BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

Do you think it needs one? It would only need one if the flight controls are hydraulic. I kinda doubt they are.

I was responding to the previous comments about RATS.

RATS also supply electrics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 15:04

Username Protected wrote:

Everyone who doesn't drink your Kool-Aid is now low information? Nice.

"majority of the population we don't make decisions like an engineer."

"those buyers will be concerned about "perception"."

"I do care about how they make me feel...."

"People buy houses, cars, boats and airplanes with their heart."

"My spouse is incapable of understanding any logical argument"

"That is more of an emotional decision then an economic one."

"[Luxury] is impervious to downturns, price or even logic. Cirrus is a luxury goods manufacturer just like Hublot or Louis Vuitton."

This paints a picture of the SF50 buyer as an emotionally driven choice, not one based on information.

You can criticize me for saying it, but my comment just summarizes what was said before by others in a clear way, and those are the folks who favor the SF50.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 15:30

Username Protected wrote:

Tell me again why my fellow aviators are blatantly insulting other people who are interested in aviation for their taste in aircraft that they are purchasing with their own money.

Is the hondajet a better plane than the SF50? Probably. Does that make the people buying the SF50 "low information?" Hardly. Does that make the SF50 a bad plane? Nope. It means they are richer than you, doing as they please with their money and you're simply jealous.

Cirrus is a good company that, quite frankly, is the adrenaline shot to American GA that no other company is willing to be. The SF50 is a sexy plane, in my opinion. I have a thousand or so hours in single-engine jets. They're fine.

Some of you manage to suck almost ALL of the fun out of flying. :pullhair:

I am not insulting anyone, simply offering an opinion when asked a question.

"Rich". Is a relative term.

Bet you had a ejection seat. Could you fly if that was inop? Wonder why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 15:50

I had the opportunity to spend sitting in the mock up at SNF with my wife and talking to the Cirrus folks about the plane. As much as my wife races about the chute the lack of a private potty and all the windows were deal killers for her. So, it's all academic to me at this point...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 15:53

Any plane can be negatively critiqued:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 15:57

That's a page from a POH not a critique.

Mike and I often disagree but not on this. I agree with him whole heartedly.

Time will tell the story, as it has been doing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 16:15

Username Protected wrote:

I agree with him whole heartedly.

.

Never woulda guessed that...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 16:24

Username Protected wrote:

Change has always been met with resistance.

Careful analysis is not "resistance", it's reality.

The fundamental result is that the SF50 would be a far better airplane if it was a twin.

Quote:

I'm sure similar things were debated at just about every turning point in most industries. Free markets will determine if this is successful or not.

The free market has had 50+ years of small jets.

Not one of them is a single.

This is not a fluke.

And it isn't because the idea was never thought of. From the 1980s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_Peregrine

Then we have the large number of recent SEJ failures: PiperJet, DJet, EA400, Stratos 704, Vantage, ...

The SEJ idea is one of those recurring themes in aviation, like the flying car, that is just a bad idea.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 18:29

Username Protected wrote:

The SEJ idea is one of those recurring themes in aviation, like the flying car, that is just a bad idea.

The fact something has been tried before and failed is not indicative of whether it will fail again in the future. Many tablet computers debuted and fell flat on their face before the iPad. An OS that was intuitive to my 5 year old and terrific marketing made it a blockbuster product.

The verdict is still out on whether the SF50 will succeed or fail. There are pages upon pages of opinions predicting its demise. If they deliver the 600 already on pre-order, it will be a bigger success for Cirrus than other more traditional designs. In fact that is only slightly less than all MU-2's ever built in spite of the fact that it is arguably an excellent design and in today's market - a great value. Don't underestimate the power of marketing.

Stubbornness instead of conventional wisdom is what got Columbus across the Atlantic. If it were up to the guys who said sailing west was a bad idea, we'd still be thinking the world was flat.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 19:19

I'm starting to think Mike doesn't like them and doesn't think they will sell.....
They will. Planes are not bought Roth the rational side of our brain. They don't pencil. They sell on emotion. Ergo, they will sell lots and become the most popular jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 19:30

I think there's a pretty good chance both sides of this discussion are right.

Even though it will fall short of more desirable performance numbers, it may well sell like hotcakes simply because it's a jet, it's new, it's relatively cheap, and Cirrus has shown it can market the heck out of their products.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 19:54

Username Protected wrote:

I'm starting to think Mike doesn't like them and doesn't think they will sell.....
They will. Planes are not bought Roth the rational side of our brain. They don't pencil. They sell on emotion. Ergo, they will sell lots and become the most popular jet.

Perhaps, but if this is true why didn't the Duke sell 10,000 units instead of less than 600?

There seems to be a consensus that the Duke is one of the most compelling aircraft ever built if you're just going on looks and emotion. Yet, only a few hundred ever sold?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 20:17

Username Protected wrote:

I'm starting to think Mike doesn't like them and doesn't think they will sell.....
They will. Planes are not bought Roth the rational side of our brain. They don't pencil. They sell on emotion. Ergo, they will sell lots and become the most popular jet.

Perhaps, but if this is true why didn't the Duke sell 10,000 units instead of less than 600?

There seems to be a consensus that the Duke is one of the most compelling aircraft ever built if you're just going on looks and emotion. Yet, only a few hundred ever sold?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 21:15

Username Protected wrote:

Perhaps, but if this is true why didn't the Duke sell 10,000 units instead of less than 600?

Everybody knows Dukes are pigs and they will not run lean of peak

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Apr 2016, 23:03

I don't understand this continual "Cirrus marketing" reference...
What has "marketing" done to sell airplanes, other than bring potential customers in the door? Surely Cirrus customers aren't buying sight unseen...??
Would an increase in Textron marketing flip the scale?

Cirrus SF50