Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:43 AM - Re: Cirrus Killer? (mark.t.mueller@comcast.net)
2. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (Bruce Smith)
3. 09:15 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
4. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (James Courtney)
5. 03:39 PM - Fuel contamination (Kevin)
6. 05:21 PM - Re: Fuel contamination (Bob Steward)
7. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (flyv35b)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Cirrus Killer? |
I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly
COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word "COULD"...
Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an impact
even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...
BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less than
an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and speed,
I think they will have a winner.
Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my Tiger
in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I have researched
both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think Cirrus has some serious
flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee
maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I
wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia
is a much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility category,
not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and the lightning
mitigation built into the structure appears superior to Cirrus. I heard
early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems moreso than the Columbia.
But the Columbia carries a higher price, even for equivalently equipped used
models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s
can be upgraded with model improvements (like A/C), t
he 300
s cannot. The jury is out whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted
with the TAT turbo system or the new wingtips...
So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would have
to provide the following:
1) TAS 180+kts
2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity
3) ~1000nm range
4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly more
cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent of not rubbing
shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of $$$!)
5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror stories
about some of the early glass-panel installations.)
6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely poor customer
service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings here and there
regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus Service Centers",
seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a
bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest...
I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive
and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think the stats on the
BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value equation.
We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and
no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING parts)
don't sell $200,000+ line items.
Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used to working
on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network. If they
can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with superior
after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money...
Mark
Tiger N1533R
Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US
Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised
the high wing faithful.
http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/
Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the
other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just
sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or
designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
<html><body>
<DIV>I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly
COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word
"COULD"...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an
impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less
than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and
speed, I think they will have a winner.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my
Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I have
researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think Cirrus
has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on
out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used
SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick.
I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design. It is also
certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better
trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears
superior to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as
well, it seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher
price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and
350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can
be up
graded with model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out
whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system
or the new wingtips...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would
have to provide the following:</DIV>
<DIV>1) TAS 180+kts</DIV>
<DIV>2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity</DIV>
<DIV>3) ~1000nm range</DIV>
<DIV>4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly
more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent
of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of
$$$!)</DIV>
<DIV>5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror
stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.)</DIV>
<DIV>6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely
poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings
here and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus
Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee'
issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive
relative to the rest...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive
and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think the
stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value
equation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and
no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING
parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used
to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network.
If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22
with superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mark</DIV>
<DIV>Tiger N1533R</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US<BR>Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer?<BR><BR>Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised <BR>the high wing faithful.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/" target=_blank>http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/</A><BR><BR>Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the <BR>other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just <BR>sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or <BR>designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.<BR></DIV></body></html>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cirrus Killer? |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bruce Smith <bruce.smith@york.com>
Mark,
Well said! There are two SR-22s on my field. They are always viewed with
a mixture of awe and admiration. While they do perform well, no one
talks about the negative aspect of Cirrus ownership. It's always "well,
it's a new design". If you bring up the Columbia 300/350/400 to the
local hangar fliers, you see eyes glaze over and hear, well, it doesn't
have the BPS, yada, yada, yada. Cirrus, rightly or wrongly, has achieved
the exalted status of being able to deflect all criticism, at least for
the time being.
Bruce
mark.t.mueller@comcast.net said the following on 7/26/2006 9:41 AM:
> I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna
> certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the
> emphasis on the word "COULD"...
>
> Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will
> make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...
>
> BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at
> $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in
> range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner.
>
> Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than
> my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it
> myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and
> mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard
> too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's
> not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it,
> but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a
> much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility
> category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control,
> and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior
> to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it
> seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher
> price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300
> and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with
> model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out
> whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo
> system or the new wingtips...
>
> So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they
> would have to provide the following:
> 1) TAS 180+kts
> 2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity
> 3) ~1000nm range
> 4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt
> slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big
> proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to
> spend that kind of $$$!)
> 5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard
> horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.)
> 6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely
> poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard
> grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of
> service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty
> hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare
> parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest...
>
> I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more
> expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't
> think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for
> Cirrus' side of the value equation.
>
> We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor
> marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales
> support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items.
>
> Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps
> used to working on their older products, and a spare parts
> distribution network. If they can even come close to the performance
> and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think
> they will be stealing some lunch-money...
>
> Mark
> Tiger N1533R
>
>
>
> Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer?
>
> Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised
> the high wing faithful.
>
> http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/
>
> Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the
> other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just
> sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or
> designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cirrus Killer? |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/26/06 9:44:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.t.mueller@comcast.net writes:
> Mark
> Tiger N1533R
=========================
Mark:
Thank you for your post, it was very informative and well laid out.
You can add this to your NOT column on the Cirrus:
There is a Cirrus dealer at Morristown AP (KMMU) in NJ. I understand in one
day or one week they had two Cirrus collapse their nose strut. The funny part
about it was the dealer had them parked right under his FOB/Cirrus Dealership
Sign ... Not a good choice for advertising.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Cirrus Killer? |
With no disrespect to Cirrus or Columbia as I really don't think any of
the
GA planes available these days are bad designs and my friend really
likes
his Cirrus if you want something with Cirrus performance, in the utility
category, with a TATubo upgrade path look no further than a Bonanza.
