The coeffient drag of the SR22 and the Bo with the gear up is roughly the same.

It is, however, more fun to put the gear up, and a nice tool to have when slowing down.

This is not a revelation, Cirrus Marketing said it loud & clear 10 years ago:

" Slowest, lowest and cheapest jet available "

Whatever ...

High performance.

If it flew 140 knots and was limited to 6000 ft, it would have gone over like a lead balloon.


Most of that isn't true to any significant extent. The overall drag of an SR22 gear down is probably a bit less than an A36 Bonanza gear up, for example.

Mike C.

Want faster, higher, longer? Make it a twin. For same money.


Because the idea a twin must cost more is piston think, not rocket science, and it is WRONG.

The fact that it is pervasive doesn't make it right, but provides an unending supply of people who believe it and argue as much.

Put two engines and a conventional tail on the SF50 and they could sell it for the same cost and it would take MUCH less development effort and be out already, plus be open to more markets.

The advantages of being a single DO NOT EXIST for a jet.

You will see in time. The market will figure it out.

Mike C.

High performance.

If it flew 140 knots and was limited to 6000 ft, it would have gone over like a lead balloon.


Most of that isn't true to any significant extent. The overall drag of an SR22 gear down is probably a bit less than an A36 Bonanza gear up, for example.

Mike C.

Remember when you got that first digital camera in the late 90's for Xmas? It took crappy pictures, low 2 megapixel resolution, where the highlights were completely blown out and the colors were off and funky? It didn't stand a chance against your old Nikon film camera and prints. Yet, it was so convenient not having to send film to lab. It was good enough.

That's the SF50.

And that's all it takes. Who do you know that shoots on film (even though it resolves more still)?

I remember the cameras were not purposefully crippled because people were intimidated by high pixel count.

Also, those cameras were in the trash within 2 years. You seem to be suggesting that will happen here, too, given your analogy.

To build a new inexpensive personal jet requires NO innovation. In fact, innovation is KILLING that dream. Eclipse had a nice planform with crap avionics. Now Cirrus has nice avionics with a crap SEJ and V tail layout. Seems we can't win.

Mike C.

A far more interesting, apples 2 apples comparison is the Cirrus Vs Lancair Columbia.

I bought a Columbia 300 a year ago this month and it is an incredibly efficient SEP. out-running the SR22 by a solid 10 - 15 knots on the same power setting.

Clearly, the burden of folding the gear (weight, maintenance, risk ...) is not worth the performance gain.

The Lancair Columbia Vs Cirrus comparison is particularly interesting from a Marketing point of view : Both new, clean-sheet designs certified within 12 months of each other, targeting the same market @ comparable price.

Despite going faster, further, more efficient than the Cirrus, the Columbia got it's @ss kicked in the market place.

IMHO, this was the result of Lancair under-estimating the Brand differentiation aspect with Lancair being associated with Home-built Kit planes (and their miserable accident scores) AND Cirrus taking the safety "High Road" with the implementation of the CAPS.


There is no doubt that good marketing sells product.

There is no doubt either that performance is not the only metric that counts for buyers.

But, at some point, all the marketing savvy in the world is not going to save a POS product ...

In the case of the proposed SF50, the only question is: Just how slow, low, short & load limited will buyers accept @ $2M ?

High performance.

If it flew 140 knots and was limited to 6000 ft, it would have gone over like a lead balloon.


Most of that isn't true to any significant extent. The overall drag of an SR22 gear down is probably a bit less than an A36 Bonanza gear up, for example.

Mike C.

Want faster, higher, longer? Make it a twin. For same money.

Mike C.

I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that's what Cirrus should have done, not what another company has done.

Clearly Cirrus made a trade off between performance on the one hand and and its beliefs about what its target market wants/does not want and how it would differentiate itself. Hard to imagine the Chinese owners going along on a very expensive fool's errand if they didn't agree/support the strategy. But it's certainly possible.

I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that's what Cirrus should have done, not what another company has done.

It didn't at the same stage of development. Track the EA500 price during its development cycle and you will see it is actually under the SF50 price at this stage (prior to certification). Based on the price increases from Cirrus, they are learning the same thing, that they can't make it as cheap as they thought.

The EA550 costs $3M now because it is made in microscopic quantities which is very inefficient, particularly for that design. There are in a bad spot on the price/volume curve.

Only time will tell what the REAL price of the SF50 will be.

Cirrus could have made a twin for the same purchase price. It would have sold more units, at least double, been a lot cheaper/quicker to certify, and those two factors would negate any increase in actual production costs, if any. Amortizing development costs over twice as many units and buying 4 times as many engines makes pricing much less.

Mike C.

It didn't at the same stage of development. Track the EA500 price during its development cycle and you will see it is actually under the SF50 price at this stage (prior to certification).

Yup. We shall see.