Those planes have a significantly better payload/range profile than the SF50.

Mike C.

Not per mile, per seat mile, or any other metric of utility.

And we don't yet know the true purchase price of the SF50. I doubt they are making a profit at the current price locked into contracts from a decade ago. That is what drove Eclipse into bankruptcy, building planes below cost, the majority of which were delivered in the $1.3M to $1.5M price range.

Mike C.

Interesting article about the Cessna TTX in Feb 17 AOPA magazine. Nice airplane, with backing of a clear leader in aviation.

This airplane appears to be better than Cirrus in just about every way... Utility category providing higher maneuvering speed, superior avionics, glide performance, cruise speed, better climb rate, will carry more fuel, and less expensive than a similarly equipped SR22T.

Why, then, is this plane not outselling the Cirrus?

The market will decide...

No chute Sherlock

Companies can be successful selling people what they need...

But to hit it out of the park you sell people what they want...

What pilots want is an airplane that their spouse will like. Dale told me himself, he and Alan built the airplane that their wives wanted.

Alan survived a Mid-air in a Tri-Pacer and Dales wife thought he was always lost.... So the Cirrus had a BRS Chute and big MFD....

It has worked...

Not per mile, per seat mile, or any other metric of utility.

And we don't yet know the true purchase price of the SF50. I doubt they are making a profit at the current price locked into contracts from a decade ago. That is what drove Eclipse into bankruptcy, building planes below cost, the majority of which were delivered in the $1.3M to $1.5M price range.

Mike C.

That was my point Chris! Thanks for stating the obvious.

In the jet world, safety is the second engine. The chute is of very little practical value on the SF50, so much so that it was excised from all requirements during certification. They didn't even do a full up test on the airframe so the first customer who pulls it will be the test pilot. What could go wrong with that?

Compare the Eclipse safety record. How many times would the Eclipse fleet used a chute if they had one? Probably zero.

How many times have they had an engine fail? Not zero. The carbon problem in the combustor caused quite a few engine shutdowns. Any accidents due to that? No.

Despite having a chute, the SR series does not have a better safety record than the TTX. Oddly, the large number of chute pulls, gratuitous or not, has provided Cirrus a reputation for "safety". That's like saying a house is safer because we use the fire extinguisher so much.

If the SR series had been slower than a 182 and burned twice as much fuel, I doubt the chute would have made them successful despite the Cirrus marketing machine. The SR series is at the high end of piston single performance. not the bottom.

Mike C.

Companies can be successful selling people what they need...

But to hit it out of the park you sell people what they want...

What pilots want is an airplane that their spouse will like. Dale told me himself, he and Alan built the airplane that their wives wanted.

Alan survived a Mid-air in a Tri-Pacer and Dales wife thought he was always lost.... So the Cirrus had a BRS Chute and big MFD....

It has worked...

Oh no!

Then he gets a real twin engine jet, and perhaps staff to fly it.


Unless they ask "what happens if the engine fails?".

The chute efficacy is yet to be demonstrated. If it only works under benign conditions, then what is the point?


It does score well on the luxury toy index. Is providing en ego dysfunction drug a sufficient business model to make a profit?


That is a presumption. Have you been through the type course?

The Eclipse was touted the same, easy to fly, but had one of the hardest type courses ever. To a great extent, this had a significant impact on the stellar safety record of the type. If pilot are choosing an SF50 because they need an "easy" jet, expect a poor safety record.

When an engine fails, I assure you a twin jet is a lot easier to fly.

Mike C.

Mike C.,

It was a boring SF50 love-fest around here while you were gone all those weeks.

It is still the honeymoon.

Let's see how things look in a few months when we really get to know the SF50.

As far as I know, I don't think any aviation trade magazine has done a review or taken a test flight in the SF50. That activity is usually way high on the marketing program schedule for new aircraft. No one outside Cirrus or a tiny few owners have flown one.

Reality is toxic to dreams.

Mike C.

Mike,
I am just curious at what point would you be willing to concede that the SF50 is a success? How many units will have to be sold and delivered in the first three years? First five years? A plane can be a success and not be the best (Fastest, range, usefulload, safety, etc).

Numerous ways to answer that question depending on how you define "success".

The business answer:

When it turns a profit.

That is, brings in more money than the totality of the expense to develop and manufacture it.

Citation, CJ, Phenom are a success.

Eclipse is not, by a large margin.

If Cirrus sells 500 SF50s at $2M/each, $1B, did that pay for the entire program? I bet it doesn't since the gross margin per unit is probably razor thin if it exists at all at that price.

The personal answer:

When the SF50 does something good enough that I would buy it. That would be delivering on the true promise of a personal jet.

40 year old turboprops run circles around the SF50 presently. It would be a MAJOR step back in utility for me to trade my MU2 in for an SF50, and the SF50 costs more to fly.

The personal jet market is still not served, IMO. All we need is a simple light twin. Eclipse with Garmins and a design that is cheaper to make. A Cirrus twin with FL410 ceiling. Either would have been easier to develop and been a huge success. But no, it seems upper management has to sabotage their own products with gratuitous "innovation". The only innovation we need is to execute a simple version on what is known already.

Your answer:

You wanted a number produced test. I suggest that would be they sell twice as many as they have deposits for on first delivery day. That is, they eventually sell ~1000 of them. That is, people STILL want them AFTER they really know what they are buying.

Cessna market models typically expect 2X sales after first delivery and they usually make it. Mustang is an example (nearing 500 delivered).

A partial success would be if they even deliver the order book number. It will be interesting to watch over the next year or so how the market for positions changes. If it dries up, people want. If it grows, people don't. You may see the order book shrink. It is a lot easier to write a check for $100K than $2.5M (roughly the typical actual delivered price). Many Eclipse positions dried up when it came time for progress payments.

Mike C.