Sounds like a guy who would be very happy with SF-50.

Sounds like a guy who would be very happy with SF-50.

I think all the babble on hear misses the point completely. The vision is the new p baron. Look at what a new baron costs. Imagine what a new pbaron would cost. Vision costs the same with a way better cabin and I will take a single jet over two pistons every day.

For the money, it’s a great plane.

I often make the analogy the Mustang is yesterday's 421. Same type of comparison.

So...yesterday I rode "Safety Pilot" in a SR22, as am only a CFI (not-I).

In my thousands of hours flying, this was only my second time in a Cirrus. I was less than impressed. It was like...meh....

Was that because I have been "spoiled" by higher performance AC (200, 441)?

Or was it because I am from the "old school" of the 70s and 80s where everythng was a shimmying, aluminum "contraption"? If it feels tight and antiseptic like a new car, it must be bad. ?

In other words...there is a whole 'nother market out there that is not the typical Beechtalker. Therefore we don't see their posts or hear their opinions. They (the Cirrus and/or SF50 buyers), see a cool personal airplane that can be had for less than the others in the market. They see good cabin, up to date flight deck, reasonable speed (especially compared to SR22) and the value prop works for them. So they buy... They do not care about the number of engines, how high it should have gone, or the speed it should have had. They only evaluate what it DOES do, and like it. I know of people like this.

They (the SF50) buyer does not give be a damn what Cirrus "should have built", only that they DID build a plane for them.

Chris what airplane do you own and operate? Curious as to the basis for your opinion other than sitting as a safety pilot for one flight.

Well, using actual data is better than an emphatic belief with no evidence at all. Basically we have a bunch of people emphatically asserting that PW610F can't be half the price of an FJ33-5A. But they have no actual data, just a deep seated belief it must be true.

And my point doesn't just hinge on that one point. As I have said, there are multiple additional costs to a single that make it not the economic win it appears to be.

For example, liability. Jet engines do fail. On an SEJ, that's a liability problem for the engine maker and the airframe maker. That additional cost of liability has to be priced in for both. There will be an SF50 engine failure that leads to a crash. Cirrus and Williams will be sued. If that ends up costing the company $20M to settle, that's $40K per airframe over 500 airframes. That is not an insignificant liability cost per aircraft for one event. Meanwhile on twin jets, an engine failure is a minor nuisance with essentially zero liability.

For another example, amortization of development costs. The actual costs of making a jet engine are relatively low, the majority of the costs are the development and on going engineering support that goes with it. For a single engine aircraft, the engine supplier is selling half as many engines over which to recoup that money. Let's say it cost Williams $100M to certify the FJ33-5A engine, in a form that can work in an SEJ. That's $200K per engine amortization. That money has to come from somewhere. Meanwhile, a twin uses two engines, so the per engine amortization is half, or net the same per airframe.

For yet another example, engine makers are modeling their future revenue on parts, service, and inspections. This revenue can be MORE than the original OEM price of the engine, much more in fact. In the case of an SEJ, they are getting less long term money since they can't realistically charge twice per engine, so they have to get more money from the OEM.

Then of course, are all the extra sttuff that the SF-50 has because it is a single. Chute, yaw dampers, V/X tail mixer, trim mixer, nozzle deflector, stick pusher, and so on. Those things cost development time and manufacturing dollars to provide. When amortized over only 500 units, the costs are significant.


Do you have ANY evidence what the OEM cost of a PW610F or FJ33-5A actually is?

Given that the PW610F was a mature product requiring no development, and the FJ33-5A was a new engine being used on an entirely new type of jet, why do you believe the PW610F would not be offered at a very good price?

The PW610F will cost less than an FJ33-5A. No question. Then add in all the other costs for being single into the mix. The cost of manufacture just isn't significantly different in my assessment, and the result is far superior. Indeed, if the twin sells twice as many units, 4 times the engines, there's lower costs for amortization and production efficiencies as well.

If I went to Lycoming and said I want 1000 engines of 150 HP each, or 500 engines of 300 HP each, do you really think the bill will be a lot different? The 300 HP pistons engines do cost about double the 150 HP ones. Yes, jets are different things, but size and quantity do matter.

Mike C.

For a piston single. Not so true for a jet.

Mike C.

It is like a P Baron with fixed landing gear. It's got all the complexity to go fast, and then its crippled by a flaw that slows it down, shortens its range, limits its climb speed, and increases its cost per mile.

Mike C.