Most
A36's also have far more useful load than a Cirrus and I can get 165-170
KTAS lean of peak burning 11-12 GPH in the low teens. The TATurbo guys
see
200KTAS by the mid-teens burning 17 GPH with a 400 lb. gross weight
increase. You can't beat it in my book.
Jamey
BE36 N7218R @ KSQL (okay, so I'm biased)
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mark.t.mueller@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:41 AM
I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna
certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis
on
the word "COULD"...
Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make
an
impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...
BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K
less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range,
payload,
and speed, I think they will have a winner.
Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than
my
Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I
have
researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think
Cirrus
has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments
on
out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used
SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1
pick.
I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design. It is also
certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe,
better trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the
structure
appears superior to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues
as
well, it seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a
higher
price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300
and
350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with model
improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out whether older
SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the
new
wingtips...
So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they
would
have to provide the following:
1) TAS 180+kts
2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity
3) ~1000nm range
4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt
slightly
more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent of
not
rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of
$$$!)
5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard
horror
stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.)
6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely
poor
customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings
here
and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus
Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And
'out-of-warrantee'
issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive
relative to the rest...
I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more
expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think
the
stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of
the
value equation.
We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor
marketing,
and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support
(INCLUDING
parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items.
Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps
used to
working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network.
If
they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with
superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some
lunch-money...
Mark
Tiger N1533R
Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US
Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised
the high wing faithful.
http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/
Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the
other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just
sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or
designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel contamination |
Oh, the joys of ownership.
I've found some kind of contamination in my right tank. It looks like small
bits of black plastic. There is some black sealant around the inside of the
filler, possibly this is flaking off in the tank? In the back of my mind, I
recall some mention of the fuel float dissolving but I can't find anything
in the archives.
Any thoughts, condolences?
Thanks,
Kevin
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel contamination |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bob Steward <n76lima@mindspring.com>
>I've found some kind of contamination in my right tank. It looks like small
>bits of black plastic. There is some black sealant around the inside of the
>filler, possibly this is flaking off in the tank? In the back of my mind, I
>recall some mention of the fuel float dissolving but I can't find anything
>in the archives.
If its an AA-5x, then it is quite possibly the fuel sender float. They
fail by wearing at the metal pivot and when the hole in the float gets
large enough, the float comes off the metal arm and the gauge reads Empty
all the time.
The sender can be rebuilt with a new float, and can be changed from the
outside on all but the very earliest AA-5s. However if the float has come
off in the tank, you'll need to take the access cover(s) off the bottom and
remove the float from the tank. :-(
The ground up bits of the float look like black sand, and will sump out
with your fuel sample.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
Birmingham, AL
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cirrus Killer? |
MessageAfter owning numerous Cessnas and lots of Grummans over many
years, I guess I am biased also after owning my Bonanza and several
others for about 9 years now. The Bonanza does many things as well as
the newer SR22 and Columbia and several things much better.
One thing that stuck in my mind from a recent conversation with a Garmin
test pilot who has flown many hours in both the SR22 as well as the
Columbia 350 and 400 and an A36 Bonanza. He said that the controls are
heavy in both the SR22 and Columbia and both planes are not as fast as
their advertised speeds, especially the SR22. All three of the normally
aspirated planes are pretty close to the same speed but the Bonanza is a
much nicer flying plane when it comes to control effort and response.
I haven't see any SR22's in the back country strips in Idaho where I
take the Bonanza.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: James Courtney
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer?
With no disrespect to Cirrus or Columbia as I really don't think any
of the GA planes available these days are bad designs and my friend
really likes his Cirrus if you want something with Cirrus performance,
in the utility category, with a TATubo upgrade path look no further than
a Bonanza. Most A36's also have far more useful load than a Cirrus and
I can get 165-170 KTAS lean of peak burning 11-12 GPH in the low teens.
The TATurbo guys see 200KTAS by the mid-teens burning 17 GPH with a 400
lb. gross weight increase. You can't beat it in my book.
Jamey
BE36 N7218R @ KSQL (okay, so I'm biased)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mark.t.mueller@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:41 AM
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer?
I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say
Cessna certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the
emphasis on the word "COULD"...
Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will
make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...
BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at
$10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range,
payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner.
Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster
than my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it
myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and
mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard
too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not
to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but
Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a much
better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility
category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and
the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior to
Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems
moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher price, even
for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs.
SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with model
improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out whether older
SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the
new wingtips...
So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they
would have to provide the following:
1) TAS 180+kts
2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity
3) ~1000nm range
4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt
slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big
proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend
that kind of $$$!)
5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard
horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.)
6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the
extremely poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have
heard grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of
service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss.
And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy
to get and inexpensive relative to the rest...
I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are
more expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't
think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus'
side of the value equation.
We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor
marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales
support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items.
Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps
used to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution
network. If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of
an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think they will be
stealing some lunch-money...
Mark
Tiger N1533R
Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer?
Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised
the high wing faithful.
http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/
Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and
the
other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just
sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or
designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|