I think that business success owes much more to being in the right place at the right time with roughly the right product and a reasonable price, than to some high level of innovation.
There is almost no innovation in piston GA and has not been for decades. Cirrus have done an attractive “package” but AFAIK there is nothing in there which could not have been done in say 1980. Avionics excepted of course but the same stuff is available to anybody.
I started 2 businesses in the middle of bad recessions. It creates an opportunity to launch something new, especially if well priced. If somebody launched a modernised TB20 now, for say €300k, I am sure it would sell very well.
If the engine was a diesel, it would be a great package for Europe (not for the USA) although thanks to Mr Thielert a lot of potential buyers would inevitably be asking the old questions…
It’s like adding up the ingredients of a pizza at your favourite restaurant and wondering why it doesn’t cost 50 cents, but 10 Euros instead.
Yes – the €9.50 is the gross profit (simplistically; there is also direct labour, which in the case of a pizza is probably buried in the fixed costs) and it goes to pay for the fixed costs of the operation. And one can control those pretty well – except in an old established company.
The key point is that the difference between the €0.50 and the €10 represents a great opportunity for somebody to attack the market and, ahem, eat everybody’s lunch 
It incidentally also demonstrates that the routine use of crap ingredients in commercial catering is stupid because you could cook up something much nicer and make almost the same money… actually make a lot more money because you get a lot more business. But that’s another story, not applicable to GA mfg.
If somebody launched a modernised TB20 now, for say €300k, I am sure it would sell very well.
It might work better with a plane that is already certified, but if you spend $ 50-100 million until you have a certified aircraft (!) and production (!!) – there’s simply no way to offer such a plane for 300 K.
We could also ask: If THAT was such a great business idea – why does nobody do it?
Aviathor,
yes, we can add Diamond to that list, and especially some of the UL companies. Look at Remos or FK Aircraft. Lancair, though, plays in a different league. We were not discussing kitplanes and experimentals here. Many things are possible with kits that could never be certified, just look at the IV-P and it’s flight characteristics.
Lancair had 3 certified airplanes – not kit planes – so they definitely played in the same league.
but if you spend $ 50-100 million until you have a certified aircraft
Nobody would ever do that.
Firstly it doesn’t cost that much (to just certify a SEP) even if starting from nothing.
Secondly, in this discussion, one would start with the TB20/21 TC and work on that. If the engine was the existing 250HP one then you have even less to do. For example when they did the GT wingtips they had to do new spin testing. A few days’ flying.
why does nobody do it?
Possibly because there are not many opportunities, in the form of a relatively modern and good looking aircraft which was discontinued recently despite enjoying good sales, and is not far off being saleable in an updated form.
Nobody would do a completely new SEP design today.
I have a very reliable source – the Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier – that Cirrus spent around 75 million dolllars until airplane and production were certified
Sorry, Aviathor
Columbia Aircraft (which was not part of Lancair) had 3 certified airplanes, Lancair only makes kitplanes
If you really want to split hairs, here is the entire timeline:
Lancair International founded by Lance Neibauer in 1981 (edit: it actually became Lancair International in 1992 – could not find the former name)
1993: Foundation by Lance Neibauer of Pacific Foundation Composites which was the legal entity that developped the Columbia line of aircraft
Sept 1998: Certification of Lancair Columbia 300
May 2000: Pacific Foundation Composites merged into The Lancair Company created one month prior
March 2003: Certification of the Lancair Columbia 350
March 2003: The kit production sold off
April 2004: Certification of the Lancair Columbia 400 under the name Lancair Certified, Model 41
July 2005: Lancair Aircraft changes its name to Columbia Aircraft
2007: Columbia Aircraft acquired by Cessna.
Now everyone can choose what they want to call the company that developped the Lancair Columbia aircraft. My pick remains Lancair.
Well, sorry for the misunderstanding – but the idea from the start was that Lancair builds kitplanes and a new company (which became) Columbia builds certified planes.
The Columbia 300/350/400 ware based on Lancairs “ES” kitplane design, but for certification the design was completely reworked and became the “Lancair LC40” for a short time. “Lancair Certified Aircraft” became “Columbia Aircraft” and the certified airplanes had little to do with the kitplae company.
Wikipedia:
On 3 April 1995 Lancair established a new company, Pacific Aviation Composites USA, in Redmond, Oregon. Originally intended simply to spread out production of the existing Lancair aircraft product lines, the new factory was rechristened *Lancair Certified and was used as the main site for what was then known as the Lancair LC-40, for “Lancair Certified, model 40”*. The first prototype flew in July 1996, followed by the certification prototype in early 1997.
After a lengthy development and certification process the aircraft was officially certified on 18 September 1998 as the Model LC40-550FG and marketed under the name Columbia 300. Lancair Certified was renamed Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation* in 2005 to focus on the new design. Neibauer sold the kit-build portion of the company, Lancair International, to Joseph Bartels in March 2003
I must say I am a little bit sickened by the Cirrus vs everythingelse debate, just the same as the Apple vs Android debate. Cirrus owners are just as entitled to be proud of their Cirrus as TB owners or Cub owners are allowed to be proud of their respective airplanes, but I definitely have the impression that the “Cirrus crowd” are like groupies that are unable to accept that others may have other perceptions/preferences than themselves. Just like the “Apple crowd”.
What bothers me is that it is virtually impossible to have any discussion on any new / different type without the Cirrus bunch piping in and shouting " it doesn´t have the shute" so forget it. So how to discuss a plane like the TB20 or others if latest on page 3 it turns into a “why Cirrus won the world” debate.
I just find all discussions where grown up people (men) fight for brands completely silly. To put people into “Apple” or "Cirrus " drawers is not something I like. I’d rather be seen (by you) as a human beeing and not as a “member of the Cirrus church”. So, who is arrogant here?
I find it tiring that discussion about ANY other brand than Cirrus is turned into “why Cirrus is better and this plane has no chance anyway so go away” on this forum. And if you don´t want to be seen as a “member of a church” (your expression) then don´t behave like one. Actually, it is funny that you should say that, with Peter having called this discussion “religious” at times. I prefer the “Apple crowd” reference though and I think it is more to the point.
If every airframe is reduced to the “it doesn´t have the shute” final verdict, any discussion is pointless.
We all have multiple times and without any reservation acknowledged that Cirrus is the market leader, that their product is superior in many regards and that this is the reason that they are today selling more than anyone else. There really is no need to agressively preach to the choir all the time. All this does is to rise negative feelings towards the brand, much as it happens with Apple as well.
