I think the market is potentially huge here in the 4-6 seat segment. I predict the Hondajet will be a good seller, and it seems the Phenom 100 and Mustang are doing well. But for it to work and grow the market, it needs a couple of basics:
1. Lavatory. It’s insane that even when you drop $4million you still can’t get a loo for love or money. The owners families and customers wants a loo. Give them that for chrissakes.
2. More than 2000nm range with one or two, or 1000nm range full up. Today there is only two SP jets that can go more than 2000nm – the CJ4 and the SJ30. The SJ30 has the best range of all of them – 2500nm. By having the range be so bad they now have to fight with the turboprop segment for those owners who want great range, which is most people. Not smart.
3. Lower prices.
I don’t think one can make a meaningful comparison between a SEP and a SET.
Depends what you want to compare. In terms of comfort and ramp appeal you are right, however, in terms of cost and efficiency, things are not this clear.
In the end, what is important to me is one simple question. Which plane can do the job best, most economically and expeditiously.
And if I compare the performance data, I have to say that jet does not in the least convince me. It can carry less, at much higher cost and much higher initial investment than comparable planes. For me, the Cirrus Jet is too expensive for what it delivers and I can get the same range with better payload and insignificant speed loss with planes which cost 1/4 of that airframe. So for people like me, who wish to optimize what they get for their limited funds, the jet makes no sense at all. Especcially if today I can get a Citation 500 SP for 200-250k$ which can carry 8 folks and is a twin.Or I can buy an Eclipse 500 with the Avio 1.7 flight deck for maybe $ 1.2 Million and get a newer jet which still outflies the Cirrus and is RVSM, is roomier and is by now a pretty proven design. Or if I need a new plane, I can buy either a brand new Cirrus SR22T and be 10 kts slower (the Jet flies at 210 kts TAS at max range configuration) or buy a Mooney Acclaim and be 20 kts faster and have 600 NM more range. Or find a TBM700 or a Jet Prop for about half the new price and get planes which can offer a lot more. That is what I’d do.
But history has shown that people don’t act that way, but buy what looks nice, has a nice ring to it and is socially (mostly to the wife in the case of airplanes) acceptable. That is one of the major reasons why Cirrus left the whole market standing in the rain, because they managed to do BOTH, appeal to the technical minds with good performance, good technical offer and reasonable efficiency as well as the becoming a status symbol, including the “wife” or “social” factor in the form of the parashute to a modern ramp presence and an interior which makes Star Trek look antiquated.
So my prediction is that the Jet will sell anyway, first of all because it is a status symbol and because it is as logical a step for the Cirrus upgrader as the Iphone 7 is for the owner of the 6. It will appeal to SR22 owners as from the pilots point of view it is basically the same cabin with a different engine, probably has pretty close handling qualities and is 100 kts faster. It will appeal to the gadget folk who have to have the newest thingamabob and camp a few days in front of the store to have it first. It will appeal to the reluctant wifes who, not knowing the technical side, will reason that one engine is bound to cost less than two and oh yea, it’s got the all important shute.
That is why I have compared Cirrus to Apple in the past, a very high brand identification and lots of peer pressure. The folks who buy new Cirrus products are determined to have the best, have it now, can afford it and are ready to upgrade every few years, leaving a lot of devaluated but still very new second hand planes for people who like the product but can’t or don’t want to afford new. It is a different scale, but the mechanisms are very much the same as with any viral brand. And Cirrus have to be complimented to get there, it is a tremendous effort to do that and it requires a superb product.
What remains to be seen is if they want the Cirrus Jet enough to shell out a very high asking price. Otherwise, history may well repeat itself, like it happened to Mooney in 1964 when they introduced the then absolutely revolutionary M22 Mustang, the first SEP with pressurized cabin and 200 kts speed and 1200 NM range, way ahead of it’s time and a total failure for the company. This, when the fastest planes of the times were scratching 150 kts and 600 NM range. The situation is similar, yet the market share of Cirrus today is way beyond any other small airplane producers in history.
