I have refrained from commenting on this so far, I was sure that someone else would bring this up…
The inefficiency of various aerospace companies has been mentioned on here several times, as has low OEM / high retail pricing.
In my opinion, Cirrus entered a market dominated, at the time, by the old guard of Beechcraft, Cessna and Piper who were chasing the top end of the market, i.e. turboprop and turbine, where profit margins are likely to be highest. They had relatively little interest in their single-piston business and ignored the newcomer to the market.
Cirrus, to their credit, offered a very innovative package that was, and still is, unmatched by any of the competition.
Despite having an enormous advantage of fully depreciated development and certification costs, in the face of dwindling sales, I think the likes of Beechcraft, Cessna and Piper felt they had little choice but to increase their prices to make up for the lost profits. This merely discouraged potential buyers. Instead of finding ways of driving cost out and price down, they took the no-effort option of putting prices up. This was a spectacular failure which has killed off demand for those aircraft.
Cirrus rapidly gained a foothold, and once that was cemented, I suspect nobody was looking at the ‘old’ models anymore. My guess is that Cirrus realised that there was a big enough market that wasn’t very price sensitive, given what they were offering. They don’t need to be cheap if they are the only game in town.
In my professional life, one forte is the analysis of business processes and restructuring of the business in a more efficient manner. I can say from experience that a lot of companies are ineptly managed, outrageously inefficient and have a corresponding unnecessarily high cost base. It is rare that enough attention is paid to this until it is too late and the business (or business unit) is shut down or sold off.
I used to be shocked by what I found, but now I am immune to the idiocy I come across on a daily basis – I simply make it my mission to change it. Amazingly, this is often met with resistance and hostility, which is usually a good indication of why it the enterprise concerned didn’t tackle the problem earlier.
Why would the likes of Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft be any different to others I have worked with?*
I believe that if they really wanted to, any of the above could sell their single-engine piston range for the price of a high end sports car. It would require investment and a lot of change, but I do not think it would be impossible.
*Rhetorical question.
A new SR22 is in the 600-700k range to the best of my knowledge, possibly more.
Interesting. Isn’t that about the price of a new DA42? For that kind of money I know what my choice would be.
At this stage, there is no fully capable diesel powered traveller available on the market.
Indeed. This is very unfortunate. If I am not mistaken Diamond is working on the DA50 which will feature the Austro AE300 (150+ kts) although I believe they also have a version with a Ukranian turboprop engine, and another with a TSIO550 doing 200+ kts.
I must say I am a little bit sickened by the Cirrus vs everythingelse debate, just the same as the Apple vs Android debate. Cirrus owners are just as entitled to be proud of their Cirrus as TB owners or Cub owners are allowed to be proud of their respective airplanes, but I definitely have the impression that the “Cirrus crowd” are like groupies that are unable to accept that others may have other perceptions/preferences than themselves. Just like the “Apple crowd”.
That said, the fact remains that the Cirrus aircraft were the first SEP airplanes of their categories (1995 SR20, 2001 SR22) with a modern composite hull design and modern avionics, and there is no wonder that they gained a certain number of followers. I am nevertheless a little bit surprised that the Lancair Columbia 350 (2003) did not have the same success. So maybe the real differentiator was indeed the BRS, or maybe it was, just like Apple, marketing that made the difference.
I certainly hope that a revamped TB20/21 with modern avionics would find a group of followers in between the SR20 and SR22, and maybe it will among people who believe in retractable gear. That may happen if it’s priced right.
I must say I am a little bit sickened by the Cirrus vs everythingelse debate, just the same as the Apple vs Android debate. Cirrus owners are just as entitled to be proud of their Cirrus as TB owners or Cub owners are allowed to be proud of their respective airplanes, but I definitely have the impression that the “Cirrus crowd” are like groupies that are unable to accept that others may have other perceptions/preferences than themselves. Just like the “Apple crowd”.
That might be yopur “perception” but it is wrong. The one thing that Cirrus and Apple DO have in common is that they brought out innovative products when everybody else was snoring. And it’s not really Cirrus’ “fault” or even “mistake” that they were brave and innovative when nobody else was.
The “groupie” thing is completely ridiculous, it’s completely made up. I know not even ONE Cirrus pilot who has prejudice against other airplanes. Actually there’s many who would rather fly a metal Mooney or Beech – if it had a CAPS system. Of course Cirrus pilots “love” (i myself prefer to use that word for living things) their airplanes, and it’s really your good right to be enthusiastic about your airplane if you just spent $ 800.000 for it. It would be pretty sad if it weren’t so.
I for one would probably prefer a Beech Bonanza (because I actually like metal airplanes even better then composite one) – but the Cirrus is simply the better deal.
I am nevertheless a little bit surprised that the Lancair Columbia 350 (2003) did not have the same success. So maybe the real differentiator was indeed the BRS, or maybe it was, just like Apple, marketing that made the difference.
Marketing is really not the difference. The difference is in the product and the customers are intelligent enough to see it: While the Columbia is a bit faster – it has no other advantage. But the Cirrus is MUCH roomier, has the CAPS system and much (!) better visibility.
I flown all models of the Columbia (when it was still with Lancair), the 300 and the 400. It has a very nice interior and I loved the overall design (not everybody likes the nose gear but I like the NLG steering better than Cirrus’ free castering NLG. Other than that the SR22 is clearly the better airplane. The main difference is the cabin and CAPS. It’s that simple.
That might be yopur “perception” but it is wrong.
That is slightly insulting/condescending/arrogant. My perception is not “wrong”. It is mine and I am just as much entitled to one as you are.
It is mine and I am just as much entitled to one as you are.
Okay, I didn’t want to be arrogant (even though I fly a Cirrus). If you have that perception you are entitled to it. Sorry.
I just find all discussions where grown up people (men) fight for brands completely silly. To put people into “Apple” or "Cirrus " drawers is not something I like. I’d rather be seen (by you) as a human beeing and not as a “member of the Cirrus church”. So, who is arrogant here?
Thank you.
I just find all discussions where grown up people (men) fight for brands completely silly.
I totally agree with you, and that was part the point I was trying to make. When I used the term “Cirrus crowd” it was quoted and I was reusing an expression used by someone else.
The other point I was making was that some contributors were a little too vocal about their infatuation for the Cirrus and unable to find anything worthwhile in any other airplane.
We should all agree on one thing: until somebody posts a credible costing for a SEP, nobody has the slightest idea which sort of retail price can be achieved 
It’s a funny exercise… I like doing such costings on electronics gear. GNS430 – 200 quid. GNS530 – not much more. GTX330 – 150 quid. GTN750 – 300 quid. KX165A/8.33 – 200 quid. All based on 1k batch size, ex factory costs i.e. parts plus direct labour.
When you do this on a SEP, you struggle to arrive at anything very high. As Finners correctly says, the players are all old and fat, so the gross profit just p1sses out of every orifice.
The one thing that Cirrus and Apple DO have in common is that they brought out innovative products when everybody else was snoring
I like that. I’ll need to remember it I would however add Lancair to that list, and Diamond (the DA40 first flew in 1997 although it got a glass panel later)
It’s a funny exercise…
Maybe, but what something will cost you in terms of material has nothing to do with the final pricing.
It’s like adding up the ingredients of a pizza at your favourite restaurant and wondering why it doesn’t cost 50 cents, but 10 Euros instead.
