Jump to content

Cirrus Delivers 8,000th Aircraft Special Edition


Recommended Posts

That’s about one plane a day for the last 22 years! Very impressive! I just don’t get the hype around Cirrus. I think they have the right idea making limited edition models even though they are composed of upgraded interiors and paint. Same marketing plan as Porsche for the 911. Special editions. People love to have unique things and they sell.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • V1VRV2 changed the title to Cirrus Delivers 8,000th Aircraft Special Edition

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

I saw this the other day as I operate Cirrus SR22's for Open Air on the 135 side and organ transplant flights, and admit its a pretty slick marketing piece. They really do marketing and internalization of the doctrine in a unified front better than any other aviation firm I've witnessed in order to sell airplanes in the 21st century. 

They spend a ton on marketing and the experience, and it does sell airplanes.

 

-Seth

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2021 at 8:53 AM, RJBrown said:

Not a better product,

better propaganda. 
America in a nutshell.

It’s a better product for 90% of the people who fly them. 8,000 people able to drop almost a million dollars on a toy, those don’t strike me as dumb people buying into propaganda. 
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M20F said:

It’s a better product for 90% of the people who fly them. 8,000 people able to drop almost a million dollars on a toy, those don’t strike me as dumb people buying into propaganda. 
 

I tend to agree with you.  Most people buying them aren’t dumb.  And if they were do you want them flying in close proximity to your airspace?  Bottom line, they figured out marketing, manufacturing, and identified some safety features that most will never use but there are times where  they save lives.  Is it a perfect airplane for everyone? No.  Just like there isn’t one perfect car manufacturer for everyone (but it would be Mercedes if there were, just kidding).  They’ve got to be doing something right if they are selling 8000 of them in how long?!?!  And those 8000 planes are helping to keep GA afloat.  Hell, the one thing that my non-pilot wife likes about them is the parachute in the one in a million event occurs and she/my kids are in the plane with me slumped over, or something else.  It’s not the savior for everyone, just like airbags aren’t in cars.  But it’s there in case it can, and people can use it when they need to.  
 

I agree that people with $1mil to spend on a plane typically want something unique.  In fact I believe Cirrus is the only company that truly does that with a piston single plane (Xi designs).  I also agree that the 8000th special edition isn’t really my taste. But someone will love it, claim it, and take pride in it.  Now if it was charcoal grey with a group of thin silver lines along the body, mimicking a Global Express that shares a hangar with my buddy, I’d be selling my kids to buy it.  Just kidding of course.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and Mooney has produced over 10,000 (of course, over a longer period of time). Number of produced aircraft is only part of the equation as it pertains to GA impact.  The real question is what is the total market impact of each aircraft produced.  In other words, how many times have each aircraft produced been bought and sold and what is the condition deterioration over its life cycle.  For instance,  there are plenty of 40+ year old Mooney aircraft that are still an active part of the GA fleet and that have positively impacted many pilots, mechanics, passengers...over their years.  Assuming a Cirrus will still be around and flying at the age of 40+, then they’ll have something to hang their hat on.  Don’t take me wrong, Cirrus obviously is popular, but manufactured product sustainability is a trait that legacies are built upon.

Edited by cbarry
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were going to spend nearly 1 million dollars on a new airplane, I would rather see the manufacturer solve the problem with the missing gear retraction system, and not use their engineering resources figuring out how to add green stitching to the seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whiskeytango, you may see that as a problem, but we will never see or read about gear up landings in a piston Cirrus and complain about that triggering increased insurance expenses.  Yes, some chute deployments may factor, but so do dead people.  And fewer fatalities gives us lower premiums and less of a bad rap with non-flyers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 6:39 PM, M20F said:

It’s a better product for 90% of the people who fly them. 8,000 people able to drop almost a million dollars on a toy, those don’t strike me as dumb people buying into propaganda. 
 

No those people think it’s a better product. They believe the hype and bought the koolaid.

‘I don’t. 
I think they are terrible planes.

‘plastic, unrepairable, prohibitively expensive. That precious parachute is a $15,000 reoccurring expense. 
Mooney has the greatest safety feature. A wing that won’t break.
 

If I was given one I would sell it tomorrow and buy a Mooney.

But

The Hype sells, 

illusion is reality.

just like the Scion XB 

Scion invented the class of car.

‘the Kia Soul is a markedly inferior product but it sells. The “Rat car” marketing campaign was amazing. Scion out of production.

In today’s society the better promoted product sells. The better product doesn’t.  
 

We live in a style over substance society.

If it “sounds” better it is better, clueless and crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RJBrown said:

No those people think it’s a better product. They believe the hype and bought the koolaid.

‘I don’t. 
I think they are terrible planes.

‘plastic, unrepairable, prohibitively expensive. That precious parachute is a $15,000 reoccurring expense. 
Mooney has the greatest safety feature. A wing that won’t break.
 

