Is the chute selling planes? And if so...

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,259
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Why are others not following suit?

I love data and after reading some other thread, I started looking at the numbers.
2 questions I guess.

1. Is the chute the reason Cirrus is doing so well
2. If so, Why are the others not adding them.

(Edit 3. Why am I so afraid of putting question marks at the end of sentences)

I got in a conversation with my boss who flies a G5 and we started talking about the data. I am all "Its fast, no gear to worry about, prop handles its self" He cuts me off and says "No, its the chute"

Maybe it is. If that is the single differentiator, and they are selling so many more planes based on this, why are the others not adding them. As a business, it seems like a no brainier. I can sell 30 or I can sell 300. I am adding it.

A brand new (182, 172, Mooney, whatever) already costs a bazillion dollars but they are not selling.
A brand new Cirrus costs a bazillion dollars and there is a waiting list.

If it is true. If my boss is correct. If it is the chute, why are other Mfgs not jumping on it?
 
Cirrus designed the chute, the deployment system and the shrouds into the airplane. And paid a lot in $ and time in certification to test it extensively.

Retrofitting, especially onto an aluminum airframe, is not impossible, but also offers some serious challenges. Engineering anchor hardpoints for the shrouds, where are the shrouds hidden (no gel coat to glass them under), testing/certification costs have to be recovered over an uncertain incremental future sales volume. Just a few of the hurdles.
 
GRG55 said:
Cirrus designed the chute, the deployment system and the shrouds into the airplane. And iPad to test it extensively.

Retrofitting, especially onto an aluminum airframe, is not impossible, but also offers some serious challenges. Engineering anchor hardpoints for the shrouds, where are the shrouds hidden (no gel coat to glass them under), testing/certification costs have to be recovered over an uncertain incremental future sales volume. Just a few of the hurdles.
Click to expand...

Cessna has the ability to retro fit them on 182s and post 1974 172s
Certainly they could incorporate them int new factory models.

I would thing the disparity in the sales numbers would have other makes chomping at the BRS bit
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Maybe it is. If that is the single differentiator, and they are selling so many more planes based on this, why are the others not adding them. As a business, it seems like a no brainier. I
Click to expand...

Why? Well cost of engineering, cost of installation and of cost of up keep... Do the maintenance, and you should not have a problem operating a well maintained aircraft. Folks don't have an unlimited budget.

Personally, I don't need a parachute just 1300 feet to land the plane..:)
 
In the LSA World, 'chutes are selling quite well. And if you take into consideration all forms of "LSA-like" airplanes, around the World, they are outselling single engine piston GA aircraft by quite a margin. 'Chutes definitely sell.
 
Shoot... who really knows?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Cessna has the ability to retro fit them on 182s and post 1974 172s
Certainly they could incorporate them int new factory models.

I would thing the disparity in the sales numbers would have other makes chomping at the BRS bit
Click to expand...

So how many new 172 and 182 buyers are clamouring for the BRS STC chute to be installed?

Nobody can buy a Cirrus without a chute, regardless of whether there were numerous other unrelated reasons they chose the airplane. I don't think there's any definitive statistical proof out there as to how much the chute plays into the sales decision.
 
GRG55 said:
So how many new 172 and 182 buyers are clamouring for the BRS STC chute to be installed?

Nobody can buy a Cirrus without a chute, regardless of whether there were numerous other unrelated reasons they chose the airplane. I don't think there's any definitive statistical proof out there as to how much the chute plays into the sales decision.
Click to expand...

Of course it's all a guess for us, this is just an internet message board. But I think Bryans question to that is, how many new Cirrus buyers WOULD BE 172/182 buyers if they had BRS. That is unknowable to us, but makes for good fodder.
 
