banner
banner

10 Jul 2025, 10:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 512  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 10:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12822
Post Likes: +5263
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Not when the engine maker includes the extra costs for making only half the units, the lost revenue from parts supporting only half the units, the higher amortization per unit of development costs, and the higher liability given the engine is on a single.


I can see these points for the Williams unit in the SF50. So why didn't Cirrus just pick an off the shelf unit that is already developed and has a support ecosystem? Is there something unique about the SF50 that requires a clean sheet design? There are plenty of 10-12,000 lb jets running around. Why not use one of those engines?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 10:21 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/18/09
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +243
Company: Elemental - Pipistrel
Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
Username Protected wrote:

Other than owners of other brands that lacked the innovations and attributes I don't recall anyone calling the Cirrus a joke. Maybe a cruel joke.

Still I see the plane as a fad, just like the VLJ fad in general that appears to be a tremendous flop. I actually would want a jet one day if the need arises but I dang sure want to get over weather.


No way it is a fad. If they get this to market it will do quite well. You get over "most" the weather at 250, and the beauty of this aircraft is that at higher airspeeds, diverting isn't as big of a deal as it is when you are going 175 knots.

Do not underestimate how much nicer a jet aircraft is to fly then a turboprop. The PC-12 notwithstanding (because it's mission isn't necessarily speed), I think this aircraft will really cut into the TBM and Meridian sales. They are much quieter, easier to operate, easier to fly, and its a "jet". No more explaining that a turboprop is a jet engine spinning a propellor. There will be many that state they won't switch out, but I bet they will.

Do not underestimate the parachute. It is a HUGE.

_________________
--
Jason Talley
Pipistrel Distributor
http://www.elemental.aero

CJ2+
7GCBC
Pipsitrel Panthera


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 10:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13082
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
VLJ's hit the market in 2007 timeframe. Anything coming to market at this time was hit hard. Not just airplanes. You can't use that as a data point for what people want.

But for the economy crapping out I think VLJ's would have done well. There were still many many Mustangs and Phenom 100's sold and I think Eclipse would have done well too and they may still pull through. I see a lot of Eclipse's out there surprisingly.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 10:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
If I really, really, really wanted an SF50, I'd wait until it has been in the field 2+ years and see what the teething problems are like, then buy one used IF the field history is good. Ask any Eclipse owner about the "early years" of having an entirely new airframe and entirely new engine built by a company entirely new to jets.

Mike C.


That's what I want to do and exactly what started this whole conversation. Except, I think 5-10 years is the magic wait time because people won't have to recapture their depreciation and there will be more on the market as a result.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 10:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/05/11
Posts: 5248
Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
Maybe "fad" wasn't quite the right word. It seems to me there is a price delta that is reached at a point where most people would just as soon hire a crew for their jet and not go through the hassles of being their own pilot. Sure, the dream is everybody has their own personal jet, but it's really not quite that simple and isn't realistic for most people, even if they're pilots.Just saying...

And as far as the economy in general: it would seem, and of course this is just conjecture, the "top" is in good shape and either buying their G650's, or the smart one's buy a share in net jets; and the bottom is getting deeper, with less solidity in the middle where the VLJ crowd would be found.

_________________
“ Embrace the Suck”


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12822
Post Likes: +5263
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
with less solidity in the middle where the VLJ crowd would be found.


That's a fascinating comment that could quickly go political :)

My impression of the changing dynamics of US income distribution is that the crowd capable of supporting a $2MM airplane is solid to improving.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
Not when the engine maker includes the extra costs for making only half the units, the lost revenue from parts supporting only half the units, the higher amortization per unit of development costs, and the higher liability given the engine is on a single.


I can see these points for the Williams unit in the SF50. So why didn't Cirrus just pick an off the shelf unit that is already developed and has a support ecosystem? Is there something unique about the SF50 that requires a clean sheet design? There are plenty of 10-12,000 lb jets running around. Why not use one of those engines?


If Mike is really right about the eco-system, and Cirrus doesn't sell enough SF50s to create one for the Williams turbine, I suspect they'll change engines at some point and use a PW600 variant. Apparently, the PW design is capable of up to 3k LBF.

Thinking in Cirrus' shoes for a minute, they started the certification journey with the FJ and I'm sure it's much easier to finish with the same engine you started with. Changing engines after the fact is an STC and much less work than initial certification.
_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12166
Post Likes: +3052
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
MIke C.

I agree, a jet engine can be optimized for any one altitude. My point was currently none are optimized for 25K. All are currently tuned for 30K+ (many now for 35K+)

The 25K limit is imposed by the FAA as you state. From what I have read, and discussed with a few aircraft engineers who have been through the process; the systems and engineering required, the certification costs and the manufacturing costs double to go above 25K in the USA and 30K if certifying with EASA. And the costs double again when going above 41K; which is why this is a common service limit.

