25 Nov 2025, 20:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Dec 2015, 23:46 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 06/02/10 Posts: 1375 Post Likes: +218 Location: KHRL
Aircraft: A36TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Pistons barely beat driving? WTF?
If that were true I'd have never gotten into flying. I've flown commercial maybe 3 times since 2007 and lot of that was because of my Bonanza. If you add up all the training time, all the driving to the airport, pre-flight, keeping the plane in shape, all the mental time wasted here and in other aviation-related ways, and put that next to your hours saved on piston trips vs. driving? It's not gonna be a huge time savings for most. You may be different than most pilots. You fly a Pilatus now - which changes the equation, but according to you it's still a clown plane - which speaks more to my point about many people not wanting to spend millions to fly behind props regardless of actual utility. I love flying - my life is vastly improved by flying - but it's hard to argue for on a purely financial or practical basis. For my passengers on the other hand - it's awesome - though they never seem agree. I'd be better off chartering most likely - and that's egregious. Sorry but it's still WTH. I can spend 5.5 hours driving to austin (still have to fill it with fuel to go and once to come back, usually get a meal too so add another hour, and plan for traffic hell there) or I can call the FBO and have the plane pulled out on the ramp ready to go and be to Austin in 1.5 hours, borrow a crew car or rent one, do my business and fly home before 5pm. W.T.H. yer calcalater be broke
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 01:19 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2674 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
|
How many hours do you save a year?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 02:43 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20781 Post Likes: +26288 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The vast majority of their flights are between Washington DC and NYC. One to three people most flights. The SF50 is perfect for these missions. That is a horrible mission for the SF50. KTEB to KCGS is 173 nm. Block fuel flow is probably around 110 GPH for that short a leg. You save only a few minutes over an SR22 on that route. That's not a jet mission profile, not even for a cripple jet. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 03:05 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16153 Post Likes: +8870 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That is a horrible mission for the SF50 . Yet people fly it all the time in anything from netjets to gulfstreams. Once you have the jet, you dont charter a SR22 to cover a <200nm trip. Just bought amtrak tickets for my wife from DC to Atlantic City. With the jetling and a pilot this would be a 40min trip right from my town.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 05:14 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 12191 Post Likes: +3075 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The vast majority of their flights are between Washington DC and NYC. One to three people most flights. The SF50 is perfect for these missions. That is a horrible mission for the SF50. KTEB to KCGS is 173 nm. Block fuel flow is probably around 110 GPH for that short a leg. You save only a few minutes over an SR22 on that route. That's not a jet mission profile, not even for a cripple jet. Mike C.
Easy, the SR22 is a great plane. But it comes out a little short on weather capability. The SF50 gets you just enough additional weather capability that suddenly you go from a 90% (my guess) on time dispatch to 99% (again my guess). The price to go from 99% to 99.9% is likely exponential; twice (or more) the capex for the initial purchase along with much higher opex.
In terms of jets not being efficient for the flight, I have taken commercial flights from Philadelphia to BWI or IAD and once from BWI to IAD. It is always climb and descend.... You would think all the number crunchers at the airlines would figure this out and bring back the DC3 for these flights...
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 09:02 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13631 Post Likes: +7766 Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How many hours do you save a year? My typical trip : PHX to ABQ. Flying : 8 hours on site 3 hours RT in one day ($450/hr all in) 2 rental car Payroll for 4 pax 1 meal Total $3,050 Driving : 8 hours on site 13 hours RT (if no snow) $125 in fuel 1 rental car for 2 days Payroll for 4 x 2 days 4 meals 4 hotel rooms Total: $4,225 This does not factor in losing an entire day of productivity from 4 people, only the payroll expense. Flying is cheaper than driving and the airlines due to the factors above. Time is money. On avg. I fly 300 hours a year which allows me to add a day of productivity 100X for 2.5 people. So its cheaper than driving and I gain 250x8 (2,000) man hours in a single year. I was able to do the same thing in a Baron for $300/hour. This increased the direct cost savings to over $1,500/trip.
_________________ 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, 10:04 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Pistons barely beat driving? WTF?
If that were true I'd have never gotten into flying. I've flown commercial maybe 3 times since 2007 and lot of that was because of my Bonanza. If you add up all the training time, all the driving to the airport, pre-flight, keeping the plane in shape, all the mental time wasted here and in other aviation-related ways, and put that next to your hours saved on piston trips vs. driving? It's not gonna be a huge time savings for most. You may be different than most pilots. You fly a Pilatus now - which changes the equation, but according to you it's still a clown plane - which speaks more to my point about many people not wanting to spend millions to fly behind props regardless of actual utility. I love flying - my life is vastly improved by flying - but it's hard to argue for on a purely financial or practical basis. For my passengers on the other hand - it's awesome - though they never seem agree. I'd be better off chartering most likely - and that's egregious. I love the training and I love owning an airplane. Have you watched the news this week and seen the massive airport delays the commercial folks are dealing with? Don't act like flying commercial costs no time or money. It costs a lot.
