Cessna vs Beechcraft

[optionizerSS]

Are these 2 related or are they competitors? I ask because I was watching the NASCAR truck series race today and on the 'tailgate' of Kyle Buschs truck it said Cessna and on the bedsides it said Beechcraft. I would think if they were competitors they wouldn't both be sponsoring the same truck?

 

[dmspilot]

Both owned by Textron.

 

[optionizerSS]

That makes sense then

 

[Fearless Tower]

Beechcraft USED to be better than Cessna. Now, it’s kind of like the difference between Jeep and Dodge.

 

[luvflyin]

Are these 2 related or are they competitors? I ask because I was watching the NASCAR truck series race today and on the 'tailgate' of Kyle Buschs truck it said Cessna and on the bedsides it said Beechcraft. I would think if they were competitors they wouldn't both be sponsoring the same truck?

Two bedsides and one tailgate. Tailgate can go down so no one can see it. I dunno which planes be better, but Beech’s marketing department is smarter

 

[MauleSkinner]

They also started out together before Cessna and Beech Aircraft were founded.

 

[Tantalum]

Textron bought them and they are slowly letting the famed Beech line perish. pretty much anythhing piston that Cessna touches is guaranteed to either suck or eventually be put out of business..

You can still technically buy a baron and a bonanza new but they are Cirrus prices or higher yet don't offer any demonstrable improvement since Textron bought them. I think they sell something pathetic like 5 or 10 a year

 

[Cervieres]

Textron bought them and they are slowly letting the famed Beech line perish. pretty much anythhing piston that Cessna touches is guaranteed to either suck or eventually be put out of business..

You can still technically buy a baron and a bonanza new but they are Cirrus prices or higher yet don't offer any demonstrable improvement since Textron bought them. I think they sell something pathetic like 5 or 10 a year

Yeah, 12 Bonanzas and 8 Barons for 2020. The end is probably near for Beech pistons. Meanwhile, Textron killed the TTx (one of the best and only modern production aircraft with any chance of competing against the SR22) through poor marketing and quality control.

 

[Tantalum]

^true story

Cessna likes to play the "piston GA is dead" card when they kill off a product or starve it to death.. piston general aviation certainly is not a booming industry.. but faded absolutely no favors for themselves, it's almost like they wanted these products to die

Has anyone sat in a new Baron or Bo? The plane just feels cheap.. from the throttles to the switches to the overall fit and finish. It is not in anywhere the same league as what is offered by any of the Diamonds or Cirrus, or upper trim Pipers, feels very "new 2006 flight school PA28" .. why would anyone pay a million dollars for that?

 

[MountainDude]

Yeah, 12 Bonanzas and 8 Barons for 2020. The end is probably near for Beech pistons. Meanwhile, Textron killed the TTx (one of the best and only modern production aircraft with any chance of competing against the SR22) through poor marketing and quality control.

TTx was killed because it did not have a BRS. Same with the Mooneys. People buy Cirruses because of the similar performance, plus the BRS. Pretty simple.

 

[Tantalum]

TTx was killed because it did not have a BRS. Same with the Mooneys. People buy Cirruses because of the similar performance, plus the BRS. Pretty simple.

Just my opinion but I think this is a common fallacy. There's much more to the Cirrus than just a parachute. What the TTx lacked was marketing.. where Cirrus created an entire brand around their product Cessna basically just bought a lanceair and that was it.. same thing happens to otherwise good cars that aren't adequately brought to market. There was no TTx store, social media presence, or effort to create this sense of club exclusivity

As a side note, BRS is available aftermarket for installing many common piston single frames but so far that hasn't taken off..

 

[Tantalum]

*Mooney.. a tiny plane with a pathetic useful load.. the "I can go 500 knots on 1.3 gallons an hr" can only go so far

 

[Cervieres]

TTx was killed because it did not have a BRS. Same with the Mooneys. People buy Cirruses because of the similar performance, plus the BRS. Pretty simple.

I won't argue that BRS improves sales of Cirrus pistons, but there really is no production piston single that competes with the SR22 as a total package. The DA50 might take some market share, but that remains to be seen. There's nothing particularly notable about the performance of a new Mooney. Sure you can cruise a few knots faster, but it is not a serious competitor due lack of interior space and useful load. Being able to have a TKS system or AC, but not both is not a good selling point, and the interior comfort of a Cirrus is in a different league. Most people in a position to buy a new aircraft for close to $1 million also want confidence that the company will be solvent in the near future, and the writing has been on the wall for Mooney for quite a while.

