I think that you are beeing a bit over-sensitive. I am not aggressively promoting Cirrus.
If we discuss new airplane designs or even a possible restart of the TB20 production – we simply have to look at Cirrus. It is my strong opinion that the next market leader in this market will have a BRS/CAPS system on board.
And if you don´t want to be seen as a “member of a church” (your expression) then don´t behave like one.
What do i have to do? Maybe you send me a short resume of YOUR opinions and I will publish those in the future? I have actually never behaved like a member of any church. I dislike all types of churches and fanatism. I like all airplanes (and especially Mooney, if that helps improving my image) – but i am unfortunately not able to close my eyes about the reasons why market leaders are sucessful.
Cirrus spent around 75 million dolllars until airplane and production were certified
OK, easily, but that’s the entire setup, marketing, etc.
It costs a lot more to come in from nowhere.
And nobody could take on Cirrus in that market segment. They would have to go in below that.
Yes, of course.
Can you see anybody investing that kind of money at the moment? I just makes no sense if you’re into business. There’s millions of better ways to invest money. Maybe if some billionaire developed an interest in it and did it for fun …
No, of course, but nobody is going to “do a Cirrus” with an updated TB20.
But they would not need to!
GA is a small world. You go to some show and queue up for a burger, and the 10 in the queue behind you are largely the same guys as the year before.
What Cirrus did was to uncover a whole new stratum of customers – the non-anorak non-GA-conservative types. They realised that nobody is going to sell very much to the crowd going to Oshkosh, whose average age increases by 1 year every year, and who think a C172 with a GPS is a modern product. That created some challenges, too, and the chute was IMHO a vital part of the package. And they had to spend a lot of money getting there. Opening up a new market is always hard – and risky in that you might have got it totally wrong… They succeeded, aided by riding up on the back of an economic boom which ended after a few years.
If somebody restarted say the TB20, everybody who might buy one will know about it within weeks or months. The mags are absolutely desperate for column-inches (preferably not another article about carb icing, please!) and will run a huge feature on it. The “final prototype” is going to be awfully busy doing demo flights for magazine editors.
If the manufacturer had some level of credibility and the technology was proven (i.e. an IO540, with a diesel as an option) it would sell right away, at the right price. Well below the price of an SR22 of course.
It would need to be done very well. Lots of attention to detail. Not like the Evektor Cobra which was a quick bodge job.
Oh and do away with the bloody dealers! They add zero value. Air Touring (and their German offshoot) just ended up getting into near-litigation with just about everybody, including Socata, while pocketing 15-20% of new aircraft sales. Nobody needs dealers, for an aircraft which…… flies! Europe is a tiny place.
Finners,
very good analysis. I agree.
I am not sure however that efficiency is the only factor in this game. If you see how long it usually takes to certify any airframe, it is only normal that this cost has to be recovered one way or the other. Talking to people in the industry, the answer is always the same: New products in the certified market are impossible to finance. That is why onl the most financially strong companies even undertake this thing.
Lancair as well as Cirrus almost broke over this. Lancair/Columbia actually did. Cirrus would if they had not been bought by the Chinese. Mooney did not introduce any new airframe family until they were also bought up by the Chinese.
I think Flyer59 is quite correct with his quote by Cirrus developer. 80-100 Million is a figure I hear regularly to develop a new airframe. Also the M10 development is in this range last thing I heard. Look at the way avionics are done, same story. If a “simple” GNS type box takes 5-6 years of development, calculate the man hours. This cost has to be recovered. In some cases fast, as the companies involved often enough are at the verge of bancruptcy once they reach certification.
THAT I personally think is the reason for the exorbitant pricing and the massive difference between the certified vs the non certified market.
And THAT is the reason why companies like Piper, who are also notoriously cash strapped, will revive and keep on airframes which they can modernize but keep on the old type certificat. Cessna, same thing. Mooney, even more so, ALL M20´s from the first wood wing design to the Acclaim S are on the same type certificate.
So if we take these 80 Million to develop the Cirrus brand as a likely figure, take into account that it took 6 years to get the SR20 certified, it is pretty clear that each airframe will have a massive share of this development cost attached to it. Add to it the cost for product liability insurance and you end up with maybe 200k $ per airframe (conservative guess on my part) before the first part has been produced. Depending on numbers, this may well increase to more.
Add to that the investment cost in tooling for a plant the size of Cirrus or Columbia, premises e.t.c. and you can add another 100k per airframe.
I think this pretty much explains why most airframe manufacturers have refrained from developing bank paper new designs.
When asked why Mooney was keeping on the M20 design when re-opening, the answer by the new owner was along the same lines. They own that type certificate, can expand on it with managable ressources, they have the tooling and premises all paid for, so why not produce on a managable level while now, with the new capital, bringing up a totally new design.
Cessna tried with the 162 and failed. The last Piper design which was off the drawing board was the Malibu if I am not mistaken.
