Cirrus success

[MountainDude]

I am very intrigued by the success of Cirrus, where almost everyone else has failed.

Cirrus Delivers 600th Vision SF50 Jet | Aviation Week Network

The company notes that it is the only single-engine jet to receive FAA certification.

aviationweek.com

Many other companies have tried to bring small jets to the market, and they all failed, but Cirrus has been very successful.
In the piston market, Cessna and Mooney failed with similar products to the SR22, with Cessna having a much better corporate backing than Cirrus.

What do people think are the major factors in this success?
I assume it's a combination of the BRS, good performance, and marketing. However, Cessna and Mooney had access to these aspects of GA business, so why didn't they succeed?

 

[frfly172]

A good product with good marketing,with a can’t afford to fail attitude.

 

[eman1200]

Cessna has failed??

 

[kujo806]

I think of Cirrus as the Tesla of aviation. They are trendy, techy, with good marketing. The parachute is a big factor especially with significant others.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I lived in Duluth when the SR-20 was being developed and had the opportunity to fly the prototype with Scott Anderson, the Cirrus test pilot who later died in a crash. In fact, I was there the day he crashed.

The marketing was brilliant. They had identified a market of people who wanted to fly, wanted the interior of a luxury auto, and the safety of the parachute to convince nervous spouses. Prospective buyers who wanted something simple to fly, sexy in design, and at the time, fairly affordable. I asked Anderson what he did NOT like about the design, and he said the doors, because the seats get wet when you are entering or exiting in rain.

One of my hangar neighbors was a Cirrus salesperson, and the first year they exhibited at Oshkosh, I asked him at the booth how things were going. "Great," he said, pointing out that pilots were often returning with their spouse and saying, "Tell us again about the parachute."

Now the Vision Jet has the auto land capability which is an even greater sales incentive for non-flying spouses.

 

[Salty]

I'm not sure the chute matters to nervous spouses that much. I've done some polling and most I've asked either aren't scared or are just as scared of riding down on the chute as they are not having it.

 

[hindsight2020]

What do people think are the major factors in this success?
I assume it's a combination of the BRS, good performance, and marketing. However, Cessna and Mooney had access to these aspects of GA business, so why didn't they succeed?

To the bolded, that's a misread of the situation. [Some of] The other OEMs didn't make a concerted effort in mimicking that product, as none offered BRS as OEM standard equipment. Their only interest (especially Textron and Piper) was in providing flight schools with replacement trainers for the airline-bound lemmings, otherwise they wouldn't even be in the piston market anymore. Spam can fanbois don't want to hear their OEMs don't want anything to do with them flying their 50 yo lawnmowers, but that's the reality.

They want nothing more but to rid themselves of the liability behind legacy piston products; their hostile lack of parts support by pricing proxy and STC-snuffing (ruddervator kerfuffle, cantilever carrythru/spars and gear for single series retracts et al) is evidence of it. More importantly, their unequivocable hand in thumbing the scale down against "primary non-commercial" or "owner mx" equivalent at the policy level (obstructionism often blamed on the FAA, that is a by-design misread of the situation) whenever regulatory relief NPRM came down the pipeline is obvious to everybody reading the room, unless you're one of the aforementioned "this is fine dog" types walking around with a red cup in your hand. Digressing.

Textron and Piper are more than happy to cede that flat-billed, gilet-wearing "bUh I gOt fEE kEEE" kamikaze customer market share to Cirrus. Apples to apples Cirrus never manufactured what the legacy piston OEMs did in the 60/70s, whether as individual companies or as a market. They recognize those days are over forever.

TLDR: your definition of success, much like America losing wars for 50 years like it's their job, and the definition of success for the people making money off said effort, are not congruent in the least. I'm not trying to simp for TextronGroup/Piper, I'm just telling you why they don't see what you highlight as a failure.

 

[ateamer]

Cirrus builds what the legacy manufacturers don’t seem interested in: Efficient, fast, comfortable planes with the latest avionics, made of modern materials. Piper’s closest equivalent was designed in the 70s; Cessna’s nearest competitor hasn’t been made for nearly 40 years. People who want a factory-fresh plane in that class have few choices.

 

[Salty]

Cirrus builds what the legacy manufacturers don’t seem interested in: Efficient, fast, comfortable planes with the latest avionics, made of modern materials. Piper’s closest equivalent was designed in the 70s; Cessna’s nearest competitor hasn’t been made for nearly 40 years. People who want a factory-fresh plane in that class have few choices.