I was in the market for piston singles and light twins, and Cirrus was the only company that went out of their way to market aircraft. Their marketing and sales teams are incredible. Textron, Diamond, and Piper give the impression that they are doing a favor by selling you an aircraft. If Cirrus ever makes a six-seat single or light twin, the domination will be complete.

 

[Tantalum]

Textron, Diamond, and Piper give the impression that they are doing a favor by selling you an aircraft

Yes!

I was at the Mooney tent in Oshkosh and they just seem arrogant and the Textron tent was only interested and talking about the Denali. they had a few pistons locked up and parked on the grass with nobody around them

Cirrus made an effort, the sales guy would happily sit in the cockpit of the vision jet with people who clearly were in no position to buy the thing

 

[Tantalum]

Cessna exists as a piston company solely to sell planes to the fight schools

 

[GRG55]

TTx was killed because it did not have a BRS. Same with the Mooneys. People buy Cirruses because of the similar performance, plus the BRS. Pretty simple.

It's never just one thing. The 'chute is part of it, but no where near the whole reason the airplane was not a market success.

Cessna was late seeking FIKI certification (its first anti-ice system on the Cessna 400 was quite innovative, but it was not FIKI). That's just one other thing that added to "the Cirrus is safer" mantra.

Piston airplane sales volume collapsed during the 2008/09 financial crisis, and never fully recovered. A dozen years after that event and even Cirrus is barely selling half the number of airplanes it did prior.

The subsequent acquisition of Beechcraft by Textron meant it had competing products (Bo and Baron) with the TTx in the high performance piston airplane category. I suspect the Bonanza/Baron, with its large existing fleet supporting parts manufacturing, was the more valuable product despite declining sales of new airplanes.

Finally, a point I've made before...private and corporate GA is moving steadily and inexorably upscale. Of all the manufacturers Textron (along with Gulfstream and Daher) has absolutely done the best job recognizing and responding to that market shift. 30 years ago at my airport an A36 Bonanza or turbo-Mooney were the top end airplanes we all aspired to own, unless we could afford a pressurized twin Cessna. There wasn't a single turboprop or jet using it as a home base. Today my airport is home to dozens of Mirages, Meridians, TBMs, privately owned Navajos, 414s, Conquests, Cheyennes, King Airs, one private PC-12 and a handful of personal Citation and Phenom jets (interestingly, not a single Cirrus Jet so far). There's one member here on PoA who ditched his Cirrus SR-22 for a leased Citation.

That trend is not going to stop or reverse. Airplane manufacturing is brutally competitive. A single strategic mistake can put a company under. Mooney and Bombardier, which sort of bookend the range, are case study examples.

As GA moves upscale the market for really expensive unpressurized single engine piston airplanes is quite limited and I can't see anyone with any business sense wasting time and money trying to steal market share from Cirrus.

 

[hindsight2020]

^true story

but faded absolutely no favors for themselves, it's almost like they wanted these products to die

um....that's because they do. You new here? They'd throw a Xmas party in July at Textron corporate if they could get their regulatory capturing antics to finally get the FERS-guarding Gollums to ban the effing things.

As it is, the chosen path is the 1k paper cuts (death by AD proxy) approach. Classic siege strategy; Sun Tzu would be proud.

So leave good enough alone is their stance. Stand up a Potemkin village of legacy fleet "support" corporate departments, hire a dozen GA-phone Bagdad Bobs, and gaslight away into bed down.

 

[JOhnH]

Beechcraft USED to be better than Cessna. Now, it’s kind of like the difference between Jeep and Dodge.

That may be useful information to buyers of new or nearly new aircraft (I"m not even sure about that). But the aircraft that most of us buy were built back when Beechcraft was head and shoulders above Cessna. I'd pit the quality of build of my '67 Bonanza against any '67 Cessna.

