I heard $80k per year from an owner, covering everything including training, which is roughly consistent with $600/hr for 150 hours and the other numbers here.

I heard $80k per year from an owner, covering everything including training, which is roughly consistent with $600/hr for 150 hours and the other numbers here.

Obviously does not include fuel, just talking about the maintenance program (and training and databases and satellite internet of some sort). Not sure if that includes insurance or not, which would be a big deal. I bet that is not included. The one that is local fits easily in a smaller hangar than I have for my 340. It has a small footprint.

Some might look at your list and say "see, I told you it's not as good as twin jets!!"

But the right take away is "see, Cirrus understands its market very well and has pretty much hit the nail on the head!"

Not quite apples and oranges, but in the days of $3000 Taylor Swift concert tickets, asking why anyone would spend $x when they could get something else for less than $x is the wrong question. You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, the money is being spent whether you agree or not. Rationality and irrationality is in the eye of the beholder.

The question I have is how many new SF owners are "stepping up" to something different after cutting their teeth on the Jet experience? And from that data, is the SF all Cirrus needs, or do they need something better/different to keep SF owners in the family?

BTW, the 960 is my answer to the question "what would you own if you could own any plane". I just love that thing! Just need to get the bank balance in line with my lust!

I bet it would be eye opening to read all the emergency and abnormal procedures in the SF50 AFM for when the automation fails to do the right thing.

The yaw damping system would be a good place to start, so complicated.

I think this is why the type rating is considered so challenging for the SF50, the flying is easy, but the emergency and abnormal procedures are complex and tough.

There is always a downside to automation in aviation. The more automated it gets, the harder it is to dealt with the failure.

The logical endpoint for this automation trajectory is a plane that has one button "go" and the pilot does nothing, unless the system fails and then they need to be Chuck Yeager to get it down on the ground in one piece. The EVTOL aircraft are already like this, except Chuck wouldn't survive if the computers gave up.

Mike C.

I bet it would be eye opening to read all the emergency and abnormal procedures in the SF50 AFM for when the automation fails to do the right thing.

The yaw damping system would be a good place to start, so complicated.

I think this is why the type rating is considered so challenging for the SF50, the flying is easy, but the emergency and abnormal procedures are complex and tough.

There is always a downside to automation in aviation. The more automated it gets, the harder it is to dealt with the failure.

The logical endpoint for this automation trajectory is a plane that has one button "go" and the pilot does nothing, unless the system fails and then they need to be Chuck Yeager to get it down on the ground in one piece. The EVTOL aircraft are already like this, except Chuck wouldn't survive if the computers gave up.

Mike C.

I think this is why the type rating is considered so challenging for the SF50, the flying is easy, but the emergency and abnormal procedures are complex and tough.
Mike C.

The common report from newly typed SF50 pilots is that the course is challenging.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgM_MeJKahg

It is a jet, not an SR. It has a type rating. It has complex systems. It has speed limits. It has retractable gear. It has pressurization. You fly SIDs and STARs. Etc, etc, etc...

The fact you don't need an ME rating is almost irrelevant to the effort.

Mike C.

The common report from newly typed SF50 pilots is that the course is challenging.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgM_MeJKahg

It is a jet, not an SR. It has a type rating. It has complex systems. It has speed limits. It has retractable gear. It has pressurization. You fly SIDs and STARs. Etc, etc, etc...

The fact you don't need an ME rating is almost irrelevant to the effort.

Mike C.

I "upgraded" my Bo with this years ago. I call it BLDD, or bathroom landing deterrent device. Aka The Bladder.

It's never been used. Which is the whole point!

"Look, you can either go in that or wait until we land at our destination".

They always wait.

And yes, it's for #1 only!!

All I can tell you is that it is a darn easy plane to fly. Yes, there is a learning curve for somebody stepping up from an SR, and that encompasses the vast majority of Vision Jet pilots. However, as turbine aircraft go, that plane is as easy to learn as they come.

Pressurization? Turn on the bleed air. It does the rest. Forget to turn on the bleed air? It’s gonna scream atcha. Have a pressurization issue and forget the proper steps …. it’s going to bring you home all by itself.

Yaw damper? You don’t do anything. It turns on at 200 ft, and off again at 200 ft before you land. Yes, if it has a malfunction you need to turn it off, but that applies to every plane with a yaw damper.

Engine management? Turn on the battery, turn on the fuel, and hit the start button. FADEC gets it started. If there is an issue, it aborts the start for you. From there, the power lever goes forward for faster, and backwards for slower. If you prefer, the auto throttles can help. Auto throttle failure? Disconnect it.

In over your head, midair collision, or control surface failure? Pull the damn chute. Heart attack with passengers? Have them hit the red button.

Having owned several piston singles, 2 piston twins, 1 turbine twin, the SF50, and now my 960, I can tell you that I found the Vision Jet to be the easiest transition. There are a lot of things I didn’t like, most of which are related to Cirrus business practices, but I sure can’t pick on the simplicity and comfort, which is relatively unmatched in its class.

Is it the best answer for everybody? Of course not. If somebody has Mike C’s technical knowledge, and willingness to spend a fair amount of time learning and managing his airframe, there is probably a better way to quickly get from A to C. But most people have neither the time, motivation, or skill set to make that happen, and many are willing to pay a premium just to get from A to B. As much as I like flying, I’d much rather be golfing than sourcing a backup set of tires for my plane.

There is an ass for every seat, and let’s face it, Cirrus has sold a lot of seats.

So you have to be an ASS to fly a SF50?

They are on really bad for the person that has to empty them. Then they often spill on the carpet pulling them out.

You don’t seem to be helping the VJ case. The Citation is easier. You have to turn on fuel?

You think a parachute is helping in a mid air collision?

The idea that a parachute can solve any problems is part of the problem.

Mike