Beechcraft sold

[Jim Macklin]

Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.

[Jim Macklin]

Onex, partner buy company for $3.3 billion
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/16290414.htm
Union official says sale 'will be seamless'
Eagle staff and news services
Wichita-based Raytheon Aircraft, on the market since July,
was sold today for $3.3 billion to a partnership formed by
Onex and Goldman Sachs. The new company will be called
Hawker Beechcraft Corp. The deal is expected to close in the
first half of 2007. Raytheon Aircraft employs about 6,300
people in Wichita.
www.kansas.com Wichita Eagle newspaper source.




"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
| Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
|
|
|

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.

Gee who made that mistake? I'd like to see the King Air sales guy try
to talk a customer out of buying an Eclipse or why he should pay more
than a million for a Baron. Raytheon found a good time to sell.

-Robert

[NW_Pilot]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
>
>
>

Isint Raytheon in the middle of a strike right now????

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
Jim

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> >> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Isint Raytheon in the middle of a strike right now????
> >
> >
> Isn't Goldman Sachs' CEO the guy who was awarded a $53M year-end bonus
> yesterday?
>
>

[john smith]

Is the sum of the parts worth more than the whole?

Jim Burns wrote:

>Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
>Jim
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
>>>>Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Isint Raytheon in the middle of a strike right now????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Isn't Goldman Sachs' CEO the guy who was awarded a $53M year-end bonus
>>yesterday?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

That would be a pretty good bet.
Jim

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Is the sum of the parts worth more than the whole?
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
> >Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
> >Jim
> >
> >"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >>In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> >>>>Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Isint Raytheon in the middle of a strike right now????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Isn't Goldman Sachs' CEO the guy who was awarded a $53M year-end bonus
> >>yesterday?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >That would be a pretty good bet.
> >Jim
>
>
> Wouldn't be the first time. . .
> Could be a pretty sad end for an aircraft that has, in some ways, remained
> the ultimate "pilot's airplane" for over 40 years now.

Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes. :)

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
> Jim

That would make sense. If I had been asked to do the business analysis
on the purchase I would likely have classified it was a pretty large
risk investment in the long term. Not too likely that they'll be able
to compete in the new era.

-Robert

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
>> Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
>> Jim
>
> That would make sense. If I had been asked to do the business analysis
> on the purchase I would likely have classified it was a pretty large
> risk investment in the long term. Not too likely that they'll be able
> to compete in the new era.
>

If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
high end. The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to
being in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
Columbia and put their name on it.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.

Probably the beginning of the end.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Burns writes:

> Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??

Whenever a company buys another company for pure purposes of financial
gain, the company acquired usually suffers and often disappears. This
is probably very bad news for Beechcraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes.

They may not be for much longer with buyers like Onex.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
> high end. The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to
> being in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
> Columbia and put their name on it.

The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.

You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
the company? They've already spent many, many times what the company
assets are worth buying it.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
> high end. The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to
> being in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they
> bought Columbia and put their name on it.

I wouldn't bet on Eclipse EVER being built. Be prepared for their bankruptcy
soon. Just a personal hunch.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Robert M. Gary]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
> high end. The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to
> being in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
> Columbia and put their name on it.

Buying another company is usually a wise decision when you are already
so far behind. I've long come to the conclusion that most everyone who
invests in GA is not doing it for money. It just almost never makes any
business sense. I look at all the times Mooney has been sold. Someone
bought them. Yes, they make a fabulous product but what information do
they have that would suggest it would ever be profitable.

-Robert, MBA, CFII

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"> Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes. :)
>
> -Robert

Let's see.................name a NEW airplane you can fill all the tanks,
all 10 seats, 50 pounds of baggage for each PAX, and then go 5 hours at 310
Kts.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >
> > The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.
>
> You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
> the company? They've already spent many, many times what the company
> assets are worth buying it.

I don't know that to be true, is it? How many times earnings did it
sell for? Does anyone know earnings? Perhaps they were bought for the
dividend value of parts.

The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
jet tells you something. With the King Air line up, it would have been
a shoe in to get attention by offering a jet. I tend to agree with
others that its likely too late at this point. Probably just another
example of a company that found a winning formula 30 years ago and
never had the courage to change with the times. We see it all the time,
companies run into the ground because they are afraid of change.

-Robert

[Peter Dohm]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Newps wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.
> >
> > You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
> > the company? They've already spent many, many times what the company
> > assets are worth buying it.
>
> I don't know that to be true, is it? How many times earnings did it
> sell for? Does anyone know earnings? Perhaps they were bought for the
> dividend value of parts.
>
> The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
> jet tells you something. With the King Air line up, it would have been
> a shoe in to get attention by offering a jet. I tend to agree with
> others that its likely too late at this point. Probably just another
> example of a company that found a winning formula 30 years ago and
> never had the courage to change with the times. We see it all the time,
> companies run into the ground because they are afraid of change.
>
> -Robert
>
They had a rather bad exsperience with the Starship.

Peter

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.
>>
>>You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
>>the company? They've already spent many, many times what the company
>>assets are worth buying it.
>
>
> I don't know that to be true, is it? How many times earnings did it
> sell for? Does anyone know earnings? Perhaps they were bought for the
> dividend value of parts.

It's a myth that any company is bought to simply liquidate it. Doesn't
happen. Never makes financial sense. What the buyer may do is sell the
units that are not core to the business. So take Raytheon as an
example. Is Beech a core business for them or does it simply drain
company resources?


>
> The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
> jet tells you something.



Hello? Beech has had a jet for a long time. Or did you mean a newer
jet design?

[Jay Honeck]

> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.

I wish it weren't true, but you know Beech has outlived its usefulness
when my response to this sale is a lackadaisical yawn.

They have come up with precisely zero new ideas since the StarShip,
over 20 years ago, and -- their contributions to aviation history
notwithstanding -- if Beech went out of business tomorrow, it would
mean...nothing.

IMO, Beech has been irrelevant to aviation for at least ten years --
almost as long as I've been a pilot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Greg Farris wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >That would be a pretty good bet.
>> >Jim
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't be the first time. . .
>> Could be a pretty sad end for an aircraft that has, in some ways,
>> remained
>> the ultimate "pilot's airplane" for over 40 years now.
>
> Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes. :)
Yes my instructor and I where just finishing a flight in my 61 BE35 (getting
my IFR rating). He looks over at me and goes this plane still holds its own
against all the new planes. The biggest difference GPS. I would still rather
have an aluminum plane over a composite, an if it was an A36 I would say its
better than a Cirrus.


The only thing Beechcraft needs to do is lower the price on the Bonanza and
the Baron and they would sell a bunch of them.
I have had quite a few flight in a King Air lately and its a nice solid
plane and you really feel safe in it, but I personally would buy something
else. The gas and upkeep on that thing is crazy.

JMHO


>
> -Robert
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Newps wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate the company.
>>
>> You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
>> the company? They've already spent many, many times what the company
>> assets are worth buying it.
>
> I don't know that to be true, is it? How many times earnings did it
> sell for? Does anyone know earnings? Perhaps they were bought for the
> dividend value of parts.
>
> The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
> jet tells you something. With the King Air line up, it would have been
> a shoe in to get attention by offering a jet. I tend to agree with
> others that its likely too late at this point. Probably just another
> example of a company that found a winning formula 30 years ago and
> never had the courage to change with the times. We see it all the time,
> companies run into the ground because they are afraid of change.
>
> -Robert

I dont know if you had your choice would you take a new A36 or a SR22. I
know I would take the A36.
The planes are not outdated the outdating is the price. Maybe the new
company can fix that.
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
>> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
>
> I wish it weren't true, but you know Beech has outlived its usefulness
> when my response to this sale is a lackadaisical yawn.
>
> They have come up with precisely zero new ideas since the StarShip,
> over 20 years ago, and -- their contributions to aviation history
> notwithstanding -- if Beech went out of business tomorrow, it would
> mean...nothing.
>
> IMO, Beech has been irrelevant to aviation for at least ten years --
> almost as long as I've been a pilot.

Have you flown a Beechcraft. They are the nicest GA aircfaft flying.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter Dohm]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "> Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes. :)
> >
> > -Robert
>
> Let's see.................name a NEW airplane you can fill all the tanks,
> all 10 seats, 50 pounds of baggage for each PAX, and then go 5 hours at
310
> Kts.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
>
>
That seems to suggest that the King Air has some life remaining....

