Of course not. Not many SP GA planes can. The point is "flying high" for the SF50 isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be.

If I had an SF50 I'd never fly the airlines again.

I disagree. The low altitude limitation assures the plane is crippled all the time, not just when occasionally heading into congested airspace or airports. Most of the distance those jets covered was at high altitude even so, and the descent part is at low power settings and fuel flows. It is entirely different to CRUISE at FL280 and below in a jet.


Imagine your PC12 has half the range, can't fly over FL280, and can't carry but about 3 people, and then you can have the SF50 experience without actually owning one. So your dream is within easy reach...

Mike C.

And that has absolutely no bearing on the utility of an SF50.

They will never fly PDK to ASE non stop.

Me either.

Here in California, if you live in the Bay Area, and work for Google. You can take your sf50, load all your buddies/family/business associates/whatever. And within 3 hours flying time you can get to dozens of awesome destinations. Los Angeles, San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Colorado ski resorts, sun valley, Seattle, San Juan islands, the list goes on. And 99% of the time, fl280 is plenty.
Im in the camp that says they're gonna sell like hot cakes.

That's an SR22 isn't it? The SF50 is a fast SR22. For the money I think it's great.

You can do the same in a TBM on half the fuel.




Me either.

I disagree. The low altitude limitation assures the plane is crippled all the time, not just when occasionally heading into congested airspace or airports. Most of the distance those jets covered was at high altitude even so, and the descent part is at low power settings and fuel flows. It is entirely different to CRUISE at FL280 and below in a jet.


Imagine your PC12 has half the range, can't fly over FL280, and can't carry but about 3 people, and then you can have the SF50 experience without actually owning one. So your dream is within easy reach...

Mike C.

Since the SF50 is about half the price of the PC12, it has about half the capabilities.
I am OK with that; if I could I would have one of each.

Tim

A long time ago I had a project manager who asked me a question.
Is it good enough?

Being technical, I always thought we could build a better product and one which is technically correct. But the PM asked the question differently. It is not about making the perfect product, the one which is the most efficient, or even the one which proves a technical point. It is about meeting the majority of the market requirements and providing the best value for it; while not arguing with the public that it is wrong in some aspect of its thinking.

(Oh, this was a software package to help AB sell beer )

When looking at the SF50, or many other entry level planes (Meridian, SR20...); the manufacturer has to make trade offs on capability versus cost/complexity.

Based on the market feedback so far in terms of interest and press; Cirrus has judged the correct amount of trade offs. Even if some of us do not agree.

Tim

And then providing software/firmware updates to meet the rest of the market! :-)

I'm not comparing the 2. Of course a TBM can do the mission.

I'm talking about the marketability of the SF50.

Exactly. How many guys here wish they had a turbine engine for their Bonanza? That's the SF50.

When you're able and willing to spend $2.2 million dollars, or more, on an airplane, and want it to be reasonably modern, it makes sense to compare it to others in the same cost range. While there are some tax consequences of new vs used for the business user an Eclipse SE, a used Mustang, new Piper Meridian or later model TBM are in the same general price range and probably the more likely competitors of the SF50 than old jets and turbo props.

Those are the planes whose utility, comfort and cost structures are more likely to be compared closely with the SF 50 by an actual buyer.

As someone who hasn't flown jets, or turbo props before it is interesting to look at the websites of the manufacturers and read the operational comments of those who actually fly such planes. One of the things I noticed in using the Eclipse flight planner is that, although 41,000 feet is often touted it is rarely used. In fact, when I plotted all of my annual expected trips I would fly in the low to mid thirties most of the time. The same is true in a Mustang. The same, or lower to about 25,000 feet, would be true in the Meridian or TBM. So, the whole altitude discussion is something of a canard in my view.

Then, you have to look at utility. To me that is time to actually fly a trip and how much you can bring along on it. For the shorter trips I make, or want to make, under 500 NM (and 50% of my annual flying) the time difference just isn't that big of a deal and I can easily make them in any of the planes described in one stop. In the 13% of trips between 500-799 NM most of the trips are doable nonstop until the plane is loaded with 4 people and bags and the limit gets close to 800 NM then it gets down to wind and weather conditions. Above 800 NM, which is 40% of the trips I'm going to have to make a most of the time with all of the planes. My point is that all these planes can work for Jason's airline replacement, for me at least, virtually all the time, at a similar capital cost.

From an operating cost point of view they are also in the same general ballpark, although the Mustang runs a bit higher than the others. When depreciation cost is figured in all these planes run in the same range with the Cirrus as a wild card. But, I expect the Cirrus depreciation to be interesting to watch as the first planes are going to be purchased under the current advertised price and it will be interesting to see how the market values them in 2-3 years when they start turning over but the new price has climbed substantially.

Support for the Mustang is the gold standard and I rate Cirrus very highly from personal experience. The reviews for TBM are excellent as are those for Piper. Eclipse' record is mixed but seems to be getting better.

So, the question then is, do you want to do the annual check ride? Do you want 2 engines or do you believe the chute is a good compromise for 2? These are individual decisions that a lot of pilots have made favoring each of these planes.

For the trips I make, which may or may not be typical, speed matters on 40% of the miles flown (not trips taken) which favors the Mustang, Eclipse and TBM but the time difference between any of them is not worth deciding over from my point of view. Comfort matters a lot on those same 40% which favors the Mustang and the Cirrus from my point of view. The only one that has a potty is the Mustang - although it's a bit intimate. On the shorter trips ease of flying, trip cost and pilot comfort matter more and that favors the Cirrus, Mustang and TBM. Safety obviously is very important and I rate the Mustang, Eclipse and Cirrus at the top of the pile and the TBM at the bottom (unfortunately it does not have a very good record). I'm in good health but my wife rates the parachute as the most important item on the plane, so there's that. And that, is a very big deal in the purchasing decisions of actual, not theoretical buyers.