Folks,
Dean Georgaris and Norm Cohen have put together a really nice website for Lancair Columbia owners/position holders at http://www.lancairpilots.org.
I believe that we all (Cirrus and Lancair owners) can learn from each other, given the relatively similar nature of the planes.
Steve
They’re being merciless with the parachute thing; I guess that’s to be expected. One post on the lancair forum says the Cirrus should be nicknamed the “Chute Streaming Yuppie Wounder!”
Ouch.
I would suggest that those active in this forum take a peak at the Lancair forum. They are dealing with the same problems and gripes we are. Kind of amusing… gripes about delivery, price increases, parachute envy 
etc. (not true on the last statement…yet)
BTW, I seriously considered a 300 when they were first announced. However, Lancair couldn’t get their act together in the beginning to produce airplanes. In fact, I called the factory 3 separate times and left messages for the salesperson. I have never heard from them. In fact, the day I signed the contract for the SR20 I called Lancair… still waiting to hear back. Glad I didn’t because they increased the price by 100k on EXISTING position holders. Lot’s of them bailed too.
Lancair builds a fine aircraft. However, I think they will be a boutique airplane manufacturer… something like a Mooney. You either love’em or hate 'em ( or can’t fit in one, as in my case)
Lancairs biggest problem is that they did not start a new organization / name to build the certified aircraft. Management spends time on both sides of the fence with the inevitable distractions of trying to run to organizations. Dang near impossible. The Klapmeirs did it right when they focused on building a certified aircraft and bailed on the kit plane business (they weren’t as successful at it as Lancair either). However, they got a lot farther faster and probably won the race as a result of concentrated effort.
All said, I wish Lancair well. They have great performance numbers and an equally rabid set of followers. Just wish they weren’t so mean spirited when it comes to bashing Cirri. Hey, were all in the same (fiberglas) boat… so to speak.
About a month ago I got the chance to fly the 400 and it is an awesome ride. Posted the PIREP on the Members Page. Pretty sure I had nothing but good things to say about the Columbia experience.
Last week I had to fly a Piper Arrow which is about as speedy as my SR20 and that is where the comparison ends. Y’all need to get a teeny f%$#ing grip on reality. Worrying about whch single engin plane is the best is like arguing about which Miss America contestant you’d settle for. Go back and fly one of the ugly gals with a VOR and coffee grinder NAV knobs just to get a dose of reality.
Setting aside the recent CAPS issue which has been extremely frustrating, I believe that Cirrus and Lancair are producing the best single engine planes in the world. Sure there’s a difference but either choice is the right one. The SR20 was the choice for me as my first Cirrus and I’ll be taking delivery of an SR22 later this year with no reservations.
In a world of Yugos it is nice to have a choice between a BMW and a Mercedes.
Not to worry. The marketplace has spoken BIG TIME on that one.
As the author of the above comment, I read it here with great humor as being taken completely out of context. As both Kevin Moore and Jim Fallows know, I am a huge Cirrus fan.
The remark was in a much larger post challenging Lancair Pilots to consider that Cirrus accidents were not related to quality of airplane (as some Lancair followers mistakenly believe) but Pilot Error. And the term I coined, presented in as over-the-top fasion as Fork Tailed Doctor Killer, was to illustrate that Cirrus is experiencing something that Lancair pilots and owners need to be ready for. That we are the airplane’s weakest link.
I sincerely apologize to anyone who read my entire post and thought that somehow - despite my repeated defense of the Cirrus - that if you twisted my words enough you might somehow come up with the meaning suggested in the above post.
My point was, and will remain, that our fleets are in danger of getting an deserved/undeserved reputation for lack of safety.
Sincerely
Also, I can see the owners of 1972-vintage Skyhawks criticizing Cirrus owners as “yuppies.” But people who buy Lancairs???
In reply to:
Lancairs biggest problem is that they did not start a new organization / name to build the certified aircraft. Management spends time on both sides of the fence with the inevitable distractions of trying to run to organizations. Dang near impossible. The Klapmeirs did it right when they focused on building a certified aircraft and bailed on the kit plane business (they weren’t as successful at it as Lancair either). However, they got a lot farther faster and probably won the race as a result of concentrated effort.
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t the Lancair Certified company a different entity from the kitplane company? I thought they operated as two completely separate things.
(And given their success in kits, I can’t blame them for not wanting to give up their kitplane business!)
Steve
Wonderful post.
I’m proud when I read their board, that Cirrus owners virtually without exception show respect for Lancair.
