BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 07:29

Username Protected wrote:

Indeed the SF50 has sold like brats at Lambeau field. A natural step up from the SR22T, which was previously the Piper M series or TBM. God forbid a Cirrus pilot earn a multi rating (look away, Coburn).

However, the range/UL trade-offs are quite dear. I recall a friend who owns one being limited to 2 pax on a trip from SMO to JAC. That seems absurd.

Cirrus has gradually expanded their offerings over time. If they determine that there is a market for a twin jet they will make one. They’ve been fairly methodical in their aircraft development and the SF50 is an evolutionary step. It’s not necessarily the last step.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 08:03

Cirrus reminds me a bit of Aspen Avionics now. Initially and for quite a few years, there was a lot of excitement. There really weren't many alternatives to the PFD1000 in 2007.

But then Aspen stopped innovating. Sure, they've made gradual improvements, but nothing massive. Sort of like Cirrus. The Aspen today looks and works much like the Aspen of 10 years ago. Same for the SRs. Where's the innovation?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 10:17

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus reminds me a bit of Aspen Avionics now. Initially and for quite a few years, there was a lot of excitement. There really weren't many alternatives to the PFD1000 in 2007.

But then Aspen stopped innovating. Sure, they've made gradual improvements, but nothing massive. Sort of like Cirrus. The Aspen today looks and works much like the Aspen of 10 years ago. Same for the SRs. Where's the innovation?

You mean compared to Beech, Cessna, Mooney ... ?
There are plenty of differences between a G2 and G6 SR and lots of innovation over their competitors IMHO.

BWTHDIK!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 14:43

Username Protected wrote:

You mean compared to Beech, Cessna, Mooney ... ?
There are plenty of differences between a G2 and G6 SR and lots of innovation over their competitors IMHO.

BWTHDIK!

Oh I don't mean to say that the others have innovated at all. Sure, there are differences between those models. There are differences between the Aspens, too. But it's been what, 15+ years for the SR22? That's not exactly a lot of innovation. Sort of like Aspen, sort of like the iPhone 6 > 11.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 23:04

Username Protected wrote:

With all the talk about Diamond's new HPSE and Mooney's attempts to build a relevant airplane, I have to wonder: Where is the twin malibu?

Where is the modern pressurized twin piston? When was the last 421C made, 1985?

Is the cost gap between building and operating a pressurized twin piston and a pressurized twin turbine really that low? It can't be. Look at the cost delta between a new G58 Baron and a new baby King Air. Millions.

Corporate flight departments that are restricted to twins by executive insurance generally do not need turbines to comply. Personally I think it's absurd that an adjuster could find a Baron safer than a Pilatus or TBM, but it is what it is, and it's widespread.

Build:
-A modern 6-place aircraft
-Powered by twin turbo FADEC piston engines
-Out of composites
-With a G3000 w/ autoland
-And a parachute
-That's pressurized
-And takes 2000 pounds 1200 miles at 250 KTAS

No gear inspection or calendar items. Annual it like a baron. No half-a-million-dollar sword of damocles hanging off each wing.

How does this not exist? I know certification is expensive. The DA50 must have been pricey to certify, and it solves ... no problems.

-J

Proposed power plant?

Seems like what the GA really needs is a far cheaper turbine engine.

Elon needs to get on that for us.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Sep 2020, 23:34

I think the twin you are proposing would (need to) sell for $3M+. A modern 421 would not be cheap. Every bit as complicated as the Vision Jet but bigger, then add nacelles in the wings and all the piston engine systems. And at that price, you might as well be buying a twin jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Sep 2020, 01:48

Here’s the real question. Why does a new PT6 cost $250k? The certification and tooling costs have long been paid for. The raw materials can’t be that much. Is it simply because that’s what the market will bear? How many units would they sell at $50k each? More or less than 5 times as many?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Sep 2020, 08:14

Username Protected wrote:

Here’s the real question. Why does a new PT6 cost $250k? The certification and tooling costs have long been paid for. The raw materials can’t be that much. Is it simply because that’s what the market will bear? How many units would they sell at $50k each? More or less than 5 times as many?

It's probably not the direct unit cost that's the issue, it's the 2,000% increase in liability from the operators that it open the market up to. Then there is the increase in "non-skilled" labor maintaining them, operating them, etc.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Sep 2020, 08:26

Username Protected wrote:

Here’s the real question. Why does a new PT6 cost $250k? The certification and tooling costs have long been paid for. The raw materials can’t be that much. Is it simply because that’s what the market will bear? How many units would they sell at $50k each? More or less than 5 times as many?

Joel,
What size PT6, -66D in TBM is well over 1,000,000 I believe, honestly not sure how much. 250k won’t OH one in a TBM or Pilatus.

Where's my twin Malibu?