Six-Place Composite?

[Marco Leon]

Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given Cirrus'
success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this. Any bets
on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?

[Kai Glaesner]

Marco,

> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? [...]

Does the Epic LT from www.epicaircraft.com qualify?

Best regards

Kai Glaesner

[Thomas Borchert]

Marco,

Diamond D-Jet? You said single-engine <g>, but I think it only has five seats. The Grob
Ranger is in that league, too, albeit with a turboprop. And then there's the Extra 400 - or
is there?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new
certified
> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given
Cirrus'
> success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this.
Any bets
> on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?

At a wild guess I'd say Extra, since they already have one ;)

http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea400.asp
http://www.anft.net/f-14/extra400.htm

--
Allen

[Marco Leon]

I guess I was thinking about piston single engine composites. Will the
210,Saratoga and Bonanza be the last six-place pistons out there? It seems
to be a great way for one of these guys to break into the composite market
if they have the stomach for the cost and risk. Otherwise, what's their next
move?

Marco Leon

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> > Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new
> certified
> > single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given
> Cirrus'
> > success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this.
> Any bets
> > on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?
>
> At a wild guess I'd say Extra, since they already have one ;)
>
> http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea400.asp
> http://www.anft.net/f-14/extra400.htm
>
> --
> Allen
>

[Ray Bengen]

Based on a Comanche...

http://www.ravinaircraft.com/

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:25:44 -0500, Marco Leon <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given
> Cirrus'
> success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this. Any
> bets
> on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Dan Luke]

"Marco Leon" wrote:
> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given Cirrus'
> success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this. Any
bets
> on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?

Don't bet on Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper to make any kind of stab at certifying a
new light SE airplane.

Beechcraft is playing out the Bonanza/Baron string, seeing just how high they
can price them and still sell enough to keep production going. Guys like me
who have always lusted for a Bo' are aging Baby Boomers, there's no one new
coming along that cares enough about the brand to spend $800K on a SE piston
airplane. Raytheon will shut it down when that market fizzles out.

Piper is a walking corpse à la Mooney, perpetually being revived in the
bankruptcy courts. The idea that they could attract enough development
capital for a new design and certification process is pure fantasy.

Cessna would be a very long shot. Enough alternatives to the 172 are coming
along that the natural-progression pipeline to 182s and 206s will dry up.
Cessna will either have to come up with something new or face increasing loss
of market share to modern designs. Oshkosh rumors notwithstanding, there
doesn't seem to be anything serious going on at Cessna WRT a new SE airplane.

These companies have missed the modern light aircraft boat; it sailed away
with Cirrus and Diamond aboard, pulling Lancair behind in an innertube.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>I guess I was thinking about piston single engine composites.

The Extra 400 *is* a piston single engine composite.

[aluckyguess]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marco Leon" wrote:
>> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
>> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe? Given
>> Cirrus'
>> success, all the manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about this. Any
> bets
>> on the Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper trio before Cirrus and Diamond?
>
> Don't bet on Beechcraft-Cessna-Piper to make any kind of stab at
> certifying a
> new light SE airplane.
>
> Beechcraft is playing out the Bonanza/Baron string, seeing just how high
> they
> can price them and still sell enough to keep production going. Guys like
> me
> who have always lusted for a Bo' are aging Baby Boomers, there's no one
> new
> coming along that cares enough about the brand to spend $800K on a SE
> piston
> airplane. Raytheon will shut it down when that market fizzles out.
>
> Piper is a walking corpse à la Mooney, perpetually being revived in the
> bankruptcy courts. The idea that they could attract enough development
> capital for a new design and certification process is pure fantasy.
>
> Cessna would be a very long shot. Enough alternatives to the 172 are
> coming
> along that the natural-progression pipeline to 182s and 206s will dry up.
> Cessna will either have to come up with something new or face increasing
> loss
> of market share to modern designs. Oshkosh rumors notwithstanding, there
> doesn't seem to be anything serious going on at Cessna WRT a new SE
> airplane.
>
> These companies have missed the modern light aircraft boat; it sailed away
> with Cirrus and Diamond aboard, pulling Lancair behind in an innertube.
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>
Dan I believe your right.
They should be able to build and sell an A36 for 150,000 depending on
avionics. There really is not that much to an airplane. I may be missing
something like the cost of the insurance, but there just isn't that much to
a single engine plane.

[Peter Duniho]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> They should be able to build and sell an A36 for 150,000 depending on
> avionics. There really is not that much to an airplane. I may be missing
> something like the cost of the insurance, but there just isn't that much
> to a single engine plane.

Of course there is. Airplanes aren't produced in large enough quantities to
take advantage of modern automated mass-production techniques; they are
essentially hand built. And of course there are all the costs associated
with complying with regulatory requirements.