Separately, given that they’re linking to our owners’ telling stories of frustration or problems, I’d suggest we try to funnel our comments of that nature to the member forum.
Andy
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t the Lancair Certified company a >different entity from the kitplane company? I thought they >operated as two completely separate things.
(And given their success in kits, I can’t blame them for not >wanting to give up their kitplane business!)
Steve
My comment is the result of a business philosophy of mine that you can’t have two companies, with the same name, same logo, and for all practical purposes the same management, and be as successful as if you concentrated your effort on making your brand mean something special. Lancair, to me, means high quality, fast, relatively easy to build and safe kit planes (fast kit planes). I suspect that many of us think of Lancair the same way. There success in brand extending the name into the Certified Aircraft business might not be as succesful in the long run. And here is why I believe this.
For a period of time, they can get away with brand extending the name for the certified aircraft. However, in the long run, the brand will be confusing to the market as to what it stands for.
The big conglomerates and consumer products companies still learn (or don’t) this painful lesson all the time. At the sales meeting, a person stands up and says, “hey, we can sell more beer if we create a brand called bud light!”. Sounds good, its even logical to capitalize on your good name… the only problem is that you typically do not gain market share, you only dilute the sales of your existing product line (i.e. Budweiser).
There are countless examples of this mistake and subsequent languishing sales in industrial and consumer product companies. From cigarettes to mayonaise to cars. What’s a Chevrolet? During Alfred Sloans days it was the entry level car to the GM cradle to grave philosophy (start with a Chevy and get buried in your Caddie). Now Chevrolet stands for a cheap, fast, car, truck etc. Caddie hasn’t recovered since the Cimmaron debacle.
Why doesn’t brand extension work?
Consumers are bombarded with so much information today that they will put you and your company (product) in a one word category. words like - cheap, expensive, value, fast, slow, boring, exciting. You get pigeon-hold based on perception and once you get labeled, you are generally stuck in that label. When a consumer can’t figure out, in simple terms, waht you are all about, then they put you out of their mind because you are now confusing. I am afraid that this is where Lancair is headed, and particularly why they probably will not be as successful as Cirrus
Sorry for the long winded post completely unrelated to airplanes but I wanted to fully explain the philosophy and rationale behind my remark.
Mark
"Wonderful post.
I’m proud when I read their board, that Cirrus owners virtually without exception show respect for Lancair.
Separately, given that they’re linking to our owners’ telling stories of frustration or problems, I’d suggest we try to funnel our comments of that nature to the member forum.
Andy "
What an incredibly short-sighted thing to say or think. The only negative poster we’ve had on our Lancair Board recetnly is a Cirrus owner, and his thread was shutdown. And if you go back to our earliest days on Yahoo - we had one other guy who we shouted down.
If Cirrus owners do decide that one or two angry owners on the Lancair Board justifies becomming propriatery with all of your valuable experience, then that is our loss.
Rest assured, we won’t let the equal percentage of negative Lancair comments (I remember the early days of sr20.ird) keep us from exposing all our warts to you, and all.
Sincerely,
Dean
Mark –
Thanks for the discussion. I found it very interesting.
My question is this – couldn’t you see the certified lancair as a natural extension of the kitplanes. In fact, it is my understanding that the 300 and 400 are in fact spiffed up versions of the Super ES – I can’t tell the pictures apart, though there are slight differences in the specifications. In fact, Lancair has used the same paint scheme on the 300 that it used on the ES in its web site – which suggests that they are encouraging the identity. So what Lancair is really trying to do, is to sell the same (or a very similar) product to two very different markets – self-builders and retail plane purchasers.
I guess I see brand confusion as less of a problem than the problems you mentioned in your first post-- the difficulties involved in trying to do two things at once, and do them both well. Maybe that is why Lancair has lagged so far behind in production.
A Cirrus salesman pointed out another problem with Lancair’s approach – the vastly higher levels of testing required for a certified plane puts Lancair in the position of producing two sets of products, one of which has a demonstrably higher “safety” level than the other – a dangerous position to be in, if you’re in a lawsuit based on an accident from the “less safe” category. (I know that the word “experimental” is intended to give warning of the inherent difference, but try to sell that to a jury in a sympathetic wrongful death or major personal injury action.)