My personal opinion - in no particular order
1. Interior is a luxury automobile - other brands, not so much
2. Fast - fast is good, fast is sex, sex sells
3. Side controller - like Buck Rogers rocketship, there is no "joy stick" (or funny looking yoke) to give the POSSLQ bad vibes
4. Gee Whiz panel - others have one but not as integrated into the overall look
5. No' embarrass me' retracting wheels to forget
6. And Yeah, the chute

You have to look at their customer demographic to understand the rational of my list
1. Able to cough up a million bucks
2. YUPPIE
3. Appearances are everything
4. They fly because they can - not necessarily because they made model airplanes as a kid (like most of us)
5. It enhances their lifestyle - ski slopes in winter, beach in summer, Key West for birthdays, etc.
6. They can sell the chute to the POSSLQ - who knows he is not as invincible as he believes

So dislike, dismiss, or micturate in my list as you choose, it is what I see
The SR22 is the new fork tailed doctor killer
 
A more relevant question is how many TTx's is Cessna selling? It's comparable in most particulars to the Cirrus except the 'chute. And the answer is: not to many. I believe single digits last year. Now I also believe Cessna is not marketing the TTx nearly as well as Cirrus is marketing the SR-22., but they sure aren't sell ing as many either.
 
Mike Smith said:
Of course it's all a guess for us, this is just an internet message board. But I think Bryans question to that is, how many new Cirrus buyers WOULD BE 172/182 buyers if they had BRS. That is unknowable to us, but makes for good fodder.
Click to expand...

Sit in a new 182. Leather seats, glass panel, nice airplane.
Then sit in a Cirrus.
No comparison.
Buying a personal use airplane, new or used, is largely an emotional decision.
Maybe the chute closes the deal. But I seriously doubt it's the primary reason the Cirrus is the more attractive choice. And I don't think Cessna is able to attract many potential buyers away from Cirrus with the BRS chute option it can already offer.
 
Dr. O said:
My personal opinion - in no particular order
1. Interior is a luxury automobile - other brands, not so much
2. Fast - fast is good, fast is sex, sex sells
3. Side controller - like Buck Rogers rocketship, there is no "joy stick" (or funny looking yoke) to give the POSSLQ bad vibes
4. Gee Whiz panel - others have one but not as integrated into the overall look
5. No' embarrass me' retracting wheels to forget
6. And Yeah, the chute

You have to look at their customer demographic to understand the rational of my list
1. Able to cough up a million bucks
2. YUPPIE
3. Appearances are everything
4. They fly because they can - not necessarily because they made model airplanes as a kid (like most of us)
5. It enhances their lifestyle - ski slopes in winter, beach in summer, Key West for birthdays, etc.
6. They can sell the chute to the POSSLQ - who knows he is not as invincible as he believes

So dislike, dismiss, or micturate in my list as you choose, it is what I see
The SR22 is the new fork tailed doctor killer
Click to expand...
I've bought and sold 2 Cirrus and combined wasn't anywhere near a million bucks.
 
jsstevens said:
A more relevant question is how many TTx's is Cessna selling? It's comparable in most particulars to the Cirrus except the 'chute. And the answer is: not to many. I believe single digits last year. Now I also believe Cessna is not marketing the TTx nearly as well as Cirrus is marketing the SR-22., but they sure aren't sell ing as many either.
Click to expand...

Cessna dealers can make better margins selling King Airs and Citations than any of their now incoherent piston aircraft suite (strut braced high wings to Bonanzas to the plastic TTx). Heretofore Cirrus didn't have the distraction of flogging anything other than piston airframes.

In that context the Denali makes logical sense for Cessna. I suspect the TTx survives only because Cessna dealers want something that is comparable to the piston Cirrus, even if Cessna doesn't put much effort into marketing it. In the next recession, if sales fall off from already low volumes, I would not be surprised to see the TTx and the Bonanza discontinued permanently.
 
Last edited:
Over 6000 Cirrus are flying. The company continues to sell over 300 piston singles a year despite the overall decline in aviation sales. The SF50 has over 600 backlog (5 years).
Cirrus owners are no different than other aircraft owners.
 
Dr. O said:
You have to look at their customer demographic to understand the rational of my list
1. Able to cough up a million bucks
2. YUPPIE
3. Appearances are everything
4. They fly because they can - not necessarily because they made model airplanes as a kid (like most of us)
5. It enhances their lifestyle - ski slopes in winter, beach in summer, Key West for birthdays, etc.
6. They can sell the chute to the POSSLQ - who knows he is not as invincible as he believes

So dislike, dismiss, or micturate in my list as you choose, it is what I see
The SR22 is the new fork tailed doctor killer
Click to expand...

