Cirrus success

[Anthem]

<Content deleted by User>

 

[eman1200]

This is from AI…… NOT from me…

Then I asked it to draw one without a mole on his face (or maybe that’s herpes? I dunno…) and got this

 

[Bell206]

You can always use “subjective” - but at some point, commercial success is the dictating factor.

True. But the answer still is subjective.

For example, it depends on how you define success. If using deliveries as a factor, there were over 44,000 172s made to Cirrus’s 10,000. So which one enjoys more commercial success?

Regardless, in my experiences, its not the number of deliveries or comparisons made that define success, its how that aircraft services its intended market. And the Cirrus does not service the same market as a Cessna, Mooney, or Piper does for a number of reasons.

So to me, if the Cirrus series was truly equal or better than those other legacy aircraft, then why hasn’t Cirrus taken over more of those market shares or at least made an effort to?

 

[PaulS]

This is from AI…… NOT from me…

Then I asked it to draw one without a mole on his face (or maybe that’s herpes? I dunno…) and got this

I am nowhere near that good looking.

 

[StraightnLevel]

True. But the answer still is subjective.

For example, it depends on how you define success. If using deliveries as a factor, there were over 44,000 172s made to Cirrus’s 10,000. So which one enjoys more commercial success?

Today? Cirrus, based on annual sales volume.

So to me, if the Cirrus series was truly equal or better than those other legacy aircraft, then why hasn’t Cirrus taken over more of those market shares or at least made an effort to?

Why would they?

The market they serve today garners more sales, so why would they change their approach to try to serve a smaller potential market?

The data appears to show that a realistic price for a 4-place, moderately fast, single-engine GA plane is in the $750K-$1.2M range. Cirrus clearly has the most popular model in this segment, and as a result has the highest sales of any light plane manufacturer, and it seems that this is is “sweet spot” in our current economy.

Could they enter the trainer market? Perhaps, but they would be competing with an entrenched competition base (Piper/Cessna) for a smaller total market segment. That’s not a business venture that would make the cut in any investment forum I’m familiar with.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Being completely honest, if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Cirrus Vision, I would see it as a fantastic value.

Maybe. I suppose if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Vision, I would be looking at whether it was right for the mission before I decided it was a fantastic value.

I got a chance so sit in one last summer. One flew into my home base and I asked the pilot if I could take a look. He was still waiting for his passengers so we hopped in and he gave be a brief tour. Sitting in the left seat felt very familiar - the cleanliness, ergonomics, and simplicity that has been one of the things I noticed about Cirrus from the very beginning (I had a friend who had a "G1" SR22; he on the pre-certification waiting list). But, the pilot told me, while it was a joy to fly, the Vision's weight and balance numbers were not great. Like many piston singles, once you added full fuel, it's passenger and baggage payload was down below 500 lbs. I haven't checked those numbers, but if they are accurate, they will work for some but not for others when we balance range vs carrying capacity.

 

[TCABM]

…But, the pilot told me, while it was a joy to fly, the Vision's weight and balance numbers were not great. Like many piston singles, once you added full fuel, it's passenger and baggage payload was down below 500 lbs. I haven't checked those numbers, but if they are accurate, they will work for some but not for others when we balance range vs carrying capacity.

I heard similar from a guy I was talking to at Cheyenne Mountain Resort. He was wearing a Vision ballcap and had an AOPA mag so I joked if Cirrus gave a ballcap with a jet subscription.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Today? Cirrus, based on annual sales volume.

How do the annual sales volumes compare if you include used airplanes?

 

[Bell206]

so why would they change their approach to try to serve a smaller potential market?

The data appears to show that a realistic price for a 4-place, moderately fast, single-engine GA plane is in the $750K-$1.2M range. Cirrus clearly has the most popular model in this segment, and as a result has the highest sales of any light plane manufacturer,

Exactly. Cirrus serves a specific market and demographic that Cessna and the other legacy aircraft do not. So how does the Cirrus higher sales volume even apply to the markets that Cessna and the others service that Cirrus does not?

Basically, it doesn't. Cessna and the others are equally commercially successful in their own right within applicable market segments they service.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Exactly. Cirrus serves a specific market and demographic that Cessna and the other legacy aircraft do not. So how does the Cirrus higher sales volume even apply to the markets that Cessna and the others service that Cirrus does not?

