The twin jet pilot doesn't have to air start the second one, it is already running and happily providing thrust to a safe landing at an airport of the pilot's choosing.

Mike C.

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=%2 ... ciholas%22

Mike C.

OEM engine supply agreements are confidential, so you will never see verifiable proof of this.

However, from the Eclipse bankruptcy documents filed during proceedings (sadly, no longer accessible online), the PWC agreement showed Eclipse was getting PW610F for about $280K each.

A new FJ44-2A runs about $750K each. This is why a Williams conversion of a Citation 501SP is about $2.1M out the door, most of that is the engines.

Correct for inflation, the rough price delta is about double per engine, or two PW610F is the cost of one FJ33-5A (which is just an FJ44 in reality, it is on the FJ44 TCDS).

Further evidence is the sales price history of both the Eclipse and SF50 have been remarkably similar, so the second engine didn't affect the sales price very much.

A single larger engine will cost more per unit for being larger, for having fewer units to amortize development costs over, for having higher liability to the engine manufacturer, and for having lower future revenue for service and major engine events. Engine makers ultimately make as much money if not more from future parts and service than they do from the initial purchase.

Given 500 airframes of each type, would you rather be the engine OEM that supports 1000 engines on a twin or 500 engines on a single? For the twin, you sell twice as many engines, sell twice as many parts and service, and have basically zero liability. On the single, you sell half as many engines, sell half as many parts and service, and have a huge liability if the engine fails.

Seems like a simply choice to me, and that's reflected in the price the OEM pays to get the engine.

Mike C.

I think it's a valid conclusion to draw. It costs about double to overhaul a PT6-67 vs a 135A... bigger engine costs more to overhaul,.. why would jet engines be different?

Mike’s brother Phillipe does work for cessna. I’ve known them both from cessna.org since 2006. Nothing to see here

OEM engine supply agreements are confidential, so you will never see verifiable proof of this.

However, from the Eclipse bankruptcy documents filed during proceedings (sadly, no longer accessible online), the PWC agreement showed Eclipse was getting PW610F for about $280K each.

A new FJ44-2A runs about $750K each. This is why a Williams conversion of a Citation 501SP is about $2.1M out the door, most of that is the engines.

Correct for inflation, the rough price delta is about double per engine, or two PW610F is the cost of one FJ33-5A (which is just an FJ44 in reality, it is on the FJ44 TCDS).

Further evidence is the sales price history of both the Eclipse and SF50 have been remarkably similar, so the second engine didn't affect the sales price very much.

A single larger engine will cost more per unit for being larger, for having fewer units to amortize development costs over, for having higher liability to the engine manufacturer, and for having lower future revenue for service and major engine events. Engine makers ultimately make as much money if not more from future parts and service than they do from the initial purchase.

Given 500 airframes of each type, would you rather be the engine OEM that supports 1000 engines on a twin or 500 engines on a single? For the twin, you sell twice as many engines, sell twice as many parts and service, and have basically zero liability. On the single, you sell half as many engines, sell half as many parts and service, and have a huge liability if the engine fails.

Seems like a simply choice to me, and that's reflected in the price the OEM pays to get the engine.

Mike C.

I think it's a valid conclusion to draw. It costs about double to overhaul a PT6-67 vs a 135A... bigger engine costs more to overhaul,.. why would jet engines be different?

They do.

The PW600 series owns the 900 to 1600 lbf thrust class. Eclipse, Mustang, Phenom 100. I'm not aware of any other engines in this size class that are commercially viable presently.

The PW600 series was specifically designed to be used in VLJs and used in pairs. Part of that was designing them to be lower cost so it was economical for the smaller planes.

Maybe someday Cirrus will see the light and build a twin jet. It literally does everything better than a single.

Mike C.

Not true. See the sales numbers. Where else can you buy $2.5 million NEW jet?

Peace,
Don

Wouldn't 92 KIAS be substantially lower than 135 KIAS? I'm pretty sure the intent is to not pull the chute with excessive air flowing around the airframe. The air is thinner at altitude, so wouldn't KIAS be the primary governing number? Seems like something is being taken out of context here, but it's admittedly not my area of expertise to the plane or to high-altitude operations.

They do.

The PW600 series owns the 900 to 1600 lbf thrust class. Eclipse, Mustang, Phenom 100. I'm not aware of any other engines in this size class that are commercially viable presently.

The PW600 series was specifically designed to be used in VLJs and used in pairs. Part of that was designing them to be lower cost so it was economical for the smaller planes.

Maybe someday Cirrus will see the light and build a twin jet. It literally does everything better than a single.

Mike C.

Regarding the new Cessna Denali:

I think it will be a market success.

Mike C.

What’s the real deal here Mike? A single engine TP (that costs twice the price of the SF50) is a home run, a single engine jet is the worst idea ever (according to you). Seems like you have a beef with Cirrus.

Peace,
Don

The twin jet pilot doesn't have to air start the second one, it is already running and happily providing thrust to a safe landing at an airport of the pilot's choosing.

Mike C.

Presently, nowhere, not even from Cirrus.

Mike C.

The reasons are fundamental to turboprops versus jets. I've written about this lots of times.

Mike C.