I would like to buy a new aircraft – yeah, I know, fly it out the show room and you have lost 20%, but I want a new aircraft, just like so many people want a new car.
A Mooney, sorry sir, we went bust. Socata, now they make very nice aircraft, sorry sir, we pulled out of piston aircraft. A Piper, yes of course sir, but anything close to the performance of a Cirrus will cost you a lot more. I could go on.
You see for me that is the point. Surviving as an aircraft manufacturing is a tough, a very tough business. It inevitably means compromise. It inevitably means giving people very good reasons to buy new aircraft. It inevitably means a good advertising campaign. It inevitably means some compromises. Cirrus may not be the most fuel efficient aircraft for example but I find myself asking even in these times of very costly fuel how much of a factor is an extra gallon or two an hour if you can afford a Cirrus. If fuel was such an issue Jag, Mercedes and BMW would have been bust years ago, and the anti 4 x 4 brigade would be in Westminster.
So here is the thing, Cirrus may not do it for you, but if you are in the market for a new aircraft (and a great many people have, a few still are, and hopefully many more will be in the future if GA is to survive) Cirrus are one of the few acts in town.
They are not perfect and many of those imperfections are because of compromise. Americans are big and fat, Europeans are getting that way, and they don’t want to squeeze into a Mooney. Make a large comfortable cockpit and it costs fuel – Cirrus can’t change the laws of physics. It is a fact many pilots want simple controls. How many Americans would dream of buying a manual shift? FADEC – well yes of course, who hasn’t got it in their car – or the equivalent? Cirrus has gone some way with the single leaver; doubtless full FADEC will be the next step as soon as it is proven, and when it is dual leavers will not get close to competing with FADEC. As to the chute, well my wife likes it, and everyone I fly with likes it, so whether or not they like it for the right reasons or not it’s probably better with it than without it. I could go on.
Could a better light single be conceived? Of course. However I doubt anything could ever be designed that would suite everyone. I believe glass is the way forward. I wouldn’t buy a new aircraft without glass. However I suspect IO540 wouldn’t buy one with. He’s not wrong, just takes a different view for very good reasons.
Who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time but you cant please all of the people all of the time.
At the moment Cirrus, Diamond, Piper and Cessna are the only acts in town so far as four seat touring aircraft are concerned – each making very different aircraft, which is as it should be. Historically a truly innovative aircraft manufacturer has never survived but both Diamond and Cirrus have used established technology in an innovative way (well with the exception of the Theilert engine), and for that reason I take my hat off to them for dragging light singles into the 21st century!
Mooney had a chance to be the fifth, but they didn’t take it. It is not often you get a second chance in this business.