Piper not supporting aircraft over 25 years old?

[tdager]

I hope So, I am shopping for a nice Six 300 or Lance. Hopefully many people will start dumping them and I can snatch up one of these non supported birds birds.

I agree with Henning an this. I have owned 2 airplanes and done a lot of work on both and have not bought a part from the manufaturer yet.
All salvage or make the parts.

So if you needed some sort of engine part that could not be found salvage you would make it? Come on, who is going to be able to make a crankshaft, or something like that.

I think it is criminal that the company would not allow PMA's to be done. Perhaps some sort of liability coverage that transfers liability for that part to the parts maker and not the aircraft builder?

Damn I hate greedy lawyers and stupid juries (notice I was selective in those statements).

 

[steingar]

I like greedy lawyers when they're working for me.

A real upshot of this is anyone looking to purchase a jet airplane from Piper ought to think twice, since they're looking at a 25-year investment. Airplanes normally last a long time, being made out of aluminum and all, so if you pay gobs of money so what? You'll have your airplane into your old age or be able to sell it for good money. However, with a 25-year cutoff for replacement parts you will have sudden devaluation of older airframes. The things could wind up being worthless just as they're paid off.

 

[Skip Miller]

So if you needed some sort of engine part that could not be found salvage you would make it? Come on, who is going to be able to make a crankshaft, or something like that.

Piper does not make engines. Lycoming is still in business.

-Skip

 

[rpadula]

The problem is going to be obtaining non-owner financing. While there is oodles of private equity money, the GA segment is just too small to attract investors that would rather buy Chrysler.

...or Beechcraft Hawker, but I assume that was to get the jet segment and not the Bananas. So, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Piper wants to move up to include a jet in the portfolio. Wasn't the "new" Piper financed by American Capital Strategies (symbol ACAS)?

And today we see Textron booking a $1B sale of 96 jets to NetJets at the Paris airshow. Yow!

I'm afraid that if these guys don't want to invest in small GA while all the cheap money is sloshing around, what chances do we have when money gets tight?

-Rich

 

[Tom-D]

Piper does not make engines. Lycoming is still in business.

-Skip

If Lycoming isn't supporting the engines they built in the past, it's the same thing.

Try to find a W-670 cylinder

 

[Tom-D]

So if you needed some sort of engine part that could not be found salvage you would make it? Come on, who is going to be able to make a crankshaft, or something like that.

I think it is criminal that the company would not allow PMA's to be done. Perhaps some sort of liability coverage that transfers liability for that part to the parts maker and not the aircraft builder?

Damn I hate greedy lawyers and stupid juries (notice I was selective in those statements).

Maybe we won't manufacturer a new part but we will find new ways to repair it, such as regrinding and fitting new bearings such as the superior STC to use thier reground cranks and bearing sets.

The original manufacturer has nothing to do with after market replacement parts that we use to support old aircraft, nor do they issue PMA (parts manufacturing authority) the FAA does that. If I feel thet there is a need I can reverse engineer a part and if the quality is there and all the FAA manufacturing rules are met they will issue the paper work.

Here is the limiting factor, the liability of that part is mine, I must make the decision to make the part based upon how many I can sell or the need.

Other wise if the original factory had to grant permission, we could never gain PMA for aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer in business.

I have PMA for Fairchild 24 wing Spars, I have been down this road thru all the paperwork. It Can be done if the need is there.

Maintaining old aircraft just became more doable, as the FAA is now allowing the A&Ps in the field to use the AC 43,13. 2B as reference to return to service as a minor repair. There is nothing on a PA-28 that can't be repaired using methods and practices given in the AC.

No Worries Folks, your Grand kids will be flying the Pipers just as we are flying the Stinsons, Fairchilds, Wacos, That is IF we still have a thing called general aviation.

 

[JohnR]

A real upshot of this is anyone looking to purchase a jet airplane from Piper ought to think twice, since they're looking at a 25-year investment.