 

[Tantalum]

I'd pit the quality of build of my '67 Bonanza against any '67 Cessna

Really *any* Cessna. if I had the option of flying cross country in a '67 Bonanza or a 2021 Stationaire we are going with the Bonanza everyday of the week

I'd also pick a mid 70s Land Cruiser over whatever "trail rated" garbage with a "Willy's" sticker on the side Fiat is offering now for driving on anything beyond a dirt parking lot

 

[flyingron]

When I worked for Textron we were forbidden to fly in GA aircraft on company business. Small aircraft are dangerous. We should know, we build them, their engines, and their propellers. Textron owns Cessna, Beech (the propeller part), Columbia, Macaulay, Lycoming, Bell Helicopter, and the people who make the Shadow/Aerosonde UAVs. The one benefit I did get was that they also own EZGO and Cushman, so I got a sweet deal on a Golf Car.

 

[GRG55]

That may be useful information to buyers of new or nearly new aircraft (I"m not even sure about that). But the aircraft that most of us buy were built back when Beechcraft was head and shoulders above Cessna. I'd pit the quality of build of my '67 Bonanza against any '67 Cessna.

No argument about the "finish" quality, but I would debate whether actual airframe build quality is all that much different. We fly the 172s in our flight training unit fleet to 20,000 hours before we retire them, so they can't be all that bad.

Regardless, so what? Bet there's still many, many more 1967 Cessnas still flying than 1967 Bonanzas.

And there's probably a case to be made that if Textron had not purchased Beechcraft (I think the King Air and military contracts were the prize they wanted) the Bonanza would already be out of production. It was the owners prior to Textron that shut down the Hawker jet production.

 

[Tantalum]

Cessna has always been about the bottom line as goal #1

Beech had a palpable passion behind what they were doing

Piper still has it

 

[flyingron]

Cessna has always been about the bottom line as goal #1

If that was the case, they'd be more successful. No, they're all about chasing short-term share prices without a clue as to ongoing profitability.

 

[Tantalum]

If that was the case, they'd be more successful. No, they're all about chasing short-term share prices without a clue as to ongoing profitability.

I don't disagree, I guess my point was that they seem devoid of that aviation passion..

But romance isn't enough to stay in business..

 

[JOhnH]

Regardless of which aircraft you are enamored of, they are all built by corporations. And all Corporations are mainly concerned with the bottom line, and next quarters eps. The difference is what trade-offs they make in order to maximize sales price and volume.

 

[GRG55]

I don't disagree, I guess my point was that they seem devoid of that aviation passion..

But romance isn't enough to stay in business..

I can't imagine a faster way to lose lots of money than to be caught up in the "romance" of aviation. How many, many examples of companies that came and went do we already have?

 

[Timbeck2]

Cirrus made an effort, the sales guy would happily sit in the cockpit of the vision jet with people who clearly were in no position to buy the thing

He was just there to keep the riff raff from stealing something.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Cessna has always been about the bottom line as goal #1

Beech had a palpable passion behind what they were doing

Piper still has it

Now that is certainly based on absolutely nothing. I know several engineers at Cessna and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Tantalum]

Now that is certainly based on absolutely nothing. I know several engineers at Cessna and nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm sure at the individual level all the folks working at Cessna, Piper, Diamond, Mooney, etc., are passionate about what they do (because planes are cool!). It's the corporate direction that feels like it lacks that.. but that's usually the case. The people who actually do the work are captive to executive leadership. Who knows, if Textron made just a bit of effort on their piston line outside of the flight school product a few more people might be able to work there, keep their jobs., etc. Like Mooney, those individual engineers and workers ultimately pay the price for crappy corporate decision making. Can you imagine if the TBM700 (etc) had stayed as a Mooney product?

At some point Cessna's mission changed.. the old school 180/185/190/195 are works of art. They just feel (and look) like solid beasts.. but that's a product of a bygone era. I think Beech tried to hang on to that

 

[GRG55]

...At some point Cessna's mission changed.. the old school 180/185/190/195 are works of art. They just feel (and look) like solid beasts.. but that's a product of a bygone era. I think Beech tried to hang on to that

So is the Douglas DC-3. But how many passengers would want to fly NY to LA in one of those today?

The era of mass produced light piston airplanes has also passed. What we have today is largely a stub remnant cottage industry serving a market that shrinks a bit more with almost every recession.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That may be useful information to buyers of new or nearly new aircraft (I"m not even sure about that). But the aircraft that most of us buy were built back when Beechcraft was head and shoulders above Cessna. I'd pit the quality of build of my '67 Bonanza against any '67 Cessna.