You’re wrong on one point. This was not designed in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_400

But it was a failure.

 

[hindsight2020]

in that class have few choices.

And more to the punchline, the peanut gallery calls that "success".

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I think part of it is the fact that there is a stepping stone from SR20/22 to SF50.

Middle aged successful guy/gal learns to fly, buys an SR20/22, then as long as the wallet can handle it, it’s just another step to jet not unlike your initial certificate, additional ratings, etc.

Let’s see, what can I transition to from my 182 that won’t seem like a leap? Another piston (faster or retract or twin) likely. But a jet next? There’s no one from Cessna whispering to me “hey mack, look over here…you can do this”.

In my case, wallet is probably the bigger issue, lol!

 

[MountainDude]

Cessna has failed??

Cessna 400 has failed. Cessna 182/206 are in production, but the numbers are super low.

 

[ateamer]

You’re wrong on one point. This was not designed in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_400

But it was a failure.

I forgot about the Columbia/TT/Corvallis/400; should’ve just called it the Schizo. Cessna could’ve made it a big seller but they just didn’t seem to care.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I think two things are important to consider: (1) who owns these companies, and (2) what their definition of "success" is.

I doubt China's state-sponsored AVIC cares much about profitability in the miniscule GA market, and that's who owns Cirrus. They can afford to throw as much as money as they want behind it, lose it hand-over-fist, and not really care about the expense. Their ownership motivation is probably more related to technology acquisition, and establishing their country's aerospace technological know-how. That kind of non-profit-seeking motive and a near-infinite well of money probably ensures you can outlast your competitors.

Separately, I think demographics are important. There's quite a few more people now with quite a bit more money (retiring/close to retiring age folks) after a near 15 year bull-run in asset prices, which probably matches the older skew of pilot's ages. Over the last 10+ years more people have been able to afford more expensive toys, compared to the great-financial-crisis '08 days when Cessna stopped making the 350/400. Being nearly the only game in town during that period means you might just win by default.

This is all just Saturday afternoon speculation, of course

 

[Hang 4]

Go to Oshkosh or Sun n Fun. Walk to the Cirrus booth, then go to Piper or Textron. Cirrus has planes you can sit in, touch etc and knowledgeable salespeople that will talk to you. The rest have ropes to keep you away and salespeople that don't want you to interrupt the conversations with each other. If I had a million $ to spend on a new piston plane, I know where I'd start

 

[TCABM]

Cirrus is selling planes because they found a market segment, targeted it, and positioned a product that segment wanted. There’s nothing innovative in the product or the business model.

Textron and Piper target a different market (141 fleets). Cirrus cannot compete in that market with the SR20. True, some Part 61 operators make it work, but it’s because they’re targeting a student population that’s already intent on buying/buying into an SR22.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Cirrus builds what the legacy manufacturers don’t seem interested in: [...] People who want a factory-fresh plane in that class have few choices.

Really? What's wrong with the current Bonanza or Piper 350?

 

[TCABM]

Really? What's wrong with the current Bonanza or Piper 350?

Textron ain’t making Bo’s no more. Hasn’t been for close to a year.

Textron Pauses Orders For Bonanzas, Barons

Textron has confirmed it is not currently taking orders for new Beech Bonanzas but it won’t say why it has stopped or when it might resume accepting them. “To ensure...

www.avweb.com

The M350 is more expensive to purchase and operate than an SR22. Yes, some additional capability, but clearly the market doesn’t value those differences.

 

[Bell206]

However, Cessna and Mooney had access to these aspects of GA business, so why didn't they succeed?

To answer that you have to put things into context. The Cirrus SR20, along with the Columbia 350 and several other aircraft, were developed under the NASA AGATE program in the 90s. Basically all the innovative stuff you know Cirrus for was provided by NASA in some fashion. Even some items on the Cirrus jet came from that program.

Cessna, Piper, Mooney, and other legacy OEMs were not part of that program for various reasons. So there's really no comparison between the Cirrus and those legacy guys. Ironically, the same year the AGATE program ended, Cirrus sold a majority of the company to investors.

Theres a lot to this discussion that gets missed from a historical point.

 

[MountainDude]

I doubt China's state-sponsored AVIC cares much about profitability in the miniscule GA market, and that's who owns Cirrus. They can afford to throw as much as money as they want behind it, lose it hand-over-fist, and not really care about the expense. Their ownership motivation is probably more related to technology acquisition, and establishing their country's aerospace technological know-how. That kind of non-profit-seeking motive and a near-infinite well of money probably ensures you can outlast your competitors.

