Good for Piper

I didn't see 2017's report out yet, so here is 2016's:
https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016ShipmentReport06192017.pdf

per that report in 2016:
-Beechraft sold 45 piston planes, 25 Bonanza and 20 Baron
-Cessna sold 217 piston single between 172, 182, 206, and TTx... note that 100 of those 217 were Skyhawk... I am willing to bet the VAST majority of those went to flight schools...
-Cirrus sold 317... that's 35 SR20, 133 SR22, 149 SR22T
-Piper sold 127 TOTAL... so not stellar numbers.. so this year's order is a huge boost to them
-Mooney sold... 7

**with numbers like that I would definitely see Baron and Bonanza production in jeopardy. Obviously this would not be publicized at all, and might as well keep the line open as long as possible if you already have the tooling in place, etc. But I mean, the design is 70 years old... not sure how much more repacking can be done with it... the end has to be near for this (admittedly classic) airframe
 
Just think about Cirrus' success... if Panthera moves into actual, legit production, and Diamond releases their DA50 (which is offered at a very competitive price) then I don't see that taking sales away from Cirrus... I see it taking sales away from whatever is left of the remaining competitors. The newer generation of pilots, the <40 group, and especially the <30 group don't get the nostalgic excitement for ancient planes... the buyer demographic is different and while some makers (and frankly, including Flying) ridicule this group, it's where the money is at. If GA wants to stay alive they have to stay fresh. At one point Cessna, Mooney, Beechcraft were fresh and modern for their group...
 
RudyP said:
Yes, although I could also see it being one of those things where no one is in a huge hurry to make the announcement. Not exactly an exciting story to tell (or report).

But again, feel free to take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I believe it to be accurate (based on source) but even I can’t stand by it with 100% certainty. I certainly don’t expect you to believe me (a random person on the internet to you) and am not offended if you do not.
Click to expand...

We all know aircraft manufacturing is a tough business. There was a seismic shift in piston GA output after the financial crisis, even for Cirrus, and nothing close to a full recovery since. Some tough decisions from a number of producers would seem inevitable in time.
 
GRG55 said:
We all know aircraft manufacturing is a tough business. There was a seismic shift in piston GA output after the financial crisis, even for Cirrus, and nothing close to a full recovery since. Some tough decisions from a number of producers would seem inevitable in time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is quite unfortunate. And it is still weird to me because we here all know how valuable GA can be and yet so few people get in and stay in. I think Cessna, Cirrus or GAMA should advertise for general aviation on big screens visible from every TSA line in America.
 
They need to bring the 207 back since that was the best piston airplane ever built.

Ugly as sin, slow, but if you can shut the door it will fly. That’s not an exaggeration either.
 
DavidWhite said:
They need to bring the 207 back since that was the best piston airplane ever built.

Ugly as sin, slow, but if you can shut the door it will fly. That’s not an exaggeration either.
Click to expand...

How are you going to sell an ugly 140 knot plane? Some will buy it, but not enough to recoup the line costs of recertifying, producing and supporting. If you want to sell a new plane, it should be able to carry plenty of passengers, luggage, have good speed and range. The Cirrus is pretty good, but does not carry stuff well. Try to get a couple of mountain bikes, backpacks and 3-4 people? But then you need HP, but HP is heavy, so probably needs to be a turbine. If it is a turbine, it should probably fly high to get efficiency. If it has to fly high for efficiency, probably should be pressurized..... No wonder nobody builds an affordable plane that has speed, utility and range.:-( On the pack mule, slow side C206, DA62, Kodiak and Caravan. On the faster more refined side M350, M500, SF50, M600, TBM 910/930, PC12. All, unfortunately pretty pricey.
 
RudyP said:
Yeah, it is quite unfortunate. And it is still weird to me because we here all know how valuable GA can be and yet so few people get in and stay in. I think Cessna, Cirrus or GAMA should advertise for general aviation on big screens visible from every TSA line in America.
Click to expand...
I travel a lot for work. My company currently works at more than 150 airports around the country, and I find myself flying all over. (I think I can draw a map of the restaurants in ATL from memory.) I often fly an airline, rent a car and drive an hour and a half to a GA airport. Several of us are very experienced pilots and aircraft owners. However, the company prohibits us from flying GA in any form for work-related trips, which I find ironic given what we do. One guy even traveled in his 172 at his own expense, but was shut down. Making the business case is futile; "insurance" is always the reason.

