BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 17:18

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, 17:55

Username Protected wrote:

[

I said: units, yes. revenue, no. We can both be correct, you know.

What's the revenue for SF50's Cirrus sold?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2018, 22:44

Username Protected wrote:

I caught the elevosrate, but had to google covefefe.

I had to google both. Plus Luc's snooty coffee maker. I feel smarter, but more like a hick than ever....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 00:35

Username Protected wrote:

You are drawing negative conclusions from a sample size of 5.

That's called an opinion.

Don't be lazy, find counter examples instead of finding comfort in not knowing.

I think you will find this year is not exceptional in the lack of private jet accidents where a chute would have helped.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 00:53

The chute is a sales tool to help a guy make his trophy wife feel good about the small airplane thing... When the old rich guy has a heart attack, his wife is trained to pull the throttle to idle, press the blue level button, and when the speed shows real slow just pull the red handle. She and the kids walk away and two weeks later she's dating her personal trainer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 01:07

Username Protected wrote:

The chute is a sales tool to help a guy make his trophy wife feel good about the small airplane thing... When the old rich guy has a heart attack, his wife is trained to pull the throttle to idle, press the blue level button, and when the speed shows real slow just pull the red handle. She and the kids walk away and two weeks later she's dating her personal trainer.

So far, zero such cases in the entire history of Cirrus. 7 million flights hours and counting.

Not clear what the personal trainers feel about this, however.

The SF50 chute is like a tiny 2.5 lbs fire extinguisher in a house made of straw bales. It may make you feel more secure about a fire, but when the fire happens, it isn't going to make much difference.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 02:00

Username Protected wrote:

The chute is a sales tool to help a guy make his trophy wife feel good about the small airplane thing... When the old rich guy has a heart attack, his wife is trained to pull the throttle to idle, press the blue level button, and when the speed shows real slow just pull the red handle. She and the kids walk away and two weeks later she's dating her personal trainer.

Priceless. BT quote of the year right there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 06:23

Username Protected wrote:

The chute is a sales tool to help a guy make his trophy wife feel good about the small airplane thing... When the old rich guy has a heart attack, his wife is trained to pull the throttle to idle, press the blue level button, and when the speed shows real slow just pull the red handle. She and the kids walk away and two weeks later she's dating her personal trainer.

So far, zero such cases in the entire history of Cirrus. 7 million flights hours and counting.

Not clear what the personal trainers feel about this, however.

The SF50 chute is like a tiny 2.5 lbs fire extinguisher in a house made of straw bales. It may make you feel more secure about a fire, but when the fire happens, it isn't going to make much difference.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 08:04

I’ll bite - without

The chute comes with cost/complexity/upkeep/payload tradeoffs I’d rather not make. the tbm/pc12 safety record is superb and something similar is fine by me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 08:11

Did our grandfathers feel the same way about seatbelts in cars....
Did our dads have the same conversations about airbags.....

My generation has brought us crappy gas cans and parachutes in planes....

Peace,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 08:31

Username Protected wrote:

It is too bad we don't have visibility into the OEM costs here, but I believe this isn't true.

That is, buying one FJ33 from Williams is about the same price as buying two PW610F from PWC. Williams has to price in added liability as an engine failure in a single is far more liability than in a twin. Further, it would be using an already developed engine on the shelf instead of a custom unique one with low volume expectations.

The near equal cost is particularly true when you consider the additional costs for being an SEJ including extra development time, the chute, and all the V tail control mechanisms (such as the dual yaw dampers).

In the end, total dollars in and out, Cirrus would be ahead if the SF50 was a twin. They would also sell more of them which amortizes the development costs over more units.

Mike C.

Still waiting on an answer to this mind bender.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 10:22

Username Protected wrote:

It is too bad we don't have visibility into the OEM costs here, but I believe this isn't true.

That is, buying one FJ33 from Williams is about the same price as buying two PW610F from PWC. Williams has to price in added liability as an engine failure in a single is far more liability than in a twin. Further, it would be using an already developed engine on the shelf instead of a custom unique one with low volume expectations.

The near equal cost is particularly true when you consider the additional costs for being an SEJ including extra development time, the chute, and all the V tail control mechanisms (such as the dual yaw dampers).

In the end, total dollars in and out, Cirrus would be ahead if the SF50 was a twin. They would also sell more of them which amortizes the development costs over more units.

Mike C.

Still waiting on an answer to this mind bender.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 11:46

Username Protected wrote:

With all else being equal, would you rather have (A) a single-engine jet with a parachute OR (B) a single-engine jet without a parachute? Straight-up question: A or B; no deflection or zig-zagging.

Based on the experience with SETPs, I would take a turbofan without a chute. A couple of Caravan pilots have lost their life over the years in SETP crashes after engine failure, most of those were parcel haulers at night. Given the millions of hours those fleets have racked up, the risk seems rather modest.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 12:01

Username Protected wrote:

With all else being equal, would you rather have (A) a single-engine jet with a parachute OR (B) a single-engine jet without a parachute? Straight-up question: A or B; no deflection or zig-zagging.

Definitely without. I don’t like the idea of my wife hooking up with her personal trainer!

Seriously though, an airframe chute on a turbojet doesn’t make sense to me. It’s nothing more than useless weight and added maintenance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 12:39

Unlike others here, I expect to fly till I am unable.
As a result of this mentality, I expect the chance that I have an inflight medical event which prevents me from adequately flying the jet is greater than the turbofan experiencing a failure.

Yeah, yeah, I know this has not happened yet (where pilot pulled due to medical incapacitation). However, the baby bombers are just starting to get to the age where the odds are increasing for some type of incapacitating event; and with BasicMed allowing more of them to stay in the air, the odds are increasing the likely occurrence of these types of events.

The reason I would want the the chute, is less concern about me, more about the people on the ground. Ideally, I would want a fairly bright system with auto-descent and land if pilot fails to land. If unable to land, pull the chute and save the people on the ground.

Tim

Cirrus SF50