Market Forecast
To accurately project the market forecast, some history must be understood as well as current events shaping the future of light aviation. Also, a good understanding of the used aircraft market must be factored in. The downturn of the industry may be observed in the historical numbers tracked by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and reported in their yearly publications. Then the upturn can be analyzed but not according to what many industry pundits parrot for the established manufacturers.
The bottom line is:
Year | Units Shipped | Companies Reporting | Factory Net Billings |
1994 | 928 | 13 | $2,357,100,000 |
1995 | 1077 | 13 | $2,841,900,000 |
1996 | 1115 | 13 | $3,126,500,000 |
1997 | 1549 | 12 | $4,674,300,000 |
1998 | 2200 | 12 | $5,873,900,000 |
1999 | 2504 | 13 | $7,935,309,000 |
2000 | 2816 | 15 | $8,558,372,390 |
Now if you would believe the industry pundits, the following article describes the reason for this growth:
In the five years since the enactment of the General Aviation
Revitalization Act, aircraft production has doubled and more than
25,000 new jobs have been created, according to a report to Congress
and the president by the GAMA. Other measures of the act's success
include a 150% increase in research and development funding by GA
companies, a rebound in the number of student starts and a doubling of
exports of GA aircraft, the association said. Signed into law on
August 17, 1994, the act included an 18-year limit on manufacturer's
liability for general aviation aircraft. |
Follow this link to see yearly reports and statistics from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). 1996 Shipments - 1997 Shipments - 1998 Shipments - 1999 Shipments - 2000 Shipments |
Now let's look at things differently.
First, let's look at the actual reported 1999 shipments.
They were:
479 |
603 |
609 |
751 |
2,525 |
Now this is an increase of only 305 units over 1998 or a 13.7% increase. Where's the big change due to the liability issue? How have prices dropped due to the liability insurance savings? What accounted for the increases the years before?
Yet Net Billings are up. They were $5,873,900,000 in 1998 and were around $7,935,309,000 in 1999. But there is a statistical anomoly here. Boeing started delivering their BBJ during the last quarter of 1998. Taking their figures out of 1998 yields $5,646,400,000 in 1998 and the new 1999 numbers yield $6,894,934,000 for a statistically adjusted increase of 15.08% in billings, and removing Boeing's 29 units, a 12.4% increase in units delivered. (The billings increase would have been even worse had Boeing been left in.) It should now be possible for one to doubt that product liability was the reason for the increase or the increase would have continued at the large rate of 1997.
Now we need to eliminate the jets and turboprops. The economy has fueled a significant rise in jet orders which will eventually lead to an increase in production. Just increasing aircraft unit production by 1 or 2 units is a very difficult thing involving many new employees and shifts in manpower as all aircraft are basically hand built. Aviation production numbers will never justify Detroit style automated tooling. Cessna only built 775 single engine piston aircraft in 1998 and those were over 5 or 6 models so it's impossible to justify automated tooling. Most of the manufacturers were below 100 units.
The real reason for the initial large increase in unit production was Cessna. To satisfy their commitment to Senator Kassenbaum for helping to get the Statute of Repose enacted, they promised to start up production of their single-engine aircraft line again. They have kept their promise but why and at what cost? Looking at Cessna's single engine production yields:
Year | Piston Type | Number | Total Piston | Total All Types | Jet Units | % Piston increase | % Jet Increase |
1996 | 0 | 229 | 229 | ||||
1997 | 172 | 287 | |||||
182 | 73 | 360 | 612 | 252 | 10.04% | ||
1998 | 172 | 358 | |||||
172s | 64 | ||||||
182 | 338 | ||||||
T206 | 3 | ||||||
206 | 12 | 775 | 1072 | 297 | 215% | 17.85% | |
1999 | 172 | 180 | |||||
172s | 272 | ||||||
182 | 248 | ||||||
T206 | 120 | ||||||
206 | 79 | 899 | 1202 | 303 | 16% | 1.02% increase | |
2000 | 172 | 150 | |||||
172S | 340 | ||||||
182 | 267 | ||||||
206 | 53 | ||||||
T206 | 102 | 912 | 1256 | 344 | 4.3% | 13.5% |
So the reason for the doubling in production from 1995 through 1998 was the 775 units produced by Cessna and the steady 10 - 20% increase due to the economy. But why has the growth of Cessna's single engine aircraft slowed to below the average industry growth? Cessna's piston production is now down to a 4.3% growth. In 2000 the industry unit growth was 12.4%. And why did their jet production drop to just a mere 1.02% increase in 1999 when they had a backlog of orders?