So it will be interesting to watch how the jet will be received. I am fairly optimistic.
Alexis,
ALL private aircraft are sold only emotionally, and you know it :-) And we all know it. There is really no “reason” to have a private aircraft, other than “I want it”.
Yes, that is true from the owner/pilot’s perspective. But you know als very well that most people who buy one of these will have to justify their purchase to their significant others, tend to rationalize the purchase in front of friends and family e.t.c. And there, Cirrus offers by far the best image and argument set. Non flyers will rarely be interested in a plane’s performance or its efficiency (but for the owner for whom it will be the question if he can afford it or not) but how it looks and how the perceived safety is. And Cirrus looks great and has the shute.
Other airplanes in the class of the SR22 were “doctor killers” at one point. Just look at the Malibu the first years after it came out. But today the Cirrus has a lower than average accident rate.
Absolutely. And that is why history repeats itself.
The definition “Doctor Killer” applies to airframes which have a huge appeal to low experience/high cashbox customers who will buy airplanes they can’t deal with and which will subsequently kill them. There were many. Beech 35, Twin Commanche, Malibu, MU2, Cirrus, the list goes on and on. NONE of them were bad airplanes, ALL of them were flown by people who were not up to the task and THAT is what made them “Doctor Killers” as, at the time, “Doctors” were the people who fit that profile. High income, low experience, huge status. Today, that would be lower to mid class executives, who drive Lexus or high end German cars.
That is why other planes which were not much less critical were not classified like that. Cessnas and Piper SEP’s were considered “family vans”, people who would buy Volvos, Mooneys tight and small racers which appealed to people who would race Morgans or Porsches, so very different folks.
With its solid products, Cirrus has in a manner of fashion become the “Volkswagen”, “Chevrolet” of GA. The question is, will the latest model really trigger so many folks as required to empty their pockets for it as to make it worthwile for Cirrus.
Let us not forget that the FAAs historically lax regulation of complex aircraft below 12,500lb has contributed to the accident rate. The training investment required is not insignificant. Not so much financially, but in time. A type rating is 2 weeks of someone’s full time life. Recurrent training. The practical experience required to operate in an environment more demanding than that faced by many professional crews is also lacking.
The Maryland Phenom crash is a prime example. An aircraft marketed and sold for ease of operation (I read the various Flying puff pieces) crashed in a simple loss of control by a Type rated single pilot.
It’s difficult. The slick automation cannot compensate for deficiencies in airmanship and experience. Flying isn’t difficult, but the consequences of mistakes are very high, and currency and experience is what keeps you alive. These companies are unlikely to have accounted for the financial consequences of even one high profile fatal on their business plan…
But you know als very well that most people who buy one of these will have to justify their purchase to their significant others, tend to rationalize the purchase in front of friends and family e.t.c.
Yes, that might be true for some people. I never did that though. Maybe I’m just lucky because my wife really couldn’t care less, and because I’m self employed and don’t really have to care what others think of it. I think it’s a big mistake anyway to rationalize the things in life you love to do, because I think that’s enough reason, and the best one too.
Not that the idea bothers me much, but if you see the Cirrus as the Volkswagen or Chevy of GA … what would Cessna or Piper be? I see the Cirrus in the market position Mooney and Beech had – before they lost it to Cirrus.
Alexis,
Piper is pretty much insignificant today, still the family car. If I say I see Cirrus close to VW or Chevy that means they have become synonyms for GA, a tremendous achievement of their marketing and of course product development. Yes, I agree, this was the position that Piper, Beech and to an extent Mooney had before they lost it. Cirrus of course did arrive in a very convenient moment too, but without the right product, it would not have happened.
I never saw Mooney in this field in recent years, yes, while they still had the 201/231, not since. After that, they went into the sports car league, optimizing for speed and range but forgetting important factors such as load and economy. While I think the Ovation and Acclaim are good machines, they lack a ¨VW¨Type of entry level plane below. Well, they are correcting that now, we`ll see what happens.
