BeechTalk - BT - Maybe New Piper Offering

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 07:47

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure this deserves its own thread. Placing it here to show that Piper is making investments in manufacturing + diversifying.

Piper is impressive in this way. They're seemingly the only <10 seats airplane manufacturer left that continues to seriously iterate on the products. The M series is a great example. They improve the airframe, make significant changes to power plants, etc. Nobody else is doing that anymore. Cirrus is busy adding new USB ports, and Cessna and Beechcraft try to compete by adding avionics made by other people to old airframes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 08:18

Adding a new avionics suite doesn't feel like the same level of innovation to me. yes, it's more capable, i get that. but it's the same airplane with the same capabilities.

I've flown the TBM with the G1000, and the G3000. still a TBM.

I'm really rooting for Piper. I wish they had the capital and energy to compete in the light jet space- I think they'd kill it given the demand right now.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 10:12

Username Protected wrote:

...a more aerodynamic and improved thrust vector stack...

What's a "thrust vector stack"?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 10:35

Username Protected wrote:

To be fair, Cirrus just put the G3000 in the SR22, that's more than just a new USB port.

I have been curious to know the internals of the new avionics in the Cirrus, but Cirrus on their website and even the AOPA article on the aircraft are incredibly careful to not call it a G3000. Which makes sense, because a G3000 would likely add much cost to the plane. So maybe a G2000 like the Cessna TTx? Looks similar to a G3000, but probably doesn’t have some of the internals that run the systems seen on a turbine?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 12:30

Username Protected wrote:

Adding a new avionics suite doesn't feel like the same level of innovation to me. yes, it's more capable, i get that. but it's the same airplane with the same capabilities.

I've flown the TBM with the G1000, and the G3000. still a TBM.

I'm really rooting for Piper. I wish they had the capital and energy to compete in the light jet space- I think they'd kill it given the demand right now.

Still a significant upgrade. Look at all legacy SE's, they reach a point where most upgrades are interior, avionics and small improvements. Need to do clean sheet to really get the next gen of improvements.

I'm a huge Mooney fan, have owned 2, as well as 2 Cirrus'. Mooney was too late with the pilot door and avionics to compete with Cirrus. Even if they put CAPS in it, don't think it would have taken off. The BO is dead. Beech/Textron wrung everything out of it, and it doesn't have CAPS and regardless of what everyone things, CAPS helps Cirrus.

Why Cirrus wins is they do little things over and over, and you get a G2000/3000, with the best front seat interior in a SE, the most comfortable, CAPS, avionics, single lever Prop/Power, auto fuel switching (now), and constant tweaks. I wish Mooney would have found a way 25 years ago to incrementally improve the Ovation in a way that Cirrus did.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 12:44

Username Protected wrote:

To be fair, Cirrus just put the G3000 in the SR22, that's more than just a new USB port.

I think this is really just an updated G2000 that the Cessna TTX had over 10+ years ago.
Funny, how advanced the Cessna TTX was for it's time. Cirrus is just now catching up to it. Might have been a different world today if Cessna had put a parachute into it.

Sat in the new G7 a couple weeks ago. Touch screens very intuitive and like the menu structure. 14" Split screens are great. Like the new interior. My knees don't hit the lower bolster and the seats felt more comfortable (Teutonic firm).

Bravo to Cirrus for lip sticking their plane with 10 year old tech and marketing the heck out of it. They will do well.

Now just need to get Piper to put a G2000/3000 into the M350.

G2000 link https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/97668#overview

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 13:46

Username Protected wrote:

Now just need to get Piper to put a G2000/3000 into the M350.

G2000 link https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/97668#overview

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 14:48

Username Protected wrote:

I have often wondered why Piper has not marketed the M350 to any extent at all. It is by far the ultimate piston Single engine aircraft currently made. Flys faster and higher in the real world, as you can't safely use the high turbo altitudes in the Cirrus without the safety of pressurization. Much higher performance envelope, with retract gear, speed brakes and pressurization, 1500-2000 fpm descents are safe and comfortable, handy in the mountains when you are brought in very high into the terminal. Onboard radar, seats 6 on short trips. Much more comfortable cabin that you can move around in. Ground heating if you are hooked up to a GPU, which is great for pax on those cold away days. 30% more range than the Cirrus, and a lot more redundancy in the Avionics. 4 glass panel AI's, 4 separate electrical supplies and routes to the avionics, 2 independent pitot static systems, built in pulse-ox FWIW, and retract gear which in addition to speed, gives you a lot better off airport landing options. I liked my SR22 turbo, great plane, but my world really opened up when I moved to the Mirage.