Model | Equipped Price | Speed | Useful Load | Price/knot | Price/lb |
172 | $163,500 | 122 | 857 | $1,340 | $190 |
172s | $176,300 | 124 | 893 | $1,421 | $197 |
182 | $240,300 | 140 | 1228 | $1,716 | $195 |
206 | $323,300 | 143 | 1400 | $2,260 | $230 |
T206 | $360,000 | 165 | 1308 | $2,181 | $275 |
Now let's compare the above to some of Cessna's competition:
New Piper Warrior III | $158,500 | 115 | 913 | $1,378 | $173 |
New Piper Archer III | $199,900 | 128 | 847 | $1,561 | $236 |
Cirrus SR20 | $200,200 | 160 | 950 | $1,251 | $210 |
Lancair Columbia 300 | $299,700 | 190 | 1190 | $1,577 | $252 |
The above are all fixed gear, fairly basic aircraft. You can see why Cessna will have trouble with it's competition who have new designs and are perceived as state-of-the-art by the flying public (Lancair and Cirrus). You can also see why Piper (slow designs) doesn't sell many of their aircraft.
Now we shall compare the Meyers 200D to relevant competition. The following aircraft are all complex (retractable gear) high performance singles with long track records.
Make/Model | Equipped Price | Speed | Useful Load | Price/knot | Price/lb |
Mooney Eagle | $354,600 | 180 | 1006 | $1,970 | $352 |
Mooney Ovation II | $413,900 | 194 | 1143 | $2,133 | $362 |
Mooney Bravo | $459,000 | 195 | 1100 | $2,353 | $417 |
Commander 114B | $402,475 | 156 | 1158 | $2,579 | $347 |
Bonanza A36 | $524,000 | 176 | 1132 | $2,977 | $462 |
New Piper Arrow | $256,665 | 137 | 967 | $1,873 | $265 |
New Piper Saratoga | $398,900 | 162 | 1212 | $2,456 | $311 |
Trinidad TB-20 | $347,490 | 150 | 1282 | $2,316 | $271 |
Meyers 200D | $299,000 | 200 | 1250 | $1,495 | $239 |
The price/performance comparisons are strongly in favor of the 200D. In fact, the 200D compares very favorably to the simple aircraft in the Cessna competition comparison.
As one can see, Cessna's pricing has put their aircraft into the range of the real performers. Note that all of Cessna's examples are non-retractable gear (read simple) aircraft while their ratios come close to the complex top-line retractable singles. Also note the stiff competition they now face from other entry level simple aircraft. Management believes Cessna's growth will now be in line with the general economic conditions and may even fall off slightly. It remains to be seen if Cessna will even continue production efforts as they need to divert manpower for their jet production to keep up with un-filled orders.
But industry experts believe that the savings to Cessna under the Statute of Repose is in the ten's of billions of dollars. So how much does it cost to try to build light aircraft for a while, anyway.
Now let's look at the real market conditions brewing and see who is going to fill the void. The following article gives an indication of what will be here in 2 - 3 years and the quantity of aircraft that will need to be produced.
The following article appeared in Aviation International News//Online
The presentation slide below illustrates exactly what NASA expects in terms of various factors that a SATS qualified aircraft should possess:
A Comparison of Value Added Parameters
In the Configuration State of the Art section from the SATS Conference, Dr. Jan Roskam, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas, sets forth the following proposition:
Now let's compare the Meyers 200D using this same type of rationale but substituting payload for cabin volume. Payload is a better indicator of what can actually be carried as there is no standardized method used by the various manufacturers for determining cabin volume.
Aircraft | Speed | Payload | VAP | Price/VAP | Ranking | Sales/Orders |
Bonanza A36 | 176 | 1132 | 199232 | $2.63 | 18 | 57 |
Cessna 172 | 122 | 857 | 104554 | $1.56 | 6 | 180 |
Cessna 172s | 124 | 893 | 110732 | $1.59 | 7 | 272 |
Cessna 182 | 140 | 1228 | 171920 | $1.40 | 4 | 248 |
Cessna 206 | 143 | 1400 | 200200 | $1.61 | 8 | 79 |
Cessna T206 | 165 | 1308 | 215820 | $1.67 | 9 | 120 |
Cirrus SR20 | 160 | 950 | 152000 | $1.32 | 2 | 420 |
Commander 114B | 156 | 1158 | 180648 | $2.23 | 17 | 5 |
Lancair Columbia 300 | 190 | 1190 | 226100 | $1.33 | 3 | 350 |
Meyers 200D | 200 | 1250 | 250000 | $1.20 | 1 | |
Mooney Bravo | 195 | 1100 | 214500 | $2.14 | 16 | 25 |
Mooney Eagle | 180 | 1006 | 181080 | $1.96 | 14 | 41 |
Mooney Ovation II | 194 | 1143 | 221742 | $1.87 | 12 | 28 |
New Piper Archer III | 128 | 847 | 108416 | $1.84 | 11 | 96 |
New Piper Arrow | 137 | 967 | 132479 | $1.94 | 13 | 5 |
New Piper Saratoga | 162 | 1212 | 196344 | $2.03 | 15 | 29 |
New Piper Warrior III | 115 | 913 | 104995 | $1.51 | 5 | 21 |
Trinidad TB-20 | 150 | 1282 | 192300 | $1.81 | 10 | No data |
Looking at the Meyers 200D's speed and weight to cost comparisons, one can see that they are clearly better than any other aircraft available today, definitely below the other advanced competition. Taking both ratios into consideration, the 200D actually falls below the Cessna 172s and 182 in performance for the dollar. Cessna sold 520 of those two aircraft last year.
