I'm sure it shares a lot of heritage with SR-20. However, the wing is relocated further forward relatively to the cabin, probably because there's less airplane behind the front seats. The windows are a little different and the tail is very different. In particular, the horizontal stabilizer is moved to the tip of the tail. The nose gear is also different. I think that the whole thing is smaller, but it's hard to tell from the pictures.Is this a completely new, smaller airframe? Or is this the 2018 version of the Piper Cherokee PA-28-161 Cadet - strip out the back seat(s) and lighten up the 4 place airframe?
That's more a recent trend, mostly by smaller, undercapitalized companies. In the heyday of general aviation, the established manufacturers rarely revealed anything about a new design until it was certified and ready for market. Ever hear of the Cessna 160, 187, or 327? Or the Piper PA-29 or PA-33?I'm surprised they would be fielding a prototype new model without any PR at all. Most manufacturers start touting a new design as soon as they get done dreaming it up.
Taking a page from the Vashon Ranger?Most manufacturers start touting a new design as soon as they get done dreaming it up.
Most manufacturers start touting a new design as soon as they get done dreaming it up.
Taking a page from the Vashon Ranger?
Maybe they smell blood in the water vis a vis the training market.
They probably aren’t marketing it because they know it will sell anyway and they’re going to be behind on production from day one.
I don't know that's necessarily true. The sales of the SR-20 are quite poor compared to the 22s, although the upgraded engine this year may improve the situation. But then a two-seater might cannibalize SR-20 sales? And a two-seater trainer is destined to be a lower margin product that averages down the corporate ROCE.
Cirrus cannot possibly provide the level of attentive service to its owners that it does now if it moves away from high margin luxury airplanes.
Did you mean the People's Liberation Army Air Force by that fleet purchaser?Probably for a fleet purchaser who won’t care about the Cirrus “lifestyle”. LOL.
Did you mean the People's Liberation Army Air Force by that fleet purchaser?
Probably for a fleet purchaser who won’t care about the Cirrus “lifestyle”. LOL.
I was thinking more along the lines Cirrus would require their training curriculum and so forth - the CAPS thing again. They may have a potentially large liability if they don't.
Interesting. I could see them trying to have more planes in the trainer market to keep people in the cirrus ecosystem. Like how a lot of people want to buy a Cessna because that’s what they trained in. I don’t see them making much money on a 2 seat plane, but who knows.
According to GAMA, in 2017 Cirrus only delivered 46 SR20s compared to 300 -22s. My bet is they kill the -20 and replace it with EX18. That would round the fleet with a true trainer, step-up travelling piston, and final destination jet.
A 2 seat would make sense for the company to complete their strategy of people growing their needs through Cirrus.
According to GAMA, in 2017 Cirrus only delivered 46 SR20s compared to 300 -22s. My bet is they kill the -20 and replace it with EX18. That would round the fleet with a true trainer, step-up travelling piston, and final destination jet.
I think that mentality does not apply as much as it used too.
People have a lot less brand loyalty than they used too.
Tim
+1
Cirrus has half the total piston single market now using the SR-20 as a sort of-trainer. How much more of that could they possibly gain with an expensive, low volume custom 2-seat trainer?
This is the Chinese masters fulfilling the real reason for Cirrus acquisition: Intellectual property siphoning and the chinese flight training market as the final destination for this product. This has goose egg to do with the moribund nothing burger US piston recreational market, imo.
I wonder about the "Chinese flight training market". They seem to send large numbers of students to North America to train. Is this just spill over volume that their own domestic flight training can't accomodate? Or does China even have any flight training infrastructure to speak of?
These American buyouts are indicative to me that they're certainly working on it. We're the only suckers in the world who believe subletting our Sovereignty to other Countries is good for the rank and file because "globalization potato".....
The devil is in the details. Cirrus would be dead and gone without her Chinese benefactors. That or someone wanted to cash out and not be in it for the long haul. You decide.
When the Chinese bought Cirrus in 2011 the controlling interest in the company had been held for about a decade by a Persian Gulf based Islamic Bank owned private equity company called Arcapita (I believe the Klapmeier brothers, who founded Cirrus, owned substantially the rest). I had some dealings with Arcapita in that time frame. And in those halcyon days I also got to watch the new Arcapita headquarters building going up on reclaimed land on the other side of the corniche from my Diplomatic Area office in Manama, Bahrain (pic below).
Like so many other high flying financial firms, Arcapita got slammed by the financial crisis and tried to sell Cirrus starting in early 2008. They did not conclude a deal until 2011, when China's state-owned CAIGA bought the entire company. Cirrus went through some difficult times in those years, and Nate is probably correct that it might have come close to being shuttered on occasion. Sales volumes collapsed at the outset of the financial crisis (and have never come back to anywhere near those levels since), the main shareholder was also under financial stress and reluctant to inject more capital, the remaining shareholder(s) likely did not have the means to compensate for that either. Bad combination.
View attachment 63908