BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 13:32

Username Protected wrote:

On a Bonanza, I can make a 2,000 ft turn-off with hardly touching the brakes. Applying that factor, SF-50 should be able to stop in about 3,500 ft with minimal braking.

If you don't use the brakes, the jet will be off the runway entirely regardless of length.

Using a Bonanza to compute jet landing distances is insane.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 13:39

Username Protected wrote:

You don't understand what drives demand. And what creates barriers, logical or not.

Eclipse. Mustang. M2. CJ. Phenom 100.

Twins, many owner flown.

Got way more positions sold than SF50.

Being a twin not a barrier.

Case closed.

If Cirrus had produced a twin jet, say TF60, not only would it have been a far superior airplane in every respect, it would have sold just as well if not better to the SR owners.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 13:51

Username Protected wrote:

You don't understand what drives demand. And what creates barriers, logical or not.

Eclipse. Mustang. M2. CJ. Phenom 100.

Twins, many owner flown.

Got way more positions sold than SF50.

Being a twin not a barrier.

Case closed.

If Cirrus had produced a twin jet, say TF60, not only would it have been a far superior airplane in every respect, it would have sold just as well if not better to the SR owners.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 13:56

Logic versus emotion...

Timex versus Rolex

A lot of companies exist by producing something we want.....
I can't fathom worrying about fuel burns and maintenance cost (let's say $ 100 per hour difference among the aforementioned choices for 125 hours a year - a whopping $ 12,500).
At a $2M price point if it matters you probably shouldn't be buying a $2M plane.

Cirrus SF50 registrations up to 53 this week.

Luc - have you ordered your's yet?

Peace,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 14:08

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus SF50 registrations up to 53 this week.

14 of which are Cirrus.

That suggests 40 deliveries (there is 1 foreign delivery which won't be on the US registry, obviously).

The registry lags some number of days behind.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 14:08

Username Protected wrote:

Let me trump that - TBM, PC12's and M500/600. Now the case is closed.

Not jets.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 14:53

Username Protected wrote:

Luc... don't ever bring this topic up again. :pullhair:

Ok. So when do I start the TBM versus Cirrus discussion?
Wait until we reach 100 pages perhaps....

And here I wanted to know why I saw so many positions posted.
Now that my sanity has been questioned..... I will still do what I will do.
And stay clear of Mike C. it seems. There is no pleasing him unless it’s a BBJ.
:hide:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

Logic versus emotion...

Timex versus Rolex

A lot of companies exist by producing something we want.....
I can't fathom worrying about fuel burns and maintenance cost (let's say $ 100 per hour difference among the aforementioned choices for 125 hours a year - a whopping $ 12,500).
At a $2M price point if it matters you probably shouldn't be buying a $2M plane.

Cirrus SF50 registrations up to 53 this week.

Luc - have you ordered your's yet?

Peace,

Don

No Don, not yet.

Our new 447 HP V8 S class has an “economy” default mode every time you start the thing. I’ve asked my shop to over ride it. They can’t.
Does MB really think S class buyers worry about fuel economy?
It mist be a CAFE thing......Same logic.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 15:37

cubs are all hype. aeroncas are where it's at

Username Protected wrote:

Ok. So when do I start the TBM versus Cirrus discussion?
Wait until we reach 100 pages perhaps....

And here I wanted to know why I saw so many positions posted.
Now that my sanity has been questioned..... I will still do what I will do.
And stay clear of Mike C. it seems. There is no pleasing him unless it’s a BBJ.
:hide:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 17:36

Username Protected wrote:

As all pilots know....... rich folks cannot perform to ATP standards.

I feel sorry for you.

Thankfully, I'm not rich.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:52

Username Protected wrote:

If you don't use the brakes, the jet will be off the runway entirely regardless of length.

Using a Bonanza to compute jet landing distances is insane.

Mike C.

An airplane is an airplane. Anything that arrives at the runway threshold at 85 kts is going to be pretty much stopped in 3,000 - 4,000 ft with just aerodynamic braking, plus perhaps a light touch of brakes toward the end.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2018, 00:15

Username Protected wrote:

An airplane is an airplane. Anything that arrives at the runway threshold at 85 kts is going to be pretty much stopped in 3,000 - 4,000 ft with just aerodynamic braking, plus perhaps a light touch of brakes toward the end.

No prop. 85kts will help, but it in this case a jet and a prop plane are very different.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2018, 00:26

Username Protected wrote:

No prop. 85kts will help, but it in this case a jet and a prop plane are very different.

I doubt prop makes all that much difference at slow speeds. Besides, have you seen how big SF-50 cabin is? It's probably got as much cross-section as a Bonanza prop. Plus flaps, gear, those big tail feathers... this thing got drag out the wazoo.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2018, 00:28

If you want to understand prop drag, get a multi rating. A windmilling prop at 85 kts is a ton of drag. You can partially demo this by pulling your prop to low rpm in a glide.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2018, 06:35

Username Protected wrote:

I doubt prop makes all that much difference at slow speeds...

The difference in two words: residual thrust.

George

Cirrus Jet