BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 02:12

From a PC24 trip a buddy flew weekend before Christmas.

Single pilot. 420knts. 1000pph. Oh that cabin! Zippty do da.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 03:45

Username Protected wrote:

From a PC24 trip a buddy flew weekend before Christmas.

Single pilot. 420knts. 1000pph. Oh that cabin! Zippty do da.

What altitude? Surprised by speed/burn.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 09:46

Username Protected wrote:

From a PC24 trip a buddy flew weekend before Christmas.

Single pilot. 420knts. 1000pph. Oh that cabin! Zippty do da.

What altitude? Surprised by speed/burn.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 10:58

Username Protected wrote:

Mustang engines are $1mm each. I doubt the SF50 engine is $2mm.

If true this thread is over

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 11:02

Username Protected wrote:

Mustang engines are $1mm each. I doubt the SF50 engine is $2mm.

If true this thread is over

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 13:16

Username Protected wrote:

It won’t be Jason.
As long as opinions and assumptions are confused with factual data, it really is all about emotions.....However erudite the presentation appears to be.

Actually the only data points that would be publicly available which could at least signify the potential costs of the engine would be engine programs.
In theory, engine programs effectively cover the cost of a new engine replacement by covering all costs, including the overhaul.

The only issue is comparing Williams vs Pratt, from what I have seen the companies do not have identical terms. You would need to compare Williams to Williams or Pratt to Pratt. Since SF50 is a Williams, you would likely need to compare to the Mustang with the Williams conversion.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 13:24

A good way to find the price of a new engine is by reading an engine rental contract. They typically require the engine to be insured for new replacement value unless there’s a used market for that engine, which there isn’t for the SF50 or the Mustang.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 13:34

Take the hourly price of a Mustang engine, multiply it by TBO then subtract 30%.

Chip-

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 13:47

Not even close

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 13:58

Username Protected wrote:

From a PC24 trip a buddy flew weekend before Christmas.

Single pilot. 420knts. 1000pph. Oh that cabin! Zippty do da.

$9mil aircraft vs. $3mil aircraft. If there was no difference, I would ask for my money back.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 14:00

Username Protected wrote:

The only issue is comparing Williams vs Pratt, from what I have seen the companies do not have identical terms. You would need to compare Williams to Williams or Pratt to Pratt. Since SF50 is a Williams, you would likely need to compare to the Mustang with the Williams conversion.

Aren't there plenty of other business jets powered by Williams 44 series engines ? Shouldn't be too hard to find the relative prices.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 14:27

Username Protected wrote:

On the other hand the jet was quieter, safer, less stressful, and could top weather or circumnavigate weather much more easily. Plus it gives you the option of doing longer trips more efficiently. Carrying more payload too. How do you put a price on that?

If you sold the king air and only flew the Citation what would be your incremental cost per year? Meaningful or a rounding error? When compared to the things mentioned above does it equate? I betting net net it’s no worse than a wash and likely better in favor of the Citation.

It was a bit quieter, but not that much. I found the jet more stressful, but it certainly could deal with weather better. Longer trip options, but I'm not flying many of those. Don't need the extra payload. One could quibble with it being safer. Recurrent every other year for me in the King Air at a place that's pretty affordable. Citation would be annual plus SPW stuff. If I was flying more, longer and carrying more folks, the Citation would shine more.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Dec 2018, 21:46

Username Protected wrote:

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

From an engineering perspective you may be correct. But considering their main market is pilots stepping up from a SE Piston Cirrus, I suspect that they understood what that group wants and the SF50 meets those requirements. If so I'd have say their design choices will indeed be validated if that specific market provides enough sales to make the venture profitable. Had they chosen to build the worlds "cheapest, lowest and slowest" twin jet, who would buy it? How would they compete with other twin jets?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2019, 12:38

the other post
viewtopic.php?p=2298158#p2298158

Quote:

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?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2019, 01:30

Username Protected wrote:

Why do people make the assumption that two engines is cheaper to manufacture than one?

1. Smaller is cheaper to make. Less materials, made on smaller machines, easier assembly, etc.

2. An engine on a single is higher liability. Selling one engine means all liability is included in one engine cost.

3. Selling half as many engines means twice the amortized development and support costs per unit.

4. Selling only one engine means only one engine program payment and loss of future recurring revenue.

An FJ44 is really a far more expensive engine than a PW610F.

The Eclipse bankruptcy exposed the contract with PWC for PW610F engines. Eclipse was getting them at ~$280K each in 2008. That's about $320K today using CPI-W.

I doubt you can buy an FJ33-5A for twice that.

Mike C.

Cirrus SF50