The twin Cirrus could have built instead of the SF50.

Mike C.

Well, being a slow jet, I'd expect SF50 to have a more forgiving wing and better flying characteristics for slow maneuvering in the pattern - something Cirrus pilots seem to need help with. But more importantly, we are talking about PERCEPTION here, not so much the reality. SF50 has that Goldilocks effect - not too big, not too small, not too slow, not too fast - just right.


You are confusing your posters here - I never said anything about TEB to PDK (even though SF50 would handle that just fine), this was JC's argument. I was saying SF50 is a great plane for TEB to ACK.



They made the announcement about "low and slow" back in 2006, before they even started building anything. So it certainly sounds like a deliberate decision rather than putting on a good face.

You may have a good argument that in reality it isn't all that much simpler, but again - perception is what matters when you are trying to make a sale.

I think everyone's debating the wrong question. What I want to know is how you guys running your own companies, obviously successfully as you're flying turbines and jets, are finding the time to continuously engage on such mindless, pointless discussions?

Sold my company. Now working for someone else; so I only have a single task (to launch a new ecommerce product). So while I wait for the build process to run, I check BT, FB, Lightroom Forums...

Tim (who did not make it to the turbine level, but sold out anyway)

It's a great way to postpone working on this spreadsheet I've been dreading all day.

It's a great way to postpone working on this spreadsheet I've been dreading all day.

The twin Cirrus could have built instead of the SF50.

Mike C.

We're all on BT because all our friends are at work. HA.

Isn't this the sunk cost fallacy? Isn't it instead true that Williams would price an already developed engine wherever they would make the most money back? If amortizing all of their sunk costs into the engine pricing loses the design win customer, then they will be even worse off. It wouldn't surprise me if Williams were working hard to keep that design win.

Have all their development costs been paid back? 540 engines is only 270 engine pairs.

Per engine, yes, but not per airplane customer. The twin customer pays those costs twice, so the supposed "twin" discount isn't real.

Do you think the FJ33 engine was designed only for Cirrus, or did Cirrus competitively shop for a supplier that was willing to help them become an engine customer?

Which subject will you not need to train for? Pressurization (high altitude sign off required), and all its attendant failures? Speed? Deice/anti-ice? Weather decision making? Systems, like landing gear, pressurization, engine, avionics/autopilot, environmental, electrical? These are all systems that the airplane will have, so do you think the training will be significantly less than any other airplane operating in that environment with those systems?

Slow relative to its peers doesn't mean it really changes the complexity of training that will be required. All the topics are basically still the same.

RVSM is a whole 'nother (much harrier) animal.

See FAR 61.31(g).

Same way you find time to read it.

Mike C.

Hire someone to do the spreadsheets for you...

And selling it for the same price as the SF50!

Most owners got theirs for around $1.4M.

That killed Eclipse. The faster they made them, the more money they lost.

Almost all of the SF50 depositors are at the $1.4M price point, too, at least into the high 300s delivery position as advertised on controller.com.

Remains to be seen if Cirrus can survive that. There is likely zero profit, perhaps a loss, on each SF-50 at that price, hence the price today of over $2M.

Cirrus can build a twin cheaper than Eclipse can build a twin. Cirrus at least knows airframe manufacturing, and Eclipse didn't have a clue about that. Also, vendors will extend better terms to an established player than a startup. Cirrus can probably buy PW610Fs for much less than Eclipse paid. The engine vendors make so much money on the engine programs and maintenance after the sale that they can sell engines at cost to OEMs. That's long term revenue that is far more stable than new aircraft sales.

Mike C.

Same way you find time to read it.

Mike C.