25 Dec 2025, 04:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 10:27 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
an example of a flight control part acting up, then figuring it out https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cy-366730/Quote: NTSB investigators later found the aircraft's outermost hydraulically actuated spoiler on the right side would not fully retract unless a spoiler "hold-down switch" was activated, a deflection that would cause a roll to the right in flight. The roll spoilers, one on either side of the aircraft, are used to augment the ailerons for roll control. looks like the sf50 engine is a 1 plane model deal.. & it was slim pickings as far as even sourcing a suitable engine
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 10:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I believe he also hates sentences. However, he is a big fan of the URL. not really but.. Parlez-vous français?
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:17 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 04/16/12
Posts: 7461
Post Likes: +14339
Location: Keller, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: '68 36 (E-19)
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Far from being a threat, the SF50 is a gateway drug to real jets. The SF50 is not stealing a single sale from any of those, but creating a new potential customer base.
Mike C.
If I were a long term Chinese investor, not overly restricted by US ROI constraints, and looking to one day command market share in jets, I might take to the idea of financing a gateway product that builds a loyal, addicted customer base that will buy my future "real" jet. Too bad this doesn't fit the Cirrus situation. 
_________________
Things are rarely what they seem, but they're always exactly what they are.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: http://twinandturbine.com/article/cirrus-vision-jet/ Quote: Below the jet’s ruddervator tail is the aircraft’s yaw stability augmentation system that comprises of two small surfaces on the aft end of the strakes. From the runway to 200 feet AGL, the surfaces automatically provide provides a “weak” yaw damp. After 200 feet, the yaw damp kicks in with more force. hmmm.... Quote: The Vision Jet will feel familiar to SR pilots with throttle, sidestick, flaps and switches in similar locations. The Garmin Perspective integrated flight deck offers a plethora of workload-saving and safety features. The panoramic windscreen is among the best in the owner-flown turbine category. plethora ..hmmmm plethora of workload-saving and safety features? details pls? edited part - sounds like you could just sit there & pick your nose 
_________________
nightwatch...
Last edited on 08 Jan 2019, 11:44, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:30 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The longer this thread goes on, the less I think jet prices are connected to costs.
For example, Cessna dropping the M2 prices when Mustang production ended.
I think Cessna and the others just charge what the market will bear to maximize profits. This was the model that allowed TBM and Pilatus to effectively create the SETP market.
Tim Ya think? Wow, you engineer types are genius.... ha. Why would one maximize profits when one could just sell something for a % of cost?
Toyota for decades maximized market share, as long as a product was priced above cost, management did not adjust price. As you know, a company has many choices when pricing a product.
It seems interesting to me that pretty much all the aircraft manufactures have chosen the same priority; in most industries you get some variations between companies.
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So the fact that Cessna has never built a single engine jet is largely meaningless Cessna (and every other jet maker) never built an SEJ because they know it isn't a viable product. Far from being a threat, the SF50 is a gateway drug to real jets. The SF50 is not stealing a single sale from any of those, but creating a new potential customer base. Mike C.
In business, viable is defined as profitable. It is not defined by regulations, or engineering wisdom. The only way we can perceive the answer to this question if the Sf50 is viable is if the SF50 stays in production for some period of time, and continues to generate new sales at a higher cost point which we assume is sustainable.
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Parlez-vous français? très peu, je prends des cours de français. Ma femme est francais. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Parlez-vous français? très peu, je prends des cours de français. Ma femme est francais. Tim
lucky u 
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 11:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Far from being a threat, the SF50 is a gateway drug to real jets. The SF50 is not stealing a single sale from any of those, but creating a new potential customer base.
Mike C.
If I were a long term Chinese investor, not overly restricted by US ROI constraints, and looking to one day command market share in jets, I might take to the idea of financing a gateway product that builds a loyal, addicted customer base that will buy my future "real" jet. Too bad this doesn't fit the Cirrus situation.
ummm, i'll pass ..for now
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:01 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It seems interesting to me that pretty much all the aircraft manufactures have chosen the same priority;.
Tim Have they? How do you know?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
The longer this thread goes on, the less I think jet prices are connected to costs.
For example, Cessna dropping the M2 prices when Mustang production ended.
I think Cessna and the others just charge what the market will bear to maximize profits. This was the model that allowed TBM and Pilatus to effectively create the SETP market.
Tim tbm & pilatus have been on the money for so long in that segment that the only question is wtf ???
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20978
Post Likes: +26453
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I do know people that would have moved into a SETP or a new or used light jet if the SF50 didn't pop up. So they flew an SR for 12 years waiting for an SF50 when they could have been flying an SETP or light jet? Odd behavior. Quote: Personally, I think the more people that get into turbines the better. Turbines are safer, more capable, fly more, and support the GA infrastructure better. i.e: brings more money into the system. Exactly, so why stay with an SR for 12 years after signing the contract? In other words, I question the "SF50 is for people who would have bought an SETP or light jet" theory. If that was true, they would have done it already. I think the SF50 is for people who want to buy a Cirrus anything and will wait until whatever it is can be delivered. The SF50 "market" was 12 years ago. Does it still exist today? Seems doubtful to me. I think they have run out of SR owners with enough cash to step up, but who haven't done so already by other means, and are willing to wait many years. That's a small number of people to be your market. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20978
Post Likes: +26453
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In business, viable is defined as profitable. It is not defined by regulations, or engineering wisdom. It is because a product that is crippled by regulations or faulty engineering will be unprofitable. Otherwise, where are all the flying cars? Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The SF50 "market" was 12 years ago. Does it still exist today?
Mike C. who cares, patience is a virtue
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 12:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4034
Post Likes: +2050
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In business, viable is defined as profitable. It is not defined by regulations, or engineering wisdom. It is because a product that is crippled by regulations or faulty engineering will be unprofitable. Otherwise, where are all the flying cars? Mike C.
last ra ra ended up flipping a taxi test..
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
