BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 08:28

I've known several pilots who have traded their Commercial certificate in on ATPs simply by taking the written exam and adding/getting a type rating or going through recurrent training. You are already there so why not?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 09:34

Username Protected wrote:

1. The biggest expense for a low utilization operator are economic depreciation and carrying cost. So, what the airplane costs is a big deal, and what it's depreciation is matters a lot. The Cirrus, for someone who isn't a low number holder is going to cost $2.1-$2.2 million. As you point out a fairly new CJ1, Phenom 100, Mustang and Eclipse can all be had in that price range.
Money is money and I don't have to have a new airplane so the Cirrus is certainly not the cheapest option. Plus, all of the other options, to one degree or another, are available with reasonably low hours for far less than $2.1-$2.2 million. That money is in turn not subject to depreciation and carrying cost.

.....

It's a very thoughtful analysis Tony, but once you said "I don't have to have a new airplane", you could have stopped right there (or started a new thread). A used airplane will always beat a new one in terms of value, no point in comparing the two.

If you are not in a hurry, you can wait a couple of years and pick up a used SF50 for 1.5 mil or so, which will still be the same screaming deal amongst used peers as it is amongst the new ones.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 09:56

Username Protected wrote:

I've known several pilots who have traded their Commercial certificate in on ATPs simply by taking the written exam and adding/getting a type rating or going through recurrent training. You are already there so why not?

Yep, plenty of people did that in the old days. Once the rules changed on 1Aug 2014, that became much harder to do. In the old days you could take the test whenever you wanted. These days, you can't take the test until you complete an approved CTP program closing around $10K.

The rule change was a result of the Colgan crash. On side effect is that the days of a private pilot picking up a commercial, then an ATP "just because" are likely gone....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 20:15

Username Protected wrote:

Thank you Yuri. I could have stopped as you say but Dave asked me my thought process...

Anyway, I think the used prices will be quite interesting for the SF50. If it is a failure, as Mike predicts, you may well be right. It could even be worse. On the other hand, the new price from Cirrus 2-3 years from now will be higher than $1.96 million and if the plane is popular, and in demand the depreciation may not be as steep. I understand there is some precedent for this. No one should make their calculations in either direction if their purchase decision depends on it even in part. No one knows what will happen.

I doubt SF50s will hold value very well, but I don't think it would be any indication of failure, it's just the reality of new vs. used. SR22s depreciate like crazy, yet Cirrus sells hundreds of new ones every year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 20:27

Username Protected wrote:

Thank you Yuri. I could have stopped as you say but Dave asked me my thought process...

Anyway, I think the used prices will be quite interesting for the SF50. If it is a failure, as Mike predicts, you may well be right. It could even be worse. On the other hand, the new price from Cirrus 2-3 years from now will be higher than $1.96 million and if the plane is popular, and in demand the depreciation may not be as steep. I understand there is some precedent for this. No one should make their calculations in either direction if their purchase decision depends on it even in part. No one knows what will happen.

I doubt SF50s will hold value very well, but I don't think it would be any indication of failure, it's just the reality of new vs. used. SR22s depreciate like crazy, yet Cirrus sells hundreds of new ones every year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 21:16

Username Protected wrote:

IF the Cirrus is a $2.1 million dollar airplane sometime in 2016 it'll be a $2.5 million dollar airplane in 4 years when anyone without a reservation is buying them. So, 5 years out what is the depreciation going to be? I don't think they'll be "cheap". I think that's wishful thinking.

If they are 'cheap' 5 years from now, I don't want one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 22:40

Username Protected wrote:

By the way - the Mustang is suweet!

You do realize that ignorance is bliss don't you Tony?? You're educating yourself FAR too much...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 22:47

The Cirrus deprecation story is due to

1) new prices escalating substantially and persistently. (First SR20's were $125K!)
2) meaningful changes in quality, avionics and capability year over year
3) The 2008 recession hitting after Cirrus had a couple boom years. That did produce pretty dramatic losses, but I don't think it was Cirrus-specific.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2016, 22:59

Username Protected wrote:

IF the Cirrus is a $2.1 million dollar airplane sometime in 2016 it'll be a $2.5 million dollar airplane in 4 years when anyone without a reservation is buying them. So, 5 years out what is the depreciation going to be? I don't think they'll be "cheap". I think that's wishful thinking.

If they are 'cheap' 5 years from now, I don't want one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 17:02

Cirrus maybe designed the Vision after the $375 million Triton Drone. 24 hour endurance too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_ ... -4C_Triton

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 17:43

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus maybe designed the Vision after the $375 million Triton Drone. 24 hour endurance too.

Drones don't need certification, pressurization above FL250, don't have passengers to make sick, and don't have CGs that move a lot (which is a problem for V tail trim drag).

Other than that...

It gets 24 hours by having huge fuel tanks, no cabin weight, FL600, and going slow.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 19:59

Username Protected wrote:

Well, what do you want? If you were going to put your money where your mouth is, where would it be?

The only way they could end up cheap is if they suck. If they perform as expected and are easy to fly, cirrus will sell them faster than they can make them and there will be robust demand on the used maket. Lear 25 vs PC12.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 20:45

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus maybe designed the Vision after the $375 million Triton Drone. 24 hour endurance too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_ ... -4C_Triton

The Triton is the Maritime version of the Global Hawk UAV. Very, very different than a manned aircraft. The aircraft are optimized to get up very high, fly slowly for extended on-station times while sipping at fuel. The only manned aircraft that comes close to something like the Global Hawk is the U-2....no surprise there since they essentially have the same mission and the Global Hawk is being used to replace the DragonLady in many ways...especially when it comes to persistent surveillance.

There isn't a business jet in existence that operates (or would be at all practical) operating like the U-2 or the Global Hawk/Triton.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 21:28

Username Protected wrote:

The only way they could end up cheap is if they suck. If they perform as expected and are easy to fly, cirrus will sell them faster than they can make them and there will be robust demand on the used maket. Lear 25 vs PC12.

While I anticipate robust demand for SF50, I doubt they will sell them faster than they can make them. Cirrus is pretty adept at building airplanes in large quantities.

Besides, even PC-12s, which hold value better than just about anything out there, still depreciate significantly in the first few years after leaving the factory.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Feb 2016, 21:36

Username Protected wrote:

Well, what do you want? If you were going to put your money where your mouth is, where would it be?

The only way they could end up cheap is if they suck. If they perform as expected and are easy to fly, cirrus will sell them faster than they can make them and there will be robust demand on the used maket. Lear 25 vs PC12.

Cirrus SF50