Peter

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "> Yep, too bad they're still building 40 year old airplanes. :)
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Let's see.................name a NEW airplane you can fill all the tanks,
> all 10 seats, 50 pounds of baggage for each PAX, and then go 5 hours at
> 310 Kts.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
And as far as that goes, try to find a NEW airplane that will carry more,
further, faster, and into more un-improved strips than the 54 year old
Cessna Skywagon. Nada!

The Cirrus is nice, but it's kind of a "girly man" airplane.(With respects
to Arnold!)

Karl

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>> Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
>> Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Isint Raytheon in the middle of a strike right now????
>
>
Isn't Goldman Sachs' CEO the guy who was awarded a $53M year-end bonus
yesterday?

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You're an idiot.

It would be nice if I were.

> Why would someone spend all that money to liquidate
> the company?

First you milk the company for all its worth, then you carefully cut
it into pieces and sell it for prices that give you a substantial
return on your initial investment. That's the way holding companies
work.

Rest assured, companies like this care absolutely nothing about
aviation or the actual work of any of their acquisitions. All they
care about is money. If their acquisition doesn't make lots of money
quickly, they'll dump it, usually in chunks.

The reason for this is that investment companies want high, short-term
returns. They don't care about the survival of a company or the
services or products it provides. Very often, the goal of short-term
profits conflicts with the goal of long-term prosperity and survival
and public service, and so the company is destroyed.

> They've already spent many, many times what the company
> assets are worth buying it.

Wait and see. I hope you're right, as I'd hate to see this company
disappear.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
> jet tells you something. With the King Air line up, it would have been
> a shoe in to get attention by offering a jet. I tend to agree with
> others that its likely too late at this point. Probably just another
> example of a company that found a winning formula 30 years ago and
> never had the courage to change with the times. We see it all the time,
> companies run into the ground because they are afraid of change.

It may just be a pricing and marketing issue. Several of the aircraft
Beech produces are just as viable today as they were 40 years ago.
Not everyone wants a jet. Aviation is safety-oriented, and being
conservative is very safe. You may not have all the bells and
whistles, but you know exactly what you have, and what it can and
cannot do. Just look at the ancient engine designs in use--they are
probably inferior to modern engines, but they are a known quantity,
whereas introducing something completely new is risky in a domain
where a failure can easily kill people.

I rather like the idea of something so stable that it can continue for
decades and still fulfill its purpose admirably. I wish some other
domains (such as computers) were that way. It's simpler and more
economical.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> It's a myth that any company is bought to simply liquidate it.

It happens every day.

Companies like Onex just want to make money. They don't care how they
do it. They have no personal attachment to their acquisitions.
Either those acquisition start to generate high returns over the short
term, or they are taken apart and sold.

> Never makes financial sense.

Unfortunately it often does. It just doesn't make any other kind of
sense. But money is often all that matters.

> What the buyer may do is sell the units that are not core to the
> business.

That's just a euphemism for what really happens.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I dont know if you had your choice would you take a new A36 or a SR22. I
> know I would take the A36.

So would I. The A36 is a known quantity, the SR22 is not. I don't
like to bet my life on unknowns.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I've long come to the conclusion that most everyone who
> invests in GA is not doing it for money. It just almost never makes any
> business sense.

Probably, but the companies doing the buying in this case are well
known for their interest in money, and money alone, which is
worrisome.

> I look at all the times Mooney has been sold. Someone
> bought them. Yes, they make a fabulous product but what information do
> they have that would suggest it would ever be profitable.

Who has bought Mooney over the years?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> Have you flown a Beechcraft. They are the nicest GA aircfaft flying.

I've flown a Bonanza and a Baron. Very nice planes, indeed, but
stupidly over-priced. And (IMHO) the Light Sport Aircraft "CT" handles
even better, for 1/7th the cost, and the Cirrus SR-22 is better still.


Beech is a grand old name, and I will hate to see it go away -- but
they've been like a grand old uncle with Alzheimer's Disease. They've
been dead in every way for years, except in body.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

Beech had jets 40 years ago with their importing Hawkers
from England. Then they bought the Mitsubishi Diamond and
moved production to Kansas. Then they bought the Hawker
company line of jets. They built the Premier One and that
was long before bankrupt Piper thought of a VLJ.

Beech may survive now that Raytheon is out. Raytheon was
more concerned with major defense contracts and recreational
boating.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Newps wrote:
| > Mxsmanic wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > The objective is probably to dismantle and liquidate
the company.
| >
| > You're an idiot. Why would someone spend all that money
to liquidate
| > the company? They've already spent many, many times
what the company
| > assets are worth buying it.
|
| I don't know that to be true, is it? How many times
earnings did it
| sell for? Does anyone know earnings? Perhaps they were
bought for the
| dividend value of parts.
|
| The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to
announce a
| jet tells you something. With the King Air line up, it
would have been
| a shoe in to get attention by offering a jet. I tend to
agree with
| others that its likely too late at this point. Probably
just another
| example of a company that found a winning formula 30 years
ago and
| never had the courage to change with the times. We see it
all the time,
| companies run into the ground because they are afraid of
change.
|
| -Robert
|

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>That would be a pretty good bet.
>Jim


Wouldn't be the first time. . .
Could be a pretty sad end for an aircraft that has, in some ways, remained
the ultimate "pilot's airplane" for over 40 years now.

I know - time has run out for the venerable KingAir - but Good God what a
career!

[Doug Vetter]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I wish it weren't true, but you know Beech has outlived its usefulness
> when my response to this sale is a lackadaisical yawn.
>
> They have come up with precisely zero new ideas since the StarShip,
> over 20 years ago, and -- their contributions to aviation history
> notwithstanding -- if Beech went out of business tomorrow, it would
> mean...nothing.
>
> IMO, Beech has been irrelevant to aviation for at least ten years --
> almost as long as I've been a pilot.

I normally agree with you Jay, but this is probably the most
shortsighted thing I've ever heard you say in this forum.

I flew a 20 year old A36 recently and all I can say is the only thing
wrong with that airplane was the lack of glass (which they've solved in
the G36), a tendency to dutch roll in turbulence (easily correctable by
the use of a yaw damper) and the price for new copies. If I had the
coin, I'd buy a G36 or Baron over the new plastic airplanes, and a King
Air over a VLJ any day -- even if it cost me more to buy and to operate
on a long-term basis. They're that good.

As an instructor, I get to fly a lot of different airplanes and talk to
a lot of owners. I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
airplanes are those who haven't flown them.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Jay Honeck]

> As an instructor, I get to fly a lot of different airplanes and talk to
> a lot of owners. I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
> airplanes are those who haven't flown them.

I didn't say I hated Beech -- far from it. Although none of their
birds fits my current mission, which requires lots of economical
lifting capacity and a wide CG range -- I would LOVE to own a Bonanza
some day.

What I said was that they have become irrelevant. They sell a tiny
number of aircraft each year (thanks to their outrageous pricing), and
the last new aircraft design to come out of Beech was....what? I
can't think of anything new since the Starship debacle of the early
1980s.

Since that occurred right after I graduated from college -- and I'm now
48 years old -- I think I'm safe in saying that Beech has become
irrelevant to aviation. If they went away tomorrow, we would all shed
a tear for the Beech line -- but it would have zero impact on general
aviation.

The same cannot be said, for example, of Cessna, Piper, Cirrus or
Columbia.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> Have you flown a Beechcraft. They are the nicest GA aircfaft flying.
>
> I've flown a Bonanza and a Baron. Very nice planes, indeed, but
> stupidly over-priced. And (IMHO) the Light Sport Aircraft "CT" handles
> even better, for 1/7th the cost, and the Cirrus SR-22 is better still.


You've gotta be kidding.

A Cirrus flies better than a Bo'? No way.

The Bo' is the sweetest-flying thing I've ever flown. The Cirrus is nice,
but nothing special.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Have you flown a Beechcraft. They are the nicest GA aircfaft flying.
>
> I've flown a Bonanza and a Baron. Very nice planes, indeed, but
> stupidly over-priced. And (IMHO) the Light Sport Aircraft "CT" handles
> even better, for 1/7th the cost, and the Cirrus SR-22 is better still.
>
Jay,

Wangle a flight in a Columbia 400!