Basically, it doesn't. Cessna and the others are equally commercially successful in their own right within applicable market segments they service.

If we apply only new aircraft sales volume as the determinant for “best,” we’ll have to all agree that in the 1980’s Maule built the best light GA airplanes.

 

[MountainDude]

Maybe. I suppose if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Vision, I would be looking at whether it was right for the mission before I decided it was a fantastic value.

I got a chance so sit in one last summer. One flew into my home base and I asked the pilot if I could take a look. He was still waiting for his passengers so we hopped in and he gave be a brief tour. Sitting in the left seat felt very familiar - the cleanliness, ergonomics, and simplicity that has been one of the things I noticed about Cirrus from the very beginning (I had a friend who had a "G1" SR22; he on the pre-certification waiting list). But, the pilot told me, while it was a joy to fly, the Vision's weight and balance numbers were not great. Like many piston singles, once you added full fuel, it's passenger and baggage payload was down below 500 lbs. I haven't checked those numbers, but if they are accurate, they will work for some but not for others when we balance range vs carrying capacity.

If the useful load was higher with full fuel, that would mean the plane was engineered incorrectly.
It is perfectly engineered the way it is. You trade payload for range.

 

[MountainDude]

Exactly. Cirrus serves a specific market and demographic that Cessna and the other legacy aircraft do not. So how does the Cirrus higher sales volume even apply to the markets that Cessna and the others service that Cirrus does not?

Basically, it doesn't. Cessna and the others are equally commercially successful in their own right within applicable market segments they service.

It doesn't today. However, Mooney and Cessna competed with Cirrus for many years and lost. That is why Cirrus has no competition today, not because Mooney and Cessna chose to exit this market segment.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If the useful load was higher with full fuel, that would mean the plane was engineered incorrectly.
It is perfectly engineered the way it is. You trade payload for range.

Right. But the point is that having to reduce range for a family of four with baggage would be a no-go for some. Not for others. Sort of why some buy a 182 vs something faster. Carrying capacity at full fuel Personal preference, personal mission, personal choice.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I was thinking of buying a Cirrus. Do they make one that is fully aerobatic that I can operate from a 2000' grass strip?

 

[Bell206]

It doesn't today. However, Mooney and Cessna competed with Cirrus for many years and lost. That is why Cirrus has no competition today, not because Mooney and Cessna chose to exit this market segment.

Again, subjective. So how does an all metal, monocoque-structured, 70-year-old design aircraft ever hope to compete with an all composite, NASA engineered, tax-payer assisted aircraft?

The only market peers Cirrus had were the 400/TTx and TAA-1 which came out of the same program that the Cirrus did. One failed to garner market share and the latter never went to market. That is why Cirrus has no direct competition.

But when you look at the aircraft numbers from 1999 to present it paints a different outcome that Cirrus really didn’t have much effect on Cessna’s or Mooney’s loss of market. For example, in that same timeframe a number of other popular aircraft came to market: Diamond, Tecnam, and all the E/AB-LSA offerings.

So while Cessna’s unit output has decreased, Piper’s basically stayed the same, and Mooney stopped production, is it your contention that all those former legacy owners went to Cirrus?

Or did they go to Diamond, Tecnam, and the E/AB-LSA route at a much lower cost?

 

[AA5Bman]

More random thoughts from me:

Any aircraft can be designed to be able to fill all seats with full fuel. They just have to make the tanks smaller. The poster above is right: a plane that allows you to do so is only limiting your potential range given other possible loadings. Think about how much further a 182 could go if the tanks were so big that at full fuel it only allowed two passengers. But then would everyone complain it’s really just a two-place plane?

I don’t understand how Cirrus’s sales volume today compares to Cessna’s sales volume in the 70s. Or to used planes.

Also, Cessna *did* have a competing product for that same market segment - the Columbia/Corvallis. Any while it seems to have been a great plane, they got smoked by Cirrus. Cirrus also smokes every other piston GA aircraft, so what if they’re not exactly in the same market segment?

