30 Jan 2026, 18:43 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 10:02 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/07/08
Posts: 3987
Post Likes: +3777
Location: Columbus, OH (4I3)
Aircraft: 1957 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If Cirrus delivers the fifth SF-50 to a customer (to avoid any shenanigans with fake early deliveries, an industry tradition) by Jan 1st, 2018, 3+ years from now and more than 10 years after the program was started, then I will never post again on this forum. If they fail to, you will never post again on this forum.
Have we got a deal? :-)
If you start arguing that 3 years isn't enough time, then you are basically saying the SF-50 really is vaporware right now.
Mike C.
I understand a bet is a bet and a deal is a deal, but I'd really hate for either of you to quit posting about this.
Come up with another prize. Like a dollar or something.
_________________
Chris White
Ex-Twin Bonanza
N261B
N695PV
N9616Y
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 10:06 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20441
Post Likes: +25711
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I understand a bet is a bet and a deal is a deal, but I'd really hate for either of you to quit posting about this.
Come up with another prize. Like a dollar or something. Maybe a $5000 donation to the others' favorite charity...
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 10:48 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I understand a bet is a bet and a deal is a deal, but I'd really hate for either of you to quit posting about this.
Come up with another prize. Like a dollar or something. I'm not suggesting Mike quit posting. I don't care. But I would like to hear: "You're right, I'm wrong" "You're smart, I'm stupid" "You're good looking, I'm not so attractive" etc. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 11:07 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21191
Post Likes: +26677
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What innovative new planes do you think will change the face of GA? The twin engine jet Cirrus could have built for far less effort and time. Making it a single was a big mistake. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 11:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The twin engine jet Cirrus could have built for far less effort and time.
Making it a single was a big mistake.
Mike C. Perhaps they looked at the success Eclipse hasn't had and decided that wasn't the right move?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 11:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21191
Post Likes: +26677
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. Monday morning QBs always know the right play. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 11:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2301
Post Likes: +2088
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
|
I enjoy a good debate using objective data. Convince me that a Cirrus SF50 makes sense for me to purchase without emotionalism. Is it the smartest decision, is it the best bang for the buck? I'd hope they sell a lot of them. Henry Ford raised the salaries of his employees so that they could buy his cars. I'd hope aviation would do similar.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 13:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20441
Post Likes: +25711
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I enjoy a good debate using objective data. Convince me that a Cirrus SF50 makes sense for me to purchase without emotionalism. Is it the smartest decision, is it the best bang for the buck? I'd hope they sell a lot of them. Henry Ford raised the salaries of his employees so that they could buy his cars. I'd hope aviation would do similar. Mark, The previous 238 pages on this thread include the "convincing."
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 13:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Monday morning QBs always know the right play.
Mike C. I did NOT accept the bet. I'm not denying that. But I spent 200+ pages debating you on the outcome of the SF50. I knew it would get delivered You KNEW it would never get certified It got certified and they're making deliveries. That makes YOU "Monday Morning QB".
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:05 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 2101
Post Likes: +2216
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The request was for objective data, something I have been looking for also. It has oddly been lacking. Must exist since you have to have an AFM to give a plane to a customer. Now that it is out there, do have some FA tracks. Here is a flight: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1WA ... /KSRQ/KTYS2 hours to go 540 nm, 27 minutes to climb to FL280. Winds at that time were 250 degrees at 14 knots, effectively net zero wind for the direction of flight, so the cruise speed appears to achieve 300 +/- knots. Previous flight was 24 minutes to FL270. Climb rate, in *January*, sucks. Wait until the hot weather of summer. Compare: Cirrus SF50, 6000 lbs MGTOW, total thrust 1846 lbf, climb rate ~1700 FPM. Eclipse EA550, 6000 lbs MGTOW, total thrust 1800 lbf, climb rate 3424 FPM. EA550 has less thrust, same weight, and makes twice the climb rate. This means the SF50 has a lot of drag, most likely due to the V tail and the engine arrangement. Mike C.
I think sucks is relative. My Solitaire at gross weight is not getting up to FL280 much faster than 27 minutes at gross weight regardless of the time of year. The performance numbers of the Cirrus are not that different than my Solitaire, it just carries less.
The fuselage on the Cirrus is dramatically larger than the Eclipse. The Eclipse is a slender tube. The Cirrus is not. You can easily sit three abreast in the Cirrus. My shoulders rubbed the guy next to me in the cockpit of the Eclipse. That has to count for a lot drag wise.
Having sat in both, I think the vast majority of people would prefer the Cirrus for comfort.
Different planes with different design intentions. I think the only mistake Cirrus made is not figuring out how to make it carry more fuel, though, based on their continuous tweaks they have made to the SR line, I have no doubt later versions will improve.
It is generally better performance than a Meredian plus its a jet. Anyone who believes it will not sell well is ignorant of the reality of what most pilots want these days. I have a friend who just got his license at 53 after selling his company. He just bought a used turbo SR22 and is doing his IFR ticket. He will end up buying a Cirrus jet within a year or two without looking at any other plane on the market. For his mission, it will be like a personal gulfstream that is easier to fly than the SR22.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21191
Post Likes: +26677
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You KNEW it would never get certified As you have been told MANY times, I never said that. You either have a memory problem or do this deliberately. I said it can get certified but would be crippled by a low ceiling making it a bad jet. And so it is. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/21/09
Posts: 12596
Post Likes: +17395
Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
There is an art to saying something that everyone knows you're saying, in a way that you can deny you said it. This is not said without admiration. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:27 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21191
Post Likes: +26677
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The performance numbers of the Cirrus are not that different than my Solitaire, it just carries less. So they built a jet that can't beat a 40 year old turboprop that goes twice as far and carries twice as much. Yeah, progress! Consider a recent trip: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N305 ... /KEVV/KSRQFL270 in 19 minutes, carrying 850 lbs cabin load (4 people + bags), ~300 KTAS, 2.5 hours. If I had an SF-50, I would have to stop for fuel halfway, it would take at least an hour longer if not more, and I'd burn almost twice as much fuel. Quote: I think the only mistake Cirrus made is not figuring out how to make it carry more fuel We don't yet know the *actual* empty weight of the delivered airplanes so it may be impractical to carry more fuel. They are up against the 6000 lbs MGTOW limit they certified under. Above that line, the rules change. Given the plane can come with seven seats (!!!), I'm betting there will be a lot of over gross flights. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21191
Post Likes: +26677
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There is an art to saying something that everyone knows you're saying, in a way that you can deny you said it. I can't help those who imagine things. I very clearly stated multiple times that the plane could get certified. Indeed, I made a point that Cirrus's goal of making the lowest, slowest jet meant they DID understand what it would take to get it certified. Fake news strikes again, truth by repetition. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
