BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 09:57

Username Protected wrote:

Ever have one of those Thanksgiving's sitting around watching football after eating a big meal?

Usually someones brother-in-law will have a few to many and begin espousing about how stupid the coaches are and how he would have thrown the ball here, or run up the middle, or called the "flea-flicker" to confuse them, easily winning this game and any others that happen to be on that day. Meanwhile he'll go back to his unrelated job and wait for some team to come to their senses and call him in for the $5M a year gig.

That's what this thread feels like, arm chair experts, who don't work in GA aircraft manufacturing or any related field telling the most successful upstart company in 50 years how they are doing it all wrong because they don't UNDERSTAND aircraft design. YHGTBSM!

Scariest thing about this is you can't blame the spiked egg nog!

Great analogy Alex. But we so badly do need to get to “500”

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

There are 4 on Cirrus’ website for sale right now. Two 2017’s and two 2018’s...

https://cirrusaircraft.com/preowned/

Peace,
Don

i see 2, one with 17 the other at 110 hrs, what's the story?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 11:01

Username Protected wrote:

How much does a new PW610F cost?

According to MC they’re having a BOGO sale on them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 13:17

Username Protected wrote:

The belief comes from seeing the evidence.

This is simple economics: The Eclipse EA500 and SF50 were sold at about the same price point, adjusted for inflation, if you signed a purchase contract *after* certification (thus discounting the intro pricing, a real price the company expected to make money at). One is a twin, one is a single.

2008 Eclipse EA500 price: $2.48M (CPI adjusted for 2018)
2018 Cirrus SF50 price: ~$2.40M ($1.96M in 2015 dollars, with CPI and required "options")

Historical price of Eclipse means nothing. It was based on rosy projections of 1,000+ airframes per year, and we all know where they ended up with that. What matters is current competition, and there is none, which means you can't make a twin for the same price.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 15:13

[delete]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 15:22

No doubt the SF50 is a different species. It’s also somewhat obvious that it would have been easier to design and certify as a twin. But Cirrus didn’t want a twin. They stayed true to their marketing department and delivered a single. Their customers fly singles. They don’t typically have multi ratings. And they love their chutes. Cirrus gave them both and customers are ecstatic. There is no competition. No one else has a SEJ.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 16:28

I just know i want one and even better I think with in 5 years i will be able to afford one. I would also take a Meridian and theirs a chance the SF50 will help lower the used market for it. So to me see only wins.

One last add I have shown friends both when on the ramp at Boeing field a few weeks ago everyone liked the SF50 thought it was much nicer for passengers. I may being paying the bill and the one flying but I care a lot about my wife likes and friends that travel a lot with me enjoy. I fly a A36 because my wife said no way to a ugly 210 she would not fly in it. I think I got a winner.

Life is good
Todd

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:03

Username Protected wrote:

No doubt the SF50 is a different species. It’s also somewhat obvious that it would have been easier to design and certify as a twin. But Cirrus didn’t want a twin. They stayed true to their marketing department and delivered a single. Their customers fly singles. They don’t typically have multi ratings. And they love their chutes. Cirrus gave them both and customers are ecstatic. There is no competition. No one else has a SEJ.

Cirrus wanted a jet more people could afford.

0% of the people sitting on a Commercial Airliner right now give a flip about the math that makes jets fly.

100% of the people sitting on a Commercial Airliner right now wish they were sitting on their own jet.

That's why I started flying. If the SF50 was available in 2007 I'd have bought one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:17

Agree.

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus wanted a jet more people could afford...

...and could more easily fly.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:39

Username Protected wrote:

There are also very smart people working for Cirrus, and I guarantee that they understand the benefits and penalties associated with each of their SF50 design and build choices.

I guarantee there are smart *AND* experienced people working for twin jet manufacturers who knew building a single engine jet was folly. None of them started a single engine jet program for this reason. If an SEJ was the right idea, they would have, the industry is very competitive. Yet, none did.

It isn't just me who thinks Cirrus is misguided, no matter how you want to paint it that way.

Look through the list of every SEJ maker and wanna be. They are all piston folks who simply don't understand that two engines is the key to an efficient jet.

Quote:

When taking the big market picture into account, the fact that you disagree with some of the choices made by the smart engineers and management of Cirrus does not make you right.

Nor does it make them right.

Quote:

In the next few years, they’ll produce incremental improvements with the SF50 model, and they’ll build and sell hundreds of them. That makes many of their choices correct ones for the company and the market.

The fact they sold the SF50 to a bunch of piston pilots doesn't validate the design choices, either.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:47

Username Protected wrote:

They stayed true to their marketing department and delivered a single.

Apparently, no one called someone experienced in the engineering department first.

Quote:

Their customers fly singles. They don’t typically have multi ratings.

But now they need a type rating, far harder to get than a multi rating.

A twin jet is the easiest multi engine airplane there is. In fact, it is WAY easier when an engine fails than the single. The fear of multi engine comes from piston twins, the hardest multi engine there is. Misapplied piston think.

Quote:

There is no competition. No one else has a SEJ.

There's a reason for that, why all those SEJ programs bit the dust. They didn't make sense.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:48

Username Protected wrote:

The fact they sold the SF50 to a bunch of piston pilots doesn't validate the design choices, either.

Mike C.

Do you believe the SF50 will be a financial success, or failure?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:51

Username Protected wrote:

...and could more easily fly.

What is easier about a single jet versus a twin?

If all engines operate, nothing.

When one quits, the twin is easier.

Think I'm wrong about that?

Fail an engine at 200 ft AGL and watch each pilot handle it.

No contest.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2018, 17:51

Username Protected wrote:

Look through the list of every SEJ maker and wanna be. They are all piston folks who simply don't understand that two engines is the key to an efficient jet.

You seem to have forgotten about the Eclipse 400, an SEJ by a company that had no piston background at all and were very, very current on twin jets.