I don’t really understand the hate for Cirrus. It’s a cool looking, fast, modern single that sells well, what’s the big deal? I’ve never flown one, have always owned spam cans, and it doesn’t fit my mission, but if I wanted a fast, pavement to pavement plane, I’d buy one in a second.

 

[Anthem]

<Content deleted by User>

 

[Bell206]

Also, Cessna *did* have a competing product for that same market segment - the Columbia/Corvallis. Any while it seems to have been a great plane, they got smoked by Cirrus.

In context, not really. Columbia got smoked by Cirrus till they went bankrupt. Cessna merely picked up the 400 in a fire sale. But keep in mind, Cessna had left the private, recreational market years before the Cirrus or Columbia were even built as it was no longer a priority market for them.

so what if they’re not exactly in the same market segment?

I think you answered your own question here:

I’ve never flown one, have always owned spam cans, and it doesn’t fit my mission, but if I wanted a fast, pavement to pavement plane, I’d buy one in a second.

Aircraft have always been bought based on capabilities and cost which your statement is a prime example of. Cirrus services only one specific segment of the private market vs the entire private market which it doesn’t “smoke” based on its lack of “mission” capability and higher cost.

I don’t really understand the hate for Cirrus.

Ha. No hate. Just the entertainment of another type war which I’ve watched since the 1st Cirrus started hitting the ramp. Its no different than the BO-cepheus wars of the previous generation which are more owner based than aircraft based. I guess it must be a low-wing thing.

The arguments being made just don’t make sense here and strike or lack of rationality.

Exactly. And especially without the proper context. About the only thing the Cirrus sales volume shows on its own, is that Cirrus is now the largest legacy manufacturer in the ever flat and overall declining private, recreational aircraft market.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The arguments being made just don’t make sense here and strike or lack of rationality. Are you really trying to compare current day sales with what they used to sell ? Really ? Used aircraft don’t count toward actual company revenue. Unless Cessna gets a cut of every future sale - which they don’t.

If you’re going to restrict indicators to the ones that support your position, I guess you’re going to be right, aren’t you?

And failing to garner marketshare doesn’t happen in a vacuum. They got beat by a better product - plain and simple. Tecnam diamond and the others are vying for a distant second place. Outside of trainers - none of beech piper or beech single engine pistons are viable competitors because they have been outsold in the last decade and it keeps getting worse and worse.

In the case of Cessna and Beech, I don’t think it’s so much that Cirrus outsold them as Cessna and Beech backed out of the market. The returns on piston airplane production aren’t worth the effort. The powers that be decided to stop throwing their profit margin away.

As Bell206 said,

Cirrus is now the largest legacy manufacturer in the ever flat and overall declining private, recreational aircraft market.

 

[Martin Pauly]

It can all be summarized in two words: customer experience.

Better than anybody else in this market segment, Cirrus delivers a superior customer experience. From a performance or capability perspective, their aircraft may not be the winners in every category, but they do make people feel good - which is the number one reason why customers spend a lot of money on things. Look at any successful high-end brand, whether it's cars, clothing, electronics, real estate, or entertainment - you are not paying the big bucks for a better solution to a problem, but for a better customer experience. And in general aviation, Cirrus is the absolute master of this game.

- Martin

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Curious. So you believe the downturn in 2008-09 didnt play into the equation which caused both Cirrus and Cessna to drastically downsize and eventually lead to their subsequent sell-off to AVIC and Textron respectively?

Cessna kept the TTx going afterwards but also had two clean-sheet designs in the pipeline in much more lucritive markets. So it would appear the TTx got axed by a more popular model line then anything else. Whereas Cirrus only has 2 basic model lines to deal with.

What "clean sheet designs" did Cessna have in 2008-09???

The Cirrus facility at TKI has an ever changing parade of SR-22s and SF-50s on the ramp in front of their hangar. There are usually five to eight of them. Judging from the turnover of airplanes I see, they're selling quite a few.

Yup. In 2023, they sold 115 SR20s, 142 SR22s, 355 SR22Ts, and 96 SF50 Vision jets for $930 million in revenue.

Yeah… based on some here - they couldn’t imagine that it’s a better product than what Cessna, beech, or piper is putting out….. it must all be marketing….

