Does it have to be? It really just needs to be good for Cirrus and their customers.

Me thinks many of the people here are looking at this upside-down from Cirrus' perspective. Lot's of experienced pilot folk here whom have been flying top-line jets and TP's for years. You guys know your stuff.

But looking at this from a lower vantage point in the GA food chain like me. My aspirations are more on moving to a Bo or SR22 someday (I like the Bo, spouse thinks the chute sounds good.) But if you are a SR22 and want the next step up - the SF50 hits a capability and price point that makes it a logical step up. More of a competitor to the M500 than any current LJ. Cirrus seems to be doing well at supporting their current planes and owners. For the numbers they would need to build - pretty small in the entire scope of GA - I think Cirrus can be very successful with the SF50.

Biggest challenge will be to hit the low $2 mill price point they discuss. But they may be willing to do some subsidizing to get production rolling and orders filled.

I thnk a more interesting question - if sales for the first 5 years prove successful - what will be the market for used SF50s? Will they drop big chunks like current VLJ? Might make an interesting second had market for others wanting to take a smaller jet-step up.

By the way - Merry Christmas everyone.

Cool little toy for Christmas.

http://youtu.be/0rp6vFgviFs

Everyone here talks about a price of $2-2.2m from the first batch that was sold years ago.
Whats the real price once they get going? Are they quoting prices on new future sales?
Probably in the $3-$3.5m? I doubt they can be profitable under $3m.

That was this: http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=170310

But they spent most of the flight lower than the SF50 ceiling. Besides, you don't know what the ceiling for the SF50 will be yet.

Getting into NYC is just the same as getting in Atlanta or Chicago or any airport in South Florida. It's the same getting into Denver and Santa Monica and Seattle and Vancouver and you name it. This is the reason VLJ's tank in value so quickly. People buy them and then realize they bought the wrong airplane. I can't tell you how many times I heard those exact words when I was Phenom 100 shopping. You can haul gas or people..... not both. ATC brings you low too far out and it blows all your economy.

Most airplanes don't live in the middle of nowhere. That's why urban airports are more expensive.... More airplanes.

Are there any other jet aircraft besides the SF50 that will fit in a 40-foot T-hangar?

The Eclipse can live in a T Hangar, nose cleared the door by 2 inches. Flaps had 6 inches. Permanently installed chocks are critical!

looks like you can buy one for $1.39M....SF50 Vision Jet Position
$1.39MM Purchase Price
Mid 2017 Delivery

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd ... &dealerid=

looks like you can buy one for $1.39M....SF50 Vision Jet Position
$1.39MM Purchase Price
Mid 2017 Delivery

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd ... &dealerid=

very true, look what a flop the F16 was.....

You keep bringing this up, so put some numbers to it. Compare the cost per mile ( or whatever metric you choose to determine cost). Compare the time difference. And then compare capital cost of new vs new for any or all of these, and lets see where they stack up. I am betting the Vision Jet is within 20 minutes on any of these trips, and the cost difference will be a rounding error. I also bet when Capex is thrown in the equation, the cost of fuel becomes a non issue.

Note from what I was told on the PT6 line. Besides gear, the engines on a per hour basis are much more expensive. This is one of the real cost savings of an SETP.

Tim

Jon,

Here is the argument: Why pay for the cost of development, and all the additional strength and systems to fly high if you never do?

Tim

The final NTSB report is not out yet. This statement from the NTSB preliminary report would tend to rule out oil loss issues:

An initial examination of the engine revealed no external indications of blade damage, metallic debris on the chip detector plugs, or case rupture. The engine contained a sufficient supply of oil at the time of the accident and there were no indications of an oil or fuel leak.

At the Convention, Terry Winston stated in his accident analysis presentation that the accident was caused by:

"Forced landing due to fuel starvation - aircraft flown in extreme yaw.”

Your admitted bias is showing again. Let's put the full facts out there, not the partial recap you provide of the NTSB Preliminary Report. Your partial recap selectively omitted the NTSB Report's description of this IFR flight's only reported problem -- engine or otherwise: loss of oil pressure at the outset of the crisis and inability to make it to a runway for an emergency landing. The Report states:
"During cruise flight at 6,000 feet above mean sea level (msl), the pilot reported to air traffic control (ATC) that he had a problem with the engine oil pressure. The controller provided vectors to Falcon Field (FFC), and later the pilot reported that he would not make the runway."
No mention was made by the commercial pilot to ATC of control problems or of the current allegation that the aircraft was yawing sideways in the "extreme ". Additionally, the pilot's post accident recap of what happened is spot on with his report to ATC at the outset of the crisis -- loss of oil pressure and subsequent engine failure.
The aircraft also had fuel. The NTSB report: "The fuselage and both wings exhibited structural damage and both wing fuel tanks were ruptured from impact forces. . . .There was evidence of fuel spillage throughout the wreckage path."
Terry Winston is mentioned for his "accident analysis presentation" but he is not identified. He is not an impartial accident investigator. He's head of sales for AVEX, a TBM dealer. Contrary to the pilot's contemporaneous report to ATC and after his accident recap of no oil pressure and engine failure, you seem to imply that Winston apparently alleges that a control system problem lead to such an extreme unreported yaw that the engine was starved of fuel and quit. That story is no less flattering to Socata than an engine failure due to loss of oil pressure. While stranger things than Winston's story have happened in aviation, based on the present incomplete facts known, that story simply doesn't square with the other objective evidence.

Im just reporting what Terry said at the convention, lets wait for the NTSB report.
Your admitted bias is showing because the pilot is your friend.