My point was that, if Cirrus proves there is a market for aircraft capped at 25K, the engineering for the jet engine is fairly straight forward to increase its efficiency; and I would expect Williams, Pratt or RR to actually implement it and you will see it on the SF-50 G2 or G3.

In terms of costs, you assume a constant profit and costs regardless of number of units sold for the jet engine company. This is not how the market the works; I did discuss the engine selection for the Aerostar Jet with AAC a few years ago. I do not recall the numbers but no way did it double in price as the power of the engines doubles. Further, if that was the case, why does a SETP cost less then a TETP?

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12822
Post Likes: +5263
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Well there's your route to jet ownership in 2024. First 12 s/n of SF50 have the unsupported williams engine :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:24 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
That's a fascinating comment that could quickly go political :)

My impression of the changing dynamics of US income distribution is that the crowd capable of supporting a $2MM airplane is solid to improving.



It certainly is. Also remember that supporting a VLJ is (I hope) an order of magnitude from supporting normal biz-jet aircraft. A 2MM Citation II/S-II is several hundreds of thousands per year in care/feeding.

None of the VLJs have been around long enough to really know what the long term costs are like, but I'm optimistic so far. The initial eclipse debacles hurt the early adopters, but early adopters tend to get hammered in any business.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Last edited on 07 Dec 2014, 11:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
Well there's your route to jet ownership in 2024. First 12 s/n of SF50 have the unsupported williams engine :)


And I'll be in line to buy one come 2019-2024. Fly it until it hits TBO and grind up the remains into beer cans.

If they weren't so ridiculously thirsty, the older lears would be very tempting to buy and run out before they become scrap.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13082
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
with less solidity in the middle where the VLJ crowd would be found.

Nobody talking about a VLJ is in the middle crowd. Let's not kid ourselves, those of us posting here that own and operate any aircraft aren't really in the middle crowd.

Agree 100%.

What a bizarre analogy.

Piston = Poor People
VLJ = Middle America
Big Jet = Rich folks

So because the VLJ market was crushed in 2008 that means "middle america is suffering". "Evil rich people just keep getting richer". We need more VLJ's to save America!!!!! :D

Bizarre!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:57 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 35189
Post Likes: +13669
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
If they weren't so ridiculously thirsty, the older lears would be very tempting to buy and run out before they become scrap.

I wonder if there's a profit window in taking something like an "old Lear" and retrofitting it with modern engines and avionics. Seems like you could bypass a huge (and expensive) portion of the certification process especially if you started with a proven engine and avionics suite. The airframe itself comes with a lot of the tough stuff (pressurization, deice, flight envelope, control force, emergency backups, etc) already certified.
_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Last edited on 07 Dec 2014, 11:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 11:57 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
Username Protected wrote:
So because the VLJ market was crushed in 2008 that means "middle america is suffering". "Evil rich people just keep getting richer". We need more VLJ's to save America!!!!! :D


Most turbine aircraft are bought and owned by businesses and are done so for depreciation. The thing that hammered the aircraft in 2008 (aside from the public outcry over detroit execs riding in them) was the lack of money lending. We all know how tight the banks were during that time.

Businesses (most of them anyway) aren't going to buy an asset like that with cash. Any business will have a better use for it's cash than buying an airplane with it. They finance them to get the depreciation now and pay for it over a long(er) period of time.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly have been getting richer the last couple years. 2008 was tough. It was bad enough that I sold (almost) everything and moved to China looking for opportunities. 2012/13/14 were a totally different ballgame.


Even though Cirrus is owned by the Chinese, they'll likely be made here. The Chinese market (especially the well enough to do ones that can afford an aircraft) doesn't want domestically made stuff. They want imports. An SF50 made in the US will have larger market share and a better image than one made in China. That's even true considering that it would cost 50-100% more (Chinese import duties are insanely high).

Airplane manufacturing jobs are GOOD jobs. We do need more VLJs.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 12:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 3859
Post Likes: +2969
Company: On the wagon
Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
One thing we haven't touched on at all is the possibility of a huge SF50 market in China. The government there has been slowly relaxing airspace restrictions. Give it 5-10 more years and they'll have bizjet ownership that looks like it does in the US.

No Chinese business man wants a prop airplane and they certainly don't want pistons. A Pilatus would be a great airplane there, but it has one of those spinning things on the front, so they can forget the Chinese market.

Combine reasonable access with the huge number of insanely wealthy people in China and there is a boom coming in jets. At the same time, a 10mm-50mm Citation/Gulfstream will still be out of the league of many of them.

I think the Mustang, Phenom and SF50 will own the market over there.

_________________
Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 512  Next



B-Kool (Top/Bottom Banner)

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

Jump to:  

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 2007-2025

.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.