It's a good product, but by several measures it is outgunned by various competing products. The whole package is overall very good and it definitely benefits from great marketing as well.

I think cirrus is delivering 250 sr22s a year. The last few years - beech hasn’t delivered maybe 10 bonanzas per year. So - a 25x delivery rate doesn’t connote “better” I guess. Which single engine piston plane in this category has delivered even 1/10 (about 25 sr22s) of what they have done.

Beech has delivered 107 Bonanzas in the past decade. Cirrus, in the same time frame, has delivered 3,411 SR22s (counting both NA and Turbo).

But if you're looking for a couple extra seats, a big back door, or retractable gear, the Bonanza is "better".

For example, it depends on how you define success. If using deliveries as a factor, there were over 44,000 172s made to Cirrus’s 10,000. So which one enjoys more commercial success?

It took Cessna 60 years to make 44,000 172s, and much of it was in the heyday of GA. If you look at only the timeframe in which Cirrus has been producing aircraft, it's a completely different story.

Regardless, in my experiences, its not the number of deliveries or comparisons made that define success, its how that aircraft services its intended market. And the Cirrus does not service the same market as a Cessna, Mooney, or Piper does for a number of reasons.

The SR22T services mostly the same market as the Mooney Acclaim, and likewise for the SR22 and Mooney Ovation.

So to me, if the Cirrus series was truly equal or better than those other legacy aircraft, then why hasn’t Cirrus taken over more of those market shares or at least made an effort to?

What am I missing? It seems they have.

Maybe. I suppose if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Vision, I would be looking at whether it was right for the mission before I decided it was a fantastic value.

I got a chance so sit in one last summer. One flew into my home base and I asked the pilot if I could take a look. He was still waiting for his passengers so we hopped in and he gave be a brief tour. Sitting in the left seat felt very familiar - the cleanliness, ergonomics, and simplicity that has been one of the things I noticed about Cirrus from the very beginning (I had a friend who had a "G1" SR22; he on the pre-certification waiting list). But, the pilot told me, while it was a joy to fly, the Vision's weight and balance numbers were not great. Like many piston singles, once you added full fuel, it's passenger and baggage payload was down below 500 lbs. I haven't checked those numbers, but if they are accurate, they will work for some but not for others when we balance range vs carrying capacity.

When I first interviewed Alan Klapmeier about it, he said "Don't ask me what the full fuel payload is." He was sick of answering that question... But then went right on to answer it anyway: About 300 pounds (note that this was prior to certification so may not reflect the eventual reality of the real aircraft).

BUT, he said that after a lot of market research, their customers had two main missions: A single pilot flying long distances, or that pilot loading up their family and flying 2-3 hours. So, the jet was designed to fulfill both of those missions well.

How do the annual sales volumes compare if you include used airplanes?

That doesn't even make any sense. With the exception of a few trade-ins, no manufacturer is making money on used aircraft.

Right. But the point is that having to reduce range for a family of four with baggage would be a no-go for some. Not for others. Sort of why some buy a 182 vs something faster. Carrying capacity at full fuel Personal preference, personal mission, personal choice.

Any airplane that has to be packed full of stuff, people AND fuel to get to MGTOW is poorly designed - It's not versatile. You're giving up better range with less than a full load for... What, exactly? The ability to say "I can stuff this plane full and still go". Filling a plane with fuel is a trainer mentality. The vast majority of airplanes cannot do this, including most jets.

I was thinking of buying a Cirrus. Do they make one that is fully aerobatic that I can operate from a 2000' grass strip?

No, and why would they? That mission is not a common one. How is that even relevant?

The only market peers Cirrus had were the 400/TTx and TAA-1 which came out of the same program that the Cirrus did. One failed to garner market share and the latter never went to market. That is why Cirrus has no direct competition.

Disagree - Cirrus' market isn't "Composite fixed gear four seaters". Cirrus' market is the 160-180 knot four seat piston single market, which also includes older Bonanzas, Mooneys, "Columbiessna" and probably some rarer stuff.

But when you look at the aircraft numbers from 1999 to present it paints a different outcome that Cirrus really didn’t have much effect on Cessna’s or Mooney’s loss of market. For example, in that same timeframe a number of other popular aircraft came to market: Diamond, Tecnam, and all the E/AB-LSA offerings.

