23 Nov 2025, 18:00 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 12:08 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
If flying were so hard it wouldn't be one of the lowest paying jobs. A new Phenom is easier to fly and more automated than a 10 year old CJ. The trend will continue and the only folks complaining are the ones suffering from Old Timey Pilot Think. ha 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 12:40 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5193 Post Likes: +3038 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Since this post I have added all my receipts for my PC12 and it came out to $1K an hour to operate. That's just dividing all expenses by the number of hours on the airframe. Some years airplane ownership is cheap. Some years it's not. Just depends. I think you can run a CJ2/3 for that cost. Flying 300 hours/year: Fuel @120 GPH @$2.50 = $300 Engines @ $150 * 2 = $300 Maintenance $25,000/yr = $83 Insurance $15,000/yr = $50 Hangar $30,000/yr = $100 Navdata - $5,000/yr = $17 P&I Reserve - $7,500 = $25 Hourly cost for 300 hours/yr = $875 Cost/NM @ 350kts = $2.70 Anything material I am missing in mine that you have in your $1,000/hr? At 250kts block speed it is costing you $4/nm.
_________________ Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 12:53 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13631 Post Likes: +7766 Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What they have REALLY simplified is staying alive when the SHTF. Look how much time the rest of us dedicate to only that. This is exactly the sort of false comfort that leads to high accident rates. Complexity of aircraft systems hardly ever factors into GA accidents. Lack of pilot judgment, particularly continuing into riskier situations, is a major factor, and you can't automate that away in the design of the machine. Telling Cirrus pilots they can be lesser trained is a recipe for disaster, and the early SR series accident rate showed that. What fix it? More training. You can be darn sure the FSB (Flight Standards Board, the people who set the standards for type ratings) is not going to give SF50 pilots a pass on the type rating. I think we are going to find a bunch of soft SR22 pilots who can't cut the mustard when it comes to a jet type rating, even on a slow limited jet. It would not surprise me if half the pilots showing up for the SF50 course have deficient hand flown instrument skills. Mike C.
In your singular focus, you assumed I was talking about pulling the handle.
Simplifying does not mean reducing. They have exact procedures based on flight regime and failure mode. They have created conformity in training and have streamlined the process for the pilot community.
The MU2 benefitted when SFAR 108 forced created a single track for the best training. They simplified decision making and procedures for pilots by ALWAYS teaching the proper techniques. Cirrus has done the same thing.
If you receive training in a Bonanza, otoh, you may find 10 answers to the same questions. Beechtalk is full of threads where experienced pilots argue about the correct procedures. This COMPLICATES training and diminishes safety.
Best,
_________________ Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients My 58TC https://tinyurl.com/mry9f8f6
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 12:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/11/11 Posts: 2416 Post Likes: +2774 Location: Woodlands TX
Aircraft: C525 D1K Waco PT17
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If flying were so hard it wouldn't be one of the lowest paying jobs. A new Phenom is easier to fly and more automated than a 10 year old CJ. The trend will continue and the only folks complaining are the ones suffering from Old Timey Pilot Think. ha  Unless you upgrade it to a G1000.... 
Last edited on 30 Dec 2015, 13:00, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 12:59 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5193 Post Likes: +3038 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That's the first time Ive ever heard anyone claim a CJ3 costs $1k an hour to operate. Jet-A at $2.50 helps alot. At $5.00 it would add $300/hour. Insurance has dropped almost in half over the last 5 years. The fixed costs makes low utilization expensive. Fly it 100 hours and it would cost $1425/hour with my numbers.
_________________ Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:02 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/11/11 Posts: 2416 Post Likes: +2774 Location: Woodlands TX
Aircraft: C525 D1K Waco PT17
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That's the first time Ive ever heard anyone claim a CJ3 costs $1k an hour to operate. Jet-A at $2.50 helps alot. At $5.00 it would add $300/hour. Insurance has dropped almost in half over the last 5 years. The fixed costs makes low utilization expensive. Fly it 100 hours and it would cost $1425/hour with my numbers.
And at $1.67 per gallon it is even better!
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:11 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5193 Post Likes: +3038 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Simplifying does not mean reducing. They have exact procedures based on flight regime and failure mode. They have created conformity in training and have streamlined the process for the pilot community.
Cirrus also has reasonable conformity across their aircraft fleet. You have a wide range of Bonanzas and Barons on BT with varying engines and avionics and model differences. Cirrus brought down to the piston SE practices the turbine fleet has been doing for years.
_________________ Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:21 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 07/21/08 Posts: 5840 Post Likes: +7288 Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And at $1.67 per gallon it is even better!
Why is there no similar program for Avgas? Just not enough demand?
_________________ I'm just here for the free snacks
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:22 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Why is there no similar program for Avgas? Just not enough demand? Yup
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:24 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5193 Post Likes: +3038 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My insurance payment is a lot higher than yours. I wonder what $25mm in a CJ3 would be for me?
Also, my FBO fees are considerably less than a jet. I wonder how they would play in?
My insurance was a lot higher a few years ago. I don't know how much of the drop was based on increased experience versus market competition. You have to work with a really good experienced broker. I am sure you will pay more then me, I have a really good deal. I try to avoid the high fee FBOs. Rarely go to Signature, Atlantic, or Landmark.
_________________ Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 13:42 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My insurance was a lot higher a few years ago. I don't know how much of the drop was based on increased experience versus market competition. You have to work with a really good experienced broker. I am sure you will pay more then me, I have a really good deal.
I try to avoid the high fee FBOs. Rarely go to Signature, Atlantic, or Landmark.
Do you carry $25MM or more on insurance? Mine would be a lot lower if I would agree to $5MM. I avoid high fee FBO's too but many of the places I fly it isn't really an option. The reason I didn't buy a CJ3 when I bought my PC12 in 2013 was because the CJ3 was $5MM and the PC12 was in the low 3's. Operating expenses aren't my issue. Now that I have a PC12 I'm just holding off because jet prices keep dropping with all the new ones coming out. And, believe it or not, the PC12 does have several advantages over the CJ3 and Phenom that I will miss if and when I make the switch.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|