BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 10:19

The TBM market is 40 units a year, Socata ramp up production and built 50-60 units for a few years but market fell back in the recession. Thats more than all Bonanza and Barons combined.
Not bad for a $3.4m 6 seats turbine. Piper builds as much or more $2.3m Meridian.
Like Jason, I still think there is room for a 4-6 seater fast SE pressurized turboprop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 10:22

Username Protected wrote:

The TBM market is 40 units a year, Socata ramp up production and built 50-60 units for a few years but market fell back in the recession. Thats more than all Bonanza and Barons combined.
Not bad for a $3.4m 6 seats turbine. Piper builds as much or more $2.3m Meridian.
Like Jason, I still think there is room for a 4-6 seater fast SE pressurized turboprop.

Maybe, but there are more people that fit the criteria that we are shooting for. Under $1m. In the last five years Cirrus sold ~1,600 SR22's. That's a huge market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 10:36

Well, I hope if you are successful and get a SE pressurized turboprop for under $1M the FAA makes mandatory checkrides on those, just like they did for the mustang and eclipse when they enlarged the 61.58 process.

The last thing I want is a bunch of people buying that aircraft and not being properly checked out. There was some issues with that in the Meridian (and still are IMHO) with people that can afford the aircraft not being competent to fly it. Throw in new avionics, make it appealing and I can see that being even worse.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 10:56

Gerry,
Not to crash your party but, there is not a big market for $1m homebuilts.
Most guys who as a $1m does not want to bother with or building an homebuilt.

Username Protected wrote:

The TBM market is 40 units a year, Socata ramp up production and built 50-60 units for a few years but market fell back in the recession. Thats more than all Bonanza and Barons combined.
Not bad for a $3.4m 6 seats turbine. Piper builds as much or more $2.3m Meridian.
Like Jason, I still think there is room for a 4-6 seater fast SE pressurized turboprop.

Maybe, but there are more people that fit the criteria that we are shooting for. Under $1m. In the last five years Cirrus sold ~1,600 SR22's. That's a huge market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2013, 14:20

So, if you go to Simcom, they will sign you off with a CFI. If you train in your own aircraft, you need to follow up your CFI training with a checkride? If this is true, Why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 10:31

Username Protected wrote:

So, if you go to Simcom, they will sign you off with a CFI. If you train in your own aircraft, you need to follow up your CFI training with a checkride? If this is true, Why?

If you are referring to a 61.58 check, it has to be administered by a designated examiner from the FAA and it is model specific. So, Simcom may well have such a person in the Sim, while your local CFI isn't qualified.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 10:59

I am a Designated Pilot Examiner, DPE, and Pilot Proficiency Examiner, PPE, in the B-25. Here is my understanding of the new rule.

It now says to fly an aircraft type certificated for a crew of 2 or more, or a turbo-jet, requires a FAR 61.58 check (or a new type rating or a few other things) within the preceding 12 months in something, and within the preceding 24 months in the type that you are flying.

That means if you have two type ratings you can alternate them every year, but if you only flying one type you have to complete a pilot proficiency check administered by a PPE, Pilot Proficiency Examiner.

A PPE is one step below a DPE. Most (really all) DPE's have PPE privileges but many PPE's do not have DPE privileges.

The PPE checkride has EXACTLY the same TASKs as the Type Rating Checkride. But, the PPE may incorporate some training in the event. The PPE doesn't issue ratings or failures. They are authorized to endorse a logbook.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 12:08

Username Protected wrote:

Well, I hope if you are successful and get a SE pressurized turboprop for under $1M the FAA makes mandatory checkrides on those, just like they did for the mustang and eclipse when they enlarged the 61.58 process.

The last thing I want is a bunch of people buying that aircraft and not being properly checked out. There was some issues with that in the Meridian (and still are IMHO) with people that can afford the aircraft not being competent to fly it. Throw in new avionics, make it appealing and I can see that being even worse.

I agree with you. We would do our best to require the purchaser to get training through us for safety purposes. I wouldn't want someone not getting training either. I couldn't in good conscience sell someone something and not giving them the tools to remain safe.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 12:10

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe, but there are more people that fit the criteria that we are shooting for. Under $1m. In the last five years Cirrus sold ~1,600 SR22's. That's a huge market.

Gerry,
Not to crash your party but, there is not a big market for $1m homebuilts.
Most guys who as a $1m does not want to bother with or building an homebuilt.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe. But they don't have to bother with building it. They can hire someone else to do that. Problem solved.

Not in the spirit of the home building rules, not even close. Also is there not legality issues here with the FAA? If this was above board you'd see ads all over the place for just this service.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:15

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe. But they don't have to bother with building it. They can hire someone else to do that. Problem solved.

Not in the spirit of the home building rules, not even close. Also is there not legality issues here with the FAA? If this was above board you'd see ads all over the place for just this service.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:22

Username Protected wrote:

The key point is the FAA looks for completed tasks not effort. e.g. look at the Glasair two weeks to taxi programs.

Tim

What completed tasks? If you hire someone to build you an airplane you are not the manufacturer, which is the whole point of amateur built aircraft in the first place.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:35

Username Protected wrote:

The key point is the FAA looks for completed tasks not effort. e.g. look at the Glasair two weeks to taxi programs.

Tim

What completed tasks? If you hire someone to build you an airplane you are not the manufacturer, which is the whole point of amateur built aircraft in the first place.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:46

Username Protected wrote:

The FAA has a list of tasks. One of them is completion of rib attachments to the wing spar. So you can hire someone to have the rib precut, drilled, and even tack welded in position. You then come along and put in the final nut and bolt. Per the FAA you have completed the task.

At the end of the day, you are the manufacturer of record.

Lastly, most kits now have been evaluated by the FAA for compliance against the 51% rule. So much easier to get this completed.

Tim

That's not the impression I got of what was going to happen. But even if that's the case there still won't be a market for more than a few a year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:56

Username Protected wrote:

The key point is the FAA looks for completed tasks not effort. e.g. look at the Glasair two weeks to taxi programs.

Tim

What completed tasks? If you hire someone to build you an airplane you are not the manufacturer, which is the whole point of amateur built aircraft in the first place.

OT: Lancair Evolution