Economics always wins out over policy. Since when do you do what the government tells you and not analyze?

That's not the way the market works. Aviation is full of folks trying to do things where there is no money, so if there is even a little bit to be made, competitors are all over it.

The cost of the SETPs are high because the price of their engines is very high, the cost of liability is very high, and the market is small. New in the box PT6A-66 or 67 series engine is $1.2M. In contrast, that will buy almost FOUR PW610Fs. Why? Big turboprops (especially the big block PT6) are simply expensive, but there is also liability because it is on a SINGLE.

When a company like Cessna looks at the SETP market (witness the technical demonstrator Mustang fuselage with a PT6 on the front), it usually comes out that the market is too small and the costs too high to be profitable. A twin jet is lower cost to build, more profit, and less liability. So that is what they do.

Mike C.

Exactly.

The FAA won't let you go much higher without showing redundancy in the pressurization system. FL410 is being a space ship and you need to be safe up there. Some of the most celebrated accidents have to do with altitude problems so the FAA is not about to be lenient in this area.

So if you are forced to fly low, then you are going at turboprop speeds burning MORE than jet fuel flows. Ouch! If you want to fly high, then you have to build some sort of crazy redundancy in the pressurization system which will be more complex and costly than simply hanging a second engine on the plane, especially since the second engine is half the size of the single engine you had before and will simplify your tail and engine mounting scheme.

Consider the recent TBM accident where the pilot suffered from hypoxia. He was only at FL280 when this occurred! Against that backdrop, the FAA is gong to be VERY reluctant to grant a high ceiling to an SEJ.

There are no advantages to being an SEJ over a TEJ. None. Zip. Nada. All the perceived advantages are piston think inappropriately applied to jets.

Mike C.

Sell? Yes.

Delivery? No.

If aviation was defined by what could be sold, it would look a lot different than it does today. For example, Moller flying car.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics, the realities of economics, and the regulatory environment of aviation determine what exists.

The SF50 is a crippled, gas guzzling, slow speed, short range, expensive toy. The only thing it is good for is to show off to others that you have a jet. A pilot who buys it for that reason alone is not somebody I want to fly with. If they have other reasons, they will buy something else more useful.

When the short range and low payload become apparent, the plane will either be an embarrassment to its owner when he has to explain to his non pilot friends that they can't come or he has to stop for fuel every hour, or he will fly overgross anyway, perhaps emboldened by knowing he has a chute, subjecting his friends to a risk they aren't aware of.

Mike C.

Speaking of gross weight, what's the limiting factor here? Stall speed?

Every extra pound of full fuel payload costs about 10 pounds of airplane at the scale of the SF50.

As you get heavier, need more engine power, larger chute, heavier brakes, heavier landing gear, stronger structure, bigger wing, larger tail, etc. Some things scale more than linearly with weight, and I be the chute is one of them. Some things scale less than linear. Avionics is an example.

Above 6,000 pounds, rules change, more requirements. This is why EA500, SF50 are pushing up against that number.

Then there is the 61 knot stall limitation, but others have gotten around that with ELOS for things like seat designs. But you can't go too far, maybe a few knots. I doubt you can get to 70 knots.

Mike C.

There are plenty of things that sell that make no sense. Especially in the luxury market. I couldnt be more certain that this plane will outsell all others in a huge spread up and down the scale. How many can they make a year? 500 or half that has to be years out.

Comparing the Moller to this plane backed by this company is spurious. Anyone who flies a MU is likely to be the polar opposite of an sf 50 buyer, but I assure you that while your analysis makes some sense, you are in the rarer category.

The market will decide, but I don't think that will be the case. This has been discussed fairly extensively over at COPA. Eclipse even went and made a chart showing the Eclipse's fuel efficiency benefit compared to the Cirrus Jet. AT 300 TAS the Eclipse is listed at 45 GPH while the Cirrus Jet is at 62.8 GPH. However its been brought up by several turbine drivers there that fuel costs are typically well under 50% of the operating costs of a jet. The Eclipse list price is 1 mil higher than the Cirrus Jet, plus the maintenance costs of keeping two turbines happy compared to one. The additional fuel burn here is probably a drop in the bucket. The Eclipse top speed is 40-50 knots faster, but again, everything is a trade off. That additional speed will likely come at the expense of additional acquisition and maintenance costs.

So you accept the bet.

We will know on 1/1/2018.

Mike C.

You don't know yet. It's not out. May have a higher ceiling than fl250

I don't care what "they are building". I care about "what's trading hands and at what price".

The price of a plane is directly related to its' utility. The used market is much more interesting and insightful to study as opposed to new. New market is somewhat skewed. There are other benefits to "new" besides utility.

You don't know yet. It's not out. May have a higher ceiling than fl250

Mike,

You want Jason to accept a bet with the loser never again posting again on this forum. You have been here for a few days. Jason has been on here for 7 years, has posted almost 14,000 times, and has some of the more interesting things to say on this site. Just saying...

But few require FAA certification. Cirrus is entering uncharted territory, the FAA has never certified an SEJ. If we know anything about the FAA, they don't do new things fast or easy. And then there's the fact that Cirrus has never certified a jet, much less a pressurized airplane, ever. The companies who HAVE done that STILL have troubling getting it done.

Again, "sell" is different than "deliver".


Thank you for that compliment.

The dream has been sold, now comes the reality. Will banks lend money for an SF50? Will there be affordable insurance for the owner operators? If the SR series is any indication, it will be expensive. Will there be sim training available? Who will do type ratings? What recurrency requirements will there be? What will the inspection program look like? Who can do it?

There is a whole infrastructure around operating an SF50 so it isn't JUST THE PILOT for which the airplane has to make sense.

Everything is beautiful now because the SF50 doesn't exist. Reality bites.

Mike C.

Here's a question: who the hell buys an airplane because the pax said so? Is that seriously what Cirrus drivers are leading with? Oh wait...it is, after all, an airplane with a parachute...never mind...

All kidding aside, does any body in here really have to buy their airplane based upon what someone else thinks?

Balls guys. Have some. Unless someone else is funding it or flying it, in which case, thank your lucky stars and do what the nice person says, lol.