Agreed! The biggest things holding back more sales:

1. Needs a hangar larger than a T hangar. That's $700k more in hangar cost at my location on top of the cost of airplane which is $500k more than an SR22. That's $1.2m more than a Cirrus.
2. Piper line is capacity limited. The line makes the M350-M500-M700. I would assume the M500 and M700 are more profitable, and they leave more slots for them. I believe Piper is selling every M350 they are making right now which, was 22 in 2023. They sold 82 M series airplanes in 2023, not bad for a small manufacturer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 15:23

Username Protected wrote:

To be fair, Cirrus just put the G3000 in the SR22, that's more than just a new USB port.

I think this is really just an updated G2000 that the Cessna TTX had over 10+ years ago.
Funny, how advanced the Cessna TTX was for it's time. Cirrus is just now catching up to it. Might have been a different world today if Cessna had put a parachute into it.

Sat in the new G7 a couple weeks ago. Touch screens very intuitive and like the menu structure. 14" Split screens are great. Like the new interior. My knees don't hit the lower bolster and the seats felt more comfortable (Teutonic firm).

Bravo to Cirrus for lip sticking their plane with 10 year old tech and marketing the heck out of it. They will do well.

Now just need to get Piper to put a G2000/3000 into the M350.

G2000 link https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/97668#overview

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2024, 16:16

Username Protected wrote:

The G7 is Perspective Touch + << That's G3000 in every other airplane

Sal, it's a G2000.

Here is the link to the manual for the Cirrus Perspective Touch+ SR2X Garmin's website: https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-02955-01_a.pdf

PDF pages 5 and 11 note it as a G2000.

To validate that, I also checked the SF50 Vision Jet and it has the G3000: https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-02470-02_a.pdf

End user wise, it doesn't matter much. Section 1 also outlines all the components in each. Lots of duplication. Biggest differences are the 12" standard screens on the G2000. Auto Throttle, Autoland, and Weather Radar on the G3000.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2024, 10:28

I took a demo flight in a new M350 when Cutter came to down. It’s an impressive aircraft.

The negatives are few:

1. Wing too long to fit in a typical tee hangar making it next to impossible to get it hangared whereas a Bonanza fits right into most of them.

2. One needs a very knowledgeable mechanic to properly care for the M350.

3. The Lycoming engine *sucks* fuel. The M350 performs similarly to my A36 with TAT TN 550 at similar altitudes but there is a massive hourly fuel burn difference in favor of the Continental.

If I could ever figure out how to get a large enough hangar I would definitely consider an older Continental powered Malibu, but the operating cost difference for a Lycoming variant is just throwing money away since I have similar performance now. I just need supplemental oxygen above 12,500’.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2024, 11:40

I was talking to my Piper salesperson and got talking about the new M700.

Excited for the -52, but doesn't understand why they didn't put FADEC in. I assumed with Auto Throttles they would have had FADEC. He said the big thing is TBO on FADEC engines is 5000 hrs. vs. 3600 hrs. Maybe that's next for Piper to keep people interested in upgrades.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2024, 12:07

Username Protected wrote:

... I would definitely consider an older Continental powered Malibu, but the operating cost difference for a Lycoming variant is just throwing money away since I have similar performance now. I just need supplemental oxygen above 12,500’.

I'm loving mine, having recently crossed the 50 hour mark since purchase. Family loves it a lot too.

But the maintenance is on a whole other level from the NA A36 so far. Monday my left side turbo arrives at a cost of $7K + labor.

To be fair, the maintenance has been (so far) limited to powerplant related items. Two turbos, two vac pumps (for boots and pressure controller), two alternators, air conditioning, wastegate controller, small oil sump, pressurized mags. It's just a complicated situation firewall forward. Makes me glad I don't have a 58P, 340, 414, 421, etc.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2024, 17:41

Username Protected wrote:

I took a demo flight in a new M350 when Cutter came to down. It’s an impressive aircraft.

The negatives are few:

1. Wing too long to fit in a typical tee hangar making it next to impossible to get it hangared whereas a Bonanza fits right into most of them.

2. One needs a very knowledgeable mechanic to properly care for the M350.

3. The Lycoming engine *sucks* fuel. The M350 performs similarly to my A36 with TAT TN 550 at similar altitudes but there is a massive hourly fuel burn difference in favor of the Continental.

If I could ever figure out how to get a large enough hangar I would definitely consider an older Continental powered Malibu, but the operating cost difference for a Lycoming variant is just throwing money away since I have similar performance now. I just need supplemental oxygen above 12,500’.

Is there a known reason why the Lycoming sucks more fuel then Continental or similar engines?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2024, 17:54

Lycoming runs ROP per the POH, Continental LOP per the POH. Different philosophy. I ran my Mirage LOP all the time in cruise and descent, but not recommended by Lycoming. But mine ran beautifully. Over 200 KTAS in the flight levels on 15.6-16.3 gph.

Look at this beauty. Almost 20 nmpg. Better than any of my cars. Going the other direction, not so much.

Attachment:

DSC00475.jpeg

Maybe New Piper Offering - M700??