Cirrus Unmasks The New SR10 (But Not For The U.S.)

By
Paul Bertorelli
-
Published:
17

Clean-sheet airplanes don’t come along very often, but Cirrus revealed one this week, a three-seat trainer to be called the SR10. But … there’s a catch. The airplane was developed jointly in the U.S. and China under contract with Cirrus and will be aimed squarely at the Chinese and probably foreign markets. In this interview with AVweb’s Paul Bertorelli, Ivy McIver, Cirrus’ director of the SR line, gives us the details on the Rotax-powered SR10. We also discuss the Cirrus TRAC trainers and new aircraft sales, which are booming.

Paul Bertorelli
Paul Bertorelli
http://www.avweb.com

Other AVwebflash Articles

17 COMMENTS

  5. Congratulations Cirrus. You’ve created over 2000 jobs, except the money is going right back to China. And now the marketing machine shows ZERO shame in this. Its officially admitted in the open as something to actually be proud of. Well done. Also a congratulations to the high net worth individuals, old cirrus customer and new, who are blindly supporting this political farce and claiming it as some sick badge of honor to own “the best selling aircraft”. I remember the conversations at Oshkosh in late 2000s about how “China is just an investor”, or “we have chosen to go with this venture in order to someday become independent again”. All horse$%#. Lies. Looks like the 10 year plan is right on track. Eh Saf?

  6. 2000 jobs? 🎉

    Here’s an interesting twist: Google’s data indicates that U.S. investments in China have generated more jobs than China’s investments in the U.S. This was quite surprising to me. Upon further investigation, it became evident that over the years, U.S. investors in China took bold risks, invested heavily, and played a significant role in upskilling Chinese workers, thus contributing to a transformation of entire industries. This shift has had a profound impact on the dynamics of global trade and has put pressure on the U.S. economy.

    While U.S. investments in Asia created jobs and bolstered China’s economic growth, they also came with downsides in the U.S., including job losses, intellectual property theft, and concerns about unfair trade practices. These issues began to emerge and caused apprehension in the U.S. regarding Chinese business deals.

    Now, it appears to me that U.S.-PRC businesses are proceeding cautiously, carefully choosing their words, and being mindful of American sentiments. It is clear that the American public is not entirely thrilled with the situation. But not more that I as an infantryman in vietnam facing Chinese supplied infantry weapons, mortars, and RPGs.

    For those who celebrated the creation of 2000 jobs in Duluth, here is a partial list of estimated jobs generated in China by select U.S. companies, as reported by Google:

    1. Walmart: Over 110,000 jobs
    2. Tesla: Over 10,000 jobs
    3. Ford: Over 3,000 jobs
    4. Apple: Over 24,000 jobs
    5. Boeing: Over 25,000 jobs
    6. Caterpillar: Over 10,000 jobs
    7. Dell: Over 20,000 jobs
    8. General Electric: Over 20,000 jobs
    9. General Motors: Over 25,000 jobs
    10. Intel: Over 10,000 jobs
    11. Johnson Controls: Over 10,000 jobs
    12. Microsoft: Over 10,000 jobs
    13. Qualcomm: Over 10,000 jobs
    14. Starbucks: Over 50,000 jobs
    15. United Parcel Service (UPS): Over 10,000 jobs

  7. The bobbing and weaving to avoid talking about China being the mysterious “investor” was eerily similar to the whole One China policy charade in reverse.

    Let’s be clear. We just heard a bunch of spin. They hired 2,000 US engineers to design a training aircraft for the PLA. That’s what happened.

    Perhaps some of you might contact your Congressional representatives or contact friends in the FBI. If this wasn’t illegal, it ought to have been.

    • I immediately ‘caught’ that “investor” crap in the video, as well, Eric. I recall a blog right here on Avweb some years ago where we were told that “don’t worry, it’s OK that China is buying all those companies” and there’s no negative outcome from same. Bravo Sierra! You can bet that technology in each and every one of those technical companies they saved is being used in military hardware and other deleterious products. And now buying land near military installations or buying whole industries in our food chain … gimme a break! The SR10 is just another example of the US acting stupidly with a major competitor cum adversary.

      • Selling our industrial heritage to the highest bidder- worked great for the Brits, why not us? LOL.

        Give Wall Street a finger, they’ll tear off your arm. Lenin wasn’t right about much, but he nailed it when he said a capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with.

  8. Video is the same mouthpiece who was sales rep on West Coast a decade ago. Same attitudes I witnessed as a regulator on a cert team. Same Cirrus playbook:
    1) Call our vendors’ innovations our own
    2) Proclaim to deliver the gold standard of grass roots initial flight training ~ laughable
    3) Dodge the BIG LIE about the “shareholder” ~ Chinese military aircraft manufacturer, then water it down with “China bought a lot of ’em back then!” ~ thanks Larry
    4) Place lipstick on a pig when delays in production to produce a safer, more correct airplane are actually the right answer- that was the daily battle
    5) Hire and promote incompetence to senior positions, punish/suppress talent, threaten/punish those who ask questions regarding fleet health
    6) Sell more “untucked” polos and “zip up” jackets than trust
    7) Stomp on the partners who held this company together through its worst times
    8) Park the conversation on the parachute and don’t leave it

    Paul, I think the best interview might be better given to the founders at this point. Forget this bullet-point reader. Another great piece.

    • Paul clarified the ‘shareholder’ reference by identifying AVIC as the source. He was kind but didn’t let that one go. Kudos to him. Yes, I agree. Another good one

      • There are actually 2 LIES in the company’s demented shareholder statement:
        1) There is NO shareholder. Only an owner, puppeteering the US operators to create the illusion of a typical acceptable public US company. The word “shareholder” is used as a cheap magician’s trick to misdirect reality.
        2) The puppet master, is in fact, the Chinese govt acting through its state owned company. Please replace the word “shareholder”, where used, with the word “puppet master”.

LEAVE A REPLY