The Chinese have lots of engineers, so I am sure they evaluated the SF50. The result, when they look at it from a business perspective, it makes sense. It may not make engineering sense, but it makes business sense (at least according to Cirrus).

In business, there is a concept of good enough. It does not have to be perfect, it does not have to be the best. It just has to win the marketplace. It can then be tuned and improved over time. Look at how the SR line changed. I am sure they will do the same thing with the SF50.

Tim

I think the the cirrus jet will sell mainly to recreational pilot types because it looks and sounds cool to them. Kind of like the Dr. who wants to buy a Yamaha R1, just to own one and be cool.

Ask the people that fly for a living if they would rather fly a twin or a single... or more specifically a mustang or cirrus single jet. Anybody want to bet on the results?

Yeah.... The $2.5MM "rec plane".

I don't think so.

Yeah.... The $2.5MM "rec plane".

I don't think so.

I think a 250-300kt 4 person small jet is perfect for many regional business trips.

Let's look at the SF50 conversation another way:

If:
a) I'm a business person or a successful individual and I want an airplane...
b) I want to go 250+ kts in pressurized comfort...
c) Need capability for 4 people plus some bags...
d) I want a new plane [yeah, I know, once you open up the used market there are a TON of options, but there are a large number of people who just want NEW, and they aren't reading BT].

What are my options?

Meridian - $2.2M?
TBM - $3.5?
Eclipse - $2.9?

If (and I'll grant you, it's a big if), Cirrus can deliver a JET around the same price as a the cheapest turboprop (Meridian), then there just isn't any competition.

I don't care if the engineers point out a ton of flaws in the product - If they hit a market niche and there's demand, they will sell them.

Robert

I think a 250-300kt 4 person small jet is perfect for many regional business trips.

Let's look at the SF50 conversation another way:

If:
a) I'm a business person or a successful individual and I want an airplane...
b) I want to go 250+ kts in pressurized comfort...
c) Need capability for 4 people plus some bags...
d) I want a new plane [yeah, I know, once you open up the used market there are a TON of options, but there are a large number of people who just want NEW, and they aren't reading BT].

What are my options?

Meridian - $2.2M?
TBM - $3.5?
Eclipse - $2.9?

If (and I'll grant you, it's a big if), Cirrus can deliver a JET around the same price as a the cheapest turboprop (Meridian), then there just isn't any competition.

I don't care if the engineers point out a ton of flaws in the product - If they hit a market niche and there's demand, they will sell them.

Robert

Would I rather drive an Eclipse 550 or the Cirrus SF50? The earlier..

But some peoples mission might make the SF50 perfectly viable.

It is true to an extent.

You need marketing and engineering to work together.


You seem to be saying an SEJ is a new idea, a new vision.

Well, it isn't.

There's a heap of dead projects dating to at least back to 1980 and those are only the ones announced publicly.

They didn't fail due to some technical problem, either. They failed because they don't make regulatory and performance sense.


Not versed in general aviation, especially in US certification rules and issues. Nothing is built in China under something as heavy as the FAA.


That's a bubble that will burst. The dream differs from reality.


Being a single is fundamental. That will forever cripple the airplane.

Mike C.

Jason:

You're in the beverage biz:

Nutritionally, is Red Bull the best energy drink on the market? I'm not in the beverage business, but I know it isn't.

If its not the most nutritious/effective/efficient energy drink on the market, why is it the market leader?

Mike, I made the analogy above to make a point. I've been fascinated by your posts. You're obviously smart as hell. I'm not an engineer. I live in a world of marketing and branding. I think you may ignore that aspect of Cirrus to your peril.

Honestly, the guy (Mike C) comes across as bit of a troll to me. He's made a lot of broad statements without any sort of supporting references or documentation other than "I know engineers". Even when a well respected insurance agent chimed in to say the Cirrus jet will likely be well received by insurers, that hasn't stopped Mike from saying that its going to be more expensive to insure because it only has one engine. Where does this information come from? To each his own. I'm getting close to hitting the ignore button on this thread just because of complete lack of anything resembling facts in it. Which is sad, because it started out as a great discussion.

A pilot is not your average gullible person, however, much more analytical that those buying energy drinks.

Or are you saying Cirrus pilots are that way? I didn't think so, but I could be wrong.

Mike C.

Again, do you have anything to back this up? I'm having difficulty getting there. See attached below. This is actually from Eclipse, trying to show that the Cirrus Jet is a gas guzzler compared to an Eclipse. So at 300 knots the Cirrus jet is burning an extra 17.8 gph. Say 5 dollars a gallon, that's an extra 86 bucks an hour. Well, if the extra 86 bucks an hour kills it for you, probably had no business looking at a jet in the first place. However I suspect what will happen is the maintenance cost on that extra jet engine is going to eat up that 86 dollars in cost savings and then a lot more. We will see, probably won't get real numbers until we see these airplanes in the wild. If you have better numbers, would love to see them.

[

I'm saying that technical data alone doesn't sell airplanes.

The extra fuel burn does other things.

It means more weight. Each hour you need 120 pounds more fuel. More fuel weight means less weight you can carry. You lose a whole person for a 1.5 hour flight, down 2 people for a 3 hour flight.

It means less range. You can only carry so much and you burn it faster. An extra fuel stop REALLY burns fuel in a jet.

The other thing you did was limit the Eclipse to the slow speed of the SF50. That's unfair. The Eclipse makes almost the same specific range going 343 knots versus 300 knots. So only an idiot would fly it at 300 knots if you can go 343 knots for the same fuel per mile.

This does three very useful things:

1. Faster is the whole reason to have a jet and this is faster. Duh.

2. You spend less time in the air so all the costs related to hours (such as maintenance and engine reserve) are less per mile.

3. If you fight a headwind, your speed and range advantage goes up. The Eclipse in a 43 knot headwind is going as fast as the SF50 in still air.

The ability to go to FL410 also saves fuel in allowing you to escape a punishing headwind at FL280 (winds tend to drop off above about FL350 or so) and perhaps get better routing (FL270/280 has minor congestion, non RVSM planes can't go higher).


With the increased speed, the EA500 saved on maintenance per mile for both jets AND everything else including the basic airframe.

There is almost no routine maintenance on a jet engine (piston think does not apply). So the dominant costs are engine reserve for HSI and OH. I think the PW610F is about $75/hour for that, so $150/hour engine reserve, or 43.7 cents per nm for an Eclipse.

I think the FJ33 will come in at about $110/hr for HSI and OH reserve. That works out to 36.7 cents per nm. Yes, a bit less. We're saving $0.07 per mile, $20/hour for the SF50.

Let's say airframe maintenance is $200/hour for both the Eclipse and SF50. That's 58.3 cents per nm for the Eclipse, and 66.7 cents per nm for the SF50. An extra cost of 8.3 cents per nm, or $25/hour more for the SF50.

We're down to $5/hour more the SF50, or so low that you can't measure it.

Now through in some headwind, some routing, the advantage starts to swing to the faster Eclipse.

Where's the advantage of the single?

You can't apply piston economic models to jets. Doesn't work!!!! Two jet engines CAN BE as cheap as one!


For the Cirrus, yes. No preliminary AFM performance section has been released. All we got are these cruise figures, and it remains to be seen if even those are achieved.

For the Eclipse, that's well known. There's an app for that.

Mike C.

Few SF50 buyers will be in a class where they don't care about what it costs to fly, so marketing alone won't seal the deal. You have to deliver capability for cost.

Mike C.