22 Dec 2025, 17:57 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:02 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I agree with Mike's perspective. Had Cirrus set out to design and build a two engine VLJ, they would have ended up with a far superior product that performed much better and cost way less and been able to do it in far less time. We'd have a better Eclipse with G3000 avionics and mid to upper 300knots at FL410 for under 2 million from a manufacturer with history that isn't going anywhere.
Eclipse had the right idea and too little resources. Cirrus had a bad idea and the resources to ram it through. The market will ultimately decide but it hasn't fully spoken yet. We are still in the first half and just because its 28-3 doesn't mean the game is over. Just ask Atlanta.... That may be the case but I still don't see why the 2 engine product would be cheaper than the single engine product.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:10 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1561
Post Likes: +1810
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I agree with Mike's perspective. Had Cirrus set out to design and build a two engine VLJ, they would have ended up with a far superior product that performed much better and cost way less and been able to do it in far less time. We'd have a better Eclipse with G3000 avionics and mid to upper 300knots at FL410 for under 2 million from a manufacturer with history that isn't going anywhere.
Eclipse had the right idea and too little resources. Cirrus had a bad idea and the resources to ram it through. The market will ultimately decide but it hasn't fully spoken yet. We are still in the first half and just because its 28-3 doesn't mean the game is over. Just ask Atlanta.... That may be the case but I still don't see why the 2 engine product would be cheaper than the single engine product.
Less research and development cost. Less engineering to solve the redundancy and placement issues. Less time and money for certification. All those flow into the final costs.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Less research and development cost. Less engineering to solve the redundancy and placement issues. Less time and money for certification. All those flow into the final costs.
That's speculation and frankly total BS. Do you really believe the Denali is "costing less" and "taking less time to develop" simply because the Pilatus PC12 already exists? 2 engine minijet existed long before the Honda Jet went on sale. What took so long and cost so much?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1561
Post Likes: +1810
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Less research and development cost. Less engineering to solve the redundancy and placement issues. Less time and money for certification. All those flow into the final costs.
That's speculation and frankly total BS. Do you really believe the Denali is "costing less" and "taking less time to develop" simply because the Pilatus PC12 already exists? 2 engine minijet existed long before the Honda Jet went on sale. What took so long and cost so much?
You're right, its speculation. I don't agree its BS though. Your point about the Denali is well taken. Let's agree then that even if the costs were the same, they could have delivered a superior performing plan for the exact same money. With 2 smaller engines rather than one larger one, the plane could fly higher, faster and burn the same or less fuel and save weight with no chute.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:20 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/27/18
Posts: 1650
Post Likes: +1521
Location: South NorthEast West Virginia :)
Aircraft: Club Archer
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 2 engine minijet existed long before the Honda Jet went on sale. What took so long and cost so much? They had to make the cockpit area as ugly as possible (from the outside). They weren't satisfied with simply "unattractive". From the entry door back, it's a sleek, attractive airframe. From the door forward... butt ugly (in this never to be a customer's opinion).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: they could have delivered a superior performing plan for the exact same money. With 2 smaller engines rather than one larger one, the plane could fly higher, faster and burn the same or less fuel and save weight with no chute. Why would it be "for the exact same money"? Why isn't Honda Jet, M2 and Phenom 100 the same price as SF50? Yes, a 2 engine Cirrus Jet would be a much better airplane for a lot more money.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1561
Post Likes: +1810
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Less research and development cost. Less engineering to solve the redundancy and placement issues. Less time and money for certification. All those flow into the final costs.
That's speculation and frankly total BS. Do you really believe the Denali is "costing less" and "taking less time to develop" simply because the Pilatus PC12 already exists? 2 engine minijet existed long before the Honda Jet went on sale. What took so long and cost so much?