If I was given one I would sell it tomorrow and buy a Mooney.

But

The Hype sells, 

illusion is reality.

just like the Scion XB 

Scion invented the class of car.

‘the Kia Soul is a markedly inferior product but it sells. The “Rat car” marketing campaign was amazing. Scion out of production.

In today’s society the better promoted product sells. The better product doesn’t.  
 

We live in a style over substance society.

If it “sounds” better it is better, clueless and crazy.

Well Mooney should hire you for marketing, maybe then they would sell more then 8 planes a year.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 9:48 AM, whiskytango said:

If I were going to spend nearly 1 million dollars on a new airplane, I would rather see the manufacturer solve the problem with the missing gear retraction system, and not use their engineering resources figuring out how to add green stitching to the seats.

It isn’t missing it was designed that way.  That gear is designed on a super computer.  It’s drag is very low.  Retractable gear is very heavy and takes up a lot of room in the wing.  It would go a lot slower with retractable gear.  Don’t confuse 1930’s technology with the 21st century.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 7:54 AM, cbarry said:

Yeah and Mooney has produced over 10,000 (of course, over a longer period of time). Number of produced aircraft is only part of the equation as it pertains to GA impact.  The real question is what is the total market impact of each aircraft produced.  In other words, how many times have each aircraft produced been bought and sold and what is the condition deterioration over its life cycle.  For instance,  there are plenty of 40+ year old Mooney aircraft that are still an active part of the GA fleet and that have positively impacted many pilots, mechanics, passengers...over their years.  Assuming a Cirrus will still be around and flying at the age of 40+, then they’ll have something to hang their hat on.  Don’t take me wrong, Cirrus obviously is popular, but manufactured product sustainability is a trait that legacies are built upon.

I own a 1971 MGB.  Certainly a legacy but still a piece of shit car with a 1950’s design.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M20F said:

I own a 1971 MGB.  Certainly a legacy but still a piece of shit car with a 1950’s design.  

You fly a 50+ year old Mooney that obviously still fits your mission.  You prove my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RJBrown said:

No those people think it’s a better product. They believe the hype and bought the koolaid.

‘I don’t. 
I think they are terrible planes.

‘plastic, unrepairable, prohibitively expensive. That precious parachute is a $15,000 reoccurring expense. 
Mooney has the greatest safety feature. A wing that won’t break.
 

If I was given one I would sell it tomorrow and buy a Mooney.

But

The Hype sells, 

illusion is reality.

just like the Scion XB 

Scion invented the class of car.

‘the Kia Soul is a markedly inferior product but it sells. The “Rat car” marketing campaign was amazing. Scion out of production.

In today’s society the better promoted product sells. The better product doesn’t.  
 

We live in a style over substance society.

If it “sounds” better it is better, clueless and crazy.

I love Mooneys hence owing a J and looking to upgrade to a long body.

That said a Cirrus is a great aircraft. Better than Mooney? I don't think so but the market does.

The company is exceptional, they continue to refine the aircraft year after year asking customers and potential customers what they want. 

They are easily repairable obviously different than aluminum techniques but nonetheless repairable.

The chute is precious to many pilots and sometimes more importantly their wife.

Mooney wings are great and Cirrus wings aren't breaking either. 

If I was given one I would also sell it and buy an Acclaim.

I checked out SR20s when I bought my J. They didn't do for me mainly because of the stick and rudder flying. I really enjoy hand flying.

Not that a Mooney is a yank and bank airplane but I just like the way it flies.

If I won megabucks I would want to pump so much money in to Mooney that the company could make a Mooney what it needs to be to be able compete with Cirrus. 

My next door hangar friend owns a 2019 SR22. He likes it but wishes there was other brand new choices.

Bonanza maybe but then you need to run it around the country adding things ( turbo, tks, more fuel capacity etc) that you can get factory from Cirrus. 

If Mooney can up the gross weight so you have approximately a 1200 useful load that will be amazing but it doesn't end there to get back in the game.

Maybe money gained from upgrading the existing fleet would give them the money they need to be able to listen to the market and act. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These two aircraft are very similar, same in almost every way.

To point out physical differences really is “picking nits”

the biggest difference is?

one had a better marketing campaign 

the other is no longer produced

 

9AFF33EB-E1DE-4411-A2D2-ABBA7A937091.jpeg

0E23B2D1-C545-4884-AC95-3DAC69933D1B.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachute driven marketing...

I can’t find a reference for a parachute and Columbia anywhere...

Lance was great at building planes... struggled a bit with building production planes... got crushed by the Great Recession...

If anyone knew how good the Columbia airplanes are... they accidentally kept it a tight secret...  :)

 

Wide spread marketing... reaching out to everyone at county fairs... Cirrus put airplanes among people without red carpets or ropes...