Honestly, if I had the money, I'd own an SR22 for the longer xc flights. I am not a yuppie and don't give one, two or three+ ****s about appearances, I have just really enjoyed my experiences in the Cirrus. It's a great plane. I flew in some pretty turbulent conditions one day and it handled things much more smoothly than what I am used to in the PA28s or the C172s. I prefer the 6 pack to the glass panels, so I would probably opt for the one that has the best of both worlds (partial panel w/6 pack).

An instructor at the school I went to is alive thanks to that "yuppie" chute too, by the way. Total engine failure ~1500 ft msl due to mechanical issue. Even though she could see the airport - only 5 miles out, there was no way to make it, and everything else around there is dense urban area. Initially, she tried aiming for a small field by a school, but realized they weren't going to make it and instead opted for CAPS. The guys up in the tower watched as she pulled at 600 ft, which I think is bottom limit, or close to. Came down into some trees/wetland, and is alive, well and still instructing. Knowing where she went down, I seriously doubt that would be the case if not for CAPS.

I really don't see any problems with someone fitting #4 or #5 on your list. Anything that enhances my life and lifestyle can't be all that bad. And I definitely fly because I can... it's a passion, I can afford to (most days) and it makes me extremely happy, so why shouldn't I? I didn't build model airplanes as a kid, but I sure stopped everything I was doing when a real plane went overhead and didn't resume until it was out of sight.

Additionally, I know lots of Cirrus pilots... yes, I said pilots, not drivers... all are wonderful, down to earth, aviation-loving folks. One guy volunteers his spare time flying terminally ill and otherwise struggling kids around for a local non-profit. Maybe he's a yuppie when he goes home, but he's sure a hero when I see him at the airfield.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to cough up a million bucks. Or even 200 grand for one of the cheaper ones. So I'm a poor renter. For now.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Honestly, if I had the money, I'd own an SR22 for the longer xc flights. I am not a yuppie and don't give one, two or three+ ****s about appearances, I have just really enjoyed my experiences in the Cirrus. It's a great plane.

Additionally, I know lots of Cirrus pilots... yes, I said pilots, not drivers... all are wonderful, down to earth, aviation-loving folks. One guy volunteers his spare time flying terminally ill and otherwise struggling kids around for a local non-profit. Maybe he's a yuppie when he goes home, but he's sure a hero when I see him at the airfield.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to cough up a million bucks. Or even 200 grand for one of the cheaper ones. So I'm a poor renter. For now.
Click to expand...

You precisely nailed it, ma'am.
 
Last edited:
I'd never buy a Cirrus just because of the chute. If I ever did buy one, it would be the 220 kts that I'd be interested in. The BRS is nice to have, but it's a minor factor.

That said, I'm unlikely to ever purchase a Cirrus. My target right now is a C-F Mooney with manual gear. If I DID have a spare million laying around, I'd be more likely to look toward something far more fun, like say a P-51.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
(Edit 3. Why am I so afraid of putting question marks at the end of sentences)
Click to expand...

Because your questions are rhetorical in nature. You fear an actual response. Much like how you phrased your marriage proposal in the form of a statement. You felt that phasing it as a question would exude a lack of self confidence, as if the expected answer wasn't already a given.

And of course your prior-to-be spouse was bewildered by the lack of a question mark in the phraseology, and now look, she's stuck for life aiming Go-Pro's and performing sound checks.
 
The Cessna comparisons are not that strong. The 182 is for a completely different mission and the TTx just doesn't have the fit, finish, or ramp presence of the Cirrus (it still looks like a kit plane) I think if Mooney had a chute and went to advertising as effectively as Cirrus, they would see similar success. My only Cirrus time was a well-loved SR20, rented specifically to complete night XC requirements because of the chute, but I found it to be a far superior airplane than most. My wife, a Blackhawk medevac pilot with combat deployments won't get in a single without a chute, and she's not alone. The chute sells.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
FTFY, but thanks :)
Click to expand...

Oops.Sorry I didn't see your profile. You said it better than any Cirrus owner I know (and I am a Cirrus owner).