If I enjoy flying the way some folks enjoy golf why is my hobby stamped with a price tag and considered "waste"? Would you pay someone to play golf for you?
If "most people" don't want to spend millions to fly behind props then how come turbine prop planes are by far the most common flying GA aircraft?
I call the Pilatus a clown plane because it LOOKS like one. I own one because it has massive utility. It's not a clown plane. Just looks like it. Airplane ownership absolutely would change anyone's life in a major way. Chartering is not nearly as nice as owning. Owning is absolute freedom. Chartering you're still at "their" mercy. I wouldn't trade in the PC12 to charter. I won't trade the PC12 for a 2 pilot jet and that would save me money. I want the freedom.
Driving 6 hours to the beach instead of 1.5 hours in a Bonanza? Forget it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 10:55 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2674 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
|
I think you are all missing my point - I don't need to be sold on flying - and I don't think any turbo prop is a clown plane.
I'm saying for those people who would fly but don't - because they don't see the utility - the sf50 seems answer the kinds of question I get from them. When I try to sell a non-pilot on flying, they usually start excited and then get less and less excited as they dig deeper - if I could point them to the sf50 I think they would get more excited - right now, to these types of people - pistons and props seem old fashioned and current jets seem like overkill for a personal transport.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:00 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've always said my PC12 is cheap to run than my Bonanza considering half price fuel and 2X the speed.
However......
Quoting airplane expenses "by the hour" is flawed logic. I don't fly the same number of hours as you. We need to quit using the "by the hour" method.
My buddy came up with a great formula: It costs me X every January to have it sitting at the airport waiting for me. Then it costs me X per hour in gas.
So now decide what check you write every January and if you can swallow it. I know this is a really old post but I would love to see how you explain that a PC-12 is anywhere near the cost of flying a Bonanza. If anything, it's nearly double the cost. Half price fuel? Are you getting bulk fuel somewhere that makes it cheaper? Jet A typically is cheaper but not half the price.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:09 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20781 Post Likes: +26288 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yet people fly it all the time in anything from netjets to gulfstreams. Those planes are selected for a mission profile much longer than 173 nm. If it really is true that the "vast majority" of the flights are that length for those particular customers, then you don't get to use the capabilities of the jet hardly ever. You don't need pressurization, you go from SID to STAR, no cruise, always in the weather. It is effectively about 180 knots block speed, at 110 GPH. You end up burning 4+ lbs of fuel per mile. I looked up the KTEB to KIAD route, takes about an hour no matter what you fly. Ironically, the fastest I saw was a King Air in 49 minutes. A G-IV took 1:09, 20 minutes SLOWER than the King Air, only got to 18K. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:15 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11068 Post Likes: +7098 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It costs a lot.
Yes, especially for 10 people with bags leaving at a moments notice. Quote: I call the Pilatus a clown plane because it LOOKS like one. I own one because it has massive utility. It's not a clown plane. Just looks like it.
Dead wrong. Pilatus is sexy as hell 
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:17 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20781 Post Likes: +26288 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Half price fuel? Are you getting bulk fuel somewhere that makes it cheaper? Jet A typically is cheaper but not half the price. List prices for Jet-A is a stupidity tax. Contract fuel prices are much lower. Example, KAPA. Jet list: $2.45 Jet contract: $1.79 100LL: $5.50 Example, KSRQ: Jet list: $5.89 Jet contract: $2.46 100LL: $5.99 The price gap between Jet and 100LL continues to widen. The jet list prices are artificially high since any sane person has contract fuel options. Those who don't care what it cost and pay list help subsidize those who do care. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:20 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/25/15 Posts: 535 Post Likes: +133 Company: WillCo Engineering Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: Rentals
|
|
Username Protected wrote: List prices for Jet-A is a stupidity tax. Contract fuel prices are much lower.
Example, KAPA.
Jet list: $2.45 Jet contract: $1.79 100LL: $5.50
Example, KSRQ:
Jet list: $5.89 Jet contract: $2.46 100LL: $5.99
Round numbers, how much would you have to contract for that much of a discount off list?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Dec 2015, 11:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I know this is a really old post but I would love to see how you explain that a PC-12 is anywhere near the cost of flying a Bonanza. If anything, it's nearly double the cost.
Half price fuel? Are you getting bulk fuel somewhere that makes it cheaper? Jet A typically is cheaper but not half the price.
I don't count the cost of capital in my airplane ownership. If you don't spend the money, you don't have an airplane. I had Bonanza annuals that cost over $30K. All Bonanza's are not the same. I've never had a PC12 annual cost even half that number. Yes, I know there are cheaper ways to run a bonanza and that's fine. I buy JetA for $2.50 a gallon a lot of the time. 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.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|