Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:) :D :lol: :( 8) ;) :scream: :scratch: :tap: :P :shock: :thumbsup: :thumbsd: :oops: 8) 8-) :x :cry: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :mrgreen: :bow :^ :< :-
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by H60 pilot » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:25 am

-Tim
I don't disagree the TTx was assembled in Kansas, I believe that to be 100% the case. Matter of fact I'm unaware of the model ever being assembled (or produced) in Mexico. The TTx manufacturing I'm referring to is the actual composite structures, like wings for example, that Cessna openly claims to this day were fabricated at their Chihuahua plant and shipped to Kansas for assembly.

I was interested in buying one a few years ago but was put off by the seemingly useless backseat area. It's like a corvette. I'll see what happens to them on the used market, I may yet buy one. I'm admittedly upset Textron terminated such a great airplane instead of the far less remarkable, less capable, less popular G36.

But perhaps to get back on topic, I agree with your sentiments Tim about why Diamond is losing the battle in the training market. I fly Diamond aircraft and I've spoken on numerous occasions to Diamond employees; it's not the aircraft's fault.

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by jb642DA » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:42 pm

When I "demo'ed" the TTx last summer, the demo guy told me it was a FAST, "2 people + bags" plane. Carry fuel to go much of a distance and that was it. The G3000 avionics were great and the plane was fun to fly and comfortable. At the end of the demo we sat down to look through the brochure and "list" prices. He told me I could "get a new one" for at least $100,000 off retail, maybe more! He really wanted to make a sale, ending our meeting with "make me an offer and I'll take it to Textron!". It just didn't fit my mission!

Looks like this thread has drifted a lot from - "Training market: Diamond or Cirrus" - I noticed topic name just as I was "posting". Sorry about that!

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by TimS » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:12 pm

@H60,

In late 2011 I was looking to upgrade from my SR20. I test flew a TTx; which the salesman stated was one of the first being built back in the USA while Mexico was getting sorted out.
In any case, just read this article: https://www.flyingmag.com/textron-aviat ... production

Looks like Textron finally killed off the Columbia line. Based on the enhancements, production changes, and other steps, I do not believe they bought it to kill it or milk it. It just never went anywhere.

Tim

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by Colin » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:15 pm

I loved the TTx (under it's other names, as well). I almost bought into a iFly partnership out of Santa Monica airport. It would have been a disaster (they folded and took all the owners to the cleaners), but I got a ride in the plane and a thorough pre-flight. Really a great machine. To me, it was what I wanted the SR-22 to be. I still think about those pressurized door seals when I am listening to wind noise in my DA42.

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by H60 pilot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:39 pm

I’m no industry insider, this is just what Textron’s announcment sounds like where I’m standing. But I’ll help you polish some of these counter arguments:
TimS wrote:. . . they moved production back to the USA after the fiasco in Mexico. This costs a pretty penny; that would have been the perfect excuse to kill of the model if they wanted too.
Composite manufacturing was moved from Oregon to Chihuahua Mexico, hardly an investment wouldn’t you say? Smells like a cost cutting move to strengthen the bottom line. The “investment” argument is harder to believe further still when it wasn’t until the disbonding incident in 2010 that Cessna retooled the Chihuahua plant to FAA standards. Au contraire Sir, composite production was not moved to US soil following this incident.
http://www.indexchihuahua.com/cessna.html
TimS wrote:Textron and Cessna have made a very profitable and long term margin on low volume production. They do it well.
Not well enough, or so Textron claims, to continue production of the TTx. I suspect this won’t be enough to continue G36/B58 production in the future either, as they already sold in lower volumes than the TTx.

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by TimS » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:37 pm

If Textron bought Columbia to kill it off, they would have done so years ago. Further, you cannot state they bought it to milk it dry and shut it down. Textron has continued to invest and provides upgrades to the planes. In addition, they moved production back to the USA after the fiasco in Mexico. This costs a pretty penny; that would have been the perfect excuse to kill of the model if they wanted too.

Your starting premise just seems incorrect. Textron and Cessna have made a very profitable and long term margin on low volume production. They do it well. I think Columbia was an opportunity to pick up a new design cheap, get some experience in new manufacturing techniques... It was a smart choice.

And from there, not sure where the rest of your comments come into play.

Tim

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by CFIDave » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:30 pm

H60 pilot wrote:4) So speaking about the DA62, what of the six seat heavy haulers? Piper's PA46 piston sales are flat to withering. Textron's G56 continues to slide in sales, but the B58 has actually been closing the market gap with Diamond's twins since 2015. Although I'm unsure as to why, more buyers are purchasing the Baron each year at a greater rate than are choosing to go Diamond.
Diamond could sell more DA62s if they could increase their production rate; demand is currently outpacing supply.

DA62 sales were lost last year because customers couldn't get an aircraft before year-end (to qualify for 2017 business tax deductions), or because customers didn't want to wait nearly a year for one to be produced: I'm aware of at least one pilot that preferred the DA62, but bought a new BE58 Baron just because Textron/Beech had unsold units in stock that could be delivered right away. Diamond Canada has stated publicly that they are hiring an additional 100+ people in London, Ontario to increase their rate of DA40/DA62 production.

