BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 16:15

Username Protected wrote:

The order book growth had basically stopped

You don’t know that.

Quote:

...so the extra $1M cost isn't going to hurt new sales, there aren't many of those anyway

You don’t know that.

You keep saying this like it’s fact, but it’s (biased) opinion.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 16:30

Username Protected wrote:

The order book growth had basically stopped

You don’t know that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 16:38

Username Protected wrote:

Demand is from 12 years ago. Demand today? Hmmm.

Clear the order book, bring the SF50 G2 to market today at $2.38 to 2.75M. Would demand outstrip production of ~80 aircraft/year?

Highly doubt that. Eclipse couldn't sell more than a handful of EA550s at $3M.

Unless you know how many orders Cirrus is booking for both models you’re guessing at demand based on the likelihood of Mike Ciholas ordering one today.

Extreme extrapolation which seems to be your go to...

Quote:

Yeah, and the moon landing didn't happen either.

So you stand by your “Mike logic” that manufacturers never increase prices to capture more profit but only to offset earlier losses.

Quote:

It's a great strategy for Cirrus. Instead of selling a bunch of airplanes below cost, bump the price up nearly a $1M, make the long suffering depositors pay that.

Again, you assume your biased opinion is actually acknowledged fact.
It’s easy to debate when you get to cite opinions as facts.

Quote:

The order book growth had basically stopped, so the extra $1M cost isn't going to hurt new sales, there aren't many of those anyway, so turn to the one source of revenue you got, the depositors.

Has Cirrus published their order book or is this another guess?

Quote:

Now Cirrus will make maybe 300-400 SF50, the order book will shrink a bit, but the planes will now be profitable. When the order book comes to the end, the line will slow down, and then, maybe, they will build a twin. It will probably be a pretty nice airplane when they do it.

Assuming your wild ass guesses are valid how many airplanes have to be built to be considered “successful” under the Mike C paradigm?

Quote:

Cirrus is doing what they need to do to survive. Building SF50s below cost is a death sentence, ask Eclipse about that.

Mike C.

Again, you present your assumptions on cost and profit as unchallenged fact. They’re not.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 16:40

Username Protected wrote:

4 wk transition to jet pilot
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -jet-pilot

Waited 5003 days to get it, 28 days to learn to fly it, and it is already obsolete.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 17:16

Username Protected wrote:

Does this mean that I can get a used G1 at a bargain basement price? Where’s the ramp appeal in that?

Hint: they look exactly the same on the ramp.

Wonder if Cirrus will issue an SB to give older SNs the FL310 ceiling? They wouldn't do that right away, of course, got to protect the G2 advantages.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 17:37

Username Protected wrote:

4 wk transition to jet pilot
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -jet-pilot

Waited 5003 days to get it, 28 days to learn to fly it, and it is already obsolete.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 17:39

sounds like a call me call me game & the 'active market in delivery position' info is where?
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -jet-pilo

Quote:

With about 600 customers in line to get a Cirrus Jet, Jolley says there is an active market in delivery positions now that the aircraft is certified and proven successful. "I was offered a good sum of money for my early delivery position, which was 24. The lowest position currently for sale is 61."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 17:45

If I wasn’t so interested in this airplane, I would have ignored this topic a long time ago.
Mike’s non factual assumptions drive me bonkers.
Airplane manufacturing is and will always be a small volume business.
You need to be able to do it successfully at 200 or 300 units or even less.
Cirrus is extremely successful. Sorry Mike.
Somehow, our $650 million company has managed to survive for over 60 years on volumes of 30 or 50 per year on some of our products. It can be done Mike. And yes, we are profitable.
Cirrus’ product plans and releases are text book.

Attend a COPA meeting Mike, and you will see for yourself. You and I are not the intended audience.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 18:29

Username Protected wrote:

easy to tune out folks or stuff that may not appeal

Dude, what are you trying to say?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 19:03

Lets call the SF50 what it really is....Global Hawk. The resemblance is uncanny

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 19:04

Although the autothrottle on the G2 is billed as an "enhancement", I don't see it that way.
Many of the owner-pilots come out of the piston segment. The G2 has a full capability avionics suite to fly the plane; use of the autothrottle can lure the pilot into a detachment from flying the airplane.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the jet, but it's about as likely as me buying a space shuttle.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 19:45

Username Protected wrote:

Tiny bit if you are talking gross weight performance. In the real world, the M600 almost never flies at gross weight with 2400 lb useful load just don't need that much fuel, whereas the M500 spends more time at GW. A light M600 handily outperforms an M500. Lightly loaded the M600 has a higher HP to weight ratio than an Extra 300

Chuck, would you be so kind as to check your POH for what the Takeoff - Ground Roll distance, and Over-50' Obstacle distance of a M600 is at sea level on a zero wind, ISA day with 1,600 pounds of people and fuel on board (useful load of a Meridian)?

I really wish I could find a PDF of the M600 POH.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 20:12

Username Protected wrote:

Although the autothrottle on the G2 is billed as an "enhancement", I don't see it that way.
Many of the owner-pilots come out of the piston segment. The G2 has a full capability avionics suite to fly the plane; use of the autothrottle can lure the pilot into a detachment from flying the airplane.

I have a similar worry.

The main point expressed in the video presentation posted earlier by the SF50 pilot was learning how to handle speed management. This is hard for a piston pilot because a prop plane slows down when you take power out. A jet doesn't, at least not quickly. It takes a while to get this right so you can do it naturally and without significant attention while you attend to other flying chores.

Now give this new pilots autothrottle. They are going to use it essentially all the time and become so automation dependent that should they need to hand throttle, it will be a problem just like the autopilot cripples who can't hand fly. The thrust lever in a turbine airplane is a MAJOR flight control, far more so than in a piston airplane. It would be best if the pilot flies the plane without AT for a good period of time before they start to use it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2019, 20:27

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus is extremely successful. Sorry Mike.

Is that why Cirrus, after spending so much on SF50 development, stopped paying rent, was said to be close to bankruptcy, and eventually sold to the Chinese?

Man, I sure hope I'm never "extremely successful" like Cirrus.

Mike C.