The only example of the same size was cheaper, the Eclipse EA500.


Because they got stuck in piston think.

Mike C.

One engine doesn't do the job. It denies you access to the high flight levels where you get high speed, weather avoidance, long range, and economical operation. It further denies you the safety of two engines.


Few of whom understand what having a jet means.


Eclipse did, and their market was clearly there, and they didn't find the second engine adverse.

Mike C.

Eclipse and Cirrus: which company is selling and producing jets today?

Eclipse, for the most part, at least the first couple versions was an epic fail largely due to the wrong pick for the avionics vendor.

Had Eclipse got that right the first time, its likely they would have had much more success in sales units. Some of those additional sales could have been Cirrus migrations because Cirrus had nothing to offer at the time.

I'm not a Cirrus customer. What they have doesn't interest me, but what they do have is very appealing to the guy Jason describes, along with a bunch of other new generation GA customers that are interested in innovation and continuous improvement and a product offering that allows progression as the wallet enables.

If I was a guy that just got the rubber glove at TSA with the wherewithal and intelligence to learn how to fly, having never considered it before, I would likely find Cirrus very early in my google search for an entry level airplane with impressive performance attributes.

Wether you like Cirrus product offerings or not, agree or disagree with their product progression logic, they understand their customers and potential customers pretty damn well. They know what their customers are interested in buying.

The SF50 doesn't cut it for me for lots of reasons, but it apparently has the attention of quite a few based on their order backlog. We can agree or disagree on the product, but regardless we can not argue that they have buyers because they got orders and are delivering.

What I think we seem to neglect in this ongoing rant is that the Cirrus marketing plan was "owner flown" from the get go. They never marketed any product to the pro flown owner.

Mr. Ciholas, respectfully, I'm responding to some of your quotes just because it's the most thought-provoking thing to do at the moment...



But that market is saturated - Eclipse will take your order tomorrow. Cirrus customers want a low altitude single engine jet with a chute... so would you build a warmed-over Eclipse, or would you build the inferior airplane your customers have already asked you to build?



They will after buying new Vision Jets. A manufacturer has two options - build what the manufacturer thinks the market should ask for, or build what the market asks for. And to be clear, we're talking about a market that has already bought and paid 3/4 of a million for single engine, fixed gear 4/5 seaters that cannot do a single thing a $100k T210 or $200k TN/TKS A36 cannot do. After these guys realize what you're suggesting, Cirrus will either build a twin or they'll buy one of the myriad light twin jets already certified.



And... they sell how many planes? Can you describe how their market was clearly there? Their "market" was a single air taxi operator offering a new business model that failed...

****

Your issue is the same as mine used to be. The most relevant fact is that you're not in the market for a new plane. You have (had?) an MU2 which hasn't been produced for 30 years and was lowly valued because they killed the un-initiated. There is probably a tiny offshoot of SR22 owners that decide an MU2 is their next plane, but Cirrus doesn't care because they're not buying a new plane. I believe you're considering an old Citation, or may own one. Again - not a new plane, an old one with potentially a ton of utility and attractive operating costs. Makes sense, I like it, but someone looking for a turn-key airplane that "feels" new and actually IS new and has a warranty and a factory transition/handholding program isn't looking at legacy Citations.

It's not the best plane. It's the best plane for the market, and as an engineer (you, not me) I believe you're conflating the best engineered solution with the most marketable one.

All that said, I've learned a lot from you and love your tenacity. Carry on.

I always thought Piper had a winner in their jet plan, and really expected them to clean Cirrus' clock, but it looks like they did pretty well with the recast M series. That M600 is a lovable beast.

The Eclipse brand is damaged by their history. What could have been had they avoided some pretty obvious errors, the avionics being the most egregious.

There were some Cirrus owners who transitioned to Eclipse, BTW.


No, they don't. They want a faster flying machine that they can travel in safely.


I would have advised Cirrus to build a plane basically like what they got but two engines, conventional tail.


You better believe it. Type rating, recurrent training, engine programs, 100 GPH fuel flows, low altitude fuel consumption, pressurization, air conditioning, STARs and SIDs all the time, contaminated runway adjustments, etc.

Flying an SF50 is NOT like flying an SR22. Cirrus is trying to make that connection and it just isn't there.


Order book claimed to reach 2700.

Delivered about 270.

That's 5 times the order book for SF50 and so far about 15 times the deliveries.


Dayjet took deliveries for only 28 airplanes, thus ~90% of them went to others. To say Dayjet was Eclipse's market is simply wrong.


You are assuming the flaws are what sold the airplane, that is, the buyers chose the plane due to the flaws.

I believe had Cirrus made an airplane that was not so flawed, they would have as many or more sales as they do now. Not only could their existing customer based buy in, they would also have way more sales not from members of the Cirrus religion.

Mike C.

Except for the Eclipse, the rest are largely perceived as "professionally" flown.
And even the Eclipse with the high altitude aspects commands a level of respect for weather and capability that the SF50 just does not have.

I think Cirrus will eventually add a plane which competes with these, but it will focused on meeting the owner flown market from the start, not as an add-on rating.

Tim

Have you heard the phrase; never buy more airplane than you need or can handle?

Tim

Mustang and Eclipse owner flown a lot. They are VLJs, distinct from the rest.


You will be hard pressed to concoct a situation where an SF50 limited to FL280 is easier to deal with weather than an Eclipse which can go to FL410. Altitude makes things easier.


I wonder why you think the Mustang and Eclipse were not aimed at the owner flown market.

What do you mean by an "add on rating"? Owner pilots get a type rating just like everybody else.

Mike C.

Not many who own an airplane heed those words.

Generally, we buy the most airplane we can afford. And maybe a little more than that sometimes.

Mike C.

[quote="Mike Ciholas"
long range, and economical operation. It further denies you the safety of two engines.


Few of whom understand what having a jet means.

Mike C.[/quote]

Mike you want to say SF50 need a second engine that would go to FL40 becouse can able to save fuel burn less than 40 gallons? I do not want to fly on the FL 400 even on the FL 300 i do not want to go.
Why SF50 need second engine ? Plane very economical and comfortable on one engine . Lot of pilot fill very comfy under FL270 . Also thank you you open my eyes that two jet engines are cheaper compare with one

The only example of the same size was cheaper, the Eclipse EA500.

Mike C.

Oh here we go.... The SF50 somehow get's you for point A to B differently than a Mustang does? Requires a "pro" to handle that Garmin right? LOL.

I hate to break to all of you but I'll bet $100 that MOST SF50's end up being privately owned but pro-flown.

In fact, the only EA500's I see flying are at my buddy's charter company he owns at PDK.

JC, Mike C.,

I said perceived! Not reality. Look at the marketing material, look at how sales people discuss them.

Mike, in addition being stuck at 28K makes life easier. Why is single engine often safer than a twin; because the pilot has no choices when the engine gets quiet. The point being, less options is sometimes a good thing.

Tim