In defense of the Cessna TTx. The product is the only real competition to the SR22T. In many ways it is a better plane because it is a bit faster (10kts) and has a nicer panel (G2000). But has a smaller cockpit and lacks the chute. The TTx is also, utility versus standard rated, has a bigger FIKI capacity, has double the airframe life rating, has 10% more fuel capacity, but costs about $100k more. https://www.flyhpa.com/2016/02/detailed-comparison-of-the-cessna-ttx-and-cirrus-sr22t-g5/
 
Last edited:
gasfiltered said:
The Cessna comparisons are not that strong. The 182 is for a completely different mission and the TTx just doesn't have the fit, finish, or ramp presence of the Cirrus (it still looks like a kit plane) I think if Mooney had a chute and went to advertising as effectively as Cirrus, they would see similar success. My only Cirrus time was a well-loved SR20, rented specifically to complete night XC requirements because of the chute, but I found it to be a far superior airplane than most. My wife, a Blackhawk medevac pilot with combat deployments won't get in a single without a chute, and she's not alone. The chute sells.
Click to expand...

Have you seen a TTX in person? I haven't but the pictures sure look every bit a nice as a Cirrus. If they don't look as good in person, I get it. Also, they're pretty hard to find, so familiarity would be a factor...
 
jsstevens said:
Have you seen a TTX in person? I haven't but the pictures sure look every bit a nice as a Cirrus. If they don't look as good in person, I get it. Also, they're pretty hard to find, so familiarity would be a factor...
Click to expand...
I have. I didn't think it looked that bad, but the edge definitively goes to the Cirrus.
 
jsstevens said:
Have you seen a TTX in person? I haven't but the pictures sure look every bit a nice as a Cirrus. If they don't look as good in person, I get it. Also, they're pretty hard to find, so familiarity would be a factor...
Click to expand...
One lives right across from my hangar, let's just say that Photoshop is a powerful tool. It's sort of like the first time you get in a high end German car, everything in a Cirrus feels like it has been thoughtfully and thoroughly designed rather than just being a requirement some poor Chevy engineer was forced to make at rock bottom dollar.
 
A chute doesn't even exist on my list of must haves, but if the price of the Cessna and Cirrus are in the same ballpark, I'd probably go with the chute. They seem so similar in every other aspect, that the chute makes it an easy deciding factor. Now if the Cessna was a lot cheaper, seems like a different ballgame, but it looks like the Cessna is actually a little more expensive. To me, it sounds like Cessna only has two options in that market, keep the asking price and install a chute, or leave the chute off and sell it cheaper. They are screwed either way unless they have a ridiculous amount on profit built into the current price.
 
I was gonna say, interior design(a 2000s 172 looks like a 1960's 172), but then there are other modern designs without chutes that aren't selling well, right? So, combo, design and chute?

I don't find the exterior design of the Cirrus all that inspiring. Pretty basic looking, kind of like what a kid might draw a picture of an airplane. Maybe if I see one with those new wing tip lights! But the interior is night and day from your typical 172/piper/whatever.

Not that I wouldn't LOVE to have one or part of one, or a photo of one :)
 
If it weren't for the chute, Cirrus would sell no planes at all... because they couldn't be certified without it, because they can't recover from a spin in the required time. But they're brilliant; they took an aerodynamic deficiency and turned it into a marketing feature.
 
Dr. O said:
My personal opinion - in no particular order
Click to expand...
I was going to write virtually the same exact thing. It's fast. It's simple for the kind of performance you get. It's safe (chute!). And best of all (not my words), it doesn't feel like a plane (that's also why my wife prefers travelling in that hands down vs any 172, or Archer, even if comparing planes only a few years old). Also goes to your point about those of us who built models growing up. Aviation by itself isn't "cool" anymore unfortunately. And while others have jammed G1000s into their panels, they're not integrated the way Cirrus does theirs. So your post is 100 percent spot on. It sells because it gives the rich guy a flying toy that goes along with his BMW/Merc/Audi and let's him cruise around the skies with it, and one that his (or her) non flying spouse also enjoys sitting in.

I think it's a similar reason Tesla does well. People buying Teslas now, and the mass of people lined up for the model 3, probably also didn't grow up tinkering with engines and getting excited about "car stuff!" watching Top Gear, etc.

While I was originally resistant to the Cirrus movement I've grown to appreciate it. With the wide cabin, and everything it offers, it really is a comfortable ride. But I still enjoy renting the 172 and I did grow up building models, in fact I have 3 of them hanging in my office right now!
 
Dana said:
If it weren't for the chute, Cirrus would sell no planes at all... because they couldn't be certified without it, because they can't recover from a spin in the required time. But they're brilliant; they took an aerodynamic deficiency and turned it into a marketing feature.
Click to expand...

