BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 15:39

Username Protected wrote:

@200hrs/yr, it's $333/hr.

Which program? Plus or Concierge?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 15:41

Username Protected wrote:

You would say the same for all the information present in classes in business school.

Laffer curve

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 15:44

Username Protected wrote:

In the real world, no new piston twin (Baron, Twin Comanche, Seneca) was ever cheaper than the equivalent single (Bonanza, Comanche, Saratoga).

Piston planes don't work like jets. The twins do not go appreciable higher, faster, or farther than the singles, and they need basically twice the total power to do it.

Quote:

No new PT6 twin was ever cheaper than the equivalent single.

Turboprops don't either. The SETP goes as high and as fast as a twin.

Quote:

New quad jets are more expensive than twin jets even on the same airframe (A340 vs A330).

Not a single versus twin issue.

In ALL of the above examples, the extra engines did not allow access to higher, more efficient altitudes.

For a twin jet versus a single, the two engines DO allow higher altitudes.

That's the big difference. So all of your examples are off point.

Two engines is the ticket to higher more efficient altitudes. The SF50 doesn't have it, so it is stuck being a turboprop in jet clothing.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 16:05

Username Protected wrote:

@200hrs/yr, it's $333/hr.

Which program? Plus or Concierge?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 16:15

Round and round and round and round we go
Where we're gonna stop nobody knows
:dance:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/uSZKDdH_t4A[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 17:13

Username Protected wrote:

You can call it an "assumption", but building twice as many smaller things does cost way less per unit, and that is borne out by industry every day.

Mike C.

The per unit price might be lower but that does not matter. The key metric is the per plane price. Is one larger jet engine cheaper than two small ones?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 18:06

Mike if they had made the SF-50 with a single turboprop engine in it, would you change your opinion of it? Could they have gotten 300 kts out of it?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 20:29

Username Protected wrote:

In ALL of the above examples, the extra engines did not allow access to higher, more efficient altitudes.

Mike, you've made two separate points:
1) Due to certification requirements, a twin jet can more efficiently use higher altitudes. No argument there, I agree. But that's not what I was addressing.
2) A twin jet would be cheaper to make than a single jet. That's where we disagree and what every one of my data points above addressed. In response you have provided not a single data point outside of Eclipse.
No question, a twin jet would be better than a single jet, for some interpretation of "better". But it would cost more, both to buy and to run, according to Conklin & de Decker.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 21:10

Username Protected wrote:

Mike if they had made the SF-50 with a single turboprop engine in it, would you change your opinion of it? Could they have gotten 300 kts out of it?

Lear Fan?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 21:15

Lear Avia Fan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2019, 01:25

Username Protected wrote:

Mike if they had made the SF-50 with a single turboprop engine in it, would you change your opinion of it?

Yes, because it is achieving good performance for its type, not sucky performance for its type, and because you wouldn't need a type rating, or an inspection program to operate the plane. It would also have far better runway performance, and be more controllable in speed for transitioning piston pilots. It would cost a lot less to operate.

Quote:

Could they have gotten 300 kts out of it?

TBM did, so possibly. Certainly should reach PC-12 or M600 speeds of 260-270 knots.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2019, 01:28

Username Protected wrote:

2) A twin jet would be cheaper to make than a single jet.

I don't think I claimed cheaper. I claimed similar.

It would have certainly been cheaper to design a twin.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2019, 01:36

Username Protected wrote:

Concierge

One wonders how much of this is Williams money, and if this represents an introductory offer by Williams (which they have done in the past for some types).

It is easy to have a reduced rate at the start for both the engine and airframe, all the parts are new. It will be interesting to see how this pricing changes over time.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2019, 03:43

Username Protected wrote:

Give me a twin TF50, no chute, and that airplane is safer than the SF50. No doubt in my mind about that. And then, as a bonus, it is also faster, farther, and cheaper.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2019, 05:29

above post is here
viewtopic.php?p=1304162#p1304162

Cirrus SF50