Just because the cost of materials is relatively low, that doesn't mean it
doesn't cost a lot to produce an airplane.

I think it highly unlikely that, given the large number of aircraft
manufacturers, that they are all colluding on the price. And that's the
only way to explain how prices are so high if your assertion about what they
*should* cost is correct.

In any case, I think you entirely misunderstood Dan's point. The
manufacturers he cites as positive examples aren't selling aircraft any
cheaper than the negative examples he gives.

Pete

[aluckyguess]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They should be able to build and sell an A36 for 150,000 depending on
>> avionics. There really is not that much to an airplane. I may be missing
>> something like the cost of the insurance, but there just isn't that much
>> to a single engine plane.
>
> Of course there is. Airplanes aren't produced in large enough quantities
> to take advantage of modern automated mass-production techniques; they are
> essentially hand built. And of course there are all the costs associated
> with complying with regulatory requirements.
>
> Just because the cost of materials is relatively low, that doesn't mean it
> doesn't cost a lot to produce an airplane.
>
> I think it highly unlikely that, given the large number of aircraft
> manufacturers, that they are all colluding on the price. And that's the
> only way to explain how prices are so high if your assertion about what
> they *should* cost is correct.
>
> In any case, I think you entirely misunderstood Dan's point. The
> manufacturers he cites as positive examples aren't selling aircraft any
> cheaper than the negative examples he gives.
>
> Pete
>
To me a large qty would be 200-300. If they went out and just built that
qty. I believe and I could be wrong they could produce the plane for that
price.
I have been a machinist for 30 years building aircraft parts. I had my own
shop with 41 employees and 21 CNC machines.

Now lets go out on a limb, build 1000 planes at the special pricing. I think
there would be a lot of buyers for a new A36 @ 150000. I would probably be
one of them.

[C J Campbell]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Who do you all think will be the first to come out with a new certified
> single-engine, six-place composite (non-aluminium) airframe?

Extra.

[Peter Duniho]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> To me a large qty would be 200-300. If they went out and just built that
> qty. I believe and I could be wrong they could produce the plane for that
> price.

You are wrong. Building 1000 Bonanzas wouldn't bring the price down to
$150K/each.

If you think it's so doable, not only building 1000 Bonanzas for less than
$150K each (since you want to make a profit too), and you think there are
1000 buyers for Bonanzas that cost only $150K, why not do it? I assure you,
I'll buy a $150K Bonanza from you if you do. I'll bet lots of other people
would too.

Remember, the hypothetical airplane needs to meet or exceed every aspect of
the 2005 A36.

I hate the "if it's such a good idea, why hasn't someone already done it"
argument, but in this case I think it fits.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"aluckyguess" wrote:
> Dan I believe your right.
> They should be able to build and sell an A36 for 150,000 depending on
> avionics. There really is not that much to an airplane. I may be
> missing something like the cost of the insurance, but there just isn't
> that much to a single engine plane.

That's not what I meant. Raytheon could not by any stretch of the
imagination build and sell an A36 for $150k. They sell them for nearly
$800k because that's what it takes to make the line profitable. Do you
think Raytheon is making $650k margin on the A36s it sells?

A mfr. has some choices to make when demand dwindles for an already low
volume, high cost product : it can invest in aggressive marketing and
product improvement, it can shave margins as thin as possible hoping to
revive sales, or it can continue to raise margin/unit until demand
finally falls below a supportable level. Raytheon has apparently
(wisely, IMO) chosen the third alternative. The Bonanza is a nearly
60-year old design; there's no sense in plowing development money into
it. Cut the price? How much could they cut? Not enough to get
anywhere near the SR-22 and get some of that market. The A36 is a
"boutique" airplane: it sells on panache to a very narrow market. When
those aging rich guys are gone, the Bo' will go with them.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Marco Leon]

Ummm I knew that! ;)

I was thinking of checking before I posted...
What's going on with it?? Is it really a player? Or is it proof that there
really is no market for new six-placers?



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>I guess I was thinking about piston single engine composites.
>
> The Extra 400 *is* a piston single engine composite.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> I was thinking of checking before I posted...
> What's going on with it?? Is it really a player? Or is it proof that there
> really is no market for new six-placers?

I don't know the latest details. My recollection is that they suspended
production (and Extra might even have done some kind of reorganization), and
are now focusing on the Extra 500 turboprop. I don't think the 400 is still
being produced.