Damn good thought. That is the question people should be asking Piper's CEO.

 

[Henning]

So if you needed some sort of engine part that could not be found salvage you would make it? Come on, who is going to be able to make a crankshaft, or something like that.

I think it is criminal that the company would not allow PMA's to be done. Perhaps some sort of liability coverage that transfers liability for that part to the parts maker and not the aircraft builder?

Damn I hate greedy lawyers and stupid juries (notice I was selective in those statements).

Did someone somewhere say Lycoming wasn't supporting the engines? Piper doesn't make engines, they make airframes. The only parts we're talking about are air frame parts as everything else (and a lot of airframe parts as well) are contacted out. This is NOT going to be a major difficulty...

BTW, I doubt this is a liability issue, it's a bottom line issue, they'd rather you buy a new Cherokee, and remember, depending on which model you have, many if not all the parts are interchangeable with new model parts. For those parts that aren't that there is a demand for, I expect that there are enterpizing people out there who will get an STC or their own PMA for replacement parts. Not difficult to do when you are making an identical replacement.

 

[Henning]

If Lycoming isn't supporting the engines they built in the past, it's the same thing.

Try to find a W-670 cylinder

Different animal though, how many W-670 are out there operational...How many Lycoming 0 320/360/540s? Right now you can buy almost entire non Lyc/Cont from Superior & ECI. Where there is a market demand, someone will produce the product....

 

[Henning]

Come on, who is going to be able to make a crankshaft, or something like that.

BTW, if it came down to it, I can have a custom one off billet crank made by Crower, Lunati or several other shops for around $4500 or less. If I wanted to do a run of 100 or so, I can get a forging run done By Federal and bring the finished price down to below $1500 a piece. Do you think Lycoming makes their own crankshafts, or GM or Ford or.... Not any more, those days are long gone. It's all contractor supplied parts now.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

they'd rather you buy a new Cherokee

Who are they kidding? I'm flying an Arrow right now. If said Arrow were mine, and I was being pushed towards a new aircraft, for the same price as a new Arrow I could get a new Diamond Star XL. Hmmm, better looking, faster, lower mx/insurance costs (fixed gear), lower fuel burn, better panel, higher useful load, more room in the back seats, easier to get into (canopy + back door), much more sophisticated autopilot, I could keep going for quite a while but I think the point is made. Why buy a brand-new 1970's airplane when I can get a NEW, better airplane?

I'll say it again: Piper is dead.

 

[rcaligan]

It's really a shame, but I can understand the CEO's view. As cold as it may seem, profitability needs to be the #1 goal for any business.

I also think that Piper is *this* close to completely taking over the training market from Cessna. Sure, it's a niche market, but everyone is a student pilot at some point. So it can be profitable. Look at what they have now in their Warrior/Arrow/Seminole lines:

- Similar lines (saves on parts and manufacturing costs)
- Similar cockpit layout (easy to transition between airplanes)
- Docile, predictable aircraft (great for training)
- Ability to go from zero time through ATP in Piper aircraft

Cessna's got a great trainer in the 172, but it unfortunately ends there. AFAIK, they'll never build another single-engine retractable (no complex endorsements or commercial training) or light twins (no multi-engine ratings). So to me, Piper has a better line of training aircraft than Cessna.

But then why does Cessna knock 'em dead in SE-piston sales? I think it's because Cessna involved more people in the design of the 172 than Piper. I'm guessing that Piper engineers were the only people involved in designing the Cherokee, whereas Cessna also got input from pilots, human factors people, mechanics, etc, and a team of them designed the 172 from a variety of aspects.

If Piper did that, they'd corner the training market and make a bundle. It wouldn't necessarily require a clean-sheet design, but it would be close.

 

[mikea]

A post on the red says that Piper has officially denied the story. The story is inaccurate. The CEO was misquoted. There are no plans to stop support.