I’d be very interested in your further thoughts on the brand confusion issue. As I said, I agree with the distraction issue, but I’m not sure about the brand confusion issue.
p.s. As a Lancair 400 position holder, I'm very embarassed by some of the comments on the Lancair website. We're very much in the same (plastic) boat, and the really significant difference at this point appears to be the fact that there are about ten times as many Cirri in the skies, as Lancairs. In fact, the difference in hours flown has to be much more than that, because a much higher percentage of the Lancairs are newly delivered. While there are some differences (some of which cut one way, and some the other), the similarities are much much greater than the differences, and all of us (Lancair and Cirrus purchasers) will benefit from the experiences (good and bad) of those who go first. Our hearts all go out to Paul Hefliin and Ben Ditty (the pilots in the Lexington accident) for their harrowing experience, and from what we've learned so far, it could have happened as easily in a LC 300 as in an SR 20. So I hope the other members of the Lancair website show some courtesy and good sense. I, for one, am very sorry about the inappropriate remarks that have been made on the website.Okay… I have little speed envy! The 400 has awesome numbers.
The logic behind your comment that brand extension is not as big an issue in Lancairs case than in other arenas is not wrong. Its logical and makes intuitive sense. I think the problem comes from the companys difficulty in defining who it is and isn’t in a marketplace.
Marketing, to my thinking, is about communicating what we are (as a company) about to a group of people. No less important is communicating either explicitly or implicitly what we are not about. This requires absolute clarity at the very top of an organization and a system of communication that reaches both internal and external stakeholders. I think Lancair has just made their job more difficult as a result of their same name / different (albeit slightly) airplane strategy.
A saving grace may come to Lancair without their explicit effort. My guess is that Lancair will be known as the high performance aircraft. When you think Lancair, you think pocket rocket. Lancair could really play this marketable idea up by de-emphasizing comfort and safety. Not that the planes aren’t either (safe or comfortable), it’s just that the buyer of a Lancair is willing to buy and wait for speed.
Cirrus on the other hand, should (and does to a point) emphasize a practical comfortable aircraft. A touring aircraft so to speak or since they “copied” a BMW 5 series auto interior, they could call it “The Ulitmate Flying Machine”. (Let the laywers deal with trademark issues) This would mean that they would somewhat limit ther market appeal and imply that speed is not what a Cirrus is all about. However, comfort of the occupants is important. Besides, building a practical all purpose aircraft fits the Klapmeir’s mid-western values to a “T”.
(To give Cirrus a little grief, I think they need to drop the “Future of GA” tag line. As long as I (and many others) have been waiting for my aircraft, I think the tag line has been a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
Cirrus could also play the Safety card (Volvo did this successfully for years). They would need to do more in this arena including getting the plane through the spin series certification (if you’ve flown one, you know it will pass!) to de-emphasize the “need” for the chute (and kill a favorite Lancair sales pitch) and to ensure the chute works correctly, every time, exactly as promised. Safety is a huge issue in GA and a very marketable idea. Most of us that fly mitigate the inherent risk through training, planning, and respecting our personal limits… however, passengers are not privy to the mental gyrations we go through as we prepare for a flight. Even as a passenger in a small plane, I want to grab the yoke during final if the pilo’s technique is unfamiliar. I don’t know what he is thinking, or if he is thinking.
Just some more musings on my part to “contribute” to the dialog. (Heck, I even through in a little CAPS talk in there to keep it interesting)
Have fun with your 400 and don’t worry about your fellow Lancairers bashing Cirrus. We are so busy doing it ourselves we don’t have time pay that much attention from the additional “noise” in Oregon.
Mark
Ps- I bet Alan and Dale are thinking that there must be an easier way to make money. I guess the old joke about the best way to become a millionaire in the airplane business is to start with a $100 million is true.
I think these are all very shrewd points, Mark.
Cirrus on the other hand, should (and does to a point) emphasize a practical comfortable aircraft. A touring aircraft so to speak or since they “copied” a BMW 5 series auto interior, they could call it “The Ulitmate Flying Machine”. (Let the laywers deal with trademark issues) This would mean that they would somewhat limit ther market appeal and imply that speed is not what a Cirrus is all about.
Don’t forget the Commander’s 114 pitch was the ‘all comfortable and practical’. Oh well…as for the BMW 5…if you ever sat in a Lanceair…you quickly discover their interior is the Beemers and Cirrus’ a Chevy…if you compare the Cirrus to other GA then it is a Beemer. I am glad (amongst other reasons) Lancair raised the bar for Cirrus…speed, appointments/decor, workmanship, ‘utility category’ and if you read their site…with the 60 or so planes delivered…nowhere near ther Cirrus squawks both early on and now!
Lances only mistake (so far)…not incorporating the ‘chute’…then the 300 and 400’s would ‘have it all’. So from that standpoint…a dum marketing and practical decision. They missed a terrific opportunity to hamper their #1 competitor…Those opportunities don’t come often and the blew it. So for now, I am stuck flying a Cirrus because my wife and children ‘require’ the chute in a single engine…and frankly so do I.