LSAs, Tecnam, Diamond don't really compete with Cirrus except the DA40 vs the SR20.

And Cirrus definitely ate Mooney's lunch. The SR20 didn't have much of an effect since it is outperformed by everything Mooney was selling at the time, but in 1999 and 2000, Mooney sold 97 and 100 aircraft (Cirrus sold 9 and 95 SR20s, respectively). But in 2001 when the SR22 came out, Cirrus sold 124 of them (plus 59 SR20s) and Mooney sold only 29 airplanes. In 2002, it was 292 to 10.

As far as the DA40 vs the SR20, Diamond apparently didn't join GAMA until 2003 so I don't have the numbers for the couple of years the DA40 was available before that, but the DA40 has always outsold the SR20 since 2003, except for 2018.

So while Cessna’s unit output has decreased, Piper’s basically stayed the same, and Mooney stopped production, is it your contention that all those former legacy owners went to Cirrus?

IMO, Cessna and Piper don't sell a competing product any more. Cessna did with the Columbia stuff, but Piper's product line goes directly from the PA28R (Arrow), which is essentially a trainer retract and a slower speed class, into 6-seaters and twins.

Or did they go to Diamond, Tecnam, and the E/AB-LSA route at a much lower cost?

I'm sure a lot of 172/182 buyers went to Diamond, but that's harder to quantify with Diamond numbers not being available right away.

In the case of Cessna and Beech, I don’t think it’s so much that Cirrus outsold them as Cessna and Beech backed out of the market. The returns on piston airplane production aren’t worth the effort. The powers that be decided to stop throwing their profit margin away.

Except they didn't back out. You can still buy a brand new 182, Arrow, Bonanza, etc but they're mostly made to order now (with the exception of the 182, though that had a recent production pause as well). Cessna did back out of the composite speedster market, but without Cirrus I don't think they would have. But Cessna stumbled and Cirrus kept executing and eventually Textron lost patience with it and gave up. Competing with Cirrus takes an investment, and they simply weren't selling enough airplanes to make it worthwhile.

 

[robin ardoin]

I don't know why one couldn't design an aircraft to fly with full fuel (of a normal, reasonable capacity), have very good range, and fill 6 seats....says the guy with a 1600lb UL C210.

 

[bflynn]

It can all be summarized in two words: customer experience.

Better than anybody else in this market segment, Cirrus delivers a superior customer experience. From a performance or capability perspective, their aircraft may not be the winners in every category, but they do make people feel good - which is the number one reason why customers spend a lot of money on things. Look at any successful high-end brand, whether it's cars, clothing, electronics, real estate, or entertainment - you are not paying the big bucks for a better solution to a problem, but for a better customer experience. And in general aviation, Cirrus is the absolute master of this game.

- Martin

I think there are 844,900 other reasons Cirrus is successful, all with George's face on them.

https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UnitedStates_SR_22_PriceList_2024.pdf

 

[szwinger]

Could they enter the trainer market? Perhaps, but they would be competing with an entrenched competition base (Piper/Cessna) for a smaller total market segment. That’s not a business venture that would make the cut in any investment forum I’m familiar with.

I think Cirrus is in the trainer market. They just redefined what that means. They focus on training and standardization. You train in the SR20, SR22 or SR22T. There's a standardized syllabus. The instructors are trained and certified by Cirrus. You can start with Zero hours and graduate to a Jet.

It is debatable whether this is the best methodology but there's a lot of flight schools with Cirrus "trainers" being flown. If you want "stick and rudder" training Cirrus is not ideal (you must turn off the Yaw Damper explicitly), but if you want to learn to fly a standardized flight profile and master the complexity of a digital cockpit (including AutoPilot) it is ideal.

Aside from the jet, if you can fly one Cirrus you can fly any Cirrus with little (if any) additional training. My experience is that the Cirrus instructors are pretty interchangeable. The non-Cirrus instructors I've flown with were vastly different from one another to the point of being confusing sometimes.