If we look at the certified Garmin range vs the non certified one, the overhead for certification cost appears to be almost double.
So in practice, to design a certified airframe today means a MASSIVE capital investment with a very distinct possibility of loosing the company if they ever reach certification. In other words, the certification hurdle today is completely out of any proportion to what is being certified.
In the end, production cost of a new airplane will probably be in the range of 250-300k $ plus avionic and plus the aforementioned overhead. So for a TB20 or Cirrus class airplane we are looking at a COST price of maybe 600k. Net profit per airframe? Maybe 50k? So how many in theory would you have to sell to be able to afford a new certification?
If we read the interview posted on the diesel thread about Robin, it shows me the same story I hear out of Mooney. Robin can´t afford to develop a new plane but they can afford to build a small number of DR400´s at a relatively low price and sustain the existing fleet. Mooney´s goal before being taken over by Soaring America was to simply stay alive and sustain the fleet and, given demand, produce new airframes on the existing certification.
So would a TB20 relaunch have a chance?
That would depend on a number of things, not many of them being of a technical nature.
To restart the TB20 as it was when it was stopped, a new organisation would have to acquire the whole tooling, parts as well as the type certificate. If Socata are willing to sell this is a different story as well as to what price. Let´s say for argument sake, they would give it away for a symbolic price to rid themselfs of the upkeep cost. I know this is not likely, but lets just say they would.
So someone would have to set up a new production organisation, get themselfs certified with EASA (for starters), get manpower and folks who know the airframe and tooling back to just be able to produce a first batch of maybe 10 airframes. 10-20 Million investment? Easily. Then add simple production cost, insurance, e.t.c.
In other words, a massive untertaking. Then modernize it. If a G1000 STC already exists, that would help, if not, add certification cost for that. Get a Diesel STC? See how Cessna is getting on with theirs…
So how much would a new TB20 be under these assumptions? Easily 500-600 k. Like everyone else. Would there be a market?
In my opinion, the only way to market a reborn TB20 would be if it offers something the competition does not have. Diesel could be the thing. It could work along the same lines as Robin does, but not as a major player. Face it, there are no major players anymore in GA. Even the largest only sell numbers which can only be called minor.
Unless something drastic happens on the certification front, that is what it will be like. The US moves to experimentals, Europe stagnates or moves to UL. Conventional airplanes are a niche market with few very expensive offerings. The days when a PA28 or C172 or M20 were mass products are gone and they will not come back.
I agree Urs.
Actually, I think that a new TB20 might even cost slightly north of 1 million if the people wanted to get a little money out of the undertaking on say a 10-year perspective. But then again, nobody would buy it. A bit of a hen-and-egg problem.
So how much would a new TB20 be under these assumptions? Easily 500-600 k.
Costing…? 
It could well be that the price gets out of control yes, in which case it would be a non starter. If at all they would have to be in the ballpark of at least everyone else, that means 600-700k. I would compare the chances with the M20 series and they are currently selling (Acclaim) for about 650k.
I think the Robin “model” if you want to call it that may well be a way to go for many legacy airframes. Produce modest numbers and sustain the fleet, go for healthy survival instead of unrealistic growth figures. I have to admit, this does ring a bell with me. It also appears to be what others are aiming for as well.
The one bit I could see is (not only for the TB20 but also for other legacy products) an upgrade in the sense of aerodynamics and appeal. If I re-read the AA5 Story, where Roy LoPresti got to work on the Traveller and got almost 15-20 kts out of the same airframe with relatively few but significant changes, (Something he did to the M20F as well to become the 201), I could possibly see other popular designs getting a new lease of life. Add to that, if we finally get a financially viable Diesel STC´s, I would think that also the AA5 could be a very viable model for resurrection. Someone still holds that TC if I am not mistaken. How about a Diesel Lisa? 155 hp, 50 USG fuel capacity on the AA5A airframe? (Actually, I think the AA5 was probably one of the inspirations for the Cirrus/Columbias working on fairly good cruise figures with fixed gear.)
For economy, I like the idea one outfit in the USA had to buy up well preserved and sound airframes of legacy makes and give them a full make over, reselling them “better than new” but for much less money. Especcially if you can do this in a place with relatively low labour cost but high quality of workmanship, it might well be an interesting thing to look at.
The 2015 price for the Acclaim is 734k$. That is without any special options.
In the end, they’are all up there in the 800k league: Mooney, Bonanza, SR22, Cessna TTx, DA42, Panthera (if it ever comes). The C182 Diesel will be 600-700K.
And very low sales – to the small % of people who absolutely want a fresh smelling new plane, regardless of price, perhaps with a lot of brand loyalty, and who probably don’t need something specially mission-capable because by the time they throw in full deice and a turbo, for that money they could buy a Jetprop which will eat every SEP for lunch.