“Stuck” flying a Cirrus? I hear tiny violins playing.
Don, you are by far the most negative poster on this forum. While I don’t believe in ignoring the negative aspects of the SR22 and SR20, from what I have seen and dealt with the Cirrus Corp. is trying to do it right. Certainly they are not perfect, but I would challenge you to find someone who has recently bought a new Cessna or Piper, and talk to them about their 1960’s {at best} airframe. Then let them tell you about their squaks and ADs. Maybe then you won’t feel so bad about being “stuck with a Cirrus”. If you’re that unhappy why don’t out go out and by and old 172 stick a Rockwell stack in it get some Lo-Prestie speed mods, a tuned exhaust, and stick a BRS on top. {I hear certification is just around the corner}. You would probably only have about 175K in you better than a Cirrus plane. Then you and a small friend could go maybe 500 miles at maybe 120kts/hr or so. The great part about the trip would be you would certainly get a lot closer in that cockpit. MIKE
if you ever sat in a Lanceair…you quickly discover their interior is the Beemers and Cirrus’ a Chevy.<
FWIW, I completely disagree. This was one of the reasons I decided to buy a Cirrus – the other being that Lancair is that much more expensive. This is of course a matter of taste, and you may feel that the Lancair is finished more nicely. I don’t. To me, the feeling of sitting down so low (a la a Mooney), and – paradoxically – also having so much less headroom was far less appealing and “luxurious.” The Lancair site is full of people griping about how their head doesn’t fit in the cockpit unless they get the seat cushions cut down.
Main point: these are judgment calls, and for anyone who hasn’t had a chance to ride in both planes, I wanted to register that other people’s interpretations might differ from yours. Also, they’re both very nice airplanes, and you can’t go wrong with either one, in my view.
The Cirrus used the BMW for cockpit dimensions, not necessarily the finish of the cockpit. Sitting in a Lancair is not like sitting in a BMW.
Don,
Thanks for the follow up post. I disagree with the BMW (Lance) and Chevy (Cirrus) analogy but I respect your opinion. I have sat in a Lancair and while I thought it was nice, it did not have the room I was looking for. (Mom fed me real good growing up!)
You mentioned Commander 114 (115) in your post. Probably GA’s most over-built airplane. Rugged and equipped with a trailing link landing gear that would make the most horrible landing appear smooth and easy. The only problem was the price / performance issue. Close to $500,000 to go 160 knots (okay, turbo’s faster but still way too expensive). Commander builds 15 airplanes a year (or did, I don’t know where they are now). Very special aircraft for a small but loyal group of people that see the value that I don’t.
(Amazaing, people have different values which is why you can’t say that if Lance has the chute they would have everything. They wouldn’t for me or the person who is number 800 on the Cirrus list and expects to get a plane next year as opposed to being 800 on the Lance lsit and maybe getting a plane in four years…maybe. Markets don’t work that way. Humans are awesome in the simple fact that we are all different. Thank goodness too. Can you imagine a world with people just like me or you or Art P?
Speaking of value, you bought the SR20 because to your thinking it represented the best value in GA at the time you bought your position, all things considered. All things considered means the availability of the aircraft, the strength of the company, the comfort speed and safety of the aircraft, how it looks, insurance cost, how good the salesperson smelled, how everyone walked up and oohed and awed at the plane, etc. You probably did not assess all these points in the beginning, however, and you more than likely justified (and still do) an emotional decision (to buy) with logic. Its what we do as humans. It is difficult at best to justifly a $200,000 to $300,000 airplane. The cost per mile is very high and they are not known for being reliable (weather and breakdowns). We buy because we want.
Now don’t go blaming your family for your decision to buy a Cirrus. If you wanted a Lancair, you would own one or be in line for one right now… unless it does not represent the values you are looking for, which is the whole point of marketing. Choosing a position in the world and focusing on being the best at serving the needs and wants of the people in that market. Cirrus has chosen to serve a larger market than Lancair, has built the system to serve it well (good airplane, excellent production capability (unit volume). Lancair will never achieve the same results, and probably doesn’t want to. Their focus is on speed, not on producing 700+ aircraft a year
Mark
Ps - On the the idea of Lance putting a chute on a columbia…my thinking is that Lancair will not put a chute on a plane for a long long time, if ever. They have spent too much time convincing the world and themselves that it is a bad idea. Its hard to overcome this self-reinforced myopia.