Well, using actual data is better than an emphatic belief with no evidence at all. Basically we have a bunch of people emphatically asserting that PW610F can't be half the price of an FJ33-5A. But they have no actual data, just a deep seated belief it must be true.

And my point doesn't just hinge on that one point. As I have said, there are multiple additional costs to a single that make it not the economic win it appears to be.

For example, liability. Jet engines do fail. On an SEJ, that's a liability problem for the engine maker and the airframe maker. That additional cost of liability has to be priced in for both. There will be an SF50 engine failure that leads to a crash. Cirrus and Williams will be sued. If that ends up costing the company $20M to settle, that's $40K per airframe over 500 airframes. That is not an insignificant liability cost per aircraft for one event. Meanwhile on twin jets, an engine failure is a minor nuisance with essentially zero liability.

For another example, amortization of development costs. The actual costs of making a jet engine are relatively low, the majority of the costs are the development and on going engineering support that goes with it. For a single engine aircraft, the engine supplier is selling half as many engines over which to recoup that money. Let's say it cost Williams $100M to certify the FJ33-5A engine, in a form that can work in an SEJ. That's $200K per engine amortization. That money has to come from somewhere. Meanwhile, a twin uses two engines, so the per engine amortization is half, or net the same per airframe.

For yet another example, engine makers are modeling their future revenue on parts, service, and inspections. This revenue can be MORE than the original OEM price of the engine, much more in fact. In the case of an SEJ, they are getting less long term money since they can't realistically charge twice per engine, so they have to get more money from the OEM.

Then of course, are all the extra sttuff that the SF-50 has because it is a single. Chute, yaw dampers, V/X tail mixer, trim mixer, nozzle deflector, stick pusher, and so on. Those things cost development time and manufacturing dollars to provide. When amortized over only 500 units, the costs are significant.


Do you have ANY evidence what the OEM cost of a PW610F or FJ33-5A actually is?

Given that the PW610F was a mature product requiring no development, and the FJ33-5A was a new engine being used on an entirely new type of jet, why do you believe the PW610F would not be offered at a very good price?

The PW610F will cost less than an FJ33-5A. No question. Then add in all the other costs for being single into the mix. The cost of manufacture just isn't significantly different in my assessment, and the result is far superior. Indeed, if the twin sells twice as many units, 4 times the engines, there's lower costs for amortization and production efficiencies as well.

If I went to Lycoming and said I want 1000 engines of 150 HP each, or 500 engines of 300 HP each, do you really think the bill will be a lot different? The 300 HP pistons engines do cost about double the 150 HP ones. Yes, jets are different things, but size and quantity do matter.

Mike C.

It is like a P Baron with fixed landing gear. It's got all the complexity to go fast, and then its crippled by a flaw that slows it down, shortens its range, limits its climb speed, and increases its cost per mile.

Mike C.

Really reaching now, the idea is that a vee tail control linkage is so big and heavy it would cripple a small plane to have to lug it around ? These things handle great.

https://www.sonexaircraft.com/waiex/

Yes, the SF50 is crippled relative to what it could have been.

A P Baron with fixed gear is crippled relative to what it could have been. You can't justify it by saying it does the same job as a 182, that owners don't need the range, speed, climb that a P Baron could have offered, the 182 numbers are just fine.

That's just being an SF50 apologist.


Most P Baron owners fly legs that a 182 can do, too.


So a chute isn't useful on an SF50, got it.

(BTW, we have a Russian freighter to thank for no PC-12 fatals, they picked up folks who had ditched in the ocean from a PC-12 engine failure)


The SF50 climb rates for its thrust to weight ratio is lame. The plane is crippled.


Ah, so it is an expensive to buy, expensive to operate, type rating and recurrent training required version of a Baron?

So it isn't a real jet, just like a fixed gear Baron isn't a real piston twin.

Nobody goes to the Ferrari dealership and is happy if the car has the performance of a Camry.

Despite its faults, the Eclipse EA500 showed what a VLJ can do in the 6000 lbs MGTOW, < 2000 LBF thrust class. The SF50 has lame performance by comparison.

Mike C.

A consequence of its construction being optimized for high volume, so it was very expensive to make in small numbers. The avionics and the construction method were the fatal flaws of the EA500.

At this stage of delivery, the EA500 was priced about the same as the SF50.

If we could combine the elegant twin engine planform, Cirrus expertise in composites and manufacturing, Garmin in avionics, and two PW610F engines, we'd have a winner. It would score very low on the innovation index, but very high as a personal jet.

Mike C.

I didn't see any data in your post.

My data and reasoning has been presented previously.

Mike C.