Having said all this I still recommend the training path I took. Cessna 172 for private, Cessna 182 for Instrument. Then buy a 182 and learn to love 135-145 KTAS. The nice thing is that there are different paths for everyone. If the path you choose gets to the desired destination and you enjoy it, you chose the right path.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I don't know why one couldn't design an aircraft to fly with full fuel (of a normal, reasonable capacity), have very good range, and fill 6 seats....says the guy with a 1600lb UL C210.

So why would you limit the range of that airplane single pilot no passengers no baggage? Why not build it with more fuel air space? Oh yeah, because people would complain that it wasn’t a “true” 6 passenger plane because you couldn’t fill the big tanks.

 

[Anthem]

<Content deleted by User>

 

[Tusayan]

I think it’d be nice if somebody with marketing acumen would produce a plane in Cirrus’s market segment that was pleasant to hand fly, didn’t look inside and out like an anodyne egg designed by Toyota, and wasn’t produced (airframe and engine) by a CCP owned company. Given those issues it’s as amazing to me that they are as successful as they selling to (in general) American entrepreneurs and business people, and I’m not sure it enhances my respect for the latter.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That doesn't even make any sense. With the exception of a few trade-ins, no manufacturer is making money on used aircraft.

But if you define success by popularity of their product, the used airplanes definitely factor in. If you could by a 49-year-old Cirrus for 1/10 the price of new, do you think Cirrus would keep their sales numbers up?

Except they didn't back out. You can still buy a brand new 182, Arrow, Bonanza, etc but they're mostly made to order now (with the exception of the 182, though that had a recent production pause as well). Cessna did back out of the composite speedster market, but without Cirrus I don't think they would have. But Cessna stumbled and Cirrus kept executing and eventually Textron lost patience with it and gave up. Competing with Cirrus takes an investment, and they simply weren't selling enough airplanes to make it worthwhile.

Cessna didn’t “stumble”…they thought they saw a way to capture a market share with little effort or expense. More than likely they budgeted a specific value of each, and when that ran out, they determined that the margins would never come close to those of their core business, and closed it down.

Cirrus chose the 4-seat high performance piston as its bread and butter, and that’s where they expend their effort. Textron’s core business is elsewhere. They periodically dip their toe into piston GA, but probably only when they make too much money and need to offset it with a loss.

 

[robin ardoin]

This is just what people want to complain about. The reality is that even in higher performance airplanes - they/we always have to balance range and payload. Even jets. King airs 90s etc all balance what they are carrying weight wise and how much fuel they can load.

Also ironic some using 182s as an example - but the sr22 I think has a greater UL than a 182 and still longer range. Now the 210 exceeds that - but the 210 is really marginal to call it a 6 place plane as well. The back seats - well they downright suck for anyone larger than a child

Don't be disparaging Oompa-Loompas! They find my bench seat rather cozy.

 

[Mikey52]

Or install long range tanks on a 210 and take the middle seats out.

 

[hindsight2020]

Or install long range tanks on a 210 and take the middle seats out.

People do that often with PA-32s.

 

[midwestpa24]

I don't know why one couldn't design an aircraft to fly with full fuel (of a normal, reasonable capacity), have very good range, and fill 6 seats....says the guy with a 1600lb UL C210.

You can, but then the airplane will be larger and heavier, meaning you burn more fuel to go slower. Everything is a balancing act.

 

[robin ardoin]

You can, but then the airplane will be larger and heavier, meaning you burn more fuel to go slower. Everything is a balancing act.

Reread my post, it has been done . I have a 1,078lb full fuel payload.

 

[Bell206]

What "clean sheet designs" did Cessna have in 2008-09???

None. I had inquired if the 2008 downturn had any effect. Both Cessna and Cirrus production basically stopped, and both were bought out several years later. At that time, Cessna kept the TTx line going but also started the initial work toward the new Cessna SETP and later the new Cessna 408, each a clean sheet design. The TTx line went away when both those projects entered the prototype stage.

But if you're looking for a couple extra seats, a big back door, or retractable gear, the Bonanza is "better".

I think this statement sums it up better. The argument that Cirrus is the only commercial success with the other OEMs embarrassed solely based on total sales doesn’t reflect the market as a whole.

It took Cessna 60 years to make 44,000 172s, and much of it was in the heyday of GA. If you look at only the timeframe in which Cirrus has been producing aircraft, it's a completely different story.

