05 Jan 2026, 10:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 00:44 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 09:03 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 09:41 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 10:40 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 11:40 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 11:41 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 18:07 |
|
 |

|
|
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 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 18:39 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
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  Like how Cessna made the Sky Catcher there? Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 19:57 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 21:30 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 21:32 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 23:35 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
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 |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 23 Sep 2017, 00:31 |
|
 |

|
|
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 |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|