23 Dec 2025, 02:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 18:44 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Lookup the word "backlog". Your new order will be placed at the end of the order book.
If Cirrus can move you to a near slot, that's a bad sign, that means position holders are bailing out.
Mike C. So the demand is so high that it'll take 5+ years to get one?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 18:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So the demand is so high that it'll take 5+ years to get one? No, the order book is so old that it will take 5 years to build the planes that were promised 5 years ago. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 18:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So the demand is so high that it'll take 5+ years to get one? No, the order book is so old that it will take 5 years to build the planes that were promised 5 years ago. Mike C.
That’s the exact same thing.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 19:27 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 9042
Post Likes: +11475
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Of course a twin jet has redundancy of thrust that a single engine jet does not have, and the twin jet owner pays an additional purchase price and operational cost for that redundancy that the SF50 owner does not. Actually, they don't. The second engine is the key to flying higher, faster, and with less fuel. You are applying piston think to jets, that doesn't work. I believe if Cirrus had built a twin jet, it would have cost them no more in total to develop, certify, and manufacture than the SF50. Indeed, I think they would have gotten to market years earlier. Mike C.
No I'm not applying "piston think" to jets. What I'm applying is Cirrus's accomplishment of filling the niche they said they would; manufacturer of the "slowest, lowest, cheapest jet." No Citation can touch that, as good as they are.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 19:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The evidence is two fold: the missing accidents due to engine failure, and the lack of accidents where a chute makes a difference.
Result is twin jets do not crash from engine failure, nor do they crash in ways a chute can help.
Thus second engine adds more safety than chute. You are drawing negative conclusions from a sample size of 5.
Nope, I am using a sample size of about 5 million. That is about how many private jet flights there were this year worldwide. On all but 5 flights, they avoided a fatal accident. Excepting the few SF50s, none of them had chute, and no SF50 deployed their chute, either. On the 5 fatal accidents that did happen, a chute would not have helped.
This year, had all private jets had a chute, 0 people saved out of 5 million flights.
Where are the people dying in private jets that would be saved by a chute?
That's not an opinion drawn from only 5 negative samples, it is a pretty hard statistical fact drawn from 5 million positive samples.
If the SF50 is as safe as the average private jet, it doesn't need a chute.
Or does the SF50 need a chute because it is more dangerous than the average private jet being a single? Why not fix the underlying flaw and put two engines on it? Then it is not only safer, but it goes higher, faster, further, too!
Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 19:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You seriously think you could get new PW610s for ~300K today in 200 units a year quantity? No, but I do believe I can buy twice as many of them for the same price as half as many FJ33-5As. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 20:52 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16155
Post Likes: +8872
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I believe if Cirrus had built a twin jet, it would have cost them no more in total to develop, certify, and manufacture than the SF50. Indeed, I think they would have gotten to market years earlier.
What you believe is meaningless to Cirrus. They made a decision to go with a single because they wanted to build a single. No different from Socata/Mooney/Valmet and Pilatus respectively deciding they would build single turboprops rather than a 'better Cheyenne' or a 'better King Air'.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 21:41 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3503
Post Likes: +2476
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How much does a new PW610F cost? According to MC they’re having a BOGO sale on them.
_________________
Previous A36TN owner
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 22:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16155
Post Likes: +8872
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No I'm not applying "piston think" to jets. What I'm applying is Cirrus's accomplishment of filling the niche they said they would; manufacturer of the "slowest, lowest, cheapest jet." No Citation can touch that, as good as they are. The irony is that the citation created its own niche 40 years ago. The naysayers were complaining that the 'slowtations' would get run over by the 727s of the day and that nobody in his right mind who saw that ugly duckling next to a Lear 24 would possibly get into one. Who needs turbofan engines ?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 02:34 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8231
Post Likes: +7967
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No, but I do believe I can buy twice as many of them for the same price as half as many FJ33-5As. Belief is nice, without any reliable facts, it's just that. Simple economics tell us otherwise.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 03:16 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No, but I do believe I can buy twice as many of them for the same price as half as many FJ33-5As. Belief is nice, without any reliable facts, it's just that. Simple economics tell us otherwise.
The belief comes from seeing the evidence.
This is simple economics: The Eclipse EA500 and SF50 were sold at about the same price point, adjusted for inflation, if you signed a purchase contract *after* certification (thus discounting the intro pricing, a real price the company expected to make money at). One is a twin, one is a single.
2008 Eclipse EA500 price: $2.48M (CPI adjusted for 2018)
2018 Cirrus SF50 price: ~$2.40M ($1.96M in 2015 dollars, with CPI and required "options")
Engine count is not a major factor in the price, therefore, overall, roughly equivalent in manufacturing cost.
Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 06:41 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20397
Post Likes: +25544
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: For props, a twin has penalties. For a jet, it doesn't, it is all benefit. That's the point that Cirrus and many of you fail to understand.
.....
Mike C. Mike, you’re a smart guy. There are also very smart people working for Cirrus, and I guarantee that they understand the benefits and penalties associated with each of their SF50 design and build choices. When taking the big market picture into account, the fact that you disagree with some of the choices made by the smart engineers and management of Cirrus does not make you right. In the next few years, they’ll produce incremental improvements with the SF50 model, and they’ll build and sell hundreds of them. That makes many of their choices correct ones for the company and the market.
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 09:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/11/10
Posts: 3833
Post Likes: +4140
Location: (KADS) Dallas, TX
|
|
|
Ever have one of those Thanksgiving's sitting around watching football after eating a big meal?
Usually someones brother-in-law will have a few to many and begin espousing about how stupid the coaches are and how he would have thrown the ball here, or run up the middle, or called the "flea-flicker" to confuse them, easily winning this game and any others that happen to be on that day. Meanwhile he'll go back to his unrelated job and wait for some team to come to their senses and call him in for the $5M a year gig.
That's what this thread feels like, arm chair experts, who don't work in GA aircraft manufacturing or any related field telling the most successful upstart company in 50 years how they are doing it all wrong because they don't UNDERSTAND aircraft design. YHGTBSM!
Scariest thing about this is you can't blame the spiked egg nog!
|
|
| 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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