There was plague of locusts! A terrible flood! IT'S NOT MY FAULT! I SWEAR!

You would have to wonder why he would make this announcement at the Cherokee Owner's fly in. Even the dumbest CEO would plan to make a speech the audience would be apt to like.

"Good news, everybody! My company is planning to deny all of you any chance to do business with us!"

 

[tonycondon]

perhaps they were just testing the water...

 

[Henning]

Who are they kidding? I'm flying an Arrow right now. If said Arrow were mine, and I was being pushed towards a new aircraft, for the same price as a new Arrow I could get a new Diamond Star XL. Hmmm, better looking, faster, lower mx/insurance costs (fixed gear), lower fuel burn, better panel, higher useful load, more room in the back seats, easier to get into (canopy + back door), much more sophisticated autopilot, I could keep going for quite a while but I think the point is made. Why buy a brand-new 1970's airplane when I can get a NEW, better airplane?

I'll say it again: Piper is dead.

I'm not dissagreeing with your analysis on which new 4 seat single to buy, though I wish they would make a DA-40R and a DA-46TR 6 seat 6 cylinder 300hp turbo retract, possibly even pressurized and giving the Thielert 400 as an engine option. I think as others have stated, that Piper is putting all their eggs in the VLJ thing, and as long as the market is there for it, with Pipers market and support network, and Hondas capitol, they have a chance at making it. The true market demand is the wildcard here, and we'll see how it plays out.

 

[mikea]

perhaps they were just testing the water...

For what? Exactly who would find this good news? Cessna and Cirrus?

 

[JohnR]

But then why does Cessna knock 'em dead in SE-piston sales? I think it's because Cessna involved more people in the design of the 172 than Piper. I'm guessing that Piper engineers were the only people involved in designing the Cherokee, whereas Cessna also got input from pilots, human factors people, mechanics, etc, and a team of them designed the 172 from a variety of aspects.

If Piper did that, they'd corner the training market and make a bundle. It wouldn't necessarily require a clean-sheet design, but it would be close.

They could re-start the Tomahawk production line.

 

[Henning]

But then why does Cessna knock 'em dead in SE-piston sales?

G1000 vs. Avidyne

 

[gismo]

It's really a shame, but I can understand the CEO's view. As cold as it may seem, profitability needs to be the #1 goal for any business.

Seems rather short sighted to me. If I'm shopping for a new airplane, resale value is likely to hold some interest for me. Now if I'm choosing between a brand that supports all the planes it has ever made and one that has announced they will orphan airplanes once they are 18 years old, would I pick the latter knowing that this means the resale value will likely suffer greatly?

 

[ApacheBob]

Different animal though, how many W-670 are out there operational...How many Lycoming 0 320/360/540s?

At least two.

I wish you non-Piper owners would just go back to bashing your own planes.
The Mighty Apache is 50 years old. I would take it over most other planes that are 10 or 15 years old.
Powerful but docile. It's a very solid IFR platform. If anything, it's too easy to fly.
The parts are out there in salvage yards. At 14 gallons per hour, it is out there flying while these gas guzzlers are being waxed in their hangers.
Pipers Rule!

ApacheBob

 

[ApacheBob]

I would like a Cherokee 6, too, which is the reason I would sell the Apache.

 

[Richard]

The following Piper Aircraft statement can be directly attributed to Mark S. Miller, Chief Corporate Spokesperson, Piper Aircraft, Inc.:


"Contrary to ...... misinterpretations in respect to Piper Aircraft's position on parts availability, Piper has not and will not set a cutoff date for spare parts availability. Published reports that Piper President & CEO Jim Bass announced such a cutoff are unfounded......
Piper maintains a total of more than 15,000 active spare parts and manages a total of approximately 25,000 spare parts. Our goal is to try and support all certified models that we have produced in our 70-year history whenever possible."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I also think that Piper is *this* close to completely taking over the training market from Cessna.