The Extra 400, Piper Meridian, and similar have to some extent been the
victims of poor timing, appearing just as economies around the world
declined (due in no small part to the dot-com bubble burst, but also related
to other factors of course). I would guess that the Meridian was doing
better than the 400, prompting Extra to spend more effort (and money) on the
turboprop version of the 400. But I honestly don't know any of the
specifics; once it became clear I wasn't going to be able to afford the 400
any time soon, I stopped paying attention. :)

IMHO, there is definitely a market for new design six-seaters. After all,
there's a market for much more expensive aircraft. But cost is an issue (as
always). Since the piston six-seaters have turned out to be so expensive
(the Extra 400 was originally promised to have a price of "only" $800K,
aiming it squarely at the Saratoga and Bonanza, both of which it outperforms
significantly), they are competing with larger, faster twins (which can cost
much less to purchase used than something like the Extra 400, leaving lots
of money left over for operating expenses), as well as turbine models (I
don't doubt that the large number of VLJ's promised has been suppressing the
piston market, as people take a wait-and-see attitude).

So while the market probably exists, it's also probably small, and
especially so until all of the VLJ's have actually been certified and we
find out what the actual price and performance will be (I suspect price will
be much higher than promised, and performance slightly lower, which would
probably put some breath back into the piston 6-place market). If the Extra
400 could have come in at a price competitive with lesser-performing
aircraft, it probably would have done better. But it didn't. So it's
competing with existing aircraft that perform as well or better, and in that
environment, it's not nearly the slam dunk it could have been.

I think that it's still not out of the question to see Cirrus or Lancair
come up with something. They will probably make something more like the
A36/Saratoga, and probably WILL be less expensive, both in terms of purchase
price as well as operating expenses. Their piston six-place probably won't
be pressurized (the Extra 400 surely suffered from sales due to the
pressurization, which increased maintenance expenses slightly, but increased
training and insurance requirements dramatically), might not even have
retractable gear, and so will be much better aligned in terms of expense and
capabilities with the existing 6-place market.

Pete

[Marco Leon]

You make all valid points Pete. I think it's unfortunate that the
Beech/Cessna/Piper trio won't be coming out with anything "new." As other
people have said, I think their days are numbered (even though it'll be
years if not decades) if they don't take a drastic risk and come out with a
new airframe. Maybe the Boeing-Airbus saga of betting the farm on new
airframes is destined to become the saga of the GA manufacturers. Anyone out
there doing a thesis? That would make for a good subject.

If that's the case, I wonder of even Cirrus is willing to come out with a
new six-place if it means betting the farm. Maybe Cirrus' SR-2x airframe
will follow the PA-28 => PA-32 route and spawn a six-place airframe with the
majority of components being similar if not identical.

Marco

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> I was thinking of checking before I posted...
>> What's going on with it?? Is it really a player? Or is it proof that
>> there really is no market for new six-placers?
>
> I don't know the latest details. My recollection is that they suspended
> production (and Extra might even have done some kind of reorganization),
> and are now focusing on the Extra 500 turboprop. I don't think the 400 is
> still being produced.
>
> The Extra 400, Piper Meridian, and similar have to some extent been the
> victims of poor timing, appearing just as economies around the world
> declined (due in no small part to the dot-com bubble burst, but also
> related to other factors of course). I would guess that the Meridian was
> doing better than the 400, prompting Extra to spend more effort (and
> money) on the turboprop version of the 400. But I honestly don't know any
> of the specifics; once it became clear I wasn't going to be able to afford
> the 400 any time soon, I stopped paying attention. :)
>
> IMHO, there is definitely a market for new design six-seaters. After all,
> there's a market for much more expensive aircraft. But cost is an issue
> (as always). Since the piston six-seaters have turned out to be so
> expensive (the Extra 400 was originally promised to have a price of "only"
> $800K, aiming it squarely at the Saratoga and Bonanza, both of which it
> outperforms significantly), they are competing with larger, faster twins
> (which can cost much less to purchase used than something like the Extra
> 400, leaving lots of money left over for operating expenses), as well as
> turbine models (I don't doubt that the large number of VLJ's promised has
> been suppressing the piston market, as people take a wait-and-see
> attitude).
>
> So while the market probably exists, it's also probably small, and
> especially so until all of the VLJ's have actually been certified and we
> find out what the actual price and performance will be (I suspect price
> will be much higher than promised, and performance slightly lower, which
> would probably put some breath back into the piston 6-place market). If
> the Extra 400 could have come in at a price competitive with
> lesser-performing aircraft, it probably would have done better. But it
> didn't. So it's competing with existing aircraft that perform as well or
> better, and in that environment, it's not nearly the slam dunk it could
> have been.
>
> I think that it's still not out of the question to see Cirrus or Lancair
> come up with something. They will probably make something more like the
> A36/Saratoga, and probably WILL be less expensive, both in terms of
> purchase price as well as operating expenses. Their piston six-place
> probably won't be pressurized (the Extra 400 surely suffered from sales
> due to the pressurization, which increased maintenance expenses slightly,
> but increased training and insurance requirements dramatically), might not
> even have retractable gear, and so will be much better aligned in terms of
> expense and capabilities with the existing 6-place market.
>
> Pete
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[John Clear]

In article >, Marco Leon <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:
>
>If that's the case, I wonder of even Cirrus is willing to come out with a
>new six-place if it means betting the farm. Maybe Cirrus' SR-2x airframe
>will follow the PA-28 => PA-32 route and spawn a six-place airframe with the
>majority of components being similar if not identical.

