banner
banner

05 Jan 2026, 10:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363 ... 512  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 00:44 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
VCs caused the problem because they didn't give them more money to pay the vendors. ;)

VCs caused the problem when they gave Vern funds to begin with.

Quote:
Chinese is a different story. They have unlimited funds, they are a patient bunch, and the profit isn't a primary motivator for them in this case.

Obviously, Vern should have sold to these surprisingly bad Chinese business people who fund losing projects.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 05:32 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20412
Post Likes: +25570
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
So, we've gone through:

- it's a bad design

to

- it'll never get certified

to

- they won't actually deliver many of these

and now to

- they'll lose money.


But Cirrus just keeps moving forward, selling planes, making deliveries. It's good to see their plans all coming to fruition, and I hope it continues like this for years to come.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 09:03 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8235
Post Likes: +7970
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
VCs caused the problem when they gave Vern funds to begin with.

Obviously, Vern should have sold to these surprisingly bad Chinese business people who fund losing projects.

Mike C.


If you are saying that Eclipse was a losing project that should have never been funded, I disagree. Vern made a bunch of execution errors, but the concept behind the Eclipse was quite sound. Vern's contention was that the airplanes are expensive because we hand-build them in small quantities. He's right about that.

The problem is you need to have a low price to get the orders needed to scale up the production, but you can't make money at that price until scale up. So you have to be prepared to lose a bunch of money in the beginning. Vern comes from the world where this is not a problem, and the money is plentiful and free. And it was in the beginning, but then 2008 crisis hit, and the VCs pulled the plug.

So yeah, if Vern had the kind of investors Cirrus has right now, we could have very well had Eclipses darkening the skies by now like he predicted. But no, the Chinese are not bad businessmen at all, they know exactly what they are doing. In a few years, having sucked up all know-how they can, they will move the production to China and sell thousands of those things to nouveau riche Chinese citizens while manufacturing them at 1/2 the cost. That's where the profits will come in.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 09:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
So, we've gone through:

- it's a bad design

to

- it'll never get certified

to

- they won't actually deliver many of these

and now to

- they'll lose money.


But Cirrus just keeps moving forward, selling planes, making deliveries. It's good to see their plans all coming to fruition, and I hope it continues like this for years to come.

Spot on synopsis.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 10:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 241
Post Likes: +511
Username Protected wrote:
VCs caused the problem when they gave Vern funds to begin with.

Obviously, Vern should have sold to these surprisingly bad Chinese business people who fund losing projects.

Mike C.


If you are saying that Eclipse was a losing project that should have never been funded, I disagree. Vern made a bunch of execution errors, but the concept behind the Eclipse was quite sound. Vern's contention was that the airplanes are expensive because we hand-build them in small quantities. He's right about that.

The problem is you need to have a low price to get the orders needed to scale up the production, but you can't make money at that price until scale up. So you have to be prepared to lose a bunch of money in the beginning. Vern comes from the world where this is not a problem, and the money is plentiful and free. And it was in the beginning, but then 2008 crisis hit, and the VCs pulled the plug.

So yeah, if Vern had the kind of investors Cirrus has right now, we could have very well had Eclipses darkening the skies by now like he predicted. But no, the Chinese are not bad businessmen at all, they know exactly what they are doing. In a few years, having sucked up all know-how they can, they will move the production to China and sell thousands of those things to nouveau riche Chinese citizens while manufacturing them at 1/2 the cost. That's where the profits will come in.


I believe that is why Pilatus only took so many orders and stopped on the PC24. It allows a price increase after the initial aircraft orders have been filled. I'm fairly confident they could have deposits for twice the number of aircraft, but that would lock them in at the lower price.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 11:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3868
Post Likes: +2986
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
Obviously, Vern should have sold to these surprisingly bad Chinese business people who fund losing projects.


Eclipse was too early for the land grab that is Chinese investment. If the eclipse saga had transpired 5 years later than it did, China would have been a very viable option. There's plenty of well to do factory owners, etc.. that would have been thrilled to own a jet company.

I'll wager the SF50 plans were/are a big part of what made Cirrus attractive. China doesn't really care about piston planes. But, the SF50 could be a whole market by itself over there.

I would expect that within a few years, all the FBO ramps in China will be 65% domestically built SF50s and 35% Gulfstreams.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 11:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
I'll wager the SF50 plans were/are a big part of what made Cirrus attractive. China doesn't really care about piston planes. But, the SF50 could be a whole market by itself over there.