Do it now! (We'll wait for you to get back to your computer...)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[TxSrv]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> ...
> First you milk the company for all its worth, then you carefully cut
> it into pieces and sell it for prices that give you a substantial
> return on your initial investment.
>

Ignoramus. First, you look up the net book value of Beechcraft's
assets and compare to $3 billion. E.g., Textron (only a fraction
of whose total business is GA aircraft including Cessna and its
jets) is only $3B at book. Were Beechcraft's aged plants to be
sold off netting relatively little, all that's left are the type
certificates, which alone can't be worth near $3B. The value of
this kind of business is as a going concern, and then look at the
historical GAMA shipment #'s and see their competition problems
on these old designs.

Now you're an expert also on business/finance, but admitting to
making only $647/month.

F--

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
> high end.

Where do you see the BeechJet fitting in?

> The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to being in
> the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
> Columbia and put their name on it.

The price of a 400 would rise by half a million bucks overnight.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
>> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
>> high end. The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close
>> to being in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they
>> bought Columbia and put their name on it.
>
> I wouldn't bet on Eclipse EVER being built. Be prepared for their
> bankruptcy soon. Just a personal hunch.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
>
>

I just through Eclipse out because someone else mentioned it up thread and
VLJ would do. But if they are in trouble it would allow somebody like
Beechcraft to jump in and get all of their designs and tooling for pennies
on the dollar. Sounds like a perfect chance for a company that needs to get
into the market.

[Stefan]

karl gruber schrieb:

> Let's see.................name a NEW airplane you can fill all the tanks,
> all 10 seats, 50 pounds of baggage for each PAX, and then go 5 hours at 310
> Kts.

PC12

[john smith]

The WSJ has had several stories during the last couple months relating
how hedge funds have purchased viable companies, borrowed heavily,
siphoned off the loans and left the company in shambles.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>Jim Burns writes:
>
>
>
>>Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
>>
>>
>
>Whenever a company buys another company for pure purposes of financial
>gain, the company acquired usually suffers and often disappears. This
>is probably very bad news for Beechcraft.
>
>
>

[john smith]

I respectfully disagree.
Beech is probably the leader in GA when it comes to using carbon fiber.
They invented many of the practices and procedures when they developed
the Starship.
Their new corporate jets incorporate the technology they developed and
got certified, paving the way for others in the future.


Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Local radio announced today, Raytheon selling Beechcraft
>>Goldman-Sachs/ONEX group for about 3 billion dollars.
>>
>>
>
>I wish it weren't true, but you know Beech has outlived its usefulness
>when my response to this sale is a lackadaisical yawn.
>
>They have come up with precisely zero new ideas since the StarShip,
>over 20 years ago, and -- their contributions to aviation history
>notwithstanding -- if Beech went out of business tomorrow, it would
>mean...nothing.
>
>IMO, Beech has been irrelevant to aviation for at least ten years --
>almost as long as I've been a pilot.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Have you flown a Beechcraft. They are the nicest GA aircfaft flying.
>
> I've flown a Bonanza and a Baron. Very nice planes, indeed, but
> stupidly over-priced. And (IMHO) the Light Sport Aircraft "CT" handles
> even better, for 1/7th the cost, and the Cirrus SR-22 is better still.
>
>
> Beech is a grand old name, and I will hate to see it go away -- but
> they've been like a grand old uncle with Alzheimer's Disease. They've
> been dead in every way for years, except in body.
> --
The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.

> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
>> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on the
>> high end.
>
> Where do you see the BeechJet fitting in?

Right about where it is now.

>
>> The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to being in
>> the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
>> Columbia and put their name on it.
>
> The price of a 400 would rise by half a million bucks overnight.
>

There is no reason for this. Sure Beech has always been overpriced maybe the
new owners will be more market oriented.

[Aluckyguess]

If Beech re-opened up its lines again for the Sport, Sierra , Duchess, and a
few I missed. They would all be superior to anything else on the market.
Their only problem is price, now that's a biggy but maybe the new company
plans on fixing this.
If a G36 was 50k more than a SR22 and you were looking for a plane in that
class what would you buy. The problem is its 200k more. I believe the new
company can fix this. The new company may even put a parachute in it to
satisfy the spouse that is afraid .
Then you have the Baron, if you have money for fuel its the nicest small
twin their is bar none.

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> It's a myth that any company is bought to simply liquidate it. Doesn't
> happen. Never makes financial sense. What the buyer may do is sell the
> units that are not core to the business. So take Raytheon as an
> example. Is Beech a core business for them or does it simply drain
> company resources?

It does, but not with companies large enough to understand finance. I
never implied they bought it to liquidate it, I suggested they may have
bought it for the dividend value of parts.

>
> >
> > The whole thing is sad. The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a
> > jet tells you something.
>
>
>
> Hello? Beech has had a jet for a long time. Or did you mean a newer
> jet design?

Light Jet to compete with all the Baron and King Air sales they will
lose.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > I've long come to the conclusion that most everyone who
> > invests in GA is not doing it for money. It just almost never makes any
> > business sense.
>
> Probably, but the companies doing the buying in this case are well
> known for their interest in money, and money alone, which is
> worrisome.
>
> > I look at all the times Mooney has been sold. Someone
> > bought them. Yes, they make a fabulous product but what information do
> > they have that would suggest it would ever be profitable.
>
> Who has bought Mooney over the years?

Sorry, my newsgroup ISP doesn't allow posts that long.

-Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Aluckyguess" wrote :

> The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.

Baloney.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Burns writes:
>
> > Yep, and doesn't "private equity fund" sound like a hedge fund??
>
> Whenever a company buys another company for pure purposes of financial
> gain, the company acquired usually suffers and often disappears. This
> is probably very bad news for Beechcraft.

That's the old zero sum myth.

-Robert

[Stefan]

Aluckyguess schrieb:

> They would all be superior to anything else on the market.
> Their only problem is price,

It's pretty simple to build something superior when money isn't a factor.

[Tom Conner]

Many have commented that their planes are great, but the price is to high.
The implication is that they could lower their price, sell more planes, and
still make a profit.

Okay, why is their price so high compared to other manufacturers? The
technology is stable, the price of raw materials has to be equal to the cost
for other manufacturers, labor costs have to be near that of other
manufacturers, and insurance costs have to be near that of other
manufacturers. So, what makes their price so high?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "Aluckyguess" wrote :
>
> > The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.
>
> Baloney.

well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.

I know, I know, I'm in the minority here wrt side-sticks. But I
really don't like side-sticks.

Two things turned me off the Lancair ES: one was it was very
heavy in roll, and the other was the side-stick.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

Their designs require a lot of hand labor. When a mistake
is made on a sheet of aluminum, they start over, Cessna gets
engineering approval to "fix" the mistake. That means they
drive rivets in the holes that were drilled in the wrong
place or use Bondo [Cessna term- aerodynamic fairing
compound] to fix the problem.

Beech uses self-exciting alternators, even on something like
the Skipper. Their electrical systems are designed to a
higher standard.

Beech never tried to flood the market. Back in the heyday,
Cessna was building several thousand airplanes a year and
Beech was happy to sell 1/4 of Cessna production numbers.
After the market crash, Cessna collapsed and Beech kept on
at near the same number of complex and turboprop deliveries.

Raw materials that Beech uses are premium leather, Cessna
uses 2nd grade leather if they use leather at all.