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by H60 pilot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:17 pm

The takeaway I'm reading from last year's sales:
1) Cessna is terminating production of the TTx after having sold 23 units last year. Keep in mind that is more composite constructed, low wing, high performance singles than Textron sold G56s and B58s. I have a sneaking suspicion Textron bought the Columbia speedster to kill the competition, and if I had to put my money on it, I'd say that's exactly what they plan on doing with the legacy Beechcraft fleet. Good news for Cirrus, but it means that GA is becoming a pure Cirrus fleet by the year.
2) Mooney only sold seven (7) aircraft last year of all models! This on the backside of a serious redesign is a huge disappointment for the brand. If 2018 isn't a breakout year for Mooney I'd bet the brand finds a home right beside the Columbia 400 in the pages of GA history.
3) The highest volume of piston twin sold last year . . . wasn't a Diamond! Tecnam's P2006T sold 39 aircraft to Diamond's 36 and 33 DA42/62s. The DA62 probably isn't a competitor in this category, but it's significant I think that more customers are choosing the Rotax 912 powered P2006T over the Austro powered DA42, despite the Diamond's jet fuel engines and longer service record.
4) So speaking about the DA62, what of the six seat heavy haulers? Piper's PA46 piston sales are flat to withering. Textron's G56 continues to slide in sales, but the B58 has actually been closing the market gap with Diamond's twins since 2015. Although I'm unsure as to why, more buyers are purchasing the Baron each year at a greater rate than are choosing to go Diamond. Cessna's 206 Skylane outsells everything in the six seat market by a healthy margin.
5) Trainers - Although Diamond sold 25% more DA40s for 2017 over 2016, Diamond lost an additional 3% market share to the PA28 and C172 over 2016. I'm still convinced Diamond is marketing the wrong aircraft for this segment. Neither Piper or Cessna offer an aircraft as affordable for the airline puppy mills than a DA20. Heck, I'd pay money to go through PPL training all over again to fly a Rotax 915 powered DA20. It seems to me the DA40 is best positioned in Diamond's inventory to be marketed as a 182 Skylane killer. Whereas Diamond currently offers nothing to compete with Cessna's 2nd most popular model, perhaps some purposeful enhancements like an IO-390 powered DA40 with the NG's MTOW would steal x46 sales from Cessna.

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by reinhardj » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:50 am

TimS wrote:
jb642DA wrote:Do you have to "replace" the engines at TBR??

I think if you are renting the plane out ie: flight school use, etc the answer is - YES.
If you are "just flying it yourself", I think TBR is a recommendation...They do not have to be replaced at TBR.

Do I have this right?
I did not look into flight/school/commercial aspects. And what I recall from leasing back my Cirrus a long time ago I do not have enough confidence in to repeat :D

For part 91, TBR is mostly a recommendation with the exception of the TDI 1.7 engines. In that case, you cannot go past the TBR. I forget exactly why, but it is a hard number and the FAA supposedly has come down hard on owners who "intentionally" went over. Further, Continental will not sell you parts passed the TBR on the 1.7L engines.

For the two liter engines; I have not seen it but have read of multiple going past TBR. Continental requires you sign a hold harmless letter and then they are willing to sell you parts.

Tim
According to the latest CD-135/155 manual, both engines have a recommended TBO/TBR, not a strong airworthiness limit:
Extract from document TAE 125-0001 Rev. 19 Lifetime 170907 (latest version):

TAE 125-02-99 – Version 01 (see remarks for engine version
identification):

The entire aircraft engine TAE 125-02-99 has a proved TBR / TBO
of 1500 flight hours or 12 years, whichever occurs first. For
safety reasons it is strongly recommended to replace or overhaul
the entire aircraft engine after 1500 flight hours or after 12 years,
whichever occurs first.
Parts with a different life time are listed in the table under
“Remarks”.

TAE 125-02-99 – Version 02, or later approved Versions (see
remarks for engine version identification):

The entire aircraft engine TAE 125-02-99 has a proved TBR / TBO
of 2100 flight hours or 12 years, whichever occurs first. For
safety reasons it is strongly recommended to replace or overhaul
the entire aircraft engine after 2100 flight hours or after 12 years,
whichever occurs first.
Parts with a different life time are listed in the table under
“Remarks”.


Comparable statements cover the CD-155, Version 1: 1200h, Version 2: 2100h
Version 1 is with clutch, version 2 with flywheel, production after 1.December. 2015

Section 5 (Airworthiness Limitation) of the engine Operation & Maintenance Manual CD-135 / CD-155 OM-02-02
says:

5 Airworthiness Limitations
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS APPROVAL SHEET (EASA)
This Airworthiness Limitations Section is EASA approved and
mandatory. It specifies required maintenance unless an alternative
program has been EASA approved.
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS APPROVAL SHEET (FAA)
The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA approved and specifies
maintenance required under Sec. 43.16 and 91.403 of Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations unless an alternative program has been
FAA approved.
5.1 Mandatory Maintenance Actions
The following maintenance actions are mandatory due to
airworthiness reasons. Any changes have to be approved by the
local airworthiness authority.


Section 5 does not contain any limitations of the complete engine, only of parts.
By the way, meanwhile the gearbox inspection interval has been increased to 1200h in some combinations with flywheel....

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

by gordsh » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:48 pm

Seems like Cirrus outsold every one again in 2017 as per this report https://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-daher- ... news022218. Realy looking forward to seeing Diamond compete with the new DA50's on the way.

Top