01 Feb 2026, 03:10 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 13 Nov 2016, 19:54 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20442
Post Likes: +25711
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So it is certified or is there a date certain or no? Certified was my understanding from the article. Tim
Certified: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ci ... A&st=email
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 13 Nov 2016, 20:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3306
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Three guys/gals purchase a SF50 and a G3 Cirrus. You are in at approximately $600k a share and have capability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think the all in costs per partner would be less than owning a vintage King Air by yourself. Agreed? When the Williams engine came onto the scene it brought light jet effeciencies down into king air ranges. The differences that used to exist between legacy citations and king airs got cut down a lot when the Citation line bolted on the Williams engines.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 14:06 |
|
|
|
|
>There was lots of conversation that it was regulatoryily impossible to get a single engine airplane certified to 280 or above due to a lack of redundant pressurization sources.
Err ....
PC-12
TBM-900...
M500, M600
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 14:18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Apologies if this has been covered already, but do we know what the max certificated altitude is? Did they get it up to 28, or are they stuck at FL250?
There was lots of conversation that it was regulatoryily impossible to get a single engine airplane certified to 280 or above due to a lack of redundant pressurization sources.
Robert FL280 http://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/vision-jet/
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 14:52 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2855
Post Likes: +2823
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90,B206
|
|
Username Protected wrote: >There was lots of conversation that it was regulatoryily impossible to get a single engine airplane certified to 280 or above due to a lack of redundant pressurization sources.
Err ....
PC-12
TBM-900...
M500, M600 Go back and read the whole thread if you really want to understand the conversation... A handful of people have said it's impossible with current regs (which are different than the regs the above airplanes were certificated under) would limit the SF50 to 25k. Not my argument - Was just looking to see what happened with it. Robert
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 15:29 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/22/09
Posts: 5643
Post Likes: +1121
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Aircraft: 1977 A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Three guys/gals purchase a SF50 and a G3 Cirrus. You are in at approximately $600k a share and have capability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think the all in costs per partner would be less than owning a vintage King Air by yourself. Agreed? What would be the annual fixed expenses on such a partnership and the hourly operational expenses? I've always thought partnerships were the way to make GA relatively affordable. Three peeps in two planes sounds interesting... 
_________________
It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill.WW
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 20:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/14/09
Posts: 6068
Post Likes: +3329
Company: tomdrew.lawyer
Location: Des Moines, IA (KDSM)
Aircraft: 1973 Baron E55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Three guys/gals purchase a SF50 and a G3 Cirrus. You are in at approximately $600k a share and have capability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think the all in costs per partner would be less than owning a vintage King Air by yourself. Agreed? What would be the annual fixed expenses on such a partnership and the hourly operational expenses? I've always thought partnerships were the way to make GA relatively affordable. Three peeps in two planes sounds interesting...
I want to know too. What I do know is you would have a new generation airplane anytime you want and it would fit 99% of the missions. If a mission dictated a big airplane for a blowout family/friend/business function you hire a pilot and take both airplanes. IMO the "nut" is somewhere between having a Cirrus G5 on your own or a vintage King Air on your own.
_________________
C340A/8KCAB/T182T
F33C/E55/B58
PA 28/32
Currency 12 M: IPC/BFR, CFII Renewal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 22:02 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3838
Post Likes: +5707
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Partnerships can be great, just like a marriage.  Just like a marriage, sometimes they don't end so well. How about when your partner bends the plane? The insurance covers the repair, but what about the sudden decrease in the planes resell value. 3 partners, 2 planes, inevitably, there is going to be a time when 2 partners are flying and the grounded one really wanted to go somewhere, or the weather is such that everyone wants the jet... who gets it? Manageable problems, but things to consider. I dry lease my plane to a non-equity partner, and what a great partner he is. Offsets some of my fixed costs, but does run up the Hobbs, and there is always that added risk of the bent plane.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Nov 2016, 10:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3838
Post Likes: +5707
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Three guys/gals purchase a SF50 and a G3 Cirrus. You are in at approximately $600k a share and have capability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think the all in costs per partner would be less than owning a vintage King Air by yourself. Agreed? What would be the annual fixed expenses on such a partnership and the hourly operational expenses? I've always thought partnerships were the way to make GA relatively affordable. Three peeps in two planes sounds interesting...
[quote="Tom Drew"]
The depreciation alone will be 300K per year. The G3 will be at least 75K in operating expenses, depending on hours, but better be flying a lot if you are hopping back and forth between 2 high performance aircraft. The SF50 at least another 250K, so 625K/3, which I would put on the very conservative side. Recurrent in the SF50 is going to be like any other type rating and limited by very few qualified instructors that can demand a premium. As of now, not sure there are any qualified instructors. So expect to pay out a handy premium whether it is in-aircraft or in-simulator recurrent 61.58. Insurance on 3 people for this type of club, will probably be pretty hefty, at least until the market sorts out the risk of this new class of plane.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Nov 2016, 14:51 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12838
Post Likes: +5281
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What would be the annual fixed expenses on such a partnership and the hourly operational expenses? I've always thought partnerships were the way to make GA relatively affordable. Three peeps in two planes sounds interesting... As noted - depreciation and hull insurance would overwhelm any other costs. Gas might as well be free. I bet you could get a jet and SR22 with very similar equipment such that moving back and forth wouldn't be too hard. And I bet six people could easily share 2 planes that way.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Nov 2016, 18:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Lot's of guys in Atlanta belong to this club. http://www.ascensionair.net1/6 share 525k then 3k per month then $620 an hour all so you can have access for 50 days a year!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 15 Nov 2016, 18:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 1/6 share 525k then 3k per month then $620 an hour all so you can have access for 50 days a year! I don't know. That sounds like a share for the Eclipse. He's adding SF50's when they come out too. 50 days = 50 overnights? I'm not in the program. I don't know the math. But I have several friends that have bought into the Eclipse part of the program.
|
|
| 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 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