This is all just Saturday afternoon speculation, of course

I don't agree with this speculation. If China wanted the tech, they would have purchased the company, taken the tech, and shut it down. Yet, they just made 600th SF50. That is amazing.
It would be important to know if Cirrus is profitable or not.

 

[MountainDude]

To answer that you have to put things into context. The Cirrus SR20, along with the Columbia 350 and several other aircraft, were developed under the NASA AGATE program in the 90s. Basically all the innovative stuff you know Cirrus for was provided by NASA in some fashion. Even some items on the Cirrus jet came from that program.

Cessna, Piper, Mooney, and other legacy OEMs were not part of that program for various reasons. So there's really no comparison between the Cirrus and those legacy guys. Ironically, the same year the AGATE program ended, Cirrus sold a majority of the company to investors.

Theres a lot to this discussion that gets missed from a historical point.

Thanks for the info. However:
- What innovative tech did Cirrus have that Cessna and Mooney have not?
- Note that Cessna acquired Columbia 350/400, and yet they failed to succeed, so there is more to the story than the innovative tech.

 

[WDD]

It is a bit of a puzzle on why China wants to bother with US GA. It’s not making a ton of money. What surveillance or intelligence benefits could they get from this?

 

[Anthem]

Cirrus knows what the marketplace wanted and addressed it. The Chinese ownership isn’t operating this at a loss - they understand profit and loss much better than we Americans do. On top of that / they are just better at innovating. For anyone who hasn’t been to china and seen the technology of cars that they are building there - it’s eye opening. If they didn’t have enough trouble supplying the demand there - they would easily come over and destroy what is left of GM and ford (Chrysler is alredy dead). To give you an idea - Tesla builds there but they aren’t the most advanced or best or innovative cars there. They are average at best. That tells you how they are moving and going about.

Doesn’t surprise me with regard to GA at all. Cessna would be so much better standing alone. Being part of textron and their only care being jets - means that they just don’t care. That applies to beech and Cessna as the bo and baron are essentially done and no longer being made. The 182 and 206 are essentially models with no real customers. The 172 is essentially for fleets. And they are living off of parts for profitability. It’s a sad state but that’s where we are at.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I don't agree with this speculation. If China wanted the tech, they would have purchased the company, taken the tech, and shut it down. Yet, they just made 600th SF50. That is amazing.
It would be important to know if Cirrus is profitable or not.

My counterpoint to that would be that they kept the US talent (management/engineering/etc), so the tech assets and R&D is an ongoing contribution not a 1x extraction. Cirrus annual report says they're profitable, but these are non-audited statements.

I don't say this to bash Cirrus. Seems like a neat company. I think they build cool planes and it's great that they've opened an avenue for people to buy the very light jets and high performance singles. And if the only way they can do that is by having foreign ownership, then great.

they understand profit and loss much better than we Americans do

The SEC, congress and a good number of professional investors would disagree with that assessment.

 

[TCABM]

It is a bit of a puzzle on why China wants to bother with US GA. It’s not making a ton of money. What surveillance or intelligence benefits could they get from this?

Business intelligence. Reverse engineer the proprietary data, then use it for their own purposes. The parachute rockets, for example. Baseline data to build new ejection seat rockets.

Then, Lufthansa had/has a whole ab initio MCPL program starting in SR20s. The model is easy enough to implement, especially if they figure out how to build the airframe.

Then, advanced composite manufacturing and assembly techniques. And the list goes on.

 

[szwinger]

I hesitate to respond because it's all been discussed for decades. For the record my perfect plane would be a 165KTAS Cessna 182 (normally aspirated). I have a NA SR22. I previously had an SR22TN. I flew both at 65% power LOP. Both were similar speed/fuel burn, but the TN had TKS so was marginally slower than the NA clean wing.

Pilots argue endlessly about Fuel Burn, KTAS, Range, useful load etc. Within those parameters subjectively there is no clear winner. Mooney wins sometimes, Beech wins sometimes, Selfishly the 182 wins all the time (just kidding), the Saratoga/Lance win. These are pilot arguments. I've had Turbos. I've had retracts. My experience was that they cost more. I read all the reviews. What I've read the owners say they don't cost more than NA/Fixed gear. For me they did. Remember, I fly in the regime that 65% power was achievable with NA or Turbo. Others have different experiences.