Notice how the sales or orders track the price/VAP numbers almost directly. There are very few statistical anomalies, the most noteworthy being the Bonanza A36 which is dead last yet shows strong sales. This is an indication of the recognized fact that Beech (Raytheon) is considered as having the best marketing department in the aviation industry with the strongest dealer network, most owned by the factory. The other noteworthy anomaly is the New Piper Warrior III which should show more sales but sells poorly. This may be due to the fact that it is absolutely the slowest aircraft of the bunch.
Let's look at the top few:
Aircraft | Ranking | Sales/Orders |
Meyers 200D | 1 | |
Cirrus SR20 | 2 | 420 |
Lancair Columbia 300 | 3 | 350 |
Cessna 182 | 4 | 248 |
New Piper Warrior III | 5 | 21 |
Cessna 172 | 6 | 180 |
So clearly, no matter what criteria may be used to purchase an aircraft, the market has someway figured out the best value per dollar and it fits Dr. Roskam's theories as outlined in the above Value Added Parameter (VAP) model as presented to NASA.
The demand for the 200D should be well over 120 aircraft per year and may reach into the hundreds as the new display technology comes into general use. The above comparisons show that the demand could be several hundred aircraft per year based on value/dollar.
And don't forget to factor in the used market. Currently, there are a lot of aircraft that change hands in the $250,000 - $300,000 range because there is no suitable new aircraft which offers a good performance to price ratio available. When a 200 knot new aircraft comes into production for under $300,000 these used buyers will have another alternative.
An interesting assumption may be made at this point. The price of the Meyers 200D could actually be increased to $330,000 and still be a close #1 to the Cirrus SR20. While it is not the intention of management to do so, there is room for adjustment if required and still retain the industry leading position.
The Existing Market
The FAA and GAMA predict a 14,300 increase in the single engine piston GA fleet over the next ten years. To see the GAMA Forecast, Click Here. This increase does not count the approximately 10% attrition rate as GAMA reports the average age of the single piston fleet is 29 years. As more singles are produced that rate should diminish but it will probably be around for at least ten years. Ten percent is about 14,000 aircraft per year so adding them together yields about 28,000 new aircraft need to be produced over ten years, or 2,800 single engine piston aircraft per year. A 120 aircraft per year production rate equals a 4.28% market penetration for an aircraft that is clearly superior in price and performance among a very limited number of competitors.
The SATS Market
The Meyers 200D fits most all of the SATS criteria for a small aircraft and with the addition of the soon to be certified AGATE Highway in the Sky avionics (to download and run a HITS demo, Click Here) and maybe with the addition of a different (less expensive) powerplant, will fit them all. In fact, the 200D is the closest aircraft to meeting all of the SATS requirements currently in existence. For a detailed discussion of the exact SATS criteria and how it applies to the Meyers 200D, Click Here.
According to the above article, NASA projects that there may be a demand for the production of up to 25,000 SATS aircraft annually. These are small aircraft, not the large biz-jets which have to use the same runways as current commercial airliners, able to take advantage of the 5,000 new SATS airports that are available but currently not being used by the air carriers due to their runway lengths being too short. The total yearly demand, allowing for attrition, could be over 35,000 units. If Meyers Aircraft could get a 10% market share (not difficult as there are not many players with SATS quality aircraft) that would equal 3,500 units per year or 292 units per month. This market share is not unrealistic based on the comparison chart above given the Meyers 200D's #1 ranking. These production rates are in the very high end luxury car range, but still not even close to being as high as the Mercedes, Lexus, BMW, Lincoln or Cadillac production rates.
If the reader doubts the feasibility of the NASA projected production numbers, one might be advised to consider the statement made at the end of the following slide:
Why would Toyota and possibly Honda even consider getting into the light aircraft production business unless there exists the possibility of large production unit numbers?
And on March 7, 1999, there appeared in AvWeb, an article about some silicone valley giants who are attempting to produce a six-place, twin-jet, aluminum aircraft to SATS criteria with an initial funding of $60M and a projected cost of $300M. The project is even endorsed by Bill Gates. To see a copy of the article, Click Here. Why would these multi-millionaires spend this kind of money if the market wasn't going to exist?
However, even with existing production technology, a run through the DAPCA IV model at these rates would yield a possible cost for the 200D of around $164,000 per aircraft even with today's engines and avionics. Using AGATE goals for piston engines and avionics and SATS production rates could yield a retail selling price of around $104,000! This price almost exactly tracks the SATS anticipated price stated in the above article. The efficiencies of scale are exactly what keeps driving computer prices down and works for every manufactured product. It could even work for aircraft. Imagine that.
HOME - SATS and Meyers - Return to Current Initiatives
Paul M. Whetstone, President
Email pwhetstone@meyersaircraft.com
Meyers Aircraft Company, Copyright © October 1999. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part of any text, photograph or illustration without written permission from Meyers Aircraft Company is strictly prohibited. Disclaimer: The information presented herein is believed to be accurate and at times expresses the opinions of management. Meyers Aircraft Company assumes no responsibility for its unauthorized use. To report problems or missing links, contact webmaster@meyersaircraft.com