That comment and a few others were made only in context to how “commercial success” was defined as implied in the thread. However, strictly from a financial view, IMO, NASA and the US tax-payer should get the credit for the Cirrus success since it has taken 3 owners to make the brand what it is. And now that Cirrus is trading publicly, maybe we’ll see if their “commercial success” was actually earned or simply bought.

LSAs, Tecnam, Diamond don't really compete with Cirrus except the DA40 vs the SR20.

Correct. It was implied that Cirrus’s superior marketing and aircraft were the main reasons behind the drop in Cessna, Mooney, and Piper productions numbers. However, the data shows it was more due to the increase in Diamonds, LSA, E/AB, etc. purchases that affected the non-Cirrus OEMs numbers and not just Cirrus.

The only direct competitor to Cirrus is Cirrus. And what solidified that was after the 2008-09 downturn there was a big shift in buyer demographics in the private GA market which in turn gave Cirrus a leg up on the legacy fleet offerings.

IMO, Cessna and Piper don't sell a competing product any more.

I don’t think they ever did.

I'm sure a lot of 172/182 buyers went to Diamond, but that's harder to quantify with Diamond numbers not being available right away.

The data I saw several years ago included some Piper and Cirrus buyers as well. But as mentioned above, buyer demographics played an equal role with Diamond as well. There was a break in that data but was more related to off-airport ops which neither a Cirrus or Diamond are built for.

didn’t look inside and out like an anodyne egg designed by Toyota,

Ironically, you should blame NASA for the design as that is where even Toyota got it from.

Toyota TAA-1


Columbia 400


Cirrus

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know why one couldn't design an aircraft to fly with full fuel (of a normal, reasonable capacity), have very good range, and fill 6 seats....says the guy with a 1600lb UL C210.

Well, I mean, you can, if you want to go that slow.

This is just what people want to complain about. The reality is that even in higher performance airplanes - they/we always have to balance range and payload. Even jets. King airs 90s etc all balance what they are carrying weight wise and how much fuel they can load.

Yup. For example, on a TBM 900-series you can either take full fuel (292 gallons) and 4-5 people (including pilot(s)) and stuff, or you can take max payload and about 210 gallons. With fore and aft baggage, you can also easily load it outside of the W&B envelope.

However, with 850shp available, it's not like the plane won't lift off; horsepower and speed cure a lot of W&B ills but if you get too close to the edges of the performance envelope after disregarding the W&B envelope it's not going to work out well for you. It's a real problem with the normal TBM clientele who are generally owner pilots with a crap-ton of money and don't spend much time on such piddly affairs as W&B, especially when they got away with it last time. It works, until it doesn't. Caveat aviator.

But if you define success by popularity of their product, the used airplanes definitely factor in. If you could by a 49-year-old Cirrus for 1/10 the price of new, do you think Cirrus would keep their sales numbers up?

Yes. As a "lifestyle brand" they cater to a particular crowd that has a lot of money and wants the latest greatest thing. So, every few years they increment the number after the G, add some new whizbang features like remote access, and a bunch of the previous-G owners sell their planes and buy the new hotness.

Cessna didn’t “stumble”…they thought they saw a way to capture a market share with little effort or expense. More than likely they budgeted a specific value of each, and when that ran out, they determined that the margins would never come close to those of their core business, and closed it down.

Cessna stumbled. They moved production from Bend to Mexico/Kansas, had a Mexico-built wing debond among other QA issues that led to FAA fines and emergency ADs, and didn't sell any plastic airplanes for a couple years as a result. The Corvalis (350) never came back. The Corvalis TTx (400) came back for a few years, but never really regained its footing in the market.

Cirrus chose the 4-seat high performance piston as its bread and butter, and that’s where they expend their effort.

That's probably the easiest place to enter the aviation market. Or, it was, before Cirrus became such a big thing.

Textron’s core business is elsewhere. They periodically dip their toe into piston GA, but probably only when they make too much money and need to offset it with a loss.

They're successful in many sectors of aviation, and they make everything from piston trainers to super-midsize bizjets, with entries in just about every segment EXCEPT high performance piston singles.