Pilots are dumbfounded at Cirrus's success. How many posts inquire about VREF? How many posts inquire about avionics in older aircraft and how to value one vs another. How many posts are looking for a mentor CFI or AP/IA.

Cirrus is a commodity. The resale of Cirrus aircraft are controlled by a few brokers. Unlike VREF they know the selling price. Unlike other preowned models you can choose whether you want FIKI, TKS, Turbo, Turbo Normalized, NA, Avidyne, Garmin, Steam Gauge. You can likely find an aircraft configured exactly how you would order it. The broker's know what similarly configured (and Vintage) models have sold for. There are Factory certified services centers all over the place. You buy a used Cirrus. You get standardized factory trained CFIs.

You want to offload your Cirrus? It will sell. It is a nice airplane, but it is not the best value in my opinion. My advice is to buy a Cessna 182P model. I just wish it was faster.

Edit: Air Conditioning is a must for me. I've had planes with Factory "air conditioning". The only one that worked anywhere close to what's in a car was the NA SR22. The SR22TN did not work that well. Could just be airplane specific, but my passengers appreciate AC more than KTAS or GPH. Yes, I have read all the posts about just get up to altitude. That doesn't work for me. I understand that it works for some. With Cirrus you can take you pick and pay accordingly.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Cirrus knows what the marketplace wanted and addressed it. The Chinese ownership isn’t operating this at a loss - they understand profit and loss much better than we Americans do. On top of that / they are just better at innovating. For anyone who hasn’t been to china and seen the technology of cars that they are building there - it’s eye opening. If they didn’t have enough trouble supplying the demand there - they would easily come over and destroy what is left of GM and ford (Chrysler is alredy dead). To give you an idea - Tesla builds there but they aren’t the most advanced or best or innovative cars there. They are average at best. That tells you how they are moving and going about.

Doesn’t surprise me with regard to GA at all. Cessna would be so much better standing alone. Being part of textron and their only care being jets - means that they just don’t care. That applies to beech and Cessna as the bo and baron are essentially done and no longer being made. The 182 and 206 are essentially models with no real customers. The 172 is essentially for fleets. And they are living off of parts for profitability. It’s a sad state but that’s where we are at.

With respect, I’ll disagree in general.

The US understands capitalism (profit & loss) better than communist China. Two economic systems that are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Chinese are not better at innovating. A large percentage of their tech they have reverse engineered.

Cirrus was purchased in 2011. The Vision Jet was already in the pipeline and the SR20/22 was already a decade old.

I’m not at all saying they are not advancing and may surpass us, but let’s not mix that up with profitability, innovation, and Cirrus.

 

[Anthem]

With respect, I’ll disagree in general.

The US understands capitalism (profit & loss) better than communist China. Two economic systems that are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Chinese are not better at innovating. A large percentage of their tech they have reverse engineered.

Cirrus was purchased in 2011. The Vision Jet was already in the pipeline and the SR20/22 was already a decade old.

I’m not at all saying they are not advancing and may surpass us, but let’s not mix that up with profitability, innovation, and Cirrus.

I’ve been to china about 2x every year as I have business there. Trust me - the Chinese are more
Capitalistic than we are. Everyone wants to throw around capitalism and how we seem to be the antithesis to what they have. But their version of the marketplace is way more capitalistic than we are. We /used/ to be but all of our social programs put us way outside of any form of capitalism.

As for profitability - we use something called ebitda frequently to “measure” profitability. It’s the bigggest joke measure in the world. Don’t forget depreciation. China might bail out their banks - but so do we. They also let large real estate firms to fail which I’m not sure we would do. They won’t bail out their car manufacturers, airlines and a bunch of others. Can you say the same for us ?

Anyone who has recently been in China knows how far they have innovated. You might want to use the excuse that they don’t innovate and retro engineer - but they are crushing it. Seriously. They have better infrastructure because they can do large projects and we can’t, they have half the worlds tallest buildings and infrastructure, their public transporation is downright amazing, and their private delivery and what not have all surpassed us. Their labor is about 1/3 of the cost of ours but it’s not cents on the dollar anymore, so low labor things are no longer cost effective for them either (look at Mexico and Vietnam for that).

But seriously - China is killing it. And people there seem to be happier than we are in the USA. They work harder and get more done than we certainly do.

 

[Bell206]

- What innovative tech did Cirrus have that Cessna and Mooney have not?

As part of AGATE, Cirrus recieved the low cost composite manufacturing process, the wing design, the leading edge deice system, and the BRS. Or basically the main things what makes a Cirrus a Cirrus.

