It will be interesting to see the actual performance and cost data for the SF50. Until then, we're all just speculating. I'm curious about the fuel burns, maintenance reserves, scheduled maintenance, etc. It will also be interesting to see if they can put a positive spin on the low service ceiling. The fuel burn will have much to do with that.

Some seem to think that jets don't use the high flight levels on 1-hour flights, but I'll go to FL410 on a 1-hour flight whenever temps and winds are suitable. It only takes around 20 minutes or so for most jets to reach the upper flight levels. So, 20-25 minutes up, 20-25 cruise, and 15 down. That 20+ minutes of cruise time up high saves fuel compared to cruising in the 20s. Flight times of 30 minutes or less are when you become limited on altitude, but 30 minute flights aren't the norm.

A bonanza, baron, or cirrus is much harder to fly on a long cross country than a jet, even a sketchy Eclipse jet with awful avionics, no radar and a bad autopilot.

I think the same will hold true for the cirrus jet in that it too will be safer and easier to fly than an SR-22.

I really dont understand the argument that you have to be superpilot to fly a jet. Other than the speeds which your brain adapts to rapidly, the systems, decision making and overall cockpit management are much much simpler than taking a bonanza 1500 miles across the country.

With regards to the Eclipse versus the Vision. The operating costs of the Eclipse are probably closer to that of owning a Lear 35 by the time you factor in the maintenence. I would gladly go a little slower and burn more gas to have the support and cool avionics of the Vision. Its a little known fact but the Pratt 610 series on the Eclipse is starting to show some 1000 hour issues that are requiring overhauls. Nothing like a $300k repair bill to make that 60 GPH fuel burn look meaningless. And real world, the Eclipse only goes 360kts flying at full throttle 100% of the time. I speculate that this is the reason some of these motors are scorching themselves at a young age.

The windshields and probes and computers crap out often and can result in adding an extra 100k a year to your bills. Scary stuff.

They will sell as many of these Visions as they can make. I would gladly buy a used one and know that I am getting a compromise. Now, if Cirrus owned Eclipse and it had Garmin avionics and awesome support and the price was the same, id take the Eclipse.

When i went to school for my first jet type rating, the old russian instructor opens the ground school by drawing a stick airplane on the chalkboard with an arrow pointing toward the nose. He says: "With jet engine you park with wind onto nose for aid to restarting engines. This conclude new material for jet. Any question? Good. Now we review and fix your previous training lacking for flying all aeroplanes"

It wasn't quite that easy but he made his point.

that's funny

Actually, it's profound!

I don't agree. The change to faster speeds, more rapid climb and descent rates, dealing with ATC, and flying profile SIDS and STARS, all while managing the automation, represents a significant increase in workload and an environment entirely unfamiliar to piston drivers. Throw in an untimely abnormal or emergency and I can easily see a novice getting overwhelmed. My opinion is based on transitioning from a 421 to an MU2. I flew scared for at least the first 50 hours, and nervous until I had more than 100.

The pilot on the SF50 video made at least 2 or 3 references to how flying it was going to be just like flying an SR22. Maybe it's good marketing, but it's a little disingenuous.

I think the Pilatus is waaaaaaay easier to fly than my TN Bonanza was and I fly busy airspace a lot.

Dennis,

There are a lot of us who regularly fly out of busy airspace w/SIDS & STARS & managing our automation without any undue stress. If it's a big deal to do that at 180-220kts. verses 130-170kts then ok maybe we will be a little nervous for a while.

Im pretty sure neither of us have ever flown an SF50 so I don't know how easy it is but aside from having to learn more systems I don't see how it's going to be more difficult than a 421.

I don't agree. The change to faster speeds, more rapid climb and descent rates, dealing with ATC, and flying profile SIDS and STARS, all while managing the automation, represents a significant increase in workload and an environment entirely unfamiliar to piston drivers. Throw in an untimely abnormal or emergency and I can easily see a novice getting overwhelmed. My opinion is based on transitioning from a 421 to an MU2. I flew scared for at least the first 50 hours, and nervous until I had more than 100.

The pilot on the SF50 video made at least 2 or 3 references to how flying it was going to be just like flying an SR22. Maybe it's good marketing, but it's a little disingenuous.

In my lowly SR20 I did most of the in the DC area on occasion. In my Aerostar, it was an all the time deal.
It is just a matter of practice. If a pilot with practice cannot hack it, then he/she will likely sell the plane. Just like a pilot/owner who buys a twin piston and cannot hack it. Not sure what the issue is.

Tim

Agreed.

All of my flying is in the Boston-NYC-DC corridor. Most people handle it just fine. Some, even in big iron, are embarrassing.

It's very hard to generalize who or who will not be able to make the transition. I suspect it will be challenging, maybe unmanageable, for some. I hope we'll get to see.

Yes, a TBM is even easier to fly than a C172, ask my friend Osama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYYSjBUC_h4

Marc,

Loved the video. Thanks for sharing.

Mark

I don't agree. The change to faster speeds, more rapid climb and descent rates, dealing with ATC, and flying profile SIDS and STARS, all while managing the automation, represents a significant increase in workload and an environment entirely unfamiliar to piston drivers. Throw in an untimely abnormal or emergency and I can easily see a novice getting overwhelmed. My opinion is based on transitioning from a 421 to an MU2. I flew scared for at least the first 50 hours, and nervous until I had more than 100.

The pilot on the SF50 video made at least 2 or 3 references to how flying it was going to be just like flying an SR22. Maybe it's good marketing, but it's a little disingenuous.

I am much more on edge in a piston twin or bonanza than a jet. Lots more things to concentrate on to stay alive in a Baron than a jet.

FWIW I'vd heard from more than one pilot piston twins are harder to fly than jets. The previous pilot of my 421 insisted it was harder to fly than the MD-11 he flew for Fedex.[/quote]