toys into the airframe to make it sell. G1000, G2000, auto pilots, A/C more stuff easier to sell to the deep pocket crowd. This part Seems easy.
Get a great marketing department. Make it like a Beemer if that's what it takes to sell new ones.
Sell a stripped down one for folks who want the UL
Start flight training in it like Cirrus

1. Beech quality reputation is over stated and based on recent events for the piston line has been in the decline for years. Think of the Baron issues in AUS,....
2. That is very airplane specific. A flight school I know was fixing the Beech planes everyday and the Cessna was only fixed at oil changes or 100hr inspections.
3. Depends on goals if any aerodynamic changes are desired or required.
4. Not just minor, massive amounts of change are needed. It should all be done incrementally, but massive change is required.
5. Agree
6. Yes of change is needed. Go back and read Tony and Jim's reviews. Then re-read the initial post by Jason. Only do this with an open mind.
7. Not really, the airframe is very out of date. Requires way to many parts, complex shapes and labor to build and maintain. It needs massive amounts of engineering effort.
8. Not really, Cessna has already executed a contract with SMA. Diamond built their own.

Tim

Oh yes they are!

Well compared to what a new Cirrus or Piper costs, I'd much rather buy a Bonanza. Looked at Mooney as well but after flying one today, did not like the heavy controls and cramped cockpit. Which is shame because the Mooney Rocket climbs and flies smooth and super fast!

I was with a CFI owner of the Mooney Rocket and we easily climbed to 4000 feet and cruise 200kts. Much faster than a Bonanza BUT not as comfortable or easy to fly.

After flying with Nexrad for almost 10 years along with on board radar, I wouldn't consider a Cirrus until they have on board radar and a second engine. I realize I am in the minority big time but I have a lot of faith in my GWX 68 not to mention the second engine.

In response to the many comments about the unresponsiveness of the Beech salesforce, I am in the minority again here. My salesman, Alex Chisolm, has always responded immediately and has gone out of his way to meet my needs.

Now I am waiting for the G58TC or G58P.

If the 3 to 1 time to build delta is correct, the fight really is over. No way to make that kind of financial hole up.

This is an economic issue that feeds off the "generational instant gratification" conflict. Several have mentioned wanting their sky rocket NOW, not in 2 - 4 months for TAT, FIKI etc.

Rick Ott mentioned liking a Glock and AR15, and by inference Cirrus . . .
I prefer a 1911, Winchester Model 70 and the M1A1 or Garand . . . again probably generational as well.

Chicks dig 'em, novice pilots have more faith in them. Once more perception becomes reality.

Not better, just cooler.

No way Beech can win . . . very sad.

Changed my mind, not CIRRUS TALK, now it's CIRRUS BABBLE

There have been lots of comments about how much the Cirrus costs relative to a used Bonanza, Baron, etc. Not so many comments about value compared to a new Bonanza or Baron. Obviously, you can buy the new Cirrus for much less than either new Beech.

But, Dr. Jim also pointed out that with a NEW airplane Uncle Sam is more willing to help you pay for it than if you purchase a used one. IF it's for business.

NEW Cirrus SR22T (yaw damper, Perspective Alerts, Premium Pkg,)
$654,500

Section 179 Deduction @ 39.6% tax bracket savings $287,258
Bonus Depreciation @ 39.6% tax bracket savings 1st year $30,591
Regular Depreciation @ 39% tax bracket savings 1st year $6,118
Total 1st year tax savings $323,967

Net Initial Capital Cost $330,533
Annual Capital Cost @ 5% $16,527
Annual Depreciation Cost @ 5% over 5 years 1st year cost $32,725
Total 1st year cost of capital $49,252

USED 1997 Bonanza A36TN (G600, Dual 530W, Engine Monitor, Ox, Tips, TN, 1,000 TTSN etc) $325,000 (basically my airplane as a point of comparison)

Section 179 Deduction @39.6% tax bracket savings $128,700
Total 1st year tax savings $128,700
Net Initial Capital Cost $196,300
Annual Capital Cost @ 5% $9,815
Annual Depreciation Cost @ 5% over 5 years 1st year cost $16,250
Side fund for engine overhaul at $26.50 per hour 1700 TBO $26,500 (to bring a fair comparison against a new engine in Cirrus)
Total 1st year cost of capital $52,565

If you extend this to 3 years then the Net 3 year cost of capital & depreciation net of tax savings is $129,402 for the Cirrus and $104,445 for the Bonanza.

Clearly, the Bonanza is cheaper even when you equalize the time on the engine (assuming you cannot get a discount on the new Cirrus - if you can then it's a wash). But it is 17 years old with attendant maintenance issues and the Cirrus is new, under warranty, and presumably has a lower out of pocket cost of maintenance over the hold period.

I'm not a tax expert but obviously at some point the depreciation on both airplanes gets recaptured. And if you don't hold them long enough the recapture would be at ordinary income tax rates not capital gains. That's obviously why you need a tax advisor which I am not.

And, I know there are probably other cost issues I haven't considered. And you can argue the relative merits of the two airframes for a given mission all you want (some of that is a small part of the last 40 pages ). Still, when you compare a used Bonanza against a new Cirrus it isn't as dramatic a cost difference as it first appears.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/1_47KVJV8DU[/youtube]


KInda how i am starting to feel about this thread...

Does this assume 100% business usage? What fun is that?

1. Beech quality reputation is over stated and based on recent events for the piston line has been in the decline for years. Think of the Baron issues in AUS,....
2. That is very airplane specific. A flight school I know was fixing the Beech planes everyday and the Cessna was only fixed at oil changes or 100hr inspections.
3. Depends on goals if any aerodynamic changes are desired or required.
4. Not just minor, massive amounts of change are needed. It should all be done incrementally, but massive change is required.
5. Agree
6. Yes of change is needed. Go back and read Tony and Jim's reviews. Then re-read the initial post by Jason. Only do this with an open mind
7. Not really, the airframe is very out of date. Requires way to many parts, complex shapes and labor to build and maintain. It needs massive amounts of engineering effort.
8. Not really, Cessna has already executed a contract with SMA. Diamond built their own.

Tim[/quote]


Tim,

Have you ever in your life actually owned a Beechcraft Bonanza or Baron or King Air ?

You keep trashing Beechcraft products with statements like they are out of date, have too many complex shapes, takes too long to build or you think the G1000 is not as good as some other system. Well the shapes on the Bonanza, Baron and Square Oval of the King Air lines are not overly complex, indeed I would say they are simple and classic. The NACA 23000 series airfoils on the Bonanza are stable and the couple of degrees of wash-out are not overly difficult to incorporate in the build process. Which by the way takes about 4000 man hours for a Bonanza. I'm not sure where the 6000
number came from earlier in this thread.

I'm glad you fly another aircraft and if I actually owned one of them I might have an opinion I'd be willing to share. Perhaps you could consider the same.