Plus the fact all that innovative tech recieved by Cirrus was subsidized by NASA and the industry. So while Cirrus had all its R&D handed to them, Cessna and the others would have foot their own bill.

- Note that Cessna acquired Columbia 350/400, and yet they failed to succeed, so there is more to the story than the innovative tech.

Yes. No viable market. While some believe it's regulation that is holding back the development of a new recreational GA aircraft, its something more basic like economics.

So you had the Cirrus SR20, the Columbia 350, and the Toyota TAA-1 come out from AGATE, flying, with all that "free" R&D, two went to market, with only one remaining at a buy cost well above your average weekend flyer can afford. Which hardly meets the intent of AGATE to stimulate the private GA market with low cost aircraft.

It is a bit of a puzzle on why China wants to bother with US GA. It’s not making a ton of money. What surveillance or intelligence benefits could they get from this?

In my experience, China's angle with those GA and similar purchases is to use them to help legitimize their domestic aviation industry on a global scale plus it gives them a seat within the inner workings of the global aviation system as a producer. Fortunately or unfortunately, this tact has yet to bring them much success with the Comac C919 a prime example.

And just to add, the first Cirrus buyer in 2001 was out of the Middle East. China was the 2nd buyer a number of years later.

 

[FastEddieB]

Thanks for the info. However:
- What innovative tech did Cirrus have that Cessna and Mooney have not?

Though relatively crude and accomplished with cams and levers, combining the throttle and prop control in a “power lever” did succeed in making power management quite a bit simpler. I don’t recall anyone else implementing a similar system, not to say they might not have.

 

[Salty]

Though relatively crude and accomplished with cams and levers, combining the throttle and prop control in a “power lever” did succeed in making power management quite a bit simpler. I don’t recall anyone else implementing a similar system, not to say they might not have.

Reducing flexibility and functionality to make something easier to use is now considered innovative.

 

[FastEddieB]

Reducing flexibility and functionality to make something easier to use is now considered innovative.

For folks wanting to mess with a prop control, a company did make a retrofit. I suppose it adds a modicum of increased “flexibility and functionality”.

But for most pilots under most circumstances, the power lever provides most reasonable combinations of throttle setting and RPM, and makes life easier.

As an aside, does your criticism apply to FADEC as well?

 

[AA5Bman]

Interesting read. Just plowed through the whole thread and I have thoughts/questions:

- FWIW, my wife would love to own a Cirrus. She has been flying with me for years through multiple different planes and I don’t think she has ever once had any level of excitement about any of the planes we’ve flown. But a nice new Cirrus? I don’t know what it is, but I she definitely doesn’t know anything about a parachute or how fast they go or anything else.

- So… is Cirrus not profitable? I don’t track these things, but that keeps coming up and surprises me.

- Was the Cessna 350/400 unsuccessful financially, or did it end up just not fitting Cessna’s strategy? Like, they realized their strategy was to focus on the training market, or the 350/400 took away from their light jet sales or something? As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the Cessna 350/400/TTx/whatever seems to be experiencing a resurgence in popularity? Why?

- I have followed the used 206 market for years. Why is it that there are so many more post-restart 206s available on the used market than there are “legacy” 206s, when there were vastly more “legacy” 206s built? Seems relevant to this topic, but I’m not sure exactly why.

- The conventional wisdom is that Cessna stopped producing their legacy GA piston planes in the 80s due to liability exposure. Has there been significant tort reform that has addressed this issue? Is Cirrus not subject to those same exposures?

- Last thought, the FAA is so effed up, the most amazing part of this whole thing is simply that they got the SF50 approved in the first place (let alone the SR-series).

 

[SebIp]

I don't agree with this speculation. If China wanted the tech, they would have purchased the company, taken the tech, and shut it down. Yet, they just made 600th SF50. That is amazing.
It would be important to know if Cirrus is profitable or not.

We need to think of China and Chinese as humans similar to anyone else in part. Yes, there is a lot of state money thrown around. However, it doesn’t mean the management and owners of state or private Chinese firms don’t have an innate desire to achieve and prove themselves.

They are driven to be successful whether they are funded entirely privately or not.

And we need to remember while we talk about state money the western alliance does a lot of government funding as well. We just consider that because we are the ones doing it as fair.

 

[FastEddieB]

As an aside, back in 2007 we had just sold our 2003 SR22. The buyers let us use it for a trip to Duluth for the Cirrus Migration where “the Jet” was unveiled.

