Curious. So you believe the downturn in 2008-09 didnt play into the equation which caused both Cirrus and Cessna to drastically downsize and eventually lead to their subsequent sell-off to AVIC and Textron respectively?
Cessna kept the TTx going afterwards but also had two clean-sheet designs in the pipeline in much more lucritive markets. So it would appear the TTx got axed by a more popular model line then anything else. Whereas Cirrus only has 2 basic model lines to deal with.
What "clean sheet designs" did Cessna have in 2008-09???
The Cirrus facility at TKI has an ever changing parade of SR-22s and SF-50s on the ramp in front of their hangar. There are usually five to eight of them. Judging from the turnover of airplanes I see, they're selling quite a few.
Yup. In 2023, they sold 115 SR20s, 142 SR22s, 355 SR22Ts, and 96 SF50 Vision jets for $930 million in revenue.
Yeah… based on some here - they couldn’t imagine that it’s a better product than what Cessna, beech, or piper is putting out….. it must all be marketing….
It's a good product, but by several measures it is outgunned by various competing products. The whole package is overall very good and it definitely benefits from great marketing as well.
I think cirrus is delivering 250 sr22s a year. The last few years - beech hasn’t delivered maybe 10 bonanzas per year. So - a 25x delivery rate doesn’t connote “better” I guess. Which single engine piston plane in this category has delivered even 1/10 (about 25 sr22s) of what they have done.
Beech has delivered 107 Bonanzas in the past decade. Cirrus, in the same time frame, has delivered 3,411 SR22s (counting both NA and Turbo).
But if you're looking for a couple extra seats, a big back door, or retractable gear, the Bonanza is "better".
For example, it depends on how you define success. If using deliveries as a factor, there were over 44,000 172s made to Cirrus’s 10,000. So which one enjoys more commercial success?
It took Cessna 60 years to make 44,000 172s, and much of it was in the heyday of GA. If you look at only the timeframe in which Cirrus has been producing aircraft, it's a completely different story.
Regardless, in my experiences, its not the number of deliveries or comparisons made that define success, its how that aircraft services its intended market. And the Cirrus does not service the same market as a Cessna, Mooney, or Piper does for a number of reasons.
The SR22T services mostly the same market as the Mooney Acclaim, and likewise for the SR22 and Mooney Ovation.
So to me, if the Cirrus series was truly equal or better than those other legacy aircraft, then why hasn’t Cirrus taken over more of those market shares or at least made an effort to?
What am I missing? It seems they have.
Maybe. I suppose if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Vision, I would be looking at whether it was right for the mission before I decided it was a fantastic value.
I got a chance so sit in one last summer. One flew into my home base and I asked the pilot if I could take a look. He was still waiting for his passengers so we hopped in and he gave be a brief tour. Sitting in the left seat felt very familiar - the cleanliness, ergonomics, and simplicity that has been one of the things I noticed about Cirrus from the very beginning (I had a friend who had a "G1" SR22; he on the pre-certification waiting list). But, the pilot told me, while it was a joy to fly, the Vision's weight and balance numbers were not great. Like many piston singles, once you added full fuel, it's passenger and baggage payload was down below 500 lbs. I haven't checked those numbers, but if they are accurate, they will work for some but not for others when we balance range vs carrying capacity.
When I first interviewed Alan Klapmeier about it, he said "Don't ask me what the full fuel payload is."
He was sick of answering that question... But then went right on to answer it anyway: About 300 pounds (note that this was prior to certification so may not reflect the eventual reality of the real aircraft).
BUT, he said that after a lot of market research, their customers had two main missions: A single pilot flying long distances, or that pilot loading up their family and flying 2-3 hours. So, the jet was designed to fulfill both of those missions well.
How do the annual sales volumes compare if you include used airplanes?
That doesn't even make any sense. With the exception of a few trade-ins, no manufacturer is making money on used aircraft.
Right. But the point is that having to reduce range for a family of four with baggage would be a no-go for some. Not for others. Sort of why some buy a 182 vs something faster. Carrying capacity at full fuel Personal preference, personal mission, personal choice.
Any airplane that has to be packed full of stuff, people AND fuel to get to MGTOW is poorly designed - It's not versatile. You're giving up better range with less than a full load for... What, exactly? The ability to say "I can stuff this plane full and still go". Filling a plane with fuel is a trainer mentality. The vast majority of airplanes cannot do this, including most jets.
I was thinking of buying a Cirrus. Do they make one that is fully aerobatic that I can operate from a 2000' grass strip?
No, and why would they? That mission is not a common one. How is that even relevant?
The only market peers Cirrus had were the 400/TTx and TAA-1 which came out of the same program that the Cirrus did. One failed to garner market share and the latter never went to market. That is why Cirrus has no direct competition.
Disagree - Cirrus' market isn't "Composite fixed gear four seaters". Cirrus' market is the 160-180 knot four seat piston single market, which also includes older Bonanzas, Mooneys, "Columbiessna" and probably some rarer stuff.
But when you look at the aircraft numbers from 1999 to present it paints a different outcome that Cirrus really didn’t have much effect on Cessna’s or Mooney’s loss of market. For example, in that same timeframe a number of other popular aircraft came to market: Diamond, Tecnam, and all the E/AB-LSA offerings.
LSAs, Tecnam, Diamond don't really compete with Cirrus except the DA40 vs the SR20.
And Cirrus definitely ate Mooney's lunch. The SR20 didn't have much of an effect since it is outperformed by everything Mooney was selling at the time, but in 1999 and 2000, Mooney sold 97 and 100 aircraft (Cirrus sold 9 and 95 SR20s, respectively). But in 2001 when the SR22 came out, Cirrus sold 124 of them (plus 59 SR20s) and Mooney sold only 29 airplanes. In 2002, it was 292 to 10.
As far as the DA40 vs the SR20, Diamond apparently didn't join GAMA until 2003 so I don't have the numbers for the couple of years the DA40 was available before that, but the DA40 has always outsold the SR20 since 2003, except for 2018.
So while Cessna’s unit output has decreased, Piper’s basically stayed the same, and Mooney stopped production, is it your contention that all those former legacy owners went to Cirrus?
IMO, Cessna and Piper don't sell a competing product any more. Cessna did with the Columbia stuff, but Piper's product line goes directly from the PA28R (Arrow), which is essentially a trainer retract and a slower speed class, into 6-seaters and twins.
Or did they go to Diamond, Tecnam, and the E/AB-LSA route at a much lower cost?
I'm sure a lot of 172/182 buyers went to Diamond, but that's harder to quantify with Diamond numbers not being available right away.
In the case of Cessna and Beech, I don’t think it’s so much that Cirrus outsold them as Cessna and Beech backed out of the market. The returns on piston airplane production aren’t worth the effort. The powers that be decided to stop throwing their profit margin away.
Except they didn't back out. You can still buy a brand new 182, Arrow, Bonanza, etc but they're mostly made to order now (with the exception of the 182, though that had a recent production pause as well). Cessna did back out of the composite speedster market, but without Cirrus I don't think they would have. But Cessna stumbled and Cirrus kept executing and eventually Textron lost patience with it and gave up. Competing with Cirrus takes an investment, and they simply weren't selling enough airplanes to make it worthwhile.
