Cirrus LSA


#1

Cirrus now has entered the LSA market. They partnered with Fk Lightplanes to make the plane.


#2

From what they said, it sounded like they were just importing another company’s plane. Didn’t like Cirrus had much, if anything, to do with the design or manufacturing.


#3

I dont like Cirrus, Why: because they have one goal and that is to manufacture as many planes as possible for as a cheap (and the SRx have huge profit margins) as possible in a short time.

Also they announce something at every show attempting to sell more planes by doing so.

OSHKOSH 2007: LSA
SUN N FUN 2007: g3
oshkosh 2006: turbo cirrus
sun n fun 2006: air conditioning

Every single one of those is stolen from another company. But they couldnt certify the turbo, they had to put an STC on it to save money. They bought the LSA design because they were to lazy to do it on their own. I understand Cirrus has had many innovations like the glass cockpit and parachute. I feel they are living off their sales and ignorant customers (and have been doing so for the past 3-4 years). They really haven’t done anything in the past 3 years besides the jet (and it took them years to build a jet mockpit). One of the only reasons Cirrus built the G3 was because the wing was cheaper to make there for lowering production cost. But the price stayed the same increasing profit margins. Looking at GAMA (gama.aero/resources/statistics/shipments.php), they are really down this year. Maybe people are sick of their cheap airplane (bad fit and finish, and crappy parts) and the fact they really havent had any innovations. When the DA50, the NGP and a pressurized columbia come out, they will really be in trouble.

They have guys that are on their 5th cirrus because everytime they come out with something new, their ignorant pilots drop their planes hurting the used market, and buy a new one.

If cirrus was about innovation, they would have had their g3 out in 2006 or 2005.

“turbo with ac” how cool is that…Columbia has had the 400 with ac.


#4

Pretty bold statement. Do you have proof or is this just thoughts in your head.

If you have proof, post for all to see.

Allen


#5

let me rephrase it; none of those were inovations.

I have some other things to add:
They took the turbo from tornado alley.

Klapmeiers are about safety and were not going to build the turbo. But when convinced they would sell more planes, they went against the companies and their pet peeve of safety.


#6

Pretty bold statement. Any factual references you can point us to to read for ourselves or is this a thought in your head?

Again pretty bold statement.

Is this a thought of yours in your head or do you have substantive proof backed up by something we can read for ourselves.

Allen


#7

flyingrox doesn’t understand business. Airplane companies have to sell airplanes in order to stay in business. I’m fairly certain Tornado Alley is pleased with their Cirrus relationship as they keep selling them their turbo system. Cessna etc are pretty much selling the same old thing and getting whipped in the process. Cirrus has been a big boost to GA.


#8

Just another poster with an ax to grind. It’s quite the statement to call out the “stupid” Cirrus pilots for being repeat buyers. I always thought customer loyalty was a sign of a solid product but this guy has a whole new spin on marketing. Is it not even remotely possible that they ALL (Diamond, Columbia and Cirrus) could have good planes??


#9

I understand I have been harsh. For the statement about customer loyality. The Cirrus pilots will drop their plane to get one with air conditioning. Then they drop it to get a turbo. Then they drop it months later to get a G3. I think think there is a fine line between customer loyalty and obsessed pilots like that. I mean buy a plane for air conditioning. If they wanted it that badly, they would of bought a Columbia or a Mooney.

To sum up my point, I don’t like how Cirrus always tries to find the easiest and cheapest route to inovation and certification of new products. I don’t like how their pilots come back for planes with minamal upgrades. And I don’t like how the company goes against its mottos. There number 1 motto is safety. Cirrus built a turbo which is something I now Alan did not want to build (I am still looking for his quote).


#10

Pretty bold statement.

Any factual references you can point us to to read for ourselves or is this a thought in your head?

You keep coming up with these wild statements, yet have not come up with anything to substantiate your claims.

Allen


#11

:unamused:
Pretty clear that the Cirrus gang is a gang of unrepentant theives. They also “take” their engines from TCM and Avionics from Avidyne. If their engineering group was worth anything, they would be designing/producing all of this themselves instead of working with established companies.


#12

Cirrus didn’t “take” anything.

They are in the business in making airplanes, not engines, not avionics.

The engine and avionics are labeled with their respective companies.

Allen


#13

Allen, I took gtpslim’s comments as being extremely tongue in cheek.


#14

Hmm, missed the smiley then :smiley:


#15

:laughing:

Absolutely tongue in cheek.

Aviation is a small world where there are a few established suppliers which most manufactuers use. There wasn’t much action in any areas until Cirrus and Lancair stirred things up. It looks like Cessna has decided that they aren’t going to give-up on the single piston market and are developing the NGP (BTW don’t think they’ve commited to manufacturing yet).

Cirrus is doing a good job of taking mostly existing technology and applying it in a way others haven’t done well. The glass cockpit is a great example. It has been around for a long time in the Biz world, but Cirrus pulled that into the single piston market, worked the design and made it (relatively) afforable. Once other manufacturers saw this, they were scrambling to catch up.

IMHO, Cirrus has been a big part of the GA revival. They are bringing out new products all the time that are forcing everyone else to be better. Cessna had been sitting on the same 182 design for decades. Does anyone really think the G1000 package would have happened without competition from the new plastic planes? Turbocharged planes are another example. I’ve read that the Cirrus is not as fast as Mooney/Columbia, but the workload is much lower…which should drive overall industry improvements.

People are buying Cirrus’ (Cirri?) because they love the plane, the company, and the company is making changes so there is a reason to upgrade. The lack of this is exactly what caused the collapse of the industry 30 years ago. Why buy a new (anything) (Cessna/Mooney/Beech…) when the 5 yr old plane is basically the same, but a lot cheaper. Cirrus’ that are produced today are a world apart from those from just a couple years ago. Makes you wonder what will be at Oshkosh next year??