That’s exactly my point about how Beechcraft used to be better than Cessna. I would take an 80s Beechcraft over a new one any day, and not just because of the purchase price.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Has anyone sat in a new Baron or Bo? The plane just feels cheap.. from the throttles to the switches to the overall fit and finish. It is not in anywhere the same league as what is offered by any of the Diamonds or Cirrus, or upper trim Pipers, feels very "new 2006 flight school PA28" .. why would anyone pay a million dollars for that?

The company I used to fly for managed a new Bonanza. It didn’t necessarily feel cheap, BUT, the thing was an absolute lemon. Had several issues that the owner was constantly battling with Beechcraft service to address.

He finally got fed up and last I heard he got his lawyer involved and sent the airplane back. Bought a used Matrix instead.

 

[Tantalum]

What we have today is largely a stub remnant cottage industry serving a market that shrinks a bit more with almost every recession

A depressing through but true.

Bought a used Matrix instead.

Nice! Matrix seems like a cool plane. Hand it to Piper for keeping a clean line of trainer up through the higher end

 

[Tantalum]

And there's probably a case to be made that if Textron had not purchased Beechcraft (I think the King Air and military contracts were the prize they wanted) the Bonanza would already be out of production

..good point. But if you're going to buy something and add it to your product line you'd think you'd make an effort to give it some life? Right now the Bo and Baron feel very much like the unloved step children and the king air is the clear favorite.

We fly the 172s in our flight training unit fleet to 20,000 hours before we retire them

I've read about some PA-28 being flown into the 20K-30K range but flight school renters are a different beast altogether. Bone simple design and construction. Both wings on? Check. engine still starts? Check. Gas and oil in it? Check.

Cessna obviously did something right, I mean they've built the most GA planes.. right? But I think it's hard to argue that they've decided to pursue other avenues. They'll let Cirrus and Piper keep the piston crowd so they can fry the bigger fish in the turbine pond

 

[optionizerSS]

Two bedsides and one tailgate. Tailgate can go down so no one can see it. I dunno which planes be better, but Beech’s marketing department is smarter

lol. Yeah but the tailgates don't go down on those trucks....lol. IIRC Cessna was on the tailgate and Beechcraft on the sides

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There's nothing particularly notable about the performance of a new Mooney. Sure you can cruise a few knots faster, but it is not a serious competitor due lack of interior space and useful load. Being able to have a TKS system or AC, but not both is not a good selling point, and the interior comfort of a Cirrus is in a different league.

The new owners at Mooney are already working on both gross weight increases and modifications to reduce empty weight. And thankfully, they're planning on making these retrofittable as well, hopefully in a reasonably affordable fashion! The only reason Mooney no longer lets you get both FIKI and AC is that if you have FIKI + AC + full fuel, your available payload is somewhere around 250 pounds. (For reference, my non-FIKI, non-AC Ovation has a full fuel payload of 520 pounds, and since it carries 7.3 hours of fuel, plenty of mission flexibility.) So, hopefully once the modifications are improved, you'll once again be able to check all the boxes.

However, it won't matter unless they also take a page from the Cirrus playbook and learn how to market to the demographic that can actually afford their stuff. Just making a good product is not enough in today's world.

Most people in a position to buy a new aircraft for close to $1 million also want confidence that the company will be solvent in the near future, and the writing has been on the wall for Mooney for quite a while.

Nah, Mooney is the trick candle of aircraft manufacturers. They're up to 12 - or is it 13? - times that they've "gone under" (or bankrupt) and come right back. But if GA continues to decline and they don't do anything new, they'll definitely be in trouble, along with pretty much everyone except Cirrus, who will likely be the last piston GA maker standing if it comes down to that.

I was in the market for piston singles and light twins, and Cirrus was the only company that went out of their way to market aircraft. Their marketing and sales teams are incredible. Textron, Diamond, and Piper give the impression that they are doing a favor by selling you an aircraft. If Cirrus ever makes a six-seat single or light twin, the domination will be complete.

They won't do a twin - Even their jet isn't a twin. It's a 7 seater tho.

Who knows, if Textron made just a bit of effort on their piston line outside of the flight school product a few more people might be able to work there, keep their jobs., etc. Like Mooney, those individual engineers and workers ultimately pay the price for crappy corporate decision making. Can you imagine if the TBM700 (etc) had stayed as a Mooney product?

Boy, they'd sure be doing a whole lot better today if they'd stayed part of that project. The TarBes Mooney is a heck of an airplane, and it's a GREAT step up for Cirrus owners who don't want the operating costs of a jet.

