It'll come back around.

I wonder how much impact Cessna's Columbia acquisition has on Cirrus. I always thought the Columbia was a fine airplane but had doubts about the company.

If you want a plastic plane the Cessna 300/400 are now a significant competitor.

There's a brand spanking new one in my hangar. Owner likes it. I'd have spent my money on something else (like I did).

It will be interesting to see how well they hold up in service. We have a great number of guys on this board getting wonderful service out of their Beechcrafts 30+ years after their manufacture. I wonder how well a Cirrus et al will be doing in 2038?? Hope to be around to see!

Hi Yves

That may well be true, but not the point I was attempting to make. Let me try another way, by analogy this time. How many 30 year old plastic boats do you see regularly being used? I see hardly any and spend quite a bit of time near the water. My observation is directed towards the longevity of the airframe and its long term operational viability as opposed to the company making it.

IMO flying plastic planes feels like flying a McDonald's booth. Nothing warm and fuzzy about it at all...and it feels kinda clammy.

As a former SR22 fractional owner I can tell you that they do NOT hold up.

Just to stick my nose into the middle of the conversation...

...I spent a fair amount of time looking at Cirruses (Cirri) whilst working myself up to the TN project on my Deb. I would suggest to you that Beech built their airplane (and continue to build their airplane) in a traditional sense. The airplane as a...well, for want of a better word...house...major investment and will last forever (or at least a long, long time)

Cirrus, from a marketing standpoint, is pushing the airplane as a car. Lease it, buy it and trade up...there's a new model just around the corner. Given that, I think they intentionally avoided timeless values. They are going for what's hot! What's the latest.

If you buy a Cirrus, you will get a fairly substantial discount on your NEXT Cirrus. You can (essentially) sell your Cirrus back to Cirrus (trade-in, anyone?). And the next time you step "up" you get an even MORE substantial discount. We've got a guy at KMGM who is on his THIRD Cirrus. Started with an SR 20 then upgraded to a -22 and then up to G-3.

It's possible that Beech WANTS to use the above method, but their manufacturing methods lack the "plasticity" (pun intended) to change as rapidly as Cirrus can. I personally doubt it, but who knows?

I think Cirrus' methods are working for them. I also think that it is good for them that they are using their methods to draw new pilots into the market...both because it is better for us to have more...and because a lot of us more traditional guys feel uncomfortable with fitting Cirri into our world-view of airplanes...substantial and last a long, long time.

Jim

All of the above is just my sense and opinion.

Hi Jim-

It is interesting the Beech first marketed the Bonanza with a similar marketing model in mind. The planes were designed to be mass production items (spot welded, not riveted together) that were replaced after a year or two. The initial price reflected that model, but the predicted sales volume never materialized and the spot welding technique didn't pan out. Over the first several years of production, they made many improvements to maintainability when they realized people were not going to junk the planes after a few years like cars, and raised the price until they could make a profit on the sales volume they were seeing.

If you have ever tried to work behind the instrument panel of a 1947 "straight" 35 Bonanza, it will be abundantly clear that one was never intended to be changing instruments and upgrading the panel. By the time the 1952 C35 rolled around, they had made many significant improvements that made the planes much easier to maintain.

Regards,

Bob II

I have a well-heeled hangar neighbor who has bought new, in the last two years, a Mooney, a Cirrus and is now flying a Cessna 400. He likes the plastic and doesn't worry about resale or trade-in value. He is the prime customer for the latter companies. Speed and the "latest and greatest" panels are what he buys. There are a few players in this market and he is one of them.

The younger crowd does not want to drive their father's "Buick". The Bonanza is our Buick. It is reliable, roomy and comfortable, much more so than the Cirrus. As the value of a six year old Cirrus plummets the stodgy "Buick Bonanza" soldiers on and holds its value very well. A six year old Bonanza is bringing double what a Cirrus will bring. The market knows value in the long run.

These plastic planes appeal to the same guys who will drive a two seat sports car as their only transportation 'cause there ain't a lot of room for passengers AND luggage like the Beech products have. The Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna products have fixed rear seats and very small baggage compartments.

Seventy five per cent (or more) of the Bonanzas and Barons flying are over 35 years old and holding up very well in condition (and price for the Bo). Mine is 36 years old and is in fantastic condition and should be in great shape for another 36 years. Oh well, I'm preaching to the choir.

Enjoy your Beechcraft.