Are you kidding? Let's look at the numbers again. Piper sold a grand total of 48 airplanes that could be considered primary trainers (Warriors and Archers) last year.

Cessna sold 409 Skyhawks.

Diamond sold more DA20's (55) than Piper sold all of their training aircraft. Add in the DA40's and Diamond's number jumps to 275.

Sure, it's a niche market, but everyone is a student pilot at some point. So it can be profitable.

Actually, it can be VERY profitable because people will buy what they know.

Look at what they have now in their Warrior/Arrow/Seminole lines:

- Similar lines (saves on parts and manufacturing costs)
- Similar cockpit layout (easy to transition between airplanes)
- Docile, predictable aircraft (great for training)
- Ability to go from zero time through ATP in Piper aircraft

I see your point, and I think the Arrow is probably the best single-engine RG trainer out there (and certainly the easiest to insure). However, you're thinking of the traditional training path (PP - IR - Comm-SE - Comm-ME - CFI - ATP). What I'm seeing a LOT of these days is schools advertising that they'll go either PP-SE - IR - Comm-ME - Comm-SE or PP-SE - PP-ME - IR - Comm-ME - Comm-SE which gives the students more valuable multi time and also does not require a single-engine complex airplane to complete.

Cessna's got a great trainer in the 172, but it unfortunately ends there. AFAIK, they'll never build another single-engine retractable (no complex endorsements or commercial training) or light twins (no multi-engine ratings). So to me, Piper has a better line of training aircraft than Cessna.

But if you look at one of the new paths above rather than the traditional path, Diamond starts to look mighty good. I spoke with a flight school that had an all-Diamond training fleet 'cuz I wanted to get some DA42 time, and that sucker was booked solid SIX WEEKS out. As in, I couldn't even get a two-hour block closer than six weeks away (and yes, they had another one on the way). Glass panel, Jet-like engine management, etc.

But then why does Cessna knock 'em dead in SE-piston sales? I think it's because Cessna involved more people in the design of the 172 than Piper.

I think it's because Cessna knows how to market. Honestly, I'll take a Cherokee over a 172 any day but Piper just can't seem to sell them even though they have a better product IMHO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not dissagreeing with your analysis on which new 4 seat single to buy, though I wish they would make a DA-40R and a DA-46TR 6 seat 6 cylinder 300hp turbo retract, possibly even pressurized and giving the Thielert 400 as an engine option.

Me too! Don't forget the DA-52 Super TwinStar (or Twin Super Star? ). 6 seats with a pair of T-400's, could haul a heckuva load and probably do around 225 knots on 18GPH total fuel burn. That'd be the final nail in the Seneca's coffin.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Me too! Don't forget the DA-52 Super TwinStar (or Twin Super Star? ). 6 seats with a pair of T-400's, could haul a heckuva load and probably do around 225 knots on 18GPH total fuel burn. That'd be the final nail in the Seneca's coffin.

Once upon a time a Diamond rep was telling me about a stretched -40 fuselage that could seat 7 and was powered by 3 diesels. Losing 1 would be less of an issue, but lose 2...

 

[tonycondon]

ken,
if you start with three engines and lose 2, and its not because you ran out of gas, then, well, thats just a sign that its time to land.

 

[Ken Ibold]

ken,
if you start with three engines and lose 2, and its not because you ran out of gas, then, well, thats just a sign that its time to land.

I would say that's a sign you need to change your lifestyle!!!

 

[tonycondon]

yea, that would be a land, and then just start walking. walk where you ask? away, far far away.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Once upon a time a Diamond rep was telling me about a stretched -40 fuselage that could seat 7 and was powered by 3 diesels. Losing 1 would be less of an issue, but lose 2...

Hmmm, the DA73 Triple SuperDuperStar!

Drool...

Now why the hell would they hang 3 engines on anything for GA these days?

 

[tonycondon]

because it would look cool! duh!!!