None. I had inquired if the 2008 downturn had any effect. Both Cessna and Cirrus production basically stopped, and both were bought out several years later. At that time, Cessna kept the TTx line going but also started the initial work toward the new Cessna SETP and later the new Cessna 408, each a clean sheet design. The TTx line went away when both those projects entered the prototype stage.

There was the NGP until they bought Columbia. SETP ended up becoming the Beech Denali, but that wasn't even on the drawing board in 2008.

Correct. It was implied that Cirrus’s superior marketing and aircraft were the main reasons behind the drop in Cessna, Mooney, and Piper productions numbers. However, the data shows it was more due to the increase in Diamonds, LSA, E/AB, etc. purchases that affected the non-Cirrus OEMs numbers and not just Cirrus.

I'm not sure it does.

I don’t think they ever did.

Cessna had the Corvalis, Piper had the Comanche line once upon a time. Mooney really was the main company competing in that performance segment with a 4-seater instead of a 6-seater when Cirrus came along.

 

[MauleSkinner]

They're successful in many sectors of aviation, and they make everything from piston trainers to super-midsize bizjets, with entries in just about every segment EXCEPT high performance piston singles.

They’ve shut down more lines than they’ve started in piston GA.

 

[Hang 4]

@Bell206 Think you're defining a product segment, not a market segment. Someone shopping for an XC aircraft with decent speed and payload encompasses a lot of legacy product in addition to Cirrus. Bonanza, Piper 32 series variants would also fit in this category. What Cirrus has done is skim off the top of this market with a superior customer experience. If you buy one, new or used, you get full transition training, financing options, fractional options, a superior delivery experience if new. A couple of solid dealers for used. etc. You could buy a Saratoga or A36 that would meet the mission on paper for a fraction of the price, but it would be a pretty DIY experience with the exception of a couple of type specific brokers and even in that case, you'd still need to be the "general contractor". I suspect most POA'ers are happy to roll their own and save the $$, but if you value time more than money, Cirrus is a pretty attractive choice.

BTW @Ed Haywood was making a joke with the Grass/Aero comment

 

[MauleSkinner]

@Bell206 Think you're defining a product segment, not a market segment. Someone shopping for an XC aircraft with decent speed and payload encompasses a lot of legacy product in addition to Cirrus. Bonanza, Piper 32 series variants would also fit in this category. What Cirrus has done is skim off the top of this market with a superior customer experience. If you buy one, new or used, you get full transition training, financing options, fractional options, a superior delivery experience if new. A couple of solid dealers for used. etc. You could buy a Saratoga or A36 that would meet the mission on paper for a fraction of the price, but it would be a pretty DIY experience with the exception of a couple of type specific brokers and even in that case, you'd still need to be the "general contractor". I suspect most POA'ers are happy to roll their own and save the $$, but if you value time more than money, Cirrus is a pretty attractive choice.

BTW @Ed Haywood was making a joke with the Grass/Aero comment

IMO, Cirrus isn’t the Bonanza’s primary competition. If you can buy a SETP for not much more, or a good King Air 90 for half as much, why go for a Bonanza?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I don’t know the reasons, but Purdue started using Cirrus for 10 years then shifted to Piper. I’m guessing parents liked that (I know I would). I don’t think CAPs was ever deployed during that time.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yeah I remember them switching while I was at Purdue as a grad student. Got all my post-PPL tickets at KLAF (minus the IR which I did in Anderson/Muncie) on a part 61 basis; I was never affiliated with their 141 program as an engineering graduate student/teaching assistant worker. Ironic move to hear of their more recent Piper purchase, given it was Warrior IIIs that were replaced by the SR20s in the first place.

USAFA also uses them. I got co-workers "qualed" in the SR-20 (largely a desirable metro appreciation assignment vis a vis the garden spots some of us pointy trainer serfs have to grovel in for years to fly the fire breathing stuff).

There must be something to the recurring mx ledger of these composite BRS equipped bathtubs that isn't competitive against a 172s/PA28s. I second those comments for the Tecnam twin and the Diamonds, before people think it's a cirrus specific critique as a trainer. In that regard Textron and Piper didn't necessarily "lose" by focusing on (admitedly paltry, for historical standards) 172/PA28 production.