This myth seems to persist.

Cirrus looked at the data and found most inadvertent spins occur 1000 feet and lower and those situations are usually non recoverable. Cirrus chose to design anti-spin characteristics (NASA cuffed wing and anti spin tabs) and prevent or inhibit most spins from happening instead of certifying in the spin category and training pilots to recover from spins. The parachute has nothing to do with not certifying for spins but will allow pilots to avoid serious injury or death if the chute is deployed in case of an inadvertent spin and many other circumstances.

The planes have been spin tested but not certified for spins and the aircraft behave as any other in a spin. They are placarded against intentional spins as the plane is Standard category.

http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html
 
Cirrus sells so many aircraft for the same reason Rolex sells a lot of watches.
 
Say 'ello to the bad guy. I was once young, I lived in a very urban environment and I was a professional. To this day, I might occasionally drink a cocktail with my pinky finger extended wearing a blazer. I also purchased a Cirrus. I had to draw the line somewhere so I don't own a Rolex but I do own a Breitling.

I have no interest in a 182. Even the new ones look old and fly like a truck. I bought a plane to go places for work and fun. Places with paved runways. Back country flying never interested me. Plus a 182 is slow. My Cirrus climbed 1,000fpm at 130 knots and cruised at 180 all day long. Comfortable, functional transportation that was dirt simple to fly. The thing is, no chance I ever would have purchased that plane without a BRS. Mine was a SR22T with this big three blade prop that made it glide like a brick. Seriously, if I pulled back power to idle, I had to dive for the numbers IMMEDIATELY or I was never going to make the runway. Plus that twin turbo is not really confidence inspiring. It runs hot and always at a high power setting with tons of moving parts slapping and spinning in all sorts of directions. More importantly though, you ever look at Cirrus? The last thing that plane is designed to do is land off field. It has tiny tires on narrow landing gear and a big wet plastic wing that holds 90+ gallons of really flammable avgas. If I remember correctly, I was supposed to come over the numbers at 79 knots. That's 90mph off-offroading in a Cirrus! I'll admit there have been a few successful off field landings in a Cirrus but there have been more fatal attempts. To me a Cirrus without a chute and that engine just wasn't worth the risk. That's why I never considered a TTx - which I bet is more fun to fly. If I had to get a 182, given the success of the BRS system, I'd probably pay for the chute but with a STOL kit and some big rubber, the off field possibilities are pretty good as well.

Now having said all that, before the Cirrus I had a DA-40. That thing glided like a butterfly and had a stall speed that seemed like backwards. Plus that Lyc IO-360 is about as reliable as a piston can get and at my Rockies elevation the thing never really ran more than 65% power. It also has a fuel system that looks like it came out of an F1 car. If that plane came with a 'chute, I would have passed on the option.
 
Dana said:
they couldn't be certified without it, because they can't recover from a spin in the required time.
Click to expand...

This is not a true statement. This is internet lore.
 
They were spun and recovered in Europe where it was required. No difficulty recovering and no unusual behaviors noted by the test pilots.
 
It stalls very benignly, only a little harder break than a Skyhawk and it is easy to stay coordinated. Someone here posted a link saying that it was spin certified for the European market, and I found anecdotal evidence of this from a CFI who claims to have spun it and recovered after two spins, link below

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-Cirrus-recover-from-a-spin

I think part of this is propagated originally by Cirrus themselves, because they would rather have people use the parachute than spin it, however I don't think there's anything about the airplane that makes it unrecoverable in a spin. My $0.02
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....have you ever spun one? :D :stirpot:
Click to expand...

Cirrus piston singles are standard category and placarded against intentional spins. They are difficult to spin inadvertently for the reasons being stated. They have a wing design that stalls the root first and keeps the airlerons stall free so they can be used to correct spins. The rudder can be used to recover from a spin as is true for other planes. The factory has tested the plane in spins but chose not to get spin certification in the USA.
 
citizen5000 said:
Cirrus piston singles are standard category and placarded against intentional spins. They are difficult to spin inadvertently for the reasons being stated. They have a wing design that stalls the root first and keeps the airlerons stall free so they can be used to correct spins. The rudder can be used to recover from a spin as is true for other planes. The factory has tested the plane in spins but chose not to get spin certification in the USA.
Click to expand...
ailerons to correct from a spin? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top