Those are lies, previously stated by you, previously noted by me, so I conclude you are rudely doing that on purpose now.

Mike C.

Let's just say those aren't practical for something you can ride in with a 6 inch prop diameter.

I did neglect to consider the electric motors, I only checked the fastest 2 cycle glow engines.

Mike C.

Mike C.

You are missing the target market and buyer by a large margin I believe. No matter how many times I explain it, I do not think you will follow/understand.

Ask yourself why did the iPod (the original classic version) take the music industry by storm? I had a Walkman in the 80s, a Diskman (cd version) in the 90s. What was different?

When you understand how Apple changed the game with the iPod, you may understand how Cirrus changed the game with the SR series, and I think will change it in the VLJ market with the SF50.

Tim

Everyone wants to compare this to the traditional path and moving up to a twin jet. I've spent enough time at big GA airports to recognize most owner flown jets are used for transporting the owner/pilot and maybe one other individual. This new jet will compete with the smaller single engine turboprops as well I believe.

My prediction notwithstanding another recession - it will be a huge success.

Peace,
Don

We fundamentally disagree. You think the target market is enabled by producing a lame jet.

I am saying that the jet doesn't have to be lame to enable the market.

We already know this from 10 years ago with the Eclipse.


iTunes. Electronic delivery of music through the web. The player is not the innovation, that was mundane, so much so, Apple claimed it was based on 20 year old technology in a court case.

Your analogy would work IF the SF50 was the FIRST jet people could buy. That is, it enabled a entirely new form of transport. But that isn't so. It is the cassette tape of jets.

Mike C.

CHEAP jet

The twin is not more expensive.

It would already be out and flying, too.

Mike C.

The twin is not more expensive.

It would already be out and flying, too.

Mike C.

Mike,

You are missing the critical aspects.
1. Relatively Cheap
2. Incrementally better
3. Convenient
4. Easy to follow path of least resistance

For the iPod:
1. It was not that much more expensive then a CD Player.
2. It was better in that the UI was easier, less buttons, less worry about skipping/scratched disks
3. No need to swap disks
4. iTunes made it easy to get the music

For the SF50:
1. Twice the price of a piston, but less then 40% of the price of the closest plane in terms of capability (TBM or Eclipse)
2. Better then the existing piston solutions, but not as good as some existing turbine solutions.
3. Fits existing hangars, planned transition path, insurance carriers involved....
4. Cirrus has planned in detail the transition, support and ongoing maintenance (just ask position holders or those they are trying to sell the plane too)

When you only fly 100-150 hours a year, usually with just 2-4 people on a plane. The incremental fixed costs and capital costs for a TBM900 or an Eclipse make the likely higher operating costs of the SF50 a bargain; and then you compare the difference in packaging? night and day.


Tim

The twin is not more expensive.

It would already be out and flying, too.

Mike C.

You don't have to build a better mouse trap, just one that's more convenient or looks better.

You may think so, but a hard look at the economics tell a different story.

Williams has to make back all of its development cost and ongoing support costs for the FJ33 on only the 500 SF50s that will sell. The SF50 is the only user of that engine, and it only uses one engine per airframe, and due to being a single, is not able to be used in some markets.

PWC already has 540 PW610Fs in the field, already done the development. A TF60 twin with two PW610Fs would enable new markets, such as charter that requires twins, and probably sell 1000 units, 2000 more engines. The amortized cost of development and support would be spread over many more engines, lowering the cost. Not using a new engine is cheaper.

Further, the liability exposure of an SEJ is far higher than a twin. Engine failure in the FJ33 will likely result in a lawsuit. Engine failure in the twin results in a repair. So the liability burden on the SEJ is much higher, on fewer engines. PWC feared this so much that it prohibits the PW610F to be used in singles, says so right in the type certificate.

My aerospace engineer contacts can't tell me what the OEM cost will be for two PW610Fs versus one FJ33, but they think it will be close. When you consider the extra stuff the single requires (for example, control system mixer for V tail), a net wash for sure. This is certainly the case if you consider the chute replaceable by a second engine.

The SEJ is plowing new ground with regards to certification. This will add significantly to the development costs and timeline. That money has to be spread over the 500 airframes to be built. Meanwhile, a twin jet has a standard playbook that if followed, is smooth sailing to certification. You can hire people who have done twin jet certification. There are no single jet guys out there.

Even after the sale, the twin jet is not more expensive. The engine program for a PW610F is about $100/hr, or $200/hr per aircraft. The engine program for the SF50 is not known, but estimated to be about $170/hr. Given the extra speed of the twin, the price per mile is about the same for the program. Given the lower fuel burn of the twin, it actually costs less per mile to fly the twin. Insurance will also be less.

You may think it is absolutely the case a twin must cost more than a single. I am saying that rule does not necessarily apply here.

You can take everything about the SF50 except put two engines and a conventional tail on it and it is superior in every way, including cost.

Mike C.

Mike,

Your statements and assumptions are made as absolutes. THAT is what is funny.

You have so many assumptions; let's demolish a few to start.
1. Williams already paid for the development. What makes you think Cirrus will be the ONLY customer?
2. There are many charter companies flying Cirrus SR22 now. Why do you think they suddenly need two engines? Further, there are many charter companies flying SETP. Why will they suddenly need two turbines?
3. The whole liability aspect is unknown. Pilot error kills more then the engines, and with a 67 KIAS stall speed, the SF50 is a lot slower then other jets. Speed kills, especially when you think about stall/spin accidents. If you have a stall speed of 67 KIAS and do a 30% bank, what does the stall speed become? If you have a stall speed of 100 KIAS, what does the stall speed become?
4. The additional certification costs are unknown. It may not be that much, it may be a lot. You are making a lot of assumptions about the cost and complexity here.



Tim

The twin is not more expensive.

It would already be out and flying, too.

Mike C.

For no return so far, they want their investment to pay off.


No other significant users of the FJ33 current or announced. The FJ33 currently falls into a dead zone in the market. Too big to be a VLJ twin, too small to serve light jets (like CJ series), and PWC has an established foothold with the PW600 series in that space.


There are charter and corporate customers and policies that require two engines. There is more market for a twin jet than a single. Twin enables flights the single cannot take.

Cirrus even said the SF50 is not for corporate or charter use, they seem to have purposefully avoided that market, knowing being a single jet won't play well there.


The twin can have the same stall speed, same wing, same weights. Eclipse stalls 69 knots, for example. So this aspect is not an issue.

The twin has all the same handling as the single down low, perhaps even better (less pitch change with thrust for one thing, less V tail instability for another).


Ask Eclipse #1 about this and they weren't even doing something as different as the SF50.

Any time the FAA is asked to certify something that doesn't fall neatly into a category, expect delays and difficulties.

For reference, Cessna certified the Mustang in 16 months from first flight with essentially no design changes. It has now been almost 8 years since the SF50 first flew, and they had to redesign the entire airplane. New territory comes with new risks.

Mike C.