"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
| Many have commented that their planes are great, but the
price is to high.
| The implication is that they could lower their price, sell
more planes, and
| still make a profit.
|
| Okay, why is their price so high compared to other
manufacturers? The
| technology is stable, the price of raw materials has to be
equal to the cost
| for other manufacturers, labor costs have to be near that
of other
| manufacturers, and insurance costs have to be near that of
other
| manufacturers. So, what makes their price so high?
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Premier jet is an original Beech design.
Raytheon Aircraft Company
Beechcraft Premier IA ... 08/03/2006 -, Guardian LP
Services Places Order for Nine Beechcraft Premier IAs. .
08/03/2006 -, Hawker 850XP to Tour South ...
www.raytheonaircraft.com/ - 16k - Cached - Similar
pages
Beechcraft - www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/
Hawker - www.raytheonaircraft.com/hawker/
Pre-Owned Aircraft - www.raytheonaircraft.com/resale/
Charter -
www.raytheonaircraft.com/.../charter_overview.shtml
More results from www.raytheonaircraft.com »

Beechcraft Home
More than 70 years ago, Walter and Olive Ann Beech
founded Beech Aircraft ... Services Obtains STC for
Auxiliary Ground Heat on Beechcraft Premier I/IA ...
www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/ - 11k - Cached -
Similar pages



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
|> As an instructor, I get to fly a lot of different
airplanes and talk to
| > a lot of owners. I'm convinced that the only people who
hate Beech
| > airplanes are those who haven't flown them.
|
| I didn't say I hated Beech -- far from it. Although none
of their
| birds fits my current mission, which requires lots of
economical
| lifting capacity and a wide CG range -- I would LOVE to
own a Bonanza
| some day.
|
| What I said was that they have become irrelevant. They
sell a tiny
| number of aircraft each year (thanks to their outrageous
pricing), and
| the last new aircraft design to come out of Beech
was....what? I
| can't think of anything new since the Starship debacle of
the early
| 1980s.
|
| Since that occurred right after I graduated from
college -- and I'm now
| 48 years old -- I think I'm safe in saying that Beech has
become
| irrelevant to aviation. If they went away tomorrow, we
would all shed
| a tear for the Beech line -- but it would have zero impact
on general
| aviation.
|
| The same cannot be said, for example, of Cessna, Piper,
Cirrus or
| Columbia.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Jim Macklin]

Actually Beech has many new, state of the art plants and
composite robots for production work. They build a lot of
parts for the big iron makers. Their old plants are well
used. But if you look at just the BEC airport/plant complex
you'll see that there are more new buildings than old.



Raytheon Aircraft Company
Beechcraft Premier IA ... 08/03/2006 -, Guardian LP
Services Places Order for Nine Beechcraft Premier IAs. .
08/03/2006 -, Hawker 850XP to Tour South ...
www.raytheonaircraft.com/ - 16k - Cached - Similar
pages
Beechcraft - www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/
Hawker - www.raytheonaircraft.com/hawker/
Pre-Owned Aircraft - www.raytheonaircraft.com/resale/
Charter -
www.raytheonaircraft.com/.../charter_overview.shtml
More results from www.raytheonaircraft.com »

Beechcraft Home
More than 70 years ago, Walter and Olive Ann Beech
founded Beech Aircraft ... Services Obtains STC for
Auxiliary Ground Heat on Beechcraft Premier I/IA ...
www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft/ - 11k - Cached -
Similar pages

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
| > Mxsmanic wrote:
| > ...
| > First you milk the company for all its worth, then you
carefully cut
| > it into pieces and sell it for prices that give you a
substantial
| > return on your initial investment.
| >
|
| Ignoramus. First, you look up the net book value of
Beechcraft's
| assets and compare to $3 billion. E.g., Textron (only a
fraction
| of whose total business is GA aircraft including Cessna
and its
| jets) is only $3B at book. Were Beechcraft's aged plants
to be
| sold off netting relatively little, all that's left are
the type
| certificates, which alone can't be worth near $3B. The
value of
| this kind of business is as a going concern, and then look
at the
| historical GAMA shipment #'s and see their competition
problems
| on these old designs.
|
| Now you're an expert also on business/finance, but
admitting to
| making only $647/month.
|
| F--

[john smith]

Why are you comparing a six-place airplane to a four-place airplane?

Aluckyguess wrote:

>If Beech re-opened up its lines again for the Sport, Sierra , Duchess, and a
>few I missed. They would all be superior to anything else on the market.
>Their only problem is price, now that's a biggy but maybe the new company
>plans on fixing this.
>If a G36 was 50k more than a SR22 and you were looking for a plane in that
>class what would you buy. The problem is its 200k more. I believe the new
>company can fix this. The new company may even put a parachute in it to
>satisfy the spouse that is afraid .
>Then you have the Baron, if you have money for fuel its the nicest small
>twin their is bar none.
>
>
>
>

[TxSrv]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Actually Beech has many new, state of the art plants and
> composite robots for production work. They build a lot of
> parts for the big iron makers. Their old plants are well
> used. But if you look at just the BEC airport/plant complex
> you'll see that there are more new buildings than old.
>

Except Raytheon's Annual Report says that a very % of their
manufacturing square footage is leased, so few buildings to sell,
except liquidate the stuff inside, which will bring a fraction of
cost. I was thus responding to someone's grandiose assumption
that the investors paid $3.3 billion cash for their entire
Aircraft Division just to be able to soon liquidate the hard
assets plus the type certificates/goodwill of always uncertain
future value.

F--

[Roy Smith]

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > As an instructor, I get to fly a lot of different airplanes and talk to
> > a lot of owners. I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
> > airplanes are those who haven't flown them.
>
> I didn't say I hated Beech -- far from it. Although none of their
> birds fits my current mission, which requires lots of economical
> lifting capacity and a wide CG range -- I would LOVE to own a Bonanza
> some day.
>
> What I said was that they have become irrelevant. They sell a tiny
> number of aircraft each year (thanks to their outrageous pricing), and
> the last new aircraft design to come out of Beech was....what? I
> can't think of anything new since the Starship debacle of the early
> 1980s.
>
> Since that occurred right after I graduated from college -- and I'm now
> 48 years old -- I think I'm safe in saying that Beech has become
> irrelevant to aviation. If they went away tomorrow, we would all shed
> a tear for the Beech line -- but it would have zero impact on general
> aviation.
>
> The same cannot be said, for example, of Cessna, Piper, Cirrus or
> Columbia.

What on earth has Cessna or Piper done in the last 20 years? The 172
Cessna is selling today is the same airframe they were selling 20 years
ago, just with a glass panel, 13(!) fuel drains, and 100 lbs less useful
load. Same with Piper. I was in a brand new Archer a couple of years ago;
the biggest change they had managed to make was to move some of the
switches to an overhead panel which made the windshield smaller and reduced
forward/upward visibility. Made it look cool (like a miniature airliner),
but a net decrease in safety.

Cirrus, Katana, Columbia, and the like are the future of GA today.
Assuming there is any future left in GA :-(

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Whenever a company buys another company for pure purposes of financial
> gain, the company acquired usually suffers and often disappears. This
> is probably very bad news for Beechcraft.
>

What other sound reason is there to buy an ongoing business? For
the pure fun of it? Just to be able to say, we own a company
which makes actual airplanes which fly. Net profit (ROIC)...who
cares.

F--

[Jim Macklin]

Beech owns the buildings on the property they own. They do
lease space on the Salina airport and other locations.



"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Actually Beech has many new, state of the art plants and
| > composite robots for production work. They build a lot
of
| > parts for the big iron makers. Their old plants are
well
| > used. But if you look at just the BEC airport/plant
complex
| > you'll see that there are more new buildings than old.
| >
|
| Except Raytheon's Annual Report says that a very % of
their
| manufacturing square footage is leased, so few buildings
to sell,
| except liquidate the stuff inside, which will bring a
fraction of
| cost. I was thus responding to someone's grandiose
assumption
| that the investors paid $3.3 billion cash for their entire
| Aircraft Division just to be able to soon liquidate the
hard
| assets plus the type certificates/goodwill of always
uncertain
| future value.
|
| F--

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> If Beech re-opened up its lines again for the Sport, Sierra , Duchess, and
> a few I missed. They would all be superior to anything else on the market.
> Their only problem is price, now that's a biggy but maybe the new company
> plans on fixing this.
> If a G36 was 50k more than a SR22 and you were looking for a plane in that
> class what would you buy. The problem is its 200k more. I believe the new
> company can fix this. The new company may even put a parachute in it to
> satisfy the spouse that is afraid .
> Then you have the Baron, if you have money for fuel its the nicest small
> twin their is bar none.


The G36 is worth $200K more than an SR22. I'd pay it in a heart beat. No
comparison.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The 172
> Cessna is selling today is the same airframe they were selling 20 years
> ago, just with a glass panel, 13(!) fuel drains, and 100 lbs less useful
> load.

In all fairness, it picked up twenty knots.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blueskies]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message ...
: Premier jet is an original Beech design.


More of a clean sheet Hawker design don't you think? This new company (Hawker Beechcraft?) does a lot of fab work, and
the Premier contains a lot of composite (fuselage?) also...

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
>>> aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on
>>> the high end.
>>
>> Where do you see the BeechJet fitting in?
>
> Right about where it is now.

So the Eclipse and the BeechJet are both the "high end"?

