I just received an email from a sales director.

So, comments?

There was G4?

Seriously though, they needed that UL increase badly.. the rest seems like fluff..

Yes. I am going on memory of the adverts they have sent me.
1. Lower wieght by using more carbon fiber and less fiber glass
2. Spar and other substructure design changes again which lowered manufacturing costs and the price
3. Significant changes in the G1000 wiring
4. Added the GFC700
5. Change to the BRS cutters and Chute to make replacement easier/cheaper in ten years
6. Changes in the fit/finish
7. Added the 3 kid bench seat in the back
8. Many items which were optional are now standard. (I have no idea what they are, just this stupid ad in my mind, which sticks -- the sign of a good ad)

Tim

It would be simpler if they called their seating 2/3, instead of 60/40.

200lb UL really makes a difference for the useability of the aircraft, particularly the ones with TKS. Like em or hate em, at this time they are the only innovative GA manufacturer. Their customers complain, they engineer a solution.

And a lady can get in, and out, in a dress with her dignity intact........

I want to fly in one. They've chewed HBC up and spit them out. Got to give them credit for that. Tim McGraw is flying one (see video) on website. Give me the name of one "personality" flying a G36?

Marketing sells.

So have they improved the T by going back to a TN that outperforms the current one?

Talk about a step backwards

I'm not taking anything away from Cirrus. They're the guys that listened to their customer's needs and provided solutions. I'd never blame anyone for choosing a Cirrus. On the other hand, I bought a G36 and I still stand by my decision.

Cirrus only has one horse to ride (maybe jet soon), so they had to be more innovative. Sometimes the curse of the small organization becomes the advantage. HBC made the polar opposite bet. If the economy had held together, HBC might have looked like the smart one. It's all about timing. HBC didn't get blind sighted, the went all in on the jet bet and lost big.

I bought my G36 because it is by far the best NA piston on the market. Beech knows that they have a following of owners that want a great NA platform, and it's not a big volume game. I buy things that have timeless beauty and great quality....then take care of them. I think of my Bonanza like an Aston Martin. It has the best craftsmanship, and it's more exclusive.

Now for the Cirrus downside. How would you feel today if you had just taken delivery of your new Cirrus G3? After today's announcement, there goes another $100,000 in resale. And....Cirrus probably just started on their G5 replacement yesterday!

The blessing can become the curse.

Rick's post has me curious. So I went and looked at the thread showing what planes people have owner previously or currently. When stepping from one category of capability to another there seems to be very little brand loyalty. e.g. Look to Cub Crafters for a small plane, Beech for a piston, TBM or PC12, then to CJ3 or Phenom 300....

So with the above stated (there are exceptions). Was it bad for HBC to bet that pilots would stay loyal to a brand? Cessna seems to have done fine in the piston and jet markets and has not felt the need to chase the turbo-prop market (they have show concepts but never really chased it).

I think the answer is yes, it was bad for HBC to try and be everything to everyone and went under as part of it. No product they were producing was maintaing its market share and edge. Cirrus was beating them in the pistons, TBM and Pilatus were beating them in Turboprops and Cessna and Embrear (sp?) were beating them in the jet space.

Tim

Tom,

Take the opportunity to fly one. A local flying club has put a SR22 in use. I say this coming from the stone age of no autopilot and 1 Garmin 430. I flew it and said wow my operating costs will be 50% of what it is now and it has all the bells and whistles. I was impressed but that was just me.

Wow, that is interesting. Not the bells and whistles part, but 50% operating costs. Where does this figure come from? I was under impression that operating costs of a Cirrus would be at least as much, or more than a Bonanza, due to expensive avionics and more stringent certification requirements...

That ruins half the fun!

Wow, that is interesting. Not the bells and whistles part, but 50% operating costs. Where does this figure come from? I was under impression that operating costs of a Cirrus would be at least as much, or more than a Bonanza, due to expensive avionics and more stringent certification requirements...

55 - yeah, of course, but that's apples and oranges. I am talking about A36 or V35 vs. Cirrus SR22.