I sometimes drive 6 hours, attend a meeting, and drive 6 hours home in one day. Boy would THAT trip be more attractive in a piston single than a Nissan from Avis!
 
That type of discrimination is unfortunate. I am sure they would have no problem with you traveling by motorcycle without a helmet, which carries more risk. Plus Part 91 business flying which is what you are talking about, which encompasses non pro-pilot pilots flying themselves for business, is per Nall and the NTSB one of the safest flying segments on par with Part 135. Around 0.3 fatals per 100K hours flight time.
 
Rockymountain said:
That type of discrimination is unfortunate. I am sure they would have no problem with you traveling by motorcycle without a helmet, which carries more risk. Plus Part 91 business flying which is what you are talking about, which encompasses non pro-pilot pilots flying themselves for business, is per Nall and the NTSB one of the safest flying segments on par with Part 135. Around 0.3 fatals per 100K hours flight time.
Click to expand...
Several of us have expended quite a bit of political capital with the C suite to try to get them to reconsider, to no avail. (They prohibit motorcycles while on company business, too.)
 
Ken Ibold said:
I travel a lot for work. My company currently works at more than 150 airports around the country, and I find myself flying all over. (I think I can draw a map of the restaurants in ATL from memory.) I often fly an airline, rent a car and drive an hour and a half to a GA airport. Several of us are very experienced pilots and aircraft owners. However, the company prohibits us from flying GA in any form for work-related trips, which I find ironic given what we do. One guy even traveled in his 172 at his own expense, but was shut down. Making the business case is futile; "insurance" is always the reason.

I sometimes drive 6 hours, attend a meeting, and drive 6 hours home in one day. Boy would THAT trip be more attractive in a piston single than a Nissan from Avis!
Click to expand...

That really sucks. I have instituted a variation of the don’t ask don’t tell policy for my GA flying for work reasons. It isn’t for everyone or every circumstance though.
 
RudyP said:
That really sucks. I have instituted a variation of the don’t ask don’t tell policy for my GA flying for work reasons. It isn’t for everyone or every circumstance though.
Click to expand...
Our travel policies are too formal to get away with that.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Several of us have expended quite a bit of political capital with the C suite to try to get them to reconsider, to no avail. (They prohibit motorcycles while on company business, too.)
Click to expand...

Understand your dilemma. What a bunch of phooey. I did do some consulting business with a fortune 500 multinational company (1099 income) that had a similar policy, and just told them fine, find someone else to do it, I don't fly commercial. Fortunately I had that luxury. They came back with a release of liability form from their counsel which I was happy to sign. So it can be done, but I understand the ears are not sympathetic. Really seems un-American.
 
GRG55 said:
Is there a press release about cancelling TTx production? I couldn't find anything on the Textron website.

The Bo, Baron and TTx all sold reasonably good numbers in 2016...by the pathetic standards of the piston aircraft market. Maybe not enough by the volume required to survive in Textron's stable, given their model revenue numbers probably don't move the needle much on the income statement.
Click to expand...

There is now.
 
Flying's latest issue showcases the Baron G58. For over $1.4M I have to ask myself who is spending that kind of dough on that plane. The Baron is a classic plane, but it doesn't really stack up to the DA62, which can be had for $200K-$400K less. I know the DA62 is diesel, but is that price delta enough to justify double the fuel burn, smaller cabin, and lower useful load of an older tech Baron?

Looking at the photos Flying posted I can't say I'm impressed.. I understand the costs of certifying a new plane are astronomical, and twin demand is low in general, but you can tell that the "let's keep developing this plane to keep it fresh" thought process has long ended.. that cockpit is a mess

For $1.4M that opens a lot of doors in the turbine market.. I know I'd be looking at a TBM.

I can't personally see the line staying open much longer (5 to 10 years max), especially with Textron's focus on the turbine market now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top