>
>>
>>> The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to being
>>> in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
>>> Columbia and put their name on it.
>>
>> The price of a 400 would rise by half a million bucks overnight.
>>
>
> There is no reason for this. Sure Beech has always been overpriced maybe
> the new owners will be more market oriented.

Yeah, _maybe_.

"Maybe" that's why they spent $3 billion for dying design/technology. :~)

[Robert Dorsey]

Ever hear the saying "quality, not quantity"?
I can think of a few low production, hand built, high dollar cars that
could be built quickly and for a lot less $ with savings passed to the
buyer causing the market to respond, but it seems they prefer not to
do that. Do you think maybe Ratheon wasn't interested in the
mass-production mindset? Do you think they may feel there are
individuals out there that would want "Hawker like" quality in a
single or twin recip?


On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:49:18 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
wrote:

>Many have commented that their planes are great, but the price is to high.
>The implication is that they could lower their price, sell more planes, and
>still make a profit.
>
>Okay, why is their price so high compared to other manufacturers? The
>technology is stable, the price of raw materials has to be equal to the cost
>for other manufacturers, labor costs have to be near that of other
>manufacturers, and insurance costs have to be near that of other
>manufacturers. So, what makes their price so high?
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> > "Aluckyguess" wrote :
> >
> > > The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.
>
> I know, I know, I'm in the minority here wrt side-sticks. But I
> really don't like side-sticks.
>
> Two things turned me off the Lancair ES: one was it was very
> heavy in roll, and the other was the side-stick.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>
You may be in the minority WRT side sticks, or you may not.

I used to think they were the coolest idea ever, at least if mounted on the
right, until I got tennis elbow a couple of times. I still haven't ever
tried a side stick; but I no longer have any desire for one because I now
see the value in being able to switch hands. BTW, I am also left handed
which would add another layer to the problem!

Peter

[Roy Smith]

In article <Hr0jh.4957$_X.4070@bigfe9>,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Aluckyguess" wrote :
> > >
> > > > The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.
> > >
> > > Baloney.
> >
> > well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.
> >
> > I know, I know, I'm in the minority here wrt side-sticks. But I
> > really don't like side-sticks.
> >
> > Two things turned me off the Lancair ES: one was it was very
> > heavy in roll, and the other was the side-stick.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
> > Looking for a sig the
> > lawyers will hate
> >
> You may be in the minority WRT side sticks, or you may not.
>
> I used to think they were the coolest idea ever, at least if mounted on the
> right, until I got tennis elbow a couple of times. I still haven't ever
> tried a side stick; but I no longer have any desire for one because I now
> see the value in being able to switch hands. BTW, I am also left handed
> which would add another layer to the problem!
>
> Peter

I suspect most of the modern side-stick designs are intended to be flown on
A/P most of the time. Click it on at rotation, click it off in the flare.

[Peter Dohm]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:24:23 -0500, Doug Vetter >
> wrote:
>
> >> If I had the
> >coin, I'd buy a G36 or Baron over the new plastic airplanes, and a King
> >Air over a VLJ any day -- even if it cost me more to buy and to operate
> >on a long-term basis. They're that good.
>
> Lots of people WITH the money do as you would like. <G>
>
> It'll be interesting how the certified VLJ's truly compare to King
> Airs, when load, runway length, and true usability are compared.

Yes, excellent points.

Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> I suspect most of the modern side-stick designs are intended to be flown on
> A/P most of the time. Click it on at rotation, click it off in the flare.

That ain't flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <Hr0jh.4957$_X.4070@bigfe9>, "Peter Dohm" >
wrote:

> > I know, I know, I'm in the minority here wrt side-sticks. But I
> > really don't like side-sticks.
> >
> > Two things turned me off the Lancair ES: one was it was very
> > heavy in roll, and the other was the side-stick.

> I used to think they were the coolest idea ever, at least if mounted on the
> right, until I got tennis elbow a couple of times. I still haven't ever
> tried a side stick; but I no longer have any desire for one because I now
> see the value in being able to switch hands. BTW, I am also left handed
> which would add another layer to the problem!

I was told that the lancair owner is left-handed, which makes the design
more "interesting"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

>> ...intended to be flown on A/P most of the time....
>
> That ain't flying.

Amen to that!

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

I would say that is an accurate statement.
I remember my first Bonanza checkout and preflight.
I was amazed at the Beech construction compared to the Cessnas and
Pipers I had been flying.
The Beech is solid in comparison.

Robert Dorsey wrote:

>Ever hear the saying "quality, not quantity"?
>I can think of a few low production, hand built, high dollar cars that
>could be built quickly and for a lot less $ with savings passed to the
>buyer causing the market to respond, but it seems they prefer not to
>do that. Do you think maybe Ratheon wasn't interested in the
>mass-production mindset? Do you think they may feel there are
>individuals out there that would want "Hawker like" quality in a
>single or twin recip?
>

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Dorsey writes:

> Do you think maybe Ratheon wasn't interested in the
> mass-production mindset? Do you think they may feel there are
> individuals out there that would want "Hawker like" quality in a
> single or twin recip?

Maybe Raytheon _did_ want mass production, and that's why they
unloaded Beechcraft.

I prefer quality over quantity, although the upper limit on the former
is always imposed by my budget, unfortunately. I try to get the best
I can afford.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ever hear the saying "quality, not quantity"?
> I can think of a few low production, hand built, high dollar cars that
> could be built quickly and for a lot less $ with savings passed to the
> buyer causing the market to respond, but it seems they prefer not to
> do that. Do you think maybe Ratheon wasn't interested in the
> mass-production mindset? Do you think they may feel there are
> individuals out there that would want "Hawker like" quality in a
> single or twin recip?
>
I would like to agree with you on this but at this point in time its all
about money in any big corporation.
>
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:49:18 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
> wrote:
>
>>Many have commented that their planes are great, but the price is to high.
>>The implication is that they could lower their price, sell more planes,
>>and
>>still make a profit.
>>
>>Okay, why is their price so high compared to other manufacturers? The
>>technology is stable, the price of raw materials has to be equal to the
>>cost
>>for other manufacturers, labor costs have to be near that of other
>>manufacturers, and insurance costs have to be near that of other
>>manufacturers. So, what makes their price so high?
>>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Sorry, my newsgroup ISP doesn't allow posts that long.

Long lists of owners make me nervous.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> The WSJ has had several stories during the last couple months relating
> how hedge funds have purchased viable companies, borrowed heavily,
> siphoned off the loans and left the company in shambles.

LIke I said, making money is all that counts. These companies care
nothing about aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> That's the old zero sum myth.

No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
aren't as stable as they use to be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> What other sound reason is there to buy an ongoing business?

Interest in the business.

> For the pure fun of it? Just to be able to say, we own a company
> which makes actual airplanes which fly. Net profit (ROIC)...who
> cares.

Exactly. And some acquisitions are like that. But not with companies
like these. They have no romantic attachment to aviation, and if they
can gut Beechcraft to make more money faster, they will.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> > I suspect most of the modern side-stick designs are intended to be flown on
> > A/P most of the time. Click it on at rotation, click it off in the flare.
>
> That ain't flying.

It may be the closest approximation for a pilot or aircraft that can't
really get by otherwise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Vetter writes:

> I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
> airplanes are those who haven't flown them.

Probably just sour grapes. I've seen _exactly_ the same dynamic with
respect to companies like Leica and Hasselblad. Those who can't
afford it insist that it's not worth the money. Those who actually
buy it know better.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> What I said was that they have become irrelevant. They sell a tiny
> number of aircraft each year (thanks to their outrageous pricing), and
> the last new aircraft design to come out of Beech was....what?

You seem to imply that not having new aircraft is bad. Aircraft are
not computers; you don't have to buy a new one every six months.
Designs that flew well seventy years ago will still fly well today;
the atmosphere of the planet has not changed. Why the desire to
continually spend more money and waste more resources fixing things
that aren't broken?

> Since that occurred right after I graduated from college -- and I'm now
> 48 years old -- I think I'm safe in saying that Beech has become
> irrelevant to aviation.

Just because it doesn't have new bells and whistles each year?

I've heard this in other domains, too (again in the case of Leica and
Hasselblad). Changing for the sake of change (or revenue) isn't
necessarily a good idea.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I believe the new company can fix this.