Y'all just don't get it with the "plastic" as you call it -- -- composites are the future of aviation, and more of that material is going into aircraft not just at Cirrus or Cessna (nee Columbia), but all manufacturers. I bleed Beechcraft, but these Cirri will be around a lot longer than any metal Beechcraft.

What happened in our Starship would have been a total loss in a King Air if I am to believe the FAA investigators and the insurance adjusters -- instead, 65 days later and $370K later (majority of it was in the overhaul of the power section module and "new" prop), we were airborne. Only because of the composite, sorry, plastic, were we able to come through this the way that we did -- a metal winged King Air would have snapped its wing/spar based on the physics calculations that were done, spilled fuel with possible ignition, and would have "dug in" and flipped going off the runway; the composite, sorry, plastic, simply flexed and absorbed the load.

Also, and I am sure that the composite, sorry, plastic naysayers already know this, composite winged/sparred aircraft must go through the 150% load tests with a factor of 2. That's right, if certified for, say, 3 G, the 150% rule says you must test for 4.5 G, and since it is composite, you must double that -- 9 G. Your metal winged aircraft won't do that -- I promise you; don't believe me -- go try it, and lemme know! On the other hand, I am confident that our Starship will -- during certification, the wings were "bent" upward and downward 6 feet . . . yes, 6 feet, thus simulating 9+ G -- the spar never broke, nor did the wings. Then again, I have my off runway excursion to further back up my confidence in the aircraft (nowhere close to 9 G).

Instead of trashing Cirrus because of its "plasticity;" why not admit what more than likely is really going on -- Cirrus targets the upper part of the entry level market for the most part; the credit markets suck right now -- banks don't want much to do with an aircraft that depreciates the way that the Cirrus does; and, to add insult to injury, Cirrus is pouring cash into a SEJ project (not the greatest of times to be doing something like that -- then again, no one knew what was coming when they started that project).

Now, I am putting on my flame retardant gear for what I am sure will be a fun ride with all of you composite, so sorry, plastic naysayers.

First: Bob II...thanks for the historical note. I really had no idea. I do doubt that in the 40's even the auto market was the throw-away market we see now. However, I bow to your superior knowledge and thank you very much.

Chris: The argument between metal and composite construction's relative strength has raged in the home-built market for decades and now in the certified aircraft market. The stuff I've read pretty much comes out to a resounding...they're different.

If I ever (God forbid) really stuff an airplane in, I hope it's the Pawnee towplane I fly at the glider operation. It's pretty much designed to absorb the energy and not transmit it to my fragile body. And it's rag and tube construction.

Metal construction (as in our non-Starship Beechcrafts) tends to absorb energy as well. And typically it fails by bending (which absorbs energy) before it snaps (which absorbs less energy).

And composite pretty much resists deformation until it shatters. The general consensus of what I've read is that composites absorb less energy in their failure. And when they shatter the energy is transmitted to the occupants.

Which would explain the relatively inexpensive repair of the Starship. And I suspect (not having trekked through the archives to read about the event) that the accident was relatively low energy. Landing?

Final point: most composites are absolutely easier and cheaper to repair if damaged. The techniques are fairly easy to learn and the materials are cheap. This excludes some of the more expensive and exotic carbon-fiber or kevlar (or what ever else is coming up). That too, explains the relative inexpense of your repair.

Let me hasten to add that I pass gas for a living, so what in the hell do I know? Just stuff I read.

Jim

translated: anesthesiologist for all the non-doc's on the thread

dc

Or...he flies tankers for the Air Force/Guard/Reserve.

-Neal

How cool would THAT be! Nope, I put 'em to sleep and charge 'em to wake 'em up!

Jim

Hi Jim-

No bowing necessary, in view of the fact that I agree that Beech builds a product that can last indefinitely if properly maintained. While none of the manufacturers of civilian aircraft during the post-war period correctly anticipated the market, Beech built a good enough product that they were able to adapt to the market that existed.

Your comment about cars is interesting. I remember growing up in the fifties that it was considered the height of middle-class status to get a new car every few years, and a five year old car was often considered a "junker". However, the cars were very maintainable, and could last forever (with good maintenance) if they didn't rust away. Now our cars seem to last longer (our five year old car is our "new" car), but all of the parts are throw-away and like everything else, it seems that when they eventually wear out it is cheaper to replace them than to keep them going. I guess time will tell whether my children (or grandchildren) will see fifty year old Cirri or Hondas in 2058.

Regards,

Bob II