I wouldn't be surprised if Diamond is the first of the Diamond /
Cirrus / Lancair crowd with a six place composite. They've already
stretched the Katana to make the Star, and then added an extra
engine to make the TwinStar, so another stretch to make a
SuperStar/TwinSuperStar sounds like something they'd probably
consider. The Diamond product line is similiar to what Piper did
with the PA-28/PA-32 lines.

Cirrus seems to be concentrating on the SR-20/22 and Lancair's
certified division is trying to avoid becoming a footnote in aviation
history.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[aluckyguess]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> To me a large qty would be 200-300. If they went out and just built that
>> qty. I believe and I could be wrong they could produce the plane for that
>> price.
>
> You are wrong. Building 1000 Bonanzas wouldn't bring the price down to
> $150K/each.
>
> If you think it's so doable, not only building 1000 Bonanzas for less than
> $150K each (since you want to make a profit too), and you think there are
> 1000 buyers for Bonanzas that cost only $150K, why not do it? I assure
> you, I'll buy a $150K Bonanza from you if you do. I'll bet lots of other
> people would too.
>
> Remember, the hypothetical airplane needs to meet or exceed every aspect
> of the 2005 A36.
>
> I hate the "if it's such a good idea, why hasn't someone already done it"
> argument, but in this case I think it fits.
>
> Pete
>Well talk to Ratheon for me and drum me up a little capital and I will do
>it. I have some time on my hands. I bet we would make a 30% profit to boot.
I think I could build a Cherokee 180 for well under 100k depending on
avioncs.

[Dan Luke]

"aluckyguess" wrote:

> Well talk to Ratheon for me and drum me up a little capital and I will
> do it. I have some time on my hands. I bet we would make a 30% profit
> to boot.
> I think I could build a Cherokee 180 for well under 100k depending on
> avioncs.

Answer the question: if it's such a good idea, why hasn't someone
already done it? Or to put it another way, what do you know that the
entire light aircraft industry doesn't?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>Well talk to Ratheon for me and drum me up a little capital and I will do
>it.

Drum up your own capital. No one's going to invest unless you can convince
them you have a decent business plan. I don't believe that you do, so I'd
be pretty hard-pressed to convince anyone else you do.

> I have some time on my hands. I bet we would make a 30% profit to boot.
> I think I could build a Cherokee 180 for well under 100k depending on
> avioncs.

I doubt that too, even if you're talking cost, not retail price. But again,
feel free to try. Sure would be nice to see an airplane equivalent to a
Cherokee 180 for half the price of a new C172.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> I wouldn't be surprised if Diamond is the first of the Diamond /
> Cirrus / Lancair crowd with a six place composite.
>

They have it already in the middle of certification. They call it
D-Jet. And they have decided a piston engine doesn't make sense for
that kind of aircraft.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:19:37 -0500, "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net>
wrote:

>You make all valid points Pete. I think it's unfortunate that the
>Beech/Cessna/Piper trio won't be coming out with anything "new." As other
>people have said, I think their days are numbered (even though it'll be
>years if not decades) if they don't take a drastic risk and come out with a
>new airframe. Maybe the Boeing-Airbus saga of betting the farm on new
>airframes is destined to become the saga of the GA manufacturers. Anyone out
>there doing a thesis? That would make for a good subject.
>
>If that's the case, I wonder of even Cirrus is willing to come out with a
>new six-place if it means betting the farm. Maybe Cirrus' SR-2x airframe
>will follow the PA-28 => PA-32 route and spawn a six-place airframe with the
>majority of components being similar if not identical.


before all this will happen I'd bet that Honda then has already taken over
the market.

btw: anything new on the Honda plane?

#m
--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:24:35 -0600, Dan Luke wrote:

>Answer the question: if it's such a good idea, why hasn't someone
>already done it? Or to put it another way, what do you know that the
>entire light aircraft industry doesn't?

and then you are also confronted with a very conservative market. come up
with a reasonable priced and well equipped plane, fuel efficient and with a
new design. the majority will let everybody else buy the plane first.

sounds familiar?

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Ken Ibold]

The D-jet interior as now conceived is a 3-person bench seat in the rear,
but there will be a sideways facing seat that can be used in-flight, but not
for takeoff and landing.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Marco,
>
> Diamond D-Jet? You said single-engine <g>, but I think it only has five
> seats. The Grob
> Ranger is in that league, too, albeit with a turboprop. And then there's
> the Extra 400 - or
> is there?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>