The new company won't care. The idea is to make as much money as
possible as quickly as possible, and then sell the remains for scrap.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> It's pretty simple to build something superior when money isn't a factor.

That goes without saying. But the important thing in many cases is
that it's superior, not that it's expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Aluckyguess schrieb:
>
>> They would all be superior to anything else on the market. Their only
>> problem is price,
>
> It's pretty simple to build something superior when money isn't a factor.

Over the years there's been one aviation saying about the big three that
holds true:

Cessna builds quantity
Beech builds quality
Piper builds junk

KG

[Montblack]

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
> The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a jet tells you something.


Piper announces it will sell the HondaJet, then Piper announces they will
come out with their own jet.

That one had me scratching my head.


Montblack

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> The 172 Cessna is selling today is the same airframe they were selling 20
>> years ago, just with a glass panel, 13(!) fuel drains, and 100 lbs less
>> useful load.
>
> In all fairness, it picked up twenty knots.

With increased fuel burn, to match!
--
Jim in NC

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The new company won't care. The idea is to make as much money as
> possible as quickly as possible, and then sell the remains for scrap.

Raytheon's aircraft subsidiary was making $200 million, or a
lousy 6% on the $3.3 billion to purchase it. Only a moron would
think this is a way to make a quick buck. Like raise prices for
more profit to get a decent return, and that won't reduce market
share, and still later sell it all off for more than $3.3
billion. Or much less as "scrap," to use your idiotic reference.

F--

[Jay Honeck]

> Cessna builds quantity
> Beech builds quality
> Piper builds junk

Ah, the old Ford vs Chevy argument again. Sound and fury,
signifying...nothing.

I'm only a datapoint of one, but having owned two Pipers, and flown the
pants off both of them, I can say that I am more than satisfied with
their quality of construction.

To put it all in perspective, would you put your family into a 1974
Ford Galaxie 500 and drive it to California from Iowa? Probably not.
But my Pathfinder, built the same year, is as good (and some ways
better than) new, and we make the equivalent of that flight several
times per year. If that's not quality construction, I don't know what
is.

All the aircraft manufacturers build a quality product -- they have to,
by law -- and Beech has been especially quality-conscious. Where they
have failed is in innovation and cost control. In the end, it doesn't
matter how fantastic your product is, if no one buys it -- and I
sincerely hope that the new owners are able to address this problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>...
>> For the pure fun of it? Just to be able to say, we own a company
>> which makes actual airplanes which fly. Net profit (ROIC)...who
>> cares.
>
> Exactly. And some acquisitions are like that. But not with companies
> like these. They have no romantic attachment to aviation, and if they
> can gut Beechcraft to make more money faster, they will.

Hey moron, investors in big companies here are not romantic about
their company's products. Raytheon, present owner of Beech, is a
Fortune 500 company. However, if some aviation-romantic
individual or group thereof came along with $3.4 billion cash, I
imagine Raytheon would have sold to them.

F--

[Jay Honeck]

> What on earth has Cessna or Piper done in the last 20 years?

I agree, they've been late to the game -- but at least they're starting
to get the hang of it.

Cessna is especially exciting, with their new LSA and composite planes.
Piper is shaking itself out of its old union mentality, and actually
looking at new things -- like jets. (When I heard Chuck Suma, Piper's
old CEO, making fun of Cirrus' "plastic planes" at the Cherokee Pilots
Association dinner in 2005, I knew he was history. 3 months later, he
got the axe.)

Raytheon/Beech still hasn't figured it out. Maybe the new owners will?


> Cirrus, Katana, Columbia, and the like are the future of GA today.

No argument there -- although it may not be too late for Piper/Cessna
to recover. The fact that they've survived is a sign of underlying
strength.

> Assuming there is any future left in GA :-(

Whether GA itself survives is a political, not economic, decision. If
the political class decides to tax it out of existence, as they've done
in Europe, GA will die.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:fx0jh.4958$_X.4839@bigfe9...
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:24:23 -0500, Doug Vetter >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> If I had the
>> >coin, I'd buy a G36 or Baron over the new plastic airplanes, and a King
>> >Air over a VLJ any day -- even if it cost me more to buy and to operate
>> >on a long-term basis. They're that good.
>>
>> Lots of people WITH the money do as you would like. <G>
>>
>> It'll be interesting how the certified VLJ's truly compare to King
>> Airs, when load, runway length, and true usability are compared.
>
> Yes, excellent points.
>

Of course, if your mission is distance and speed, not load ...

BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled maybe
ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last August,
my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Cessna builds quantity
>> Beech builds quality
>> Piper builds junk
>
> Ah, the old Ford vs Chevy argument again. Sound and fury,
> signifying...nothing.
>
> I'm only a datapoint of one, but having owned two Pipers, and flown the
> pants off both of them, I can say that I am more than satisfied with
> their quality of construction.
>
> To put it all in perspective, would you put your family into a 1974
> Ford Galaxie 500 and drive it to California from Iowa? Probably not.
> But my Pathfinder, built the same year, is as good (and some ways
> better than) new, and we make the equivalent of that flight several
> times per year. If that's not quality construction, I don't know what
> is.

Jay, about 98% of the cars built in 1973 are no longer on the road. What
percent of SE aircraft are still flying (more or less)?

Thank Gawd that Ford doesn't make aircraft!! :~) (at least since the
Tri-Motor...)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> What on earth has Cessna or Piper done in the last 20 years?
>
> I agree, they've been late to the game -- but at least they're starting
> to get the hang of it.
>
> Cessna is especially exciting, with their new LSA and composite planes.
> Piper is shaking itself out of its old union mentality, and actually
> looking at new things -- like jets. (When I heard Chuck Suma, Piper's
> old CEO, making fun of Cirrus' "plastic planes" at the Cherokee Pilots
> Association dinner in 2005, I knew he was history. 3 months later, he
> got the axe.)
>
> Raytheon/Beech still hasn't figured it out. Maybe the new owners will?
>
>
>> Cirrus, Katana, Columbia, and the like are the future of GA today.
>
> No argument there -- although it may not be too late for Piper/Cessna
> to recover. The fact that they've survived is a sign of underlying
> strength.

How much $$$ is Cessna making on Citations? On SEs? What's their backorder
on the Citation X?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jose[_1_]]

>> In all fairness, it picked up twenty knots.
> With increased fuel burn, to match!

That's what fuel is for. Nothing is free. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stefan]

Jose schrieb:

>>> In all fairness, it picked up twenty knots.
>> With increased fuel burn, to match!

> That's what fuel is for. Nothing is free. :)

It's pretty easy to fly faster if you burn more fuel.

There's an old joke:

What do Europeans do if they want to fly faster? They develop better
aerodynamics.

What do Americans do if they want to fly faster? They put in a bigger
engine.

Stefan
(Just back from a 700nm trip at an average speed of 100 knots with a
fuel burn of 3.5 US gal/h of mogas. Or, in other words, more miles per
gallon than an average car.)

[john smith]

Step up products.

Warrior -> Archer -> Saratoga -> MalibuMirage -> PiperJet
\ -> Seminole -> Seneca -> HondaJet

Montblack wrote:

>>Piper announces it will sell the HondaJet, then Piper announces they will
>>come out with their own jet.
>>That one had me scratching my head.
>>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Cessna builds quantity
>> Beech builds quality
>> Piper builds junk
>
> Ah, the old Ford vs Chevy argument again. Sound and fury,
> signifying...nothing


I've owned two Pipers as well. N4201Z, N7474D

One, I picked up brand new at the factory in Loch Haven. There I went
through the factory and shook William Piper's hand. I also had a brand new
private pilot's certificate in my pocket with 43 hours TT.

I wouldn't mind driving a 1963 1/2 Ford Fairlane 500 with the 427 engine
either.

There is no doubt that Beech builds to a much higher quality than Cessna,
Piper. That's why they sell so many King Airs.


Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
> feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
> Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>
> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
> August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>
>
> --
> Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Aluckyguess]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >
>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
>> feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
>> Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>>
>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
>> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
>> August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt
>
> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>
> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>
> With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.
>
Your'e right they are ugly.

> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Hey moron, investors in big companies here are not romantic about
> their company's products.

That depends on the investor.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Raytheon's aircraft subsidiary was making $200 million, or a
> lousy 6% on the $3.3 billion to purchase it. Only a moron would
> think this is a way to make a quick buck.