..good point. But if you're going to buy something and add it to your product line you'd think you'd make an effort to give it some life? Right now the Bo and Baron feel very much like the unloved step children and the king air is the clear favorite.

I dunno. Didn't you hear that they just quietly discontinued the C90 line?

https://beechcraft.txtav.com

The King Air line now consists of the 260, 360, and 360ER. I think the PC12 ate the C90's lunch; Textron is going to return fire with the Denali which is squarely aimed at the PC12 market. But the 90-series had a good run, not many airplanes stay in production for 57 years!

 

[Cervieres]

[

The new owners at Mooney are already working on both gross weight increases and modifications to reduce empty weight. And thankfully, they're planning on making these retrofittable as well, hopefully in a reasonably affordable fashion! The only reason Mooney no longer lets you get both FIKI and AC is that if you have FIKI + AC + full fuel, your available payload is somewhere around 250 pounds. (For reference, my non-FIKI, non-AC Ovation has a full fuel payload of 520 pounds, and since it carries 7.3 hours of fuel, plenty of mission flexibility.) So, hopefully once the modifications are improved, you'll once again be able to check all the boxes.

I hope you're right, the most recent iteration of the Acclaim Ultra was a beautiful airplane. Cirrus has proven that there is a market for million dollar piston singles, but convincing Cirrus customers to become Mooney customers is going to take some thoughtful and creative marketing.

 

[Tantalum]

[

I hope you're right, the most recent iteration of the Acclaim Ultra was a beautiful airplane. Cirrus has proven that there is a market for million dollar piston singles, but convincing Cirrus customers to become Mooney customers is going to take some thoughtful and creative marketing.

I think there's more demand out there for GA then we give it credit for. But it's sort of a chicken/egg thing. People today more than ever love convenience, tech toys, and instant gratification, and more and more people hate the airlines as each year commercial air travel gets worse

But their option is a 4 person (really 2-3) million dollar machine or something derelict from 60 years ago that will require $$$ to keep flying and is not commensurate with what today's buyer wants. It's a chicken or egg thing, and sadly, with the small numbers of GA pilots the costs will continue to be the biggest obstacle. Even if every pilot in the US went out and bought a plane today that would still be a puny figure compared to how many cars are sold a year.. but that's the kind of volume that is needed to bring costs into some kind of realm of reasonable attainability

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Cirrus has proven that there is a market for million dollar piston singles, but convincing Cirrus customers to become Mooney customers is going to take some thoughtful and creative marketing.

"Do you really wanna leave your bits just dangling in the wind like that? I mean, c'mon, that's just embarrassing."

I think there's more demand out there for GA then we give it credit for. But it's sort of a chicken/egg thing. People today more than ever love convenience, tech toys, and instant gratification, and more and more people hate the airlines as each year commercial air travel gets worse

Meanwhile, most GA manufacturers haven't figured out cup holders and AC.

But their option is a 4 person (really 2-3) million dollar machine or something derelict from 60 years ago that will require $$$ to keep flying and is not commensurate with what today's buyer wants.

How is it going to require any more $$$ to keep flying than a Cirrus?

It's a chicken or egg thing, and sadly, with the small numbers of GA pilots the costs will continue to be the biggest obstacle. Even if every pilot in the US went out and bought a plane today that would still be a puny figure compared to how many cars are sold a year.. but that's the kind of volume that is needed to bring costs into some kind of realm of reasonable attainability

And the demand has to come before the supply. A manufacturer that charges less isn't going to suddenly stimulate demand, they're just gonna lose their butts when they can't pay their expenses.

And, of course, there's fewer pilots each year, and fewer people who can afford airplanes, and lower unit sales, and higher prices, and round and round we go in our death spiral.

 

[Tantalum]

How is it going to require any more $$$ to keep flying than a Cirrus?

I think the difference is spending $30K on something you bought for $800K vs spending that same $30K on something you bought for $50K. That's the threat with "cheap" planes.. the owners can't afford to keep them flying. But I'd be willing to bet a new NA SR22 will have less yearly maintenance costs than a 30 year old Bonanza.. but that also depends on how anal the owner is

For example, the Duchess I flew this past weekend would periodically see both alternators jump to just north of 50% load and the gear lights would flash. If that were my personal plane that would drive me nuts, and it would probably cost $$ to figure out what was causing it and fix it. Other people might just say "yeah it does that sometimes, don't worry about it"