14 Jan 2026, 17:31 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 21:22 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6064
Post Likes: +716
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
TBM is even better. Fly it 200 hrs between inspections. The easiest plane to manage. Im based on my private airstrip with no maintenance. No problem as it doesnt break down. Check the oil, check tires pressure, clean the plane, add fuel, fly! Username Protected wrote: I'm not talking about flying it....I'm talking about managing it between flights. One word: turbine. You don't curate a turbine, you fly it. My plane is 40 years old. I don't spend time on it between flights. This is one reason I bypassed the 421 (which was my intention at one time). A surprisingly rewarding feature of turbines is that you don't deal with engine oil. I've never added oil to my airplane in 7 years. It goes 900 hours between oil changes. There is NOTHING to do to the engines. Just go fly. Mike C.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 21:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/18/10
Posts: 458
Post Likes: +114
Location: Chicago
Aircraft: C441, C310N
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Now that sounds good.
Agreed. I just wish turbines weren't so inefficient low. No such thing as a $100 burger in a turbine. I like to just go fly too much for a turbine to make sense.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:10 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16156
Post Likes: +8873
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: TBM is even better.
Fly it 200 hrs between inspections. The easiest plane to manage.
Im based on my private airstrip with no maintenance. No problem as it doesnt break down.
Check the oil, check tires pressure, clean the plane, add fuel, fly! That is going to be a key feature if Cirrus wants to see success in the marketplace. Getting away from the rent-seeking behavior that comes with the Beech and Cessna turbine products. Spending 100k to yank perfectly good components based on calendar limits doesn't make sense for most operators.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3306
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
|
Post shortened for simplification
Last edited on 12 Jan 2015, 22:39, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:27 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8236
Post Likes: +7972
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yes, it is true.
The force came out in the nozzle, which is effectively a trim tab balancing the engine vertical force.
The ENGINE produces the vertical force due to its install angle. SOMETHING on the airplane has to react to it. The nozzle is one treatment, tail force is another.
Well, you said TAIL. That SOMETHING isn't tail. So no cigar on this one.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3306
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Now that sounds good.
Agreed. I just wish turbines weren't so inefficient low. No such thing as a $100 burger in a turbine. I like to just go fly too much for a turbine to make sense.
How far away can your burger joint be if you are going there with $100 worth of gas in a 421?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3306
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
After I earned my multi ticket I was still contemplating a 421. Best decision I ever made was to skip piston twin all together and get the best Merlin I could find. TBM is nice for domestic flying but there is no way I'm taking my family in a single over oceans and mountains like I do. Username Protected wrote: One word: turbine.
You don't curate a turbine, you fly it.
My plane is 40 years old. I don't spend time on it between flights. This is one reason I bypassed the 421 (which was my intention at one time).
A surprisingly rewarding feature of turbines is that you don't deal with engine oil. I've never added oil to my airplane in 7 years. It goes 900 hours between oil changes. There is NOTHING to do to the engines. Just go fly.
Mike C.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/11/10
Posts: 3833
Post Likes: +4140
Location: (KADS) Dallas, TX
|
|
I love BT! We have a tread where a guy is flying his Lancair around the world, across Antartica, across the whole Pacific, etc. Everyone is encouraging him on. Then we have this thread where anything less than a twin turbine is suspect for safety flying around CONUS. Just an observation. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 23:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3306
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love BT! We have a tread where a guy is flying his Lancair around the world, across Antartica, across the whole Pacific, etc. Everyone is encouraging him on. Then we have this thread where anything less than a twin turbine is suspect for safety flying around CONUS. Just an observation. I have done and continue to do my share of single engine adventure flying. Different mission than taking family across the Americas for a month long vacation. But your point is well taken, and can you tell me what happened to the woman thread a few days ago? 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 23:07 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13677
Post Likes: +7838
Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love BT! We have a tread where a guy is flying his Lancair around the world, across Antartica, across the whole Pacific, etc. Everyone is encouraging him on. Then we have this thread where anything less than a twin turbine is suspect for safety flying around CONUS.
Just an observation. :D Its true. We start believing our own BS after awhile. I still need a twin though. :D
_________________
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: 12 Jan 2015, 23:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21059
Post Likes: +26508
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I just wish turbines weren't so inefficient low. No such thing as a $100 burger in a turbine. I like to just go fly too much for a turbine to make sense. LSA + turbine = solution. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 23:23 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21059
Post Likes: +26508
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: We have a tread where a guy is flying his Lancair around the world, across Antartica, across the whole Pacific, etc. Notable for the danger. It's news. Quote: Then we have this thread where anything less than a twin turbine is suspect for safety flying around CONUS. Notable for the safety. You don't want it to be news. Quote: Just an observation. :D Likewise. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 23:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/18/10
Posts: 458
Post Likes: +114
Location: Chicago
Aircraft: C441, C310N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I just wish turbines weren't so inefficient low. No such thing as a $100 burger in a turbine. I like to just go fly too much for a turbine to make sense. LSA + turbine = solution. Mike C.
If I could find a turbine to lease or partner on I agree. If I'm doing my burger runs in another aircraft it wouldn't get enough use on my own, and I'd be worried about staying current. Still if the right situation presents itself....
|
|
| 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 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
