Cirrus set the $1.39M price tag in Sept 2009. Virtually all depositors are in at that price (as evidenced that every position for sale, even into the high 300s, advertises that price).

Cirrus new price is $1.96M and is based on CPI from July 2012.

CPI-W from Sept 2009 to July 2012 was only 6.7% rise.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html

1.39M + 6.7% is $1.48M.

Thus the price increase is almost all actual value, not inflation.

Since sales essentially stopped at the new price point, one is forced to conclude the old price point is not profitable due to high manufacture costs, and the new isn't either due to lack of sales. If the old price was profitable, then Cirrus would use it and not drive away sales.

Mike C.

I ve lost track about what you guys are arguing about.
A new jet at a sub $2 mil price point by one of the largest GA planes OEM in busuness sounds attractive to me.
Even with all its limitations.

Mike,

I thought it was 2006, not 2009. The majority of the inflation was in the first couple of years.

Tim

The $1.39M price was announce 9/2/2009 and based on 2009 dollars:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ci ... 098-1.html

All prices are in 2009 dollars

Prices then escalated quickly, $1.55M, then $1.72M, now $1.96M.

I'm not sure what the depositors were told prior to the 2009 price setting, but it was less. This is perhaps the best reference I can find on that:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ci ... 336-1.html

The base price for the jet, now at about $1 million, is sure to change by the time it reaches the market, which will be sometime after 2011 or 2012, but Klapmeier said he hopes to keep the price in that general ballpark. "We can't predict inflation, and we don't know yet when we will be done," he said, so he can't be more precise about what the ultimate market price will be.

So in December 2008 it was "$1M", sort of.

So basically in a little more than a year, prices went from "about $1M" to $1.72M. In 2012, it jumped to $1.96M, but in 2012 dollars.

All the positions that are for sale are the $1.39M price point, in 2009 dollars.

Mike C.

A new jet at the same price point but not crippled sounds even better.

The issue is not that you can't build an SEJ, it is that it is much better to build a twin jet because it opens up altitude, speed, range, safety, and economy that the single can't match.

Mike C.

Is CAA in JetFuelX?

With all due respect I think you guys are missing the mission envelope. If I'm the guy who buys a new SR22 every 3-4 years or the fractional share companies who roll their fleets every 3 years - I'm looking for something to make my 1 to 3 hour flights shorter and all the time looking cool and burning Jet-A. I don't need to climb to the stratosphere to make a 300-500 mile trip and I sure don't want the hassle of a bigger hangar, multiple engines to service - the SEJ seems like a logical next step and I will get pressurization...

I believe Cirrus is more on the Apple iPhone marketing trajectory - do the hipsters need a new iPhone every year - nope, the old ones are pretty good. Following along the legacy jet theory I could go buy a used iPhone for $ 50.00 and it would work just fine. Many people don't upgrade until forced to, however lots upgrade every time they can logic and cost be damned. These are the folks that will buy these jets...

I believe many people are underestimating Cirrus' brand loyalty and strategy.

Peace,
Don

Yep. The guy who built my house bought a new Bonanza every year for probably 20 years, put 50-100 hours on it and sold it. Why? Because he could. All this drivel on this thread about why the jet doesn't make sense and those posting that have missed the larger point that their arguments are irrelevant.

What difference does it make if it's a jet or a turboprop?

Ok, after 163 pages I think you convinced us all that SF50 would be a better jet (in terms of performance) as a twin than it is as a single. You did NOT convince us that it could be made for the same price as a twin, or that it won't be a commercial success in its present form.

Speak for yourself, I'm convinced. I wish them success but this jet is going to live in no mans land. A SETP with a chute makes more sense.

Sorry Adam, but this would be in direct violation of the Pilot's Official Code of Conduct and I'm pretty sure is grounds for getting kicked off BT as it would result in a massive drop in BT posts, in turn causing ad revenue to dry up.

Type rating not indicated for the person being described.

It is a JET. A JET requires COMMITMENT. Making it a single doesn't change that.

All the time you save in the SF50 will be used in the extra training required, particularly for your short flights. You are better off in the SR22.

BTW: Twin jet can fit same hangar. EA500 wingspan is LESS than SF50.

BTW: Multiple engines to service is no big deal, there's nothing to do, not like a piston engine at all.

Mike C.

It is my experience in the Cirrus world that commitment to training is not intimidating.

Several go to 3 day CPPP courses each year (next one in Houston in Oct. for me); have an IPC every 6 months (did mine yesterday), and throw in an ADM weekend course every now and then.

Type rating seems compatible with that level of commitment. The training will be more intense, particularly in the sim.

Mike C.