16 Jun 2024, 09:15 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 19:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3649 Post Likes: +2608 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1978 Baron 58
|
|
I'm really excited about the SF50, so I figured I'd make a new thread instead of continuing to hijack the CAPS thread. I'm not the kind of person that buys anything new and I'm expecting them to depreciate pretty bad the first 10 years. But, after that, I'm optimistic that they'll be reasonably priced and reasonable to operate. I'd really like more opinions from those of you with more turbine experience (particularly in regards to maintenance/operating costs. I know what the websites say about most turbine airplanes, but I don't think any of them give an accurate picture. Personally, I only have 1 data point (1984 Citation S/II) and it's a negative one. My hope in 8-10 years: 1M acquisition cost 300 KTAS 800lbs useful with enough fuel for 800 NM trip <$800/hr worst case with a target at about $600/hr Am I crazy? All in, I run the Bonanza for about $150/hr including all reserves. Average block to block, I count about 150kts. Username Protected wrote: Cirrus could make a great business selling an SR22/Jet package to 0TT guys. You put your deposit down for the jet and in exchange you get a low time SR22 and an instructor to teach you. In 12 months you get 250 hours and your instrument rating and then you get the Jet with transition training and 6 months of mentoring. I don't think it's going to be a hard sell. If they make the jet accessible to every middle-aged tom, dick and harry sitting on a half million of play money they'll do very well. That's precisely my hope. Once the MDs (no offense to those MDs that are real pilots, I'm talking about your "buy a 421 and fly it 20 hours a year" bretheren) sell them after the depreciation is all done, I hope there will be a glut of them on the market to keep the prices down. That's pretty much what happened with the SR22.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 19:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 6493 Post Likes: +3978 Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
In terms of operation, the Cirrus jet doesn't appear to make sense. A turbojet held at FL250? Why not get a single turbine TBM850 that can do FL310? More efficient, more range, more altitude capability, same or better speed? Why not get a twin turboprop (my Solitaire) that has more range, more altitude capability (FL280), same speed, similar fuel burns, and a heckuva lot better OEI climb rate?
If they haven't certified it above FL250, that's a big deal, the certification hoops get a lot harder to jump through for aircraft with ceilings above FL250. It's not just a matter of getting RVSM.
_________________ -Jon C.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 20:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12801 Post Likes: +5229 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: sell them after the depreciation is all done, I hope there will be a glut of them on the market to keep the prices down. That's pretty much what happened with the SR22. The SR22 is an interesting case that I think is unique. Cirrus lucked into a market that really had no viable GA transportation options. Cessna wasn't selling anything faster than 140 kts and Beech/Piper were selling things (at least in 2014 dollars) near seven figures. Cirrus came on the scene with a $250K 180 kt plane with a parachute and compelling new avionics. They couldn't make them fast enough. Year by year, they steadily made meaningful improvements such that there was some logic in selling a 3 year old SR22 to buy a new one. And the boom economy helped too. Then came 2008 - the economy tanked and the pace of improvements slowed down. I'm not sure the SF50 will have those factors pushing the depreciation so hard. And to be fair, the way Cirrus new prices have escalated, the 10 year old planes aren't selling too far away from their new prices.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 20:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3649 Post Likes: +2608 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1978 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If they haven't certified it above FL250, that's a big deal, the certification hoops get a lot harder to jump through for aircraft with ceilings above FL250. It's not just a matter of getting RVSM. I didn't know that.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 20:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12801 Post Likes: +5229 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In terms of operation, the Cirrus jet doesn't appear to make sense. Cirrus business plan has never been to make sense. They're selling emotion. This is a JET. It's like selling something that will make your penis 3" longer. Pull up all the studies you want showing size doesn't matter ... it'll still sell.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 20:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3649 Post Likes: +2608 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1978 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cirrus came on the scene with a $250K 180 kt plane with a parachute and compelling new avionics. Now those original SR22s hover in the 120-130 neighborhood. Most of the used Cirri are about 50-60% of the original price. Granted, many of them have runout engines. That wouldn't be a problem on a turbine with a 5-6k TBO. It might keep the prices higher though. That's kind of what I'm trying to figure out here: Put the best aviation heads that I know together to figure out what might happen.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 21:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 6493 Post Likes: +3978 Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ... I don't trust manufacturer's statements regarding operating costs. I assume you apply that to Cirrus' statements about the SF50 too, right? Quote: What does it really cost to owner fly a TBM or a PC12? I would assume $1K/hour as a nice round number. It'll vary depending on utilization, but that's probably reasonable guess for operating expenses annualized for a relatively low time per year private owner. High time might get the hourly down, but then to get those numbers of hours you've probably got other issues like getting the thing on a 135 cert and the expenses that go with that. Quote: I love the idea of the MU-2, but I doubt that I'm a capable enough pilot to fly one safely. That is entirely up to you. Are you multi rated? It basically flies like most multi airplanes, minor differences. Turn the yoke left to go left. Turn it right to go right. No adverse yaw in a turn, and the spoilers stay effective even in a stall, which is different than most aileron airplanes. Other than that, it is a bit trim sensitive and one must trim the airplane after configuration changes. Trim is important when single engine, too. But everything else is all about IFR and flight management skills. BTW, those skills or lack thereof are the ones most likely to kill you in any airplane and are the same in any airplane that is travelling at 300 KTAS, including the as-yet-mythical SF50.
