Cirrus_Man wrote:
There is not doubt that a TBM 900 is faster and more fuel efficient but it is also $1.5 million more and for me feels very cramped in the P1 position.
But the TBM 850 isn’t. The TBM does not feel cramped in P1 to me. The Meridian is more so.
In terms of value for money, to be able to get a brand new, fully warranted and supported Jet aircraft for $2 million is a fantastic deal. (Meridien M600 $2.6 million)
Well you could get a 2008 Mustang on programs for $1.7mn. If you are on programs the warranty is not a big differentiator.
I would not be suprised if Cirrus are already working on the follow up jet aircraft which will be bigger and faster.
The certification costs for a larger aircraft would be huge. I would expect any developments to be based around this fuselage and wing.
There is clearly a market for it but time will tell if that segment is a long term development given the parlous state of GA overall.
I assume you are selling your delivery positions hence the marketing fervour?
I would not be suprised if Cirrus are already working on the follow up jet aircraft which will be bigger and faster.
Haha! Although I am real believer in Cirrus – we will not see that in our lifetime. They will be occupied with the jet and the next generation of SEPs enough, and they will be lucky if they survive as a manufacturer.
Yes there are a lot of positions for sale in the secondary market and I agree that many of these were sold when customers bought a new SR22 over the past 5 years and many no longer want or need the jet so they are selling the position.
Hey, this is aviation we are talking about so there are no guarantees on anything, FAA certification, pricing, TAS etc. But it is exciting to watch it all unfold.
Maybe a good topic for a new thread, but what do people think of the XTI VTOL aircraft and their attempt to crowdfund it:
I don’t see that one happen either … Just have a look how long it took Boeing to make the Osprey a safe aircraft, and how much that cost. Sure, anybody today can build a model airplane, or even a prototype that does this … but what do you think how much the certification of that airplane would be? …
There are a lot of Cirrus Jet positions for sale. What is interesting is they don’t seem to be trading at a premium. That market could be a bit of a car crash once the aircraft starts delivering. Will be one to watch.
Positions are an esoteric market and the aircraft is not certfied so they all hold some risk.
Also, position number is very important. Bleeding edge vs leading edge. I would not want a very early position until they work out the inevitable bugs.
Finally, who wants to buy position 350 and get delivery in 4 years so I can see why those positions are not in demand.
Cobalt wrote:
Thankfully, EASA has seen a bit of light and is currently not implementing part-NCC (and hence the accelerate-stop requirements) for twin turboprops.
That particular bit of text mentions that METs (MTOM <= 5,7 t) are exempt, IIRC. So that shouldn’t be a reason for not implementing it.
RobertL18C wrote:
why European approved flight manuals for, say MEP, and operations manuals did not have ASDA.
As was written, MEPs are not complex (unless MTOM > 5,7 t or seats > 19 or crew > 1). While METs and all jets are. Different rules apply. Also, we are talking about new regulations which can hardly be reflected in old manuals.
@Cirrus_Man You do sound like a Cirrus salesman. I can understand excitement, passion, but too much is too much.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
it is depreciation and this is I think the real hidden value of this aircraft.
SETs keep value rather well. Unless Cirrus manages to undermine this. Nobody now knows how well will the Cirrus hold its value. Considering how other jets perform in this respect, I don’t think depreciation is a good angle.
Flyer59 wrote:
“ramp presence” is completely uninmportant. There might be customers for planes like that who really care about having the biggest (whatever!) but it’s really embarrassing …
I agree. I would consider “ramp presence” only in terms of what I fancy. I don’t care what others think. But, as I was told years ago by a colleague, when I drive a car, I sit inside, not outside.
I have a hard time imagining spending that kind of money for an airplane and not have a toilet.
I can certainly agree with that sentiment. However, proper solution requires space. And having a toilet doesn’t necessarily mean you would want to service it and hence use it. I would consider installing a toilet into, say, TBM (there is such option), but only for “emergency” use. 
Just have a look how long it took Boeing to make the Osprey a safe aircraft, and how much that cost.
Or one can look at the AW609.
… I have a hard time imagining spending that kind of money for an airplane and not have a toilet.
You’ll come around after having emptied it a few times…
Edit: forgot the smiley!
