BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 00:55

Username Protected wrote:

Doesn't matter with this TBM 900 and maybe you guys are right on the Cirrus Jet. Either way, with the Cirrus Jet and this TBM you're really stacking the marketplace with ridiculously fast and efficient, easy to fly airplanes. There's lot's of innovation going on in GA. The only thing left is to get these things to fly themselves. This is a great time to be in GA.

It is certainly true that innovation is taking place in GA. The Cirrus Jet and TBM 900 appear to be efficient and designed to be easy to fly.
What is missing is this equation is the cost parameter: could a manufacturer deliver ease and efficiency at an "affordable" price?
I realize that affordable is a relative term. If a manufacturer could use cheap labor (China) using reliable design (a la Apple: designed in California, built using cheap labor in China), why can't such an airframe be produced for a more attractive (i.e. much lower) price? :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 01:11

Username Protected wrote:

Ill stick with the companies that have been making reliable birds for years, until China makes reliable birds for years.

They didn't start yesterday.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 01:17

Lets say it takes 10,000 man hours to make a TBM. And the French labor costs are $100/hr. That's $1MM in labor for a TBM.

Let's say you can pay off a Chinese prison warden for $5 million/year and set up a factory using free slave labor. Your $3.7MM TBM is now a $3MM TBM.

The problem is having to hand build the planes and ordering all your parts in low volumes. What supplier can give good terms when Socata is ordering 4 parts per month?

just not possible to increase the volume into economy of scale.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 06:04

Username Protected wrote:

It is certainly true that innovation is taking place in GA. The Cirrus Jet and TBM 900 appear to be efficient and designed to be easy to fly.
What is missing is this equation is the cost parameter: could a manufacturer deliver ease and efficiency at an "affordable" price?
I realize that affordable is a relative term. If a manufacturer could use cheap labor (China) using reliable design (a la Apple: designed in California, built using cheap labor in China), why can't such an airframe be produced for a more attractive (i.e. much lower) price? :scratch:

You cannot find this kind of performance for this price. $3.7MM is in line with the market. They will sell every single one the build.

"Made in China" is a stigma for every business including mine. I don't buy raw material from China. I'm not buying a Chinese airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 07:00

Username Protected wrote:

Lets say it takes 10,000 man hours to make a TBM. And the French labor costs are $100/hr. That's $1MM in labor for a TBM.

Let's say you can pay off a Chinese prison warden for $5 million/year and set up a factory using free slave labor. Your $3.7MM TBM is now a $3MM TBM.

The problem is having to hand build the planes and ordering all your parts in low volumes. What supplier can give good terms when Socata is ordering 4 parts per month?

just not possible to increase the volume into economy of scale.

French labour costs may vary from 16€/h to 240€/h .......my best guess is that SOCATA workers must cost abt. 60/80€//h on average.so you're pretty close.but absorbing development cost, tooling, certification etc.... on a very limited number of plane is the real '' low cost killer''.

SOCATA net results (in k€) aft tax are not that good, GA is not such a good business even for people building nice airplace and selling them well for a good price!!

net result after tax:
840(2010) -4 669(2009) 4 558(2008) -1 035 (2007)

Even PILATUS LTD Switzerland the mother company of the PILATUS group has seen a very sharp decrease in sales. in between 2011 and 2012.

Total sales (CHF million) 661 620 688 781 593

they have sold a total of 100 PC12 in 2009 and a mere 62 in 2012.
If they don't increase their prices every year how can they manage to keep their R&D department going.
OK PILATUS is lucky enough to have a real ''pricing power'' in the industry, not so for SOCATA, in my opinion SOCATA is not making profit on the TBM. working for AIRBUS and being part of a large industrial/logistic group is what save them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 08:29

Socata as spent $30m US to develop the TBM 900.
$3.7m is what they need to stay in business, they will sell them all 40-50 a year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 09:25

Username Protected wrote:

File to someplace legal IFR and change destination below 180

If I could do that, I would have to go to 12,500. Either way, your range will decrease with the drop in altitude.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 09:27

Username Protected wrote:

they will sell them all 40-50 a year.

Easily I would think. :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2014, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

I was in France and Italy a few weeks ago with a friend that races cars (among other things). We watched a Ferrari pass and he casually made the statement: if you want it to be beautiful: buy Italian. If you want it to work well, go German (g).

And, equally amazing, we're talking about this in a thread about a French airplane....

The comment made here by the AMT saying it was the easiest to work on is also a great testament to their engineering team.

(the whole Italian/German comment reminds me of that old joke about heaven, hell, and the various European nationalities running things.)