Ordinary people (pre-PPL) with money to buy airplanes don’t naturally go to Oshkosh...   Oshkosh has to go to them...

To the non-flying public... Oshkosh b’gosh means something completely different...  kids clothes and big trucks...

The same people don’t wander into GA airports very often... if they do, they are met with tall fences and locked gates... today they have Covid to deal with...

Nothing says I can learn to fly... better than putting a plane within reach...  touch it, feel it, sit in it... make it a memorable experience... a take home gift with the company website clearly written on it...

You may not sell a plane to somebody today... but when they have money, a PPL, and time is on their side.... they will be back...

They may only buy one airplane in their entire life... a forever-plane...

machine marketing wannabe ideas only... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RJBrown said:

the other is no longer produced

 

0E23B2D1-C545-4884-AC95-3DAC69933D1B.jpeg

IIRC talking to a 400 owner, it has a much lower useful load, and a whole number of expensive reoccuring ADs. And of course.....no parachute

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RJBrown said:

These two aircraft are very similar, same in almost every way.

To point out physical differences really is “picking nits”

the biggest difference is?

one had a better marketing campaign 

the other is no longer produced

 

9AFF33EB-E1DE-4411-A2D2-ABBA7A937091.jpeg

0E23B2D1-C545-4884-AC95-3DAC69933D1B.jpeg

I can think of a few other differences ..    the TTX was taken on by Cessna back in 2006 and they never even came close to Cirrus in these areas:

a very impressive, extensive company training program for any new Cirrus owner whether they buy it from Cirrus or not, new or used 

the parachute which draws in the significant other

continuous engineering that's made hundreds of running improvements over the life of the product

an extensive service center network with a company training program for all Cirrus mechanics

a very active owner group that's responsible for selling more Cirrus airplanes in a year by referral than Mooney has sold in any year this millennium

The owner group has had trips around the world in Cirruses and just about any other destination you can think of to help sell and live the lifestyle they market

Whether you have ever flown their product or like even their product doesn't really matter. They are real. They are selling airplanes and they are all over Flight Aware racking up more hours than just about anyone else. They've sold 8000 airplanes in two of the most challenging decades since General Aviation started.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 1:24 PM, M20F said:

It isn’t missing it was designed that way.  That gear is designed on a super computer.  It’s drag is very low.  Retractable gear is very heavy and takes up a lot of room in the wing.  It would go a lot slower with retractable gear.  Don’t confuse 1930’s technology with the 21st century.  

I am simply a know nothing speculator, but I don’t buy that assessment. I think the company needs a neat way to explain the real reason the gear doesn’t suck up. To make it dumb ass proof. But, you can’t SAY that... you just make something ridiculous up like super computers did it and decided three legs hanging in the wind is totally fine. It beats having to say, we don’t trust you idiots to select the gear, wrecking our brand, and tarnishing our reputation of safety. That or the original design, built with economy in mind, can’t be retrofitted to add the feature. There’s a reason the super computer hasn’t deemed wheel pants and welded gears sufficient for a G650. (Different aircraft, blah blah blah, I’m sticking my head in the sand and choosing not to believe!)
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 201Steve said:

I am simply a know nothing speculator, but I don’t buy that assessment. I think the company needs a neat way to explain the real reason the gear doesn’t suck up. To make it dumb ass proof. But, you can’t SAY that... you just make something ridiculous up like super computers did it and decided three legs hanging in the wind is totally fine. It beats having to say, we don’t trust you idiots to select the gear, wrecking our brand, and tarnishing our reputation of safety. That or the original design, built with economy in mind, can’t be retrofitted to add the feature. There’s a reason the super computer hasn’t deemed wheel pants and welded gears sufficient for a G650. (Different aircraft, blah blah blah, I’m sticking my head in the sand and choosing not to believe!)
 

 

In addition to adding weight, retractable gear requires a place to go when it's retracted.  For the nose gear, that usually impinges on the front seat footwell area.  For the main gear, it requires a taller wing, which in turn, increases drag.  And the extra weight of retractable gear requires more lift and consequently more drag.

 

Consider that a 180 HP DA40 XLS or XLT can do ~150 KTAS.  That's getting close to M20 speeds on 200HP.  It's also a whole lot easier to get into.

-dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Consider that a 180 HP DA40 XLS or XLT can do ~150 KTAS.  That's getting close to M20 speeds on 200HP.  It's also a whole lot easier to get into.

Diamond website lists it’s TOP speed at 14k feet being 142kts. I can get 142kts in the worst possible cruise conditions. More typically, 157. So that’s 15 knots slower, and the empty weight is 1740 lbs. same as my Mooney. So.... it’s not lighter, it’s not almost as fast. Where does that leave us? It’s easier to get into. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.