BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2018, 22:29

Username Protected wrote:

I fly over the Honda jet factory a couple of times a week. We have steadily watched them park more planes on the ramp over the last few months. Last week I counted 18 that look ready for delivery, up from 2 or 3 in the spring.

Are you sure those aren't the ones flown back for warranty repair? :hide:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2018, 22:37

Username Protected wrote:

total SF50's 41 units
total of the others 51 units
pretty impressive failure. I wish all my failures were that good.

So, are there folks on here that think they are losing money on each unit and making up for it with volume? :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2018, 22:39

Username Protected wrote:

total SF50's 41 units
total of the others 51 units
pretty impressive failure. I wish all my failures were that good.

So, are there folks on here that think they are losing money on each unit and making up for it with volume? :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2018, 22:48

Username Protected wrote:

Here's the through 3rd quarter 2018 GAMA report.... found it:
https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/20 ... rtQ3-1.pdf

SF50 41 units
M2 22 units
Phenom one hundred 8 units
Hondajet 21 units
Eclipse 0 units

SF50 is far more successful than the other mini jets in 2018 and has been around the least amount of time.

Units? Yes. Revenue?
Cirrus: 41 units @ $1.5mm = $61 MM
Cessna M2: 22 units @ $4.2mm = $92.4 mm

Margin? Unknowable, but reasonable to believe that Cessna has more margin in its mature product than does Cirrus with its early adopter pricing.

I’d say Cessna wins this one. At least for the period you quote.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 01:41

Username Protected wrote:

For the accidents (and one attempted homicide) you cited, the presence of a second engine did not provide for any additional safety.

Correct. However, there is evidence in the absence.

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.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 02:54

Username Protected wrote:

For the accidents (and one attempted homicide) you cited, the presence of a second engine did not provide for any additional safety.

Correct. However, there is evidence in the absence.

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.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 08:29

Username Protected wrote:

I knew they would get it and that the SF50 would sell huge but the bet MC proposed had too much "when" in it. Government moves slow. There was no way to know.

The post still proves how bizarre the predictions in this thread are. It's a great "life data point" for me.

It was impressive that may missed by as little as they did on such a clean sheet design.

Someone said earlier that they had a neighbor (?) that couldn’t get a demo flight. If you fly a Cirrus, or hang around COPA much, it’s pretty easy. We had a regional fly in (no bigger than our old Texas BT lunch gatherings) at Boerne (5C1 - small airport) and Cirrus brought a Vision out and giving demo rides to anyone that wanted one.

The jet may or may not be genius. The marketing is. Coming from an SR, it feels right at home. Other planes more capable for the same money? Sure. MX same? That would surprise me. But transitioning to a jet that already feels familiar is weird in a really good way.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 08:33

Username Protected wrote:

Units? Yes. Revenue?
Cirrus: 41 units @ $1.5mm = $61 MM
Cessna M2: 22 units @ $4.2mm = $92.4 mm

Margin? Unknowable, but reasonable to believe that Cessna has more margin in its mature product than does Cirrus with its early adopter pricing.

I’d say Cessna wins this one. At least for the period you quote.

That's not the point of my post. The point is “trend”. MC has repeatedly claimed that Cirrus should have built a 2 engine jet. I respond with “why, there are lots of 2 engine mini jets on the market and they don’t sell well”. Turns out the SF50 is out selling all of them and growing. Let’s see how it looks with a full year of numbers. You’re criticizing the last 9 months of numbers. That’s not total deliveries. Deliveries began in 2017

But to entertain your changing the subject.......

Why are you assuming $1.5MM per unit? And yes, an SF50 costs a lot less to manufacture than an M2. I prefer profit to revenue.

Cirrus delivered 22 SF50's in 2017
https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 082018.pdf

So 22+41=63 total deliveries of SF50.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 08:35

Username Protected wrote:

But transitioning to a jet that already feels familiar is weird in a really good way.

Moving from a 421C to a legacy Citation was simple. Switches and panel laid out the same. Systems very similar. Wing flies the same.

It is a huge selling point. Fitting in your existing hangar is major too for many places around the country. Brilliant.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 09:19

I’m giving him (guy w new cirrus jet coming) the baron price for a hangar spot....it’s baron sized. One could argue liability is higher for me (hangar owner) but I don’t like getting twin charges ‘just cause’.... I’m not going to do that to him. He bought a smaller aircraft, he should benefit from it where applicable.
The Pilatus leaving has a lot fewer hangar choices on this field...small jet has many. Some of the factors...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 12:11

It will be interesting to see the size this segment becomes. There really aren’t any historical trends to compare to. It’s kind of like when Chrysler created the minivan. Nobody had done it before. After five years, will the single engine jet market still grow, or will it flatten out?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 14:10

I wish Jason would sell his PC12 and get a SF50 so we can all get day by day real life reporting. He's been one of the biggest advocates for the type so how about he takes one for the team.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 14:20

Username Protected wrote:

I wish Jason would sell his PC12 and get a SF50 so we can all get day by day real life reporting. He's been one of the biggest advocates for the type so how about he takes one for the team.

I'm not an advocate for the type. For years BT has wanted a pressurized, turbine Bonanza that ran on JetA. The SF50 is it. Sorry it's not $300K but no airplane is so.......

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 14:54

Username Protected wrote:

...pressurized, turbine Bonanza that ran on JetA. The SF50 is it.

I don't think that's even close....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 15:00

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not an advocate for the type. For years BT has wanted a pressurized, turbine Bonanza that ran on JetA. The SF50 is it. Sorry it's not $300K but no airplane is so.......

Jason pretty much nails it here. It burns more gas than the hypothetical T-36P, but it's priced right in line with what Beech would have charged.. and, come on.. what aviation thing doesn't burn more gas?

What we really want is for Beech to have made T-36Ps back in the 1960s so they could be bought now for 1/10 of the new price.

Cirrus SF50