 

[James_Dean]

If Diamond offered a DA-52 with KI that could do 200 kts on 18 GPH and be able to haul 1000 lbs 750 miles I would have a tough time not putting a deposit down.

Ahh..... I'd never have to fly the airlines again!

James Dean

 

[Ken Ibold]

Now why the hell would they hang 3 engines on anything for GA these days?

The story I got at the time was that each one would be the Theilert 1.7, so you'd be getting 405 hp for <18 gph total in cruise AND the asymmetric thrust would be dramatically reduced in engine outs. Granted, you have the engine mx/reserve issues, but I have to think the insurance companies would look favorably on this, which could provide financial incentive.

But, this was probably just idle chatter, or maybe something Diamond looked at and discarded. I'm in no way saying they're going to trot one out.

 

[ScottM]

They could re-start the Tomahawk production line.

I loved that plane. Nice cockpit layout, easy two door entry and it handled like a real plane not a toy plane.

 

[Henning]

At least two.

I wish you non-Piper owners would just go back to bashing your own planes.
The Mighty Apache is 50 years old. I would take it over most other planes that are 10 or 15 years old.
Powerful but docile. It's a very solid IFR platform. If anything, it's too easy to fly.
The parts are out there in salvage yards. At 14 gallons per hour, it is out there flying while these gas guzzlers are being waxed in their hangers.
Pipers Rule!

ApacheBob

This is the plane you have for sale, right?

 

[Ghery]

I see your point, and I think the Arrow is probably the best single-engine RG trainer out there (and certainly the easiest to insure).

True enough. However, I fly our club's Arrow enough to keep the insurance company happy, and not much more. For the same cost per hour I can fly a C-182 that is the same speed and infinitely more comfortable. 3 hours in the Arrow and my knees are killing me and I basically crawl out of the airplane. Not so with the C-182. But, I'm 6'2" and that might have an influence. I like the extra room in the Cessna. But, the Arrow is easy to fly (so's the 182), and it is an easy way to get complex time.

 

[Skip Miller]

The true market demand is the wildcard here, and we'll see how it plays out.

Bingo. And user fees can certainly impact market demand.

-Skip

 

[rcaligan]

Seems rather short sighted to me. If I'm shopping for a new airplane, resale value is likely to hold some interest for me. Now if I'm choosing between a brand that supports all the planes it has ever made and one that has announced they will orphan airplanes once they are 18 years old, would I pick the latter knowing that this means the resale value will likely suffer greatly?

I understand what you're saying, but if a business (any business) has a practice that causes them to lose money in the end, then they won't be in business very long.

The SR-20 & -22 series has an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. That affects resale value, yet Cirri are selling like hotcakes.

 

[rcaligan]

I think it's because Cessna knows how to market. Honestly, I'll take a Cherokee over a 172 any day but Piper just can't seem to sell them even though they have a better product IMHO.

The 172s market themselves. But as Henning pointed out earlier, Cessna helped by going with the G1000; a very smart move. I still believe Piper could make great strides in the training market, but they probably don't have the capital to do it.

I also don't think that the current Warrior-Arrow-Seminole line are up to the task. Fine airplanes they are, they can't compete with Diamonds or Cirri. Piper will need something new to compete and win in this market. And it doesn't need to be a clean sheet design if they start with the 6X/Saratoga/Seneca line. Some major alterations and improvements will be needed (in airplane design and business management), but it can be done.

 

[Henning]

The 172s market themselves. But as Henning pointed out earlier, Cessna helped by going with the G1000; a very smart move. I still believe Piper could make great strides in the training market, but they probably don't have the capital to do it.

I think Van could do very well if he'd certify and produce the RV 7 & 10, but I guess he's doing fine selling kits...

 

[CJones]

I think Van could do very well if he'd certify and produce the RV 7 & 10, but I guess he's doing fine selling kits...

No doubt. He would own the market with the -10. I'll give a personal evaluation in a year or two.