Rumor is that the initial sales price of the thing is $2 million. That's probably in the "we lose money on each one, but make it up in volume" range. I'd expect the price to go up. Maybe they won't screw the pooch as badly as Eclipse, which set the initial price so low that the original company was run out of business (new ones now cost three times as much as the initial price).
One other thing: It's a jet. That means that no matter how Cirrus spins it, you're going to need a type rating to fly it. (Which you don't need in order to fly a TBM-850 or a PC-12.)
Type ratings are flown to ATP proficiency standards. Which basically means that if you're not up to taking an ATP checkride, then forget about the Cirrus Jet.
8 comments:
The main reason jets have replaced turboprops in the puddle jumper market is noise and vibration. I flew many a flight in one of those damnable Embraer turboprop puddle jumpers, and they were both ridiculously noisy and made enough vibration to vibrate my package of peanuts off the seat tray. (Yeah, that's how long ago it was, they actually served in-flight snacks on puddle jumpers!). When most of the commuter lines switched to the small commuter-sized jets, it was a quantum leap in comfort. No more having fillings rattled out, no more having to shout at the top of your voice to order a drink from the flight attendant.
But that's the situation when you have someone else flying you. I can't see the point of a $2M+ 4-passenger jet. If you have that much dough, you fly only when you feel like it -- otherwise you have a pilot on retainer to do the flying for you. And if you have that much dough, you don't fly something this tiny, you fly something a bit more spacious like a Citation Mustang or EMB-500. Or you're Larry Ellison, but there's only one Larry Ellison, thank dog.
So I'm not getting the point... unless the point is an excuse for Cirus to go bankrupt, which is quite doable with silly cr*p like this.
- Badtux the Flightless Penguin
Banks aren't lending money for bizjets under $10 million, so Cirrus is going to be looking for people with two million in their piggy banks. Or else Cirrus is self-financing them. And if they go for a PC-12, a Cessna Grand Caravan (208B) or even a used Beech King Air, they can get a toilet seat, which is no little deal when carrying the family.
On a purely semantic point, since but the FAA is notoriously pedantic about enforcing regulations: the regulation requires a type rating for aircraft powered by 'turbojets'. All modern jet aircraft of which I'm aware use turbofans. Does this mean that, at least technically, the FAA might not be allowed to require type ratings for them?
:-)
Interesting article. Cessna is self-financing their small jets via Textron Financial. Which works if you have access to cheap money because you're a defense contractor's associated finance company, but Cirrus doesn't have access to cheap money because the financial markets view them as risky. They'd be borrowing high and lending low, *again* a recipe for bankruptcy.
But yeah, a toilet seat is decidedly something that someone with $2M-$9M burning a hole in their pocket to buy a jet would want. They wouldn't want this overglorified CIrrus SR22 piddle-plane. They'd want something big enough to seat the whole family, PLUS a fishing buddy or two, PLUS a pilot, and fly them a thousand miles to Aspen for skiing or Florida for snorkeling on the weekend. Not something that looks like a playground toy.
The FAA considers the word "turbojet" to encompass all jet powered aircraft. The propulsion types the FAA current uses are basically Prop, Turboprop, Turbojet (and Rocket). There will be a type rating required.
The type rating requirement is really not an issue, considering that no insurance company is going to let you fly any one of those planes without training that goes significantly beyond the minimum FAA requirements.... In fact, FSI recommends you don't even show up prior to accumulating serious time in type.
Peter, the FAA requires a type rating for an Eclipse 500/500, which has a gross weight roughly akin to a Beech Baron.
Have you seen this?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/burmese-treasure-weve-done-some-pretty-silly-things-but-the-silliest-was-burying-the-spitfires-20120415-1x1kn.html
Post a Comment