Eclipse #1 didn't.

Eclipse #2 had a little bit of Chinese money in 2017 and now has float money from them, too, holding them up during the bankruptcy process. The likely outcome is that One Aviation becomes owned by the Chinese.


For Eclipse #2, their survival depends on the Chinese. Eclipse #1 didn't have that option.

Regardless, it still remains a question if there is a viable market for a $2.7M SF50.

Mike C.

Well, I don't know how we're defining "viable", but if I found myself in the market for a new "jet" powered (i.e., non piston) airplane, my budget was sub $5M, and I strongly preferred singles (which I do), my short list would be (no particular order of preference):

PC12NG (high 4s)
TBM930 (at 4)
M600 (near 3)
SF50 (mid to upper 2s)

I think it's fair to say that these planes all have relatively similar performance specs. Meaning, while there are clearly some key differences across them, they're all basically in the same zip code and can be considered comps for cross shopping purposes. And I think it's fair to say that none of these companies have "going concern" clouds hanging over their heads, which would be a non starter for me.

Re specs, yes, the PC12 can haul more than the others, and the TBM is a screamer, but those benefits come are a price premium over the other two, so I'd need to evaluate all the puts and takes. Personally, I'm partial to the TBM. I think it's just a gorgeous airplane.

But my point is if these other three planes are "viable", and I think we must concede that they are, then the SF50 is viable...in so far that it occupies a price point and set of capabilities that distinguish it against its main competitors in quite favorable ways. And thus it will sell. Likely in the same modest numbers as the others, goosed in some material, albeit difficult to measure way, by the Cirrus piston upgrade path numbers the other OEMs don't (directly) benefit from.

Presence of chinese money does not guarantee success

Absence of any money does guarantee failure ... the Chinese having injected $$$ into Cirrus seems likely to have made the SF50 possible. Not the first aviation project to have been rescued by big foreign pockets (e.g. Airbus A220)

You prefer a single, presumably perceiving they are simpler for you to pilot, but the SF50 requires passing a checkride every year. So that's 3-4 days of your life per year devoted to staying current in it, plus weeks to get initially trained.

The other 3 are turboprops and don't have a similar requirement.

So if "simpler for the pilot" is a major consideration, implied by choosing a single engine airplane, then the SF50 isn't quite making the grade just because it is a jet with jet type rating requirements.


SF50 is the shortest range of the group.

SF50 is the most training requirements of the group.

SF50 has the most stringent runway requirements of the group. Not a good choice for northern climes with snow/ice on runways.

SF50 burns the most fuel in the group.

SF50 needs the most runway of the group.

SF50 probably has the least range for any given payload.

SF50 probably has the highest maintenance costs of the group, due in part to the engine program.

The SF50 is the worst of turboprops (limited altitude and speed) with the worst of jets (lots of training and poor runway compatibility).


They weren't clocking many orders at $1.96M (price since 2013), why do you think $2.7M will fix that?

Mike C.

Eclipse #1 didn't.

You prefer a single, presumably perceiving they are simpler for you to pilot, but the SF50 requires passing a checkride every year. So that's 3-4 days of your life per year devoted to staying current in it, plus weeks to get initially trained.

The other 3 are turboprops and don't have a similar requirement.

So if "simpler for the pilot" is a major consideration, implied by choosing a single engine airplane, then the SF50 isn't quite making the grade just because it is a jet with jet type rating requirements.


SF50 is the shortest range of the group.

SF50 is the most training requirements of the group.

SF50 has the most stringent runway requirements of the group. Not a good choice for northern climes with snow/ice on runways.

SF50 burns the most fuel in the group.

SF50 needs the most runway of the group.

SF50 probably has the least range for any given payload.

SF50 probably has the highest maintenance costs of the group, due in part to the engine program.

The SF50 is the worst of turboprops (limited altitude and speed) with the worst of jets (lots of training and poor runway compatibility).


They weren't clocking many orders at $1.96M (price since 2013), why do you think $2.7M will fix that?

Mike C.

Pilatus initial training is a week long at SimCom.

The Eclipse was a price point deal. When that changed, the market wasn't there. I was strongly considering one until they did the crazy avionics, no FIKI and had the other issues. They just over promised and over sold, the operations side wasn't there.

The only reason the SF50 requires a type rating is because it doesn’t have a propeller. The only reason the SETPs don’t require a type rating is because they have propellers. It’s a silly logic, but it’s an FAA thing.

And that's where Cirrus seems to have a real advantage over other companies..

It really makes no sense to compare a long-lived stable company with proven operations excellence, i.e., Cirrus, to all the shenanigans, bad choices, and failures of Eclipse.

Just as with the SR22, Cirrus is creating a new niche for pilot owners with the SF50. Barring international economic collapse, I have no doubt that they will continue to be successful.

“the most sought-after personal aircraft in general aviation,”
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ing-market

https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... ision-sf50

hmm..

All planes are price point deals.

The SF50 is also. Now is there a market for a $2.7M SF50?

I doubt it, especially when the secondary market is already showing up with planes ready right now for less.

Mike C.

If order book size is any indication, the EA500 had it beat by a mile.

There's a market for a "near $1M" personal jet. There's just no way to build one.

Mike C.

This thread has helped me recognize many of my own tendencies to overthink, and over analyze, the faults in designs. When you spend most of your time trying to come up with good designs it ranges between difficult and impossible to switch it off.

Beyond that though, I was trying to figure out why, in moments of weakness, I click my way back in here. I've decided that this thread is like a long drawn out movie where you keep waiting to see how it ends.

****Spoiler alert****

It is almost as if someone in this thread is being paid by Cirrus to help destroy every single opposition that someone may come up with to buy an SF50. It is working so well I've become interested in something I knew very little about before I accidentally wandered in here.

Call it drinking kool aid, how people really make decisions, good marketing. You can't stop it with logic. Logic only seems to stoke the fire.

It is fascinating.

Opposition in this thread?

or

Opposition in the real world?

There is no opposition in the real world. The SF50 is outselling all other single pilot planes except the PC12.