What makes you think the buyers intend to continue operating the
company?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Barrow]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >
>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
>> feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
>> Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>>
>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
>> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
>> August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt
>
> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>
> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

Their design goal was...what?

> With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.

Whatever.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> >
>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
>>> feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the
>>> King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>>>
>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
>>> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times.
>>> Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt
>>
>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>
>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>
> Their design goal was...what?

The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They now
must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original design goals
are out the window.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
>>>> in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
>>>> 1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
>>>> 2355'.
>>>>
>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
>>>> filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
>>>> those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>
>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>
>> Their design goal was...what?
>
> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
> design goals are out the window.
>
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original objectives
couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was under development,
true. However, their design goals have remained the same AFAICT; the
airframe is pretty much the same, the performance has improved, and the
price is still desirable to those who have purchased it in advance. From
where I sit, it doesn't look all that different from the introduction of
any other revolutionary aircraft. And, I really like the company's
attitude w/r/t training and purchase qualifications.

Neil

[Dave Stadt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
>>>>> in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
>>>>> 1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
>>>>> 2355'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
>>>>> filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
>>>>> those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>>
>>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>>
>>> Their design goal was...what?
>>
>> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
>> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
>> design goals are out the window.
>>
> I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original objectives
> couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was under development,
> true. However, their design goals have remained the same AFAICT; the
> airframe is pretty much the same, the performance has improved, and the
> price is still desirable to those who have purchased it in advance. From
> where I sit, it doesn't look all that different from the introduction of
> any other revolutionary aircraft. And, I really like the company's
> attitude w/r/t training and purchase qualifications.
>
> Neil


If only they had an airplane.

[Jay Honeck]

> One, I picked up brand new at the factory in Loch Haven. There I went
> through the factory and shook William Piper's hand. I also had a brand new
> private pilot's certificate in my pocket with 43 hours TT.

THAT is cool.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Aluckyguess]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in
>>>> 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm,
>>>> the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>>>>
>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
>>>> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times.
>>>> Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>
>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>
>> Their design goal was...what?
>
> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They now
> must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original design
> goals are out the window.
>
>
The price was also to be under 1 million. Thats out the door.

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:08:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>
>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>
>>Their design goal was...what?
>>
>>> With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.
>>
>>Whatever.
>>
>
>
> Two acquaintances of mine fly Caravans for Linear Air, out of
> Westchester & Bedford. They have 30 Eclipses on order. AFAIK, they
> were very close to certification, so I'm sure they will be built.

Eclipse received certification back at the end of October.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in
>>>> 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm,
>>>> the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.
>>>>
>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
>>>> maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times.
>>>> Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>
>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>
>> Their design goal was...what?
>
> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They now
> must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original design
> goals are out the window.

Um...nope, the Williams engine couldn't make required thrust/weight specs,
but the P&W is actually lighter than the original Williams spec.

Their design goals are met.

BTW, in such a "clean sheet" design, it's not uncommon for some specs to
differ from the original "wish list".

Read their specs listed on their website compared to their competition.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
>>>>>> in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
>>>>>> 1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
>>>>>> 2355'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
>>>>>> filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
>>>>>> those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>>>
>>>> Their design goal was...what?
>>>
>>> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
>>> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
>>> design goals are out the window.
>>>
>> I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original objectives
>> couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was under development,
>> true. However, their design goals have remained the same AFAICT; the
>> airframe is pretty much the same, the performance has improved, and the
>> price is still desirable to those who have purchased it in advance. From
>> where I sit, it doesn't look all that different from the introduction of
>> any other revolutionary aircraft. And, I really like the company's
>> attitude w/r/t training and purchase qualifications.
>>
>> Neil
>
>
> If only they had an airplane.
They received certification in October and they've a few ready to go out the
door.

[Neil Gould]

Re: Eclipse 500

Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>>>
>>> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
>>> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
>>> design goals are out the window.
>>>
>> I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original
>> objectives couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was
>> under development, true. However, their design goals have remained
>> the same AFAICT; the airframe is pretty much the same, the
>> performance has improved, and the price is still desirable to those
>> who have purchased it in advance. From where I sit, it doesn't look
>> all that different from the introduction of any other revolutionary
>> aircraft. And, I really like the company's attitude w/r/t training
>> and purchase qualifications.
>>
>
> If only they had an airplane.
>
What do you call those things that they have been flying around and have
gotten certification for?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Aluckyguess > posted:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
>>>>> in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
>>>>> 1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
>>>>> 2355'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
>>>>> filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
>>>>> those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!
>>>>
>>>> Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.
>>>
>>> Their design goal was...what?
>>
>> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
>> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
>> design goals are out the window.
>>
>>
> The price was also to be under 1 million. Thats out the door.
>
That would matter is if those who put money down bailed out of their deal
or those looking to buy started looking elsewhere, which doesn't appear to
be the case. The price of an E500 is still quite competitive in the VLJ
market.

Neil

[Dave Stadt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
> Re: Eclipse 500
>
> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>>>>
>>>> The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
>>>> now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
>>>> design goals are out the window.
>>>>
>>> I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original
>>> objectives couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was
>>> under development, true. However, their design goals have remained
>>> the same AFAICT; the airframe is pretty much the same, the
>>> performance has improved, and the price is still desirable to those
>>> who have purchased it in advance. From where I sit, it doesn't look
>>> all that different from the introduction of any other revolutionary
>>> aircraft. And, I really like the company's attitude w/r/t training
>>> and purchase qualifications.
>>>
>>
>> If only they had an airplane.
>>
> What do you call those things that they have been flying around and have
> gotten certification for?
>
> Neil

Have they delivered any to customers?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Re: Eclipse 500
>>
>> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>>>
>>> If only they had an airplane.
>>>
>> What do you call those things that they have been flying around and
>> have gotten certification for?
>>
>
> Have they delivered any to customers?
>
I wouldn't know. What difference would that make to their design goals?

Neil

[Dave Stadt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> Re: Eclipse 500
>>>
>>> Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>>>>
>>>> If only they had an airplane.
>>>>
>>> What do you call those things that they have been flying around and
>>> have gotten certification for?
>>>
>>
>> Have they delivered any to customers?
>>
> I wouldn't know. What difference would that make to their design goals?
>
> Neil


Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a unique strategy.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
>
> Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a unique
> strategy.
>
What has it been, around 4 years? Frankly, I think that it is a
respectable accomplishment to start a company, design a VLJ from the
ground up, get it certified, develop a comprehensive training program
(from what I understand, some purchasers have already participated in it)
and make sales all within that time frame. Who else is delivering a VLJ
today?

Neil

[Jim Macklin]

If your talking Eclipse, they have/are building a complete
support network, aircraft are being sold and delivered.

The most unique jet marketing was the BD5, aside from a
movie role in a James Bond flick, not much ever happened
with it.



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
| Recently, Dave Stadt > posted:
| >
| > Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a
unique
| > strategy.
| >
| What has it been, around 4 years? Frankly, I think that it
is a
| respectable accomplishment to start a company, design a
VLJ from the
| ground up, get it certified, develop a comprehensive
training program
| (from what I understand, some purchasers have already
participated in it)
| and make sales all within that time frame. Who else is
delivering a VLJ
| today?
|
| Neil
|
|
|
|
|

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:

> If your talking Eclipse, they have/are building a complete
> support network, aircraft are being sold and delivered.
>
> The most unique jet marketing was the BD5, aside from a
> movie role in a James Bond flick, not much ever happened
> with it.
>
Well, Jim Bede was a bit quirky, anyway. I remember when his operation was
here in Cleveland. I sat in the BD5 that is in the Seattle Air museum, and
I didn't think I'd be able to get out of it again. There was no way that I
could have closed the canopy.

Neil

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > That's the old zero sum myth.
>
> No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
> aren't as stable as they use to be.

If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
action for more than the sum of the two.

