BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 07:15

Username Protected wrote:

The comp for a Cirrus Jet is the TBM. The TBM has longer range, but the Jet has a lot fewer moving parts and a huge cabin. And a parachute. I'd take the Cirrus everytime in that comparison....

Agreed. Particularly, when Cirrus is 1/2 the price.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 07:56

Username Protected wrote:

The comp for a Cirrus Jet is the TBM. The TBM has longer range, but the Jet has a lot fewer moving parts and a huge cabin. And a parachute. I'd take the Cirrus everytime in that comparison....

SF50 is half the price. so the TBM isn't a "comp" at all. 2 different animals.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 07:56

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing more expensive than the smell of a new plane.

And nothing more likely to have more than it's share of malfunctions than the first 100 of something new.

It's under 4 year warranty. Not a big deal.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 08:00

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing more expensive than the smell of a new plane.

And nothing more likely to have more than it's share of malfunctions than the first 100 of something new.

It's under 4 year warranty. Not a big deal.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 08:07

Username Protected wrote:

It's not the money honey, it's the down time. On CJP, reading about all the M2 teething pains, I cringe.

I wouldn't buy the 100 of something either.

What's wrong with the M2? That's not even a clean sheet airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 08:13

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing more expensive than the smell of a new plane.

And nothing more likely to have more than it's share of malfunctions than the first 100 of something new.

By being the low cost solution you can really be low cost by a few routes:
1. Have less capable parts
2. Have fewer systems
3. Go for lower quality components

So far seems obvious Cirrus went for the first two. Is that enough for them to eventually turn a profit? Will 1&2 save some teething pains?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 08:21

Username Protected wrote:

By being the low cost solution you can really be low cost by a few routes:
1. Have less capable parts
2. Have fewer systems
3. Go for lower quality components

So far seems obvious Cirrus went for the first two. Is that enough for them to eventually turn a profit? Will 1&2 save some teething pains?

Tim

Every new airplane design has fewer systems.

Not sure what "less capable parts" means

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 08:59

Username Protected wrote:

$1,350/hr.

Where's all the money you are supposed to be saving with having only one engine?

You can fly a real jet for that much, especially when you consider the cost per mile.

The SF50 is low, slow, short range, and expensive. But at least you get the thrill of hoping the engine doesn't crap out near the ground.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

Every new airplane design has fewer systems.

Not sure what "less capable parts" means

e.g. smaller engine.
Struts versus trailing link landing gear....
One engine versus two....
Garmin 3000 versus ProLine (this is based on PR, not sure of reality)

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:09

Username Protected wrote:

The comp for a Cirrus Jet is the TBM. The TBM has longer range, but the Jet has a lot fewer moving parts and a huge cabin. And a parachute. I'd take the Cirrus everytime in that comparison....

TBM has a long service history, better runway numbers, lower fuel flow, faster speed, higher ceiling.

Are you sure the TBM has fewer moving parts? Consider the V tail (X tail) flight controls, there's a lot of moving parts in that design in something you really don't want breaking. Seems like that is more stuff than just a propeller, especially when you consider the ventral fins have control surfaces.

Does the SF50 truly have a parachute? It remains an untested theoretical benefit, Cirrus didn't want to subject their test pilots to trying it, so they are letting a customer be the first.

There are plenty of trips the TBM completes and the SF50 doesn't. All you need is a wet runway to cancel a flight for the SF50 to some airports.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:09

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing more expensive than the smell of a new plane.

And nothing more likely to have more than it's share of malfunctions than the first 100 of something new.

By being the low cost solution you can really be low cost by a few routes:
1. Have less capable parts
2. Have fewer systems
3. Go for lower quality components

So far seems obvious Cirrus went for the first two. Is that enough for them to eventually turn a profit? Will 1&2 save some teething pains?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:09

Username Protected wrote:

Every new airplane design has fewer systems.

Not sure what "less capable parts" means

e.g. smaller engine.
Struts versus trailing link landing gear....
One engine versus two....
Garmin 3000 versus ProLine (this is based on PR, not sure of reality)

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:10

Username Protected wrote:

There are plenty of trips the TBM completes and the SF50 doesn't. All you need is a wet runway to cancel a flight for the SF50 to some airports.

Mike C.

SF50 is half the price. Wanna G5?..... go buy one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2017, 09:15

Username Protected wrote:

Particularly, when Cirrus is 1/2 the price.

TBM 910 base list price is $3.7M (2017 price sheet).

Current price for SF50 is about $2.4M when CPI and "required" options are included.

The TBM is about 50-60% more, not double.

Mike C.