Honda didn't just develop a clean sheet plane, they developed a new engine. In addition they spent years figuring out a way to put the engines on the wing pylons instead of the conventional position. Both of these decisions cost time and money. Why not use existing(functional) designs in aircraft to bring a BETTER aircraft to market? Everyone is trying to out innovate instead of out perform. Look at Gulfstream and Boeing. World leaders. Find a 30 year old 737 and set it right next to a new one. 99% of people couldn't tell you one from he other. Same with a GII versus a G650. They have consistently improved on winning designs and they dominate. I think the Eclipse is a badass looking plane. Its a tad bit too small and the avionics sucked. Stretch and widen and put in G3000 and up fit a couple of larger Williams fans and you're 90% on your way to a winner. Why am I wrong? You'll say the market has spoken, I know. The market can only speak about what's available. I'm saying the 5 or 6 manufactures for GA have brought the wrong products to market.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Honda didn't just develop a clean sheet plane, they developed a new engine. In addition they spent years figuring out a way to put the engines on the wing pylons instead of the conventional position. Both of these decisions cost time and money. Why not use existing(functional) designs in aircraft to bring a BETTER aircraft to market? Everyone is trying to out innovate instead of out perform. Look at Gulfstream and Boeing. World leaders. Find a 30 year old 737 and set it right next to a new one. 99% of people couldn't tell you one from he other. Same with a GII versus a G650. They have consistently improved on winning designs and they dominate. I think the Eclipse is a badass looking plane. Its a tad bit too small and the avionics sucked. Stretch and widen and put in G3000 and up fit a couple of larger Williams fans and you're 90% on your way to a winner. Why am I wrong? You'll say the market has spoken, I know. The market can only speak about what's available. I'm saying the 5 or 6 manufactures for GA have brought the wrong products to market.
I posted more examples than just the Hondajet. M2? Phenom 100? Why did Pilatus spend a billion dollars developing the PC24?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:44 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 6275
Post Likes: +5618
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Not quite.....Bombardier had N289TX in......2011....
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 12:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1561
Post Likes: +1810
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Honda didn't just develop a clean sheet plane, they developed a new engine. In addition they spent years figuring out a way to put the engines on the wing pylons instead of the conventional position. Both of these decisions cost time and money. Why not use existing(functional) designs in aircraft to bring a BETTER aircraft to market? Everyone is trying to out innovate instead of out perform. Look at Gulfstream and Boeing. World leaders. Find a 30 year old 737 and set it right next to a new one. 99% of people couldn't tell you one from he other. Same with a GII versus a G650. They have consistently improved on winning designs and they dominate. I think the Eclipse is a badass looking plane. Its a tad bit too small and the avionics sucked. Stretch and widen and put in G3000 and up fit a couple of larger Williams fans and you're 90% on your way to a winner. Why am I wrong? You'll say the market has spoken, I know. The market can only speak about what's available. I'm saying the 5 or 6 manufactures for GA have brought the wrong products to market.
I posted more examples than just the Hondajet. M2? Phenom 100? Why did Pilatus spend a billion dollars developing the PC24?
Different target markets on really all of the planes you are mentioning. The reason Eclipse took off initially was because they had contracts for thousands of personal jets for under a million. They appealed to a lot more people. The difference in market between a $2M jet and a $4M jet isn't half its probably more like a 90% smaller market. That market is still there and its been consistently disappointed. I'm saying that with improvements in manufacturing, engines and avionics, Cirrus SHOULD have been able to take existing designs and radically improved them for less money than what it took to start from scratch with the SF50. I'm ready for the GA market to be wow'd by something. We need a "no brainer" product that appeals to a much larger section of GA and has every NEW A36, SR22, Baron and Meridian owner saying I CAN and WILL get one of those.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 13:01 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20395
Post Likes: +25544
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Different target markets on really all of the planes you are mentioning. . Don't you think Cirrus knows their target market? They've proven pretty good at selling airplanes in their market. Hint: it's not me or you or Mike C.
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 13:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1561
Post Likes: +1810
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: James I think you’re dancing around my question.
You haven’t posted a single example of a new twin engine jet design that has hit the market at a lower cost than a single. Name one.
You can’t even post a new twin jet they came to market lower priced then an existing twin jet. No, Eclipse is not an example. They went out of business.
Even the PC24 costs more than Phenom 300 and CJ4 I am not dancing around anything. I am bitching that Cirrus didn't take the opportunity to introduce a new twin engine jet design at a lower cost than a single. I cant name one because there isn't one and I am saying there should be. I am speculating that Cirrus could have invested the R&D and certification and additional engineering costs of the SF50, combined their existing and successful manufacturing infrastructure and produced a better VLJ than what currently exists that would have cost the same or less and outperformed the SF50. I wish they'd have done that instead of the toy jet with anemic performance.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 13:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/11
Posts: 868
Post Likes: +489
Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Different target markets on really all of the planes you are mentioning. . Don't you think Cirrus knows their target market? They've proven pretty good at selling airplanes in their market. Hint: it's not me or you or Mike C.
The problem with that strategy is that it’s a pretty shallow pool to pull from. Current SR owners that can also afford a jet and its associated costs? That moves up the pyramid pretty fast.
Cirrus could have and may build a twin jet, but there’s zero chance it will cost the same or less than their single.
Chip-
Last edited on 27 Dec 2018, 13:15, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
