Wow - Mike C is back and more abrasive than ever - the poster boy of argumentum ad hominem. I guess having class and civility is not part of his lexicon.

I thought we already established the few units Cirrus has sold at $1.4MM does add up to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things? There's plenty of room to raise the price.

You keep ignoring 2 things.....

1. Cirrus only sold a few units at $1.4MM
2. The economic crash of 2008[/quote]j

He's ignored more than 2. Whatever doesn't provide for the answer he has already drafted.

Charter flights are quite successful in Europe using the Mustang and Phenom 100.

Wow - Mike C is back and more abrasive than ever - the poster boy of argumentum ad hominem. I guess having class and civility is not part of his lexicon.

Mike,

It is funny how you always like to change the argument.
Earlier you stated automation does not help and is not used in production of jets. In fact, you pointed to a time-lapse video showing large amounts of manual effort.

So when someone points out you are incorrect, you change your argument.

Tim

I would love to see the books, but I am with Mike. I think Cirrus is losing money with each SF50 they sell at 1.4. Might explain, why they are not putting a lot out right now, and seem to be in no hurry to ramp up production. But they are smart people. I think the answer for them is to develop the SF50 G-2 that has options and capability that make the SF50 obsolete, so that those position holders will be happy to trade in their position with a nice check to have the new and improved G-2 at 2.8 mil, because the original SF50 will look like old shoes next to a G-2. 2.8 is the low end of what this aircraft really has to sell for to get back R&D, and provide ongoing warranty and maintenance expenses.

Why in the world do you think they are not producing many?
They are almost on target to produce 60 this year which is the prediction they had at the end of last year? And how does slowing production save them money?

Tim

Of course I am, that's where we started from. Vern had a great concept with the Eclipse; what he didn't have was sufficient amount of time and money to see it through. See Rule #1.

One can buy almost any piece of real estate with enough money. The challenge is to make money at a reasonable return when one develops in a reasonable period of time in our business. If one gets in at the wrong price, or the exit isn't profitable in a reasonable period, it's a long painful process to get out, if doable at all.

It does not help achieve the cost reductions your theories require.


Still quite a lot of humans in that "robot" video.

Building airplanes is fundamentally labor intensive due to low volumes.

Mike C.

In 2001 a fully loaded SR22 cost $304,200.. Here we are, 17 years later and they're still turning them out. Now they are much better, and cost double or more. So an SF50 will probably be 3-4m in a few yrs.

Yuri's rule #2: I can claim anything is possible because rule #1 will never be proven wrong.

There is no practical way to get to your aviation utopia. The only way is to assume an insane actor with unlimited sums of money putting it into a losing cause.


Selling planes for $1.4M that cost $6M to make?

Thinking that is the opposite of "great".

Eventually the money runs out. For DiamondJet, it was before they delivered any airplanes, for Eclipse, it was after they delivered 262. But eventually, the money runs out when the plane is not being made profitably.

Mike C.

Not clear that is true without a big finish.

Currently, 17 SF50s on the US registry, of which 8 are registered to Cirrus, thus only 9 SF50s delivered to customers.

All 9 registered to customers have been seen on Flightaware.

Most recent customer registration on the FAA web site was 8/31/2017, the registry is thus not that far behind current date.

GAMA reported SF50 deliveries as 3 in 4Q2016, 0 in 1Q2017, and 2 in 2Q2017, this year. No data on Q3 or Q4 2017 yet, obviously.

To make 60 by year end would require a production rate exceeding 100 per year, or full throttle production. Not clear they are there yet.

Cirrus does have a production certificate for the SF50.

Mike C.

I bet the first 400 SRs were not sold at a contractual price below cost.

If they had been, not clear Cirrus would be here today.

Mike C.

I bet the first 400 SRs were not sold at a contractual price below cost.

If they had been, not clear Cirrus would be here today.

Mike C.

I think it was sunk SF50 development costs that drove the external investment.

The SR series appeared to be selling well enough at a high enough price to be profitable.

Mike C.