-Robert

[john smith]

The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find them.
They purchased a former Boeing division and are not contracting with
Boeing to produce fuselages.
The Raytheon Beechcraft contract works and new carbon fiber facilities
tie in nicely with this model.
I believe there are a couple of other companies they have purchased
which are also in this line of work.
Onyx is also in a hostile takeover bid for Quantas.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. Gary writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>That's the old zero sum myth.
>>>
>>>
>>No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
>>aren't as stable as they use to be.
>>
>>
>
>If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
>or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
>action for more than the sum of the two.
>
>-Robert
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Sounds like they have a plan they aren't telling anyone about.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
> They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find them.
> They purchased a former Boeing division and are not contracting with
> Boeing to produce fuselages.
> The Raytheon Beechcraft contract works and new carbon fiber facilities tie
> in nicely with this model.
> I believe there are a couple of other companies they have purchased which
> are also in this line of work.
> Onyx is also in a hostile takeover bid for Quantas.
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Robert M. Gary writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's the old zero sum myth.
>>>>
>>>No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
>>>aren't as stable as they use to be.
>>>
>>
>>If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
>>or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
>>action for more than the sum of the two.
>>
>>-Robert
>>
>>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
> or buying another.

It is indeed a zero sum game. What people in the financial world try
to do is shift the money away from others and towards themselves.
They don't actually produce anything in the process. When they win,
someone loses.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
I've seen _exactly_ the same dynamic with
> respect to companies like Leica and Hasselblad. Those who can't
> afford it insist that it's not worth the money. Those who actually
> buy it know better.

Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300. Also
Leica doesn't have nearly the features that everybody else does. No
way, no how can the quality of the pictures be worth 200% more on the
price. At some point you realize they are just screwing you because of
the name. Basic marketing.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> All the aircraft manufacturers build a quality product -- they have to,
> by law -- and Beech has been especially quality-conscious.


The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech
by the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo
than my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies,
simply because the Bo was built right in the first place.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Newps > posted:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> I've seen _exactly_ the same dynamic with
>> respect to companies like Leica and Hasselblad. Those who can't
>> afford it insist that it's not worth the money. Those who actually
>> buy it know better.
>
> Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
> bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300. Also
> Leica doesn't have nearly the features that everybody else does. No
> way, no how can the quality of the pictures be worth 200% more on the
> price. At some point you realize they are just screwing you because
> of the name. Basic marketing.
>
Perhaps you've only confirmed that dynamic? I'd bet that you don't own a
Leica. The appeal of the "over a thousand dollar" Digilux is that it can
use the owner's existing Leica lenses. Those that own an M8 or R8/R9
w/DMR, either of which will set you back more than 5 AMUs, appreciate the
differences in both image quality and camera functionality over all other
makes.

Neil

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is more
poorly built than your Bonanza?

Karl
(remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)

> The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
> owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
> airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech by
> the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo than
> my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies, simply
> because the Bo was built right in the first place.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
> bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300.

Leica's selling point is the glass, which unfortunately isn't really
used by digital cameras.

> Also Leica doesn't have nearly the features that everybody else does.

The features that other people have aren't normally necessary.

> No way, no how can the quality of the pictures be worth 200% more on the
> price.

You need to look through some Leica glass sometime.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

There's one, huh? Anything can be made to last that long. What did it
costs to keep it going all those hours? How often did it break? That's
the difference.

karl gruber wrote:
> Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is more
> poorly built than your Bonanza?
>
> Karl
> (remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)
>
>
>>The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
>>owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
>>airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech by
>>the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo than
>>my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies, simply
>>because the Bo was built right in the first place.
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Beechcraft makes great planes but the thought of them having to stand up to
what the average 150 has lived through is scary.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> There's one, huh? Anything can be made to last that long. What did it
> costs to keep it going all those hours? How often did it break? That's
> the difference.
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>> Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is
>> more poorly built than your Bonanza?
>>
>> Karl
>> (remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)
>>
>>
>>>The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
>>>owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
>>>airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech
>>>by the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo
>>>than my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies,
>>>simply because the Bo was built right in the first place.
>>
>>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No, there isn't ONE!

That's about the AVERAGE age of the 207 fleet. They are mostly up in Alaska
going through an engine every year. I buy and sell them.

Karl

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> There's one, huh? Anything can be made to last that long. What did it
> costs to keep it going all those hours? How often did it break? That's
> the difference.
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>> Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is
>> more poorly built than your Bonanza?
>>
>> Karl
>> (remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)
>>
>>
>>>The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
>>>owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
>>>airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech
>>>by the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo
>>>than my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies,
>>>simply because the Bo was built right in the first place.
>>
>>

[Dave Stadt]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> No, there isn't ONE!
>
> That's about the AVERAGE age of the 207 fleet. They are mostly up in
> Alaska going through an engine every year. I buy and sell them.
>
> Karl

Having been up there and having seen what they go through I doubt any Beech,
other than an 18, could last as long.

>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> There's one, huh? Anything can be made to last that long. What did it
>> costs to keep it going all those hours? How often did it break? That's
>> the difference.
>>
>> karl gruber wrote:
>>> Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is
>>> more poorly built than your Bonanza?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>> (remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)
>>>
>>>
>>>>The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
>>>>owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
>>>>airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech
>>>>by the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo
>>>>than my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies,
>>>>simply because the Bo was built right in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-12-22, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> "Aluckyguess" wrote :
>>
>> > The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.
>>
>> Baloney.
>
> well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.

Huh? The side stick is in your left (dominant) hand. For the very short
periods of time you need to write something down, then it should stay
put if properly trimmed without needing an autopilot.

I've flown (as it happens in a Bonanza) quite a lot of single pilot IFR
hours without an autopilot. They always stay pretty much put in the
times when I'm not touching the controls to do things like re-fold
charts etc.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-12-27, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> Beechcraft makes great planes but the thought of them having to stand up to
> what the average 150 has lived through is scary.

I dunno - the Bonanza is a tough plane. I used to regularly fly an S-35
in and out of an "airfield" that was essentially graded cow pasture.
Plenty of prop clearance and landing gear that's happy with rough
fields.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-12-27, Newps > wrote:
> Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
> bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300.

I don't know about Leica in particular, but compare the image quality of
a 5MP camera with a decent lens with a $300 camera. Even if the $300
camera has a 10MP sensor, the 5MP camera with a full frame 35mm sensor
and decent lenses will look FAR superior, have much less noise
(particularly on long exposures). Megapixels is almost meaningless
unless you have the lens to back it up AND the sensor itself is large
(the typical sensor in a $300 camera will be smaller than your pinky
fingernail).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> > well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.
>
> Huh? The side stick is in your left (dominant) hand. For the very short
> periods of time you need to write something down, then it should stay
> put if properly trimmed without needing an autopilot.
>
> I've flown (as it happens in a Bonanza) quite a lot of single pilot IFR
> hours without an autopilot. They always stay pretty much put in the
> times when I'm not touching the controls to do things like re-fold
> charts etc.

My cherokee 140 won't stay put well enough to my liking. Even though
I have an autopilot, I prefer to be able to fly with my right hand while
writing with my left.

Perhaps a question is: is the SR22 stable enough in roll?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> I don't know about Leica in particular, but compare the image quality of
> a 5MP camera with a decent lens with a $300 camera.

Then try one. You may be surprised.

> Even if the $300 camera has a 10MP sensor, the 5MP camera with a full
> frame 35mm sensor and decent lenses will look FAR superior, have much
> less noise (particularly on long exposures).

See above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-12-27, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> Beechcraft makes great planes but the thought of them having to stand up
>> to
>> what the average 150 has lived through is scary.
>
> I dunno - the Bonanza is a tough plane. I used to regularly fly an S-35
> in and out of an "airfield" that was essentially graded cow pasture.
> Plenty of prop clearance and landing gear that's happy with rough
> fields.
>

Is it safe to assume that the S-35 wasn't regularly flown by a bevy of
low/dang near no time students?

[Jose[_1_]]

> The [Cirrus] side stick is in your left (dominant) hand. For the very short
> periods of time you need to write something down, then it should stay
> put if properly trimmed without needing an autopilot.

I flew a cirrus once (about an hour's worth) and found that the pitch
trim was very sensitive. It's also all-electric, so you can't tweak it
by hand. So, if the air is a little bumpy, it may need more attention
than usual to keep altitude manually.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blanche]

john smith > wrote:
>The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
>They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find them.
>They purchased a former Boeing division and are not contracting with
>Boeing to produce fuselages.

Which Boeing unit?

[Jim Macklin]

Boeing Commercial in Wichita. The military plant is still
Boeing.



"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
| john smith > wrote:
| >The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
| >They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find
them.
| >They purchased a former Boeing division and are not
contracting with
| >Boeing to produce fuselages.
|
| Which Boeing unit?
|