Let us not forget that the FAAs historically lax regulation of complex aircraft below 12,500lb has contributed to the accident rate
Do you have supporting data for this, Josh?
You need to compare same aircraft under N-reg versus under EASA-reg, and comparable mission profiles, etc. If say the US based ones fly distances whereas the UK-based ones fly to Le Touquet on sunny Sundays, the accident rate will be very different.
Not that the idea bothers me much, but if you see the Cirrus as the Volkswagen or Chevy of GA … what would Cessna or Piper be? I see the Cirrus in the market position Mooney and Beech had – before they lost it to Cirrus.
In the market where they sell most planes, I think it goes something like this…
Cirrus = Lexus: newer brand, prestigious to the mass market and nobody denies the performance…but perceived as the safe, slightly bland choice.
Cessna = Ford: every man’s plane, gets the job done without much fuss, also built overseas (once upon a time in the case of the Cessna) and sells to some level of global market.
Piper = Chevrolet: once big and important but now a little flaky and living in the shadow of Ford.
Mooney = Chrysler/Dodge: now begin ‘reborn’ by foreigners, historically a little different and therefore a reputation as the tech nerd’s choice in a sedan.
Diamond = VW/Audi: Germanic, almost mainstream, techy but not to the point of overshooting the mass market. Reliability issues with some models. Worldwide production.
Beechcraft = Cadillac: your dad’s plane. Do they still make those?
Real pilots of course drive a Glas GT Link 
or maybe a Cord 810 Link
Just kidding.
That said, 
pilots who expect regulations to protect themselves or others are not the ones I’d choose to fly with, personally. A pilot needs to be way ahead of the regulations, not look to them as the guide to his safety.
Peter, I had the MU-2 specifically in mind. A demanding aircraft, which could be flown by anyone in the USA with a PPL, ME and HP endorsement. Only after an atrocious fatal accident record did they finally bite the bullet and institute a type rating. After that, the accident rate dropped off the bottom of the scale.
I’m afraid I don’t have data for the wider complex scene, but the very fact that insurance minima are astronomically higher than any legal requirement should tell you that in this case, the licensing is inadequate.
The MU-2 was a special case which slipped in under the wire, and yes they had problems with it.
No matter where you draw the line, somebody will try to get in just under it. Hence we have 1999kg planes, under 5.7T (12500lb) planes, etc. And if you build a fast ME < 12500lb turboprop which doesn’t need a TR (because it is not a turboJET) then more people will kill themselves in it than in say a KA90.
For the wider complex scene, I do not believe there is any data showing that the FAA safety record is any worse than the JAA/EASA safety record for the same type and a comparable mission profile. Quite simply, if there was supporting data for it, the national CAAs in Europe would have been absolutely delighted and would have thrown the N-reg community out decades ago.
In fact I know the UK CAA was asked by the Dept for Transport, c. 2005, to find out whether N-regs had a worse safety record than G-regs. The CAA came back to the DfT with data which showed there was no such difference. And you would think the CAA would have every reason to come up with data supporting a worse safety record!
the very fact that insurance minima are astronomically higher than any legal requirement
Could you elaborate? The USA has no mandatory insurance AFAIK. The EU has mandatory insurance, but a lot of airfields demand a higher level anyway so the cover is higher to cover that.
You can buy and fly a PC12 (for example) with just PPL, IR and HPA. If you wish to be insured as PIC, there will be certain conditions regarding training and time on type before the insurers will cover you solo. Some require an insurer-approved safety pilot (effectively to provide line training) for a further number of hours. I wasn’t aware that insurance wasn’t mandatory in the US, but your average high net worth individual is hardly likely to want to assume the risk themselves (Graham Hill!), and thus become bound by the training requirements.
The relative accident rate is a difficult one, as the data you are asking for don’t really exist – the massive number of US self-flown businessmen dwarfs any similar population in Europe making any meaningful comparison impossible.
