05 Jan 2026, 08:35 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 12:50 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 19204
Post Likes: +31165
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Guys: technology making it easier for the average user has been improving things for a long time. When I first started driving, one had to know a LOT about cars to keep them running. Now, we don't have carbs to flood and choke, transmission is one click, etc. Golf clubs have improved the average user's game. I really hated it when handball courts were taken over by those playing racquet ball, etc. etc. Then converted to a racquetball player  To make a jet that is much simpler to operate opens it up to many more folks. This is wonderful to see. I just wish they were delivering them faster.
_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP
Last edited on 11 Jan 2019, 13:00, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 12:52 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3389
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: At this stage in the product cycle, Eclipse had a far larger backlog than Cirrus.
Without the Chinese purchase of Cirrus, they would be defunct. Eclipse failed at a time when the Chinese were not buying every aviation company they could. In fact, the Chinese are currently propping up Eclipse #2, One Aviation, during their bankruptcy, and seem poised to own that, too.
Mike C. Meaningless. Fake news
Jeff: So why aren't they bankrupt?
Jason: Yeah!
Mike: For all practical purposes, they already went bankrupt
Jason: So what?
I'm glad someone posted the G2 videos in this thread. Otherwise:
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 12:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Can't be, impossible, a guy on the internet who is an expert on everything said they would never approve that. He also said they would never get RVSM with a single engine. Who is that guy? Sounds like a loser. Quote: This must all be fake news. Or your post was. Before you claim things others have said, have the decency to look it up. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 12:56 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4035
Post Likes: +2051
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Meaningless. Fake news dunno about mfn but there are, have & could be many reason for aviation COs, coming, going, merging etc, so not a big deal to me
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Guys: technology making it easier for the average user has been improving things for a long time. A type rating is mostly about handling things when the technology fails. The SF50 emergency and abnormal checklists are miles longer than an SR. Everybody thinking the SF50 is a push button teleporter needs to step away from the Kool Aid. You've been hypnotized by a video. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/17/13
Posts: 273
Post Likes: +201
Location: Austin, TX
Aircraft: 2012 Mirage
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Snore.....
It would be fascinating to sit in a meeting at Textron at the executive level as they show Cirrus ads to a focus group versus Textron ads.
Tim Agreed.... That video is 100% awful.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:10 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: One other point. Cirrus just got approval with the G2 for 135 operations. That's more significant than anything else that has happened recently. Reference for your information? I suspect that was enabled by the main battery being changed to Lithium and being of higher capacity. The FAA FSB said the SF50 did not comply with 135.163(f) which deals with electrical power redundancy. As a single, the SF50 had to meet it with battery power alone, and the prior battery probably couldn't do that. Quote: That means, they have dramatically expanded the potential market. Especially when you consider all the short haul charter flights. Maybe. It certainly could help. In a charter operation, the cost of the airplane is less important than owner flown market simply due to all the other costs involved (crew, fuel, dispatch, regulations). I could see 135 outfits deciding an M2 or P100 is a better fit for the price, plus they will have a quieter cabin and better safety. Will 135 passengers accept a jet that needs headsets? 135 operators tend to do shorter flights, which fits the SF50 profile better due to limited altitude and range. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/08
Posts: 1263
Post Likes: +1167
Location: San Diego CA.
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: I don't think they are making money on the G1 position jets, though. That's pretty clear given the new prices. It is better for Cirrus to build 300 planes at a profit than 600 planes at a loss. Mike C. More unadulterated BS. You have no idea what G1 profitability is. Profitable companies raise prices when the market will bear a price increase.
_________________
Member 184
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4035
Post Likes: +2051
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: More unadulterated BS. you folks are funny with words 
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20999
Post Likes: +26480
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: More unadulterated BS. You have no idea what G1 profitability is. The evidence is there. G2 increased prices for close to zero increase in manufacturing costs. The basic cost of the parts (like engines and avionics). The price history of these sorts of projects (like Eclipse). Nobody has proven Big Foot doesn't exist, but I think that's as likely as Cirrus being profitable with G1s. Quote: Profitable companies raise prices when the market will bear a price increase. Unprofitable companies raise prices to not go bankrupt. I don't see a long line of folks signing contracts for G1s, so will the market bear this increase ultimately? Can a crippled $3M jet actually sell? Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:30 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/21/09
Posts: 12542
Post Likes: +17294
Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Well that last video from Cirrus is one heck of a marketing tool  Love the shot right at the end of GQ Mom & Dad upfront and the kids watching the video in the back. Just like going to see grandma in the Suburban, except you're going 300K and at 31k feet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 13:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/08
Posts: 1263
Post Likes: +1167
Location: San Diego CA.
|
|
Username Protected wrote: More unadulterated BS. You have no idea what G1 profitability is. The evidence is there. G2 increased prices for close to zero increase in manufacturing costs. The basic cost of the parts (like engines and avionics). The price history of these sorts of projects (like Eclipse). Nobody has proven Big Foot doesn't exist, but I think that's as likely as Cirrus being profitable with G1s. Quote: Profitable companies raise prices when the market will bear a price increase. Unprofitable companies raise prices to not go bankrupt. I don't see a long line of folks signing contracts for G1s, so will the market bear this increase ultimately? Can a crippled $3M jet actually sell? Mike C.
You have thrown out the number "300" in some of your Cirrus will be a failure scenarios.
I will ask again, how many do they need to build to qualify as a success on the Mike C scale?
How many MU-2s were built? Was that a successful program?
_________________
Member 184
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
