[quote="Steve Binnette"]


I dont think rich SE pilots make million dollar decsions based on hangar costs.

Cost will not be the lowest if its stuck at FL250 and 300kts

You don't care about FL410 because you dont understand the impact on cost and performance[quote]

Here's the issue I have with your line of thinking. More than half of the small (think Citations, Small Falcons) GA jets at any given time are flying below FL25. They are making <250 nm flights. While you are right to assume I don't understand everything about costs associated with jet operations I also understand a lot of the current fleet spends its life making 30 - 60 minute flights and never reaches FL30.

Curious what your position was when Pilatus PC12 showed up in the marketplace, did you think it would fail because it only had one engine and is slow for the money?

Peace,
Don

So after 173 pages will this do as a summary?

From the nay sayers:

• From an regulatory perspective, two engines is easier at altitudes above 25K.
• From an armchair engineer perspective, two engines is easier to design the tail of the airplane and should have equivalent cost
• From an armchair engineer and other advocates, the SF50 loses significant flexibility and efficiency by being limited to 28K feet.
• A fifteen year old Citation is the same thing as a new SF50 and better.
• A twenty year old Bonanza is the same thing as a new SR22

From those who appreciate the SF50:

• The SF50 really has only a couple close competitors that are NEW. Meridian (M600) and Eclipse. The Meridian is cheaper and less capable. The Eclipse is 50% or more expensive, and known to be very expensive to maintain; but does have additional capability.
• The SF50 performance is good enough.
• Nothing comes close that is in the market at the same price point.
• Cirrus seems to have accepted a reduction in cost/complexity with the associated loss in operational flexibility (mostly lower altitude) and the market has tentatively responded positively based on position sales.

Only time will tell who is right...

Tim

When I think of the SF50 as a "jet", I view it's projected performance as beyond pathetic.

When I think of it as a personal-sized single-engine aircraft that happens to utilize jet propulsion, it's pretty darn good!

I think it will be a good seller, because of the Cirrus name.

I also think it will create a new category of "saves", previously un-necessary in jet aircraft. I will be very happy to be wrong about that; I have plenty of experience.

My point was your Macho Man comment does not hold up.



You said it to try and refute my arguments.

If you own a turboprop, you are already at or beyond the SF50 stage.

Crippled means you can market it only to piston pilots because they don't know what a jet should really do.

A Ford Pinto looks good, but only to people riding bicycles.

Mike C.

Not much. They gambled $50-100K.


Not any longer to some of them. A good number of those positions are for sale.

Nobody yet knows the true cost of the SF50 and all of its negatives. What we have is a moderately successful marketing program drawing on the jet lust of piston pilots. The presentation of the SF50 has been very carefully managed to not expose any flaws.

Once the plane exists in independent hands, this will change.

Mike C.

If you own a turboprop, you are already at or beyond the SF50 stage.

Crippled means you can market it only to piston pilots because they don't know what a jet should really do.

A Ford Pinto looks good, but only to people riding bicycles.

Mike C.

What's a "Rich SE Pilot"?

Cirrus has made many successful planes. Eclipse remains to be seen.

FL250 at 300 knots is awesome.

ME training is the easiest I've done.

FL410 doesn't do much good in a short range airplane. It's unnecessary in the SF50.

It bothers you because you are 70 knots slower, 13,000 ft lower, and 50% more fuel burn per mile than a twin of similar cost would be.

It is like buying a 4 cylinder car which burns more gas than the V8.

Two engines is the price of admission to the high flight levels where the jet engine makes sense.

Mike C.

June, huh?

So they knew LONG AGO they were not delivering by end of 2015 if the training program is this far behind. But they only said something about it after the deadline had passed, now saying first half 2016.

Starts to erode their credibility.

What else are they NOT saying now?


And Cirrus can't change that.

The emergency procedures for the SF50 will be more pages than the SR22 manual in total.

Flying an SR22 does NOT prepare you to be a jet pilot, even of a crippled one.

The jet pilot dream is going to crash on the reality of the training requirements. In the jet world, it is highly unusual to transition a pilot from a fixed gear single engine piston unpressurized airplane to a jet. For the SF50 is going to be the NORMAL case.

I do not envy the instructors. Going to be a lot of prideful pilots who paid lots of money and waited a long time to be a jet pilot, and then you have to tell them they aren't up to it.

Awkward.

Mike C.

Unfortunately, that the SF50 just happens to use a jet engine triggers all sorts of side effects in the regulations.

You can't just delete one piston engine, insert one jet engine.

Many of those side effects are aimed squarely at the PILOT, too.

I don't think this reality has sunk in among the prospective owners. I think they assume single engine and/or Cirrus brand name means it will be easy.

Not so.

Mike C.

Tim,

Your best post ever...tis a puzzlement why some criticize the decision to purchasing new when, in their minds, you could either buy it cheaper or acquire more utility by purchasing a used aircraft.

As for the argument that SR22 owners won't likely move up to a single engine jet, Beechcraft made a living on selling King Air's to guys that started with Bonanza's then upgraded to Baron's then King Air's.

Best,

New buyers of King Airs are overwhelmingly NOT owner flown. They are sold to be part of corporate flight departments or charter operators.

So this pilot pipeline does not exist for King Air today. The owner flown King Airs flying today were bought used.

Note that even your statement assumed multiple steps between single engine piston and jet. Cirrus wants to jump there in one step. It is the equivalent of jumping from a Bonanza (if it was fixed gear) to a King Air 350, type rating and all.

Mike C.

New buyers of King Airs are overwhelmingly NOT owner flown. They are sold to be part of corporate flight departments or charter operators.

So this pilot pipeline does not exist for King Air today. The owner flown King Airs flying today were bought used.

Note that even your statement assumed multiple steps between single engine piston and jet. Cirrus wants to jump there in one step. It is the equivalent of jumping from a Bonanza (if it was fixed gear) to a King Air 350, type rating and all.

Mike C.

Mike,

I'm one of those "piston thinking pilots" and I would like to get the difference explained between my SEP 36TN and that SEJ SF50

I fly frequently FL200 sometimes FL 250, have to struggle with O2, mask, flow, saturation. The heating suffers and sometimes my windows are frozen inside the cabin.
My engine needs all the time high attention to keep all the temps in the green arc., my body too.alone and In bad weather sometimes more workload than desired.

What is so difficult or different to fly that Jet compared to my Bonanza?
Where do I have to expect so far unknown risks or problems?
What's wrong about my simple piston thinking upgrading to this jet to make my missions easier, faster, less stress, less risk, more comfort?

Thanks
Franz