IIRC, the delay from that unveiling to actual certification seemed agonizingly long. But what an accomplishment, regardless!

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I’ve been to china about 2x every year as I have business there. Trust me - the Chinese are more
Capitalistic than we are. Everyone wants to throw around capitalism and how we seem to be the antithesis to what they have. But their version of the marketplace is way more capitalistic than we are. We /used/ to be but all of our social programs put us way outside of any form of capitalism.

As for profitability - we use something called ebitda frequently to “measure” profitability. It’s the bigggest joke measure in the world. Don’t forget depreciation. China might bail out their banks - but so do we. They also let large real estate firms to fail which I’m not sure we would do. They won’t bail out their car manufacturers, airlines and a bunch of others. Can you say the same for us ?

Anyone who has recently been in China knows how far they have innovated. You might want to use the excuse that they don’t innovate and retro engineer - but they are crushing it. Seriously. They have better infrastructure because they can do large projects and we can’t, they have half the worlds tallest buildings and infrastructure, their public transporation is downright amazing, and their private delivery and what not have all surpassed us. Their labor is about 1/3 of the cost of ours but it’s not cents on the dollar anymore, so low labor things are no longer cost effective for them either (look at Mexico and Vietnam for that).

But seriously - China is killing it. And people there seem to be happier than we are in the USA. They work harder and get more done than we certainly do.

I defer to your experience visiting there.

I also agree with the BS that is EBITDA; simple P&L is what I’m talking about.

 

[Salty]

For folks wanting to mess with a prop control, a company did make a retrofit. I suppose it adds a modicum of increased “flexibility and functionality”.

But for most pilots under most circumstances, the power lever provides most reasonable combinations of throttle setting and RPM, and makes life easier.

As an aside, does your criticism apply to FADEC as well?

Of course not. Comparing FADEC to the cam driven cirrus control is ridiculous.

 

[Bell206]

Was the Cessna 350/400 unsuccessful financially, or did it end up just not fitting Cessna’s strategy?

You have to look back to when Columbia sold a majority of the company in 2003(?) to someone in the Pacific region. Just as Cirrus sold out in 2001, Columbia followed suit as the market was tight and limited. Given both models came from AGATE, they were very similar as they used the same technologies and Cirrus beat them to punch and they never recovered.

Cessna bought the company/aircraft for pennies on the dollar after Columbia went bankrupt. But since Cirrus had that limited market basically to themselves, Cessna couldn’t sell enough of the 350/400/TTx to keep the line going.

Like, they realized their strategy was to focus on the training market, or the 350/400 took away from their light jet sales or something?

If you read the data on it, it was a direction Cessna wanted to take and thought it would work especially since they had limited development costs associated with the product. But the market ruled.

The conventional wisdom is that Cessna stopped producing their legacy GA piston planes in the 80s due to liability exposure. Has there been significant tort reform that has addressed this issue?

Not really. But the cost effects have come down since the 80s which saw increases of +2000%. I believe the liability costs are somewhere in the range of 30%-40% which was enough a reduction to go ahead with the Restart models. The main reason for the reduction was passing GARA in 1995.

Is Cirrus not subject to those same exposures?

Yes. But they started approval/production in 1995 and had no legacy liability issues as Cessna and the others did. Plus they offered a level of safety (BRS, air bags, etc.) that kept them competitive.

Last thought, the FAA is so effed up, the most amazing part of this whole thing is simply that they got the SF50 approved in the first place

Curious, in what way?

They’ve been certifying aircraft and other parts pretty regular for years with no issues that I’ve seen.

 

[wayneda40]

You’re wrong on one point. This was not designed in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_400

But it was a failure.

And of course the Cessna 400 (aka TTx, aka Columbia, aka Lancair) wasn't "designed" by Cessna, only tweaked and poorly marketed by Cessna.

 

[mandm]

Go to Oshkosh or Sun n Fun. Walk to the Cirrus booth, then go to Piper or Textron. Cirrus has planes you can sit in, touch etc and knowledgeable salespeople that will talk to you. The rest have ropes to keep you away and salespeople that don't want you to interrupt the conversations with each other. If I had a million $ to spend on a new piston plane, I know where I'd start

Very true. At Cirrus I sat in all of their airplanes including their jet. I was invited into the owners lounge and given drinks, snacks, free gifts and the salesmen cell phone number. At Piper, I felt like I was staking out the place to hot one of their airplanes. Very disrespectful staff at all the other aircraft manufacturers who attempt to pass judgment right away.