When Eclipse shipped the 50th one, they weren't out of business, just like Cirrus is shipping the 50th SF50 now.

There's no evidence Cirrus is making money on each SF50 they deliver. The current pricing could be falsely low.

If they build 500 SF50s at a loss, then that could bankrupt Cirrus as well. It would not surprise me if the SF50 really needs to be $3M each to make money.

The SF50 program nearly bankrupted Cirrus, got shut down, and only got restarted when the Chinese bought them.


Amazing how you are already $3M off you first number.

The Canada was saddled with a design that is expensive to make in small numbers, plus they had a costly design and certification phase to pay for.

One other example: Cessna delivered ~500 Mustangs, typically priced ~$3M.

Two engines don't make an airplane necessarily more expensive. Consider:

2018 King Air C90: $3.8M

2018 TBM 910: $4.0M

The OEM cost for two PW610F engines is similar to one FJ33-5A, and two engines make the airplane simpler in many ways.

I hope Cirrus looks past their false religion of single engine and one day makes a light twin jet. Being a twin opens up true jet economy, range, speed, altitude, and safety. The falsely perceived negatives of being a twin are transfer from piston aircraft.

Mike C.

Just like with engine failure statistics...... it doesn't matter what you did 40 years ago. The last 10 give much more accurate data.

[/quote] One positive , the SF50 doesn't have the capability of asymmetric thrust ; it's either thrust, or no thrust. But loss of the engine won't put you upside down. [/quote]

The loss of a motor on a twin engine jet is nearly a feet on the floor event; yawn.

Not buying it.

Not only that but 2008 Dollars were worth a lot more than 2018 Dollars. You can't compare sales prices from 10+ years ago.

There are currently 3, brand new, two engine mini jets on the market. All cost 2X what an SF50 costs. At least deal with today and not 10+ years ago. If 2 engines are cheaper...... how come they're not?

Honda
M2
Phenom 100

No doubt true..... You can buy a 2 engine jet. Plenty available for a lot more money than an SF50.

No doubt true..... You can buy a 2 engine jet. Plenty available for a lot more money than an SF50.

Nobody is trying to say which airplane is "better".... just which will have market success. I believe the SF50 will have huge market success to the detriment of many other brands.

In complete agreement sf50 will sell well and destroy the meridian market and possibly the tbm market if they can increase the range

No kidding. Furthermore, I’ll bet very few SF50 owners buy a TP for their next plane. Once you get used to not having a paddle beating the air outside, you develop an aversion to props.

How many cameras did Kodak sell? Ultimately Kodak is a better analog for Textron’s piston business than Piper, but Piper’s history is meaningless. Piper sells a bunch of old aircraft in low volumes and then there are the turboprop aircraft which are something special.

Interest in the product does not equal interest in the company. I’d rather own an M600 than an SF50. I’d rather own Cirrus equity than Piper equity.

In the Piston aircraft business there’s Cirrus and there’s everyone else. Sales volumes tell the tale. Cessna trainers are still around just waiting for someone else (Czech sport aircraft?) to build enough volume to knock the 172 off the training podium. There are a small number of G36 buyers out there, but new the new piston aircraft customer buys Cirrus.

Luc my friend, if you can afford $3-6 mm for a jet, I think all the stars have already aligned for you. As far as turning 65 goes.... you can get older without thinking old... Once you start that in your head, you might as well move to a retirement home!

That’s what I’ve been told, “Props are for boats.”

Luc my friend, if you can afford $3-6 mm for a jet, I think all the stars have already aligned for you. As far as turning 65 goes.... you can get older without thinking old... Once you start that in your head, you might as well move to a retirement home!

To fly behind two jet engines, it would have to fly backwards.

One of the great things about older airframes like the "Klingon" is that they are upgradeable. Integrating avionics/autopilot with airframes = planned obsolesence. There will be no 50 year old anything flying around if the TC is in part based on an avionics platform. That part about these new planes is really flawed IMHO.