When/if they get to that phase, that is when the SF50 will be the greatest strain on the company. They then have a large block of early customers who bought the airplane below cost. The faster they make them, the more money they lose, and now it is real money they have to send to vendors for parts.

This is what did in Eclipse more than anything else, actually building the airplanes.


No, we won't. There's no way the SF50 deliveries start in 12 months.

It took 3 years after the conforming EA500s flew before deliveries.

Mike C.

Actually, it doesn't. It is a very precise term in FAA certification language.

"Probable" means a failure that would occur, on average, 1 or more times during the entire operational life of each airplane. Mathematically, the FAA deems this to be a 1 in 10^5 hours chance, or one occurrence every 10,000 hours of flight.

Window failure: not probable.

Engine shutdown: probable.

Mike C.

My buddy owns a Cirrus charter/fractional company. He says 12 months and has delivery slots.

I think it's unlikely too but we shall see.

Even in this example, clearly during a high traffic time in NYC, the flight was above 30K 58% of the time, and about 75% of the distance.

Being able to fly high provided significant advantage even on this flight. You have to consider that most of the distance was covered at high altitude even if the time was nearly balanced.

Mike C.

Those numbers are for "failures", the engine broke.

Engines shutdown for a lot of other reasons. Pilot error, fuel exhaustion, fuel system failure, ice ingestion, bird/fod ingestion, etc.

In any case, the FAA has always defined engine failure as probable.

Mike C.

Those numbers are for "failures", the engine broke.

Engines shutdown for a lot of other reasons. Pilot error, fuel exhaustion, fuel system failure, ice ingestion, bird/fod ingestion, etc.

In any case, the FAA has always defined engine failure as probable.

Mike C.

I haven't read where Mike has attacked anybody personally. I have seen Mike lay out some arguments that seem fact based. Not sure why we would want to try to kill the thread unless it's purpose is just a "feel good" thread for everything positive about Cirrus. People can choose to read or not...

When/if they get to that phase, that is when the SF50 will be the greatest strain on the company. They then have a large block of early customers who bought the airplane below cost. The faster they make them, the more money they lose, and now it is real money they have to send to vendors for parts.

This is what did in Eclipse more than anything else, actually building the airplanes.


No, we won't. There's no way the SF50 deliveries start in 12 months.

It took 3 years after the conforming EA500s flew before deliveries.

Mike C.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to be factual.

You made some statements that were spoken in such a way that it looked like you knew what you were talking about. For example, for the trip between PDK & NYC airplanes won't get above FL210. Or, the CJ that was referenced via Flightaware flew "the exact same route and altitude" as you'd fly in your PC-12. Others and myself easily proved your statements to not be factual.

You're clearly one of the more respected and trusted forum members. People look to members like yourself as a source of accurate information, and often blindly trust it. As such, when incorrect info is spoken, I believe it's important that the information be cleared up so as to avoid confusion now or in the future when the topic is read.

I hope that you now have a better understanding of my motive. I simply want to do my part to be sure that accurate info is available; not hearsay.

They have no intention of trying to meet the requirement. They are well on the final certification process with the sub RVSM limit. Why are you guys arguing about things that don't matter?

You want to compare Eclipse to Cirrus, the most successful new aircraft manufacturer in years? The company that straight out dominates the markets it competes in? I don't get it.

And you think the chute doesn't matter?

A chute matters in that it will change peoples risk management. This is like the twin vs single debate. Beatin like a dead pony!

My wife was afraid of flying, what first got her to fly with me was the chute in the SR20 I used to fly.
A cute or a second engine I view as required equipment for night IMC flying, and since I like to fly at night....

But you are correct, it comes down to risk mitigation. If I end up flying a plane without a chute or a second engine, I am gonna be flying during the day and avoiding most low IMC.

Tim

I haven't read where Mike has attacked anybody personally. I have seen Mike lay out some arguments that seem fact based. Not sure why we would want to try to kill the thread unless it's purpose is just a "feel good" thread for everything positive about Cirrus. People can choose to read or not...

The chute matters because of how it affects sales. Mike C. said he doesn't think the chute matters in regards to sales. I beg to differ.