I would expect that within a few years, all the FBO ramps in China will be 65% domestically built SF50s and 35% Gulfstreams.

I agree.

USA is only a small part of the market.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 18:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/19/10
Posts: 350
Post Likes: +157
Location: NY
Aircraft: C310R
Username Protected wrote:
Quote:



I would expect that within a few years, all the FBO ramps in China will be 65% domestically built SF50s and 35% Gulfstreams.



I dont think Chinese have plane made SF50 in China it makes no sense , who works in the China market knows what is happening there for product with label made in USA and made Germany people pay good money . Now is time made product here and sell in China :cheers: :cheers:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 18:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
I dont think Chinese have plane made SF50 in China it makes no sense , who works in the China market knows what is happening there for product with label made in USA and made Germany people pay good money . Now is time made product here and sell in China :cheers: :cheers:


Like how Cessna made the Sky Catcher there?

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 19:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
If you are saying that Eclipse was a losing project that should have never been funded, I disagree. Vern made a bunch of execution errors, but the concept behind the Eclipse was quite sound. Vern's contention was that the airplanes are expensive because we hand-build them in small quantities. He's right about that.

He was wrong about thinking he could do high volume production at low cost.

Personal jet aircraft are intrinsically low volume. That's chapter 1 in Aviation Business for Dummies.

Quote:
Vern comes from the world where this is not a problem, and the money is plentiful and free. And it was in the beginning, but then 2008 crisis hit, and the VCs pulled the plug.

You are delusional if you think more VC money would have let Eclipse turn a profit.

I think you would have been the kind of business adviser Vern would have listened to. He sure didn't listen to anyone who knew the industry.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 20:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/05/11
Posts: 5248
Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
Almost everybody was delusional pre-2008. Vern and a lot of,others didn't have the deep pockets to ride it out. The Eclipse is still going. The Mustang isn't. Tim brought up a good point. Probably, most of the time "engineer think" doesn't sell a product. There has to be some (engineers call it Voo Doo) marketing. That's just the real world. BS, bait and switch, call it whatever. It's not supposed to be disrespectful to the engineers, and bean counters; it's just reality.

It took me a long time to discover a fundamental business principle because I was trained in something else much more technical. Like engineers. The best product at the best price gets the market. After one establishes a market, establishes a reputation, then one can raise their prices some, and within reason. But first you have to have a market and first you have to have a reputation.

_________________
“ Embrace the Suck”


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 21:30 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1709
Post Likes: +244
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
Username Protected wrote:
VCs caused the problem when they gave Vern funds to begin with.

Obviously, Vern should have sold to these surprisingly bad Chinese business people who fund losing projects.

Mike C.


If you are saying that Eclipse was a losing project that should have never been funded, I disagree. Vern made a bunch of execution errors, but the concept behind the Eclipse was quite sound. Vern's contention was that the airplanes are expensive because we hand-build them in small quantities. He's right about that.

The problem is you need to have a low price to get the orders needed to scale up the production, but you can't make money at that price until scale up. So you have to be prepared to lose a bunch of money in the beginning. Vern comes from the world where this is not a problem, and the money is plentiful and free. And it was in the beginning, but then 2008 crisis hit, and the VCs pulled the plug.

So yeah, if Vern had the kind of investors Cirrus has right now, we could have very well had Eclipses darkening the skies by now like he predicted. But no, the Chinese are not bad businessmen at all, they know exactly what they are doing. In a few years, having sucked up all know-how they can, they will move the production to China and sell thousands of those things to nouveau riche Chinese citizens while manufacturing them at 1/2 the cost. That's where the profits will come in.



Agreed. But Chinese airspace isn't exactly "open" is it?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 21:32 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/25/15
Posts: 201
Post Likes: +192
Username Protected wrote:
Agreed. But Chinese airspace isn't exactly "open" is it?


It's open to anyone who has the pocket depth required to buy a SF50...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 23:35 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8235
Post Likes: +7970
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
Personal jet aircraft are intrinsically low volume. That's chapter 1 in Aviation Business for Dummies.


That, of course, depends on the price.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 23 Sep 2017, 00:31 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
He was wrong about thinking he could do high volume production at low cost.
How do you know?

Because he didn't do it.

Quote:
That, of course, depends on the price.

No it doesn't. There simply aren't enough pilots/operators to buy a jet made at high volume regardless of the price. It is a limited market.

Jets will never be made in volumes where production efficiency can make a meaningful difference in production cost.

Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363 ... 512  Next



PlaneAC

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026

.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.sarasota.png.
.avnav.jpg.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.BT Ad.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.