Username Protected wrote:
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 Not really, the airframe is very out of date.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