_________________ -Jon C.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 21:10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 6493 Post Likes: +3978 Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cirrus business plan has never been to make sense. Yes, that's why I prefaced with "In terms of operation" because I know that the decision is not necessarily about operation... Quote: ... will make your penis 3" longer. Wow, it'll do that too? Now I really want one.
_________________ -Jon C.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 21:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8497 Post Likes: +8545 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Sean, Here is their payload/range chart: http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/static/im ... ayload.jpgCirrus, on their owners website (for people who have a deposit up) are telling customers they expect operating costs to fall between a Meridian and TBM. Jon, I believe it is expected to be certified up to the RVSM ceiling which I thought was 30,000 not 25,000. And, Jon, it's not a "mythical" airplane. Conforming #1 & #2 are both now flying. The factory is producing parts and they claim the balance of the certification work is fully funded. They were in the process of hiring 200 additional people when I was there a year ago and I understand many, if not all, of those people are on the payroll. To Charles point, I didn't realize it would make your penis 3" longer, but if that really works they will sell a lot of airplanes! On the site I referenced they are telling people that they expect to deliver the first 9 airplanes before the end of 2015. They are currently making parts for customer airplanes and I think will begin assembly of those after the first of the year. So, Sean, you're looking at 2010. There might be a lot of options for you to consider then. I was told by Gary Black, the Cirrus Jet Sales Director, that the plane was designed for people who used to by new Barons as a target demographic. That makes some sense to me. It's a personal airplane. By that I mean it's small, intimate with comfortable seating for 4 (the rear seats are limited to 90 lbs.) sort of like the Eclipse. It's designed for people who want a jet in a very small package. It will be a much different experience than even something like a Mustang. They are still working on their clay mock ups and haven't come out with all the interior options yet but are supposed to early in 2015. I hope that they make the seats bigger and more comfortable as I don't think what they've got in there is going to appeal in comparison to other jets - except maybe the Eclipse which as small seats too. I expect there will be a lot of information about the plane in the late first and second quarter of next year. I am told that they will begin to require progress payments and that is going to create some movement on positions. There are a lot of people who have had their positions for 6-7 years now and situations change. Many of those people don't have actual money up and those that do have $50-$100,000 and are getting ready to be asked for more. When that happens reality will kick in and there will be a lot of positions for sale. Perhaps the prices for those will moderate as a result. Right now they are a bit rich in some cases for an unproduced plane (I saw one today where the guy wants $500,000! It would deliver an airplane for less than retail but I think that's a bit high…). I agree with Jason and others who think the plane will be a success. Still, look at the numbers of VLJ's that Cessna has sold this year. Way down. People aren't buying new jets right now apparently. And the prices for the first Mustangs are beginning to approach $1.5 million. That will tempt people away I think. And the price of a new Mustang and the price of a new Cirrus are getting closer together all the time. So, I think their success will be tempered. I got an offer to go to Duluth early next year and take a closer look and I think I will. It's an intriguing airplane.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 22:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11105 Post Likes: +7091 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: ... will make your penis 3" longer. Wow, it'll do that too? Now I really want one. Not me, not quite sure where I'd be able to easily put twelve inches......
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Nov 2014, 23:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/30/11 Posts: 3946 Post Likes: +2437 Location: Greenwood, MO
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My buddy came up with a great formula: It costs me X every January to have it sitting at the airport waiting for me. Then it costs me X per hour in gas.
So now decide what check you write every January and if you can swallow it. I like that approach, but I think you have it right with the big check in January plus cost-per-mile.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 01 Dec 2014, 01:19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3649 Post Likes: +2608 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1978 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've always said my PC12 is cheap to run than my Bonanza considering half price fuel and 2X the speed.
However......
Quoting airplane expenses "by the hour" is flawed logic. I don't fly the same number of hours as you. We need to quit using the "by the hour" method.
My buddy came up with a great formula: It costs me X every January to have it sitting at the airport waiting for me. Then it costs me X per hour in gas.
So now decide what check you write every January and if you can swallow it. I agree with your methodology. I think about it similarly, but then I also break it down into a total cost per hour flown. Mostly I do that so I can later justify the business/personal components of my flying if I ever get audited. Really, the whole thing boils down to orders of magnitude: I spend $30k per year flying the Bonanza 200 hrs. We spent $250k/yr flying the citation 200 hrs (excluding the pilot). Do the PC12/TBM/SF50 fall between those two? I would think they should, but I've never found any real numbers to back it up.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 01 Dec 2014, 01:23 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 1569 Post Likes: +523 Location: Houston, TX USA
Aircraft: Learjet
|
|
The only thing cool about the SF50 is you get to say 'Let's take the jet.'
_________________ Destroyer of the world’s finest aircraft since 1985.
|
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|