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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Well there's your route to jet ownership in 2024. First 12 s/n of SF50 have the unsupported williams engine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.