Ha. This thread would be 5 pages long if it weren't for your posts trashing the SF50.

If the SF50 is a "bad jet" how come Cirrus has sold more SF50's in the last month than Mitsubishi has sold MU2's in the last 30+ years?

There are always people jumping on to the newest and the latest. Question is can they sustain sales?

Its an airplane that my 35 year old Commander can out climb and out range, by a lot!

Speed of the SF 50 has yet to be independently demonstrated, but I doubt it will keep up with the MU-2 or Commander. Even if it can it will be the slowest jet in the air?

????

And it's the least expensive. That's the point you guys keep missing. Of course there are better jets... They cost a lot more money too. Go get an Eclipse if you want it. It's $1.5MM+ more.

300 knots "gets it done". It's an airline killer and that's the whole point. In a world where ATC is constantly telling you to "descend and slow down", your 500 knot jet is a waste of money.

There is a limited supply of naive newbie pilots.

I doubt we know the stable pricing for the SF 50.

Eclipse had sold 2600 airframes by 2008 but only delivered around a 260 in the life of the company.

Orders are different than deliveries.

No doubt. We shall see. My money is still on Cirrus though.

Do NOT assume this plane is for noobs anymore than the SR22 is for noobs. It's for people who want to go places without dealing with commercial air travel. Most of my pilot buddies have SR22's. They use them to go to their beach houses. 6 hour drive takes 1 hour by Cirrus.

Very few people with Gulfstreams are using them to fly coast to coast every weekend. Nobody WANTS to be in an airplane for 4+ hours. I don't care what kind of airplane it is. Even as much as I fly, 70% of my flights are 250-500nm.

For those not seeing the light....

A lot of folks won't run the spreadsheets out 8 decimal places. They will get to say they own a Cirrus (industry recognized as a safe company) jet. It will fit in a smaller hangar, its automated, its fast enough, and more people will be exposed to GA which is a good thing.

They might shutter a few legacy business jets whose owners are tired of large operating budgets to haul one or two people around.

It's going to be a grand slam.

Peace,
Don

Eclipse had sold 2600 airframes by 2008 but only delivered around a 260 in the life of the company.

Did Eclipse require a 100k deposit
Did Eclipse have 400 of those on the books when they started production?

Looks like Cirrus won.

That is in short supply presently, but over time, the secrets will get out.

What we should learn in due course:

1. Performance data

What does it really do for climb, cruise, descent, with regards to fuel and time? We need the performance section of the AFM which has, so far, not been available to the public. The plane does not climb as well as most turboprops and burns a lot more fuel doing it.

2. Weights

The brochure fantasy says 3572 lbs empty weight. What are the actual empty weights of the delivered aircraft? It doesn't take much before you cannot use full fuel even solo. The useful load full fuel is 428 lbs by the brochure number. Given typical options and/or optimism in the brochure, this could easily be down to 200 lbs.

3. Insurance

Insurance companies don't like unknown risks and flying an SF50 qualifies. So the question is what are new owners paying in premium for coverage. $40-50K would be my guess given an owner flown example.

4. Engine

What is Williams charging per hour for TAP Blue for the FJ33-5A? I'd guess it is something more than the charge for an FJ44 on a twin jet to cover the additional liability of the SF50 being a single and the lack of 2 engine revenue to support the FJ33 on the sole application it has. I'd guess $180/hr.

5. Maintenance

Cirrus has some sort of hourly airframe maintenance program but I have not heard what it costs. I'd guess $250/hour. Some of this might be covered by warranty initially.

6. Training

What does it cost to get an SF50 type rating and what does recurrent cost?

With the above data, you can figure a reasonable yearly budget and what the actual payload/range/performance profile will be.


You'll have to wait for the real data and then you can make an informed decision on the utility versus the cost. Cirrus has preferred to market the plane emotionally rather than practically, which may be a clue.

Mike C.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1WA ... S/tracklog

Cruise speeds are ~300 KTAS at FL280. Wind during much of this flight was 250 at 14, basically net zero.


It is about the same speed at that altitude.


Yes, it is the slowest, lowest jet in the air. Cirrus set that as a goal and, with great effort, they achieved it.

Mike C.

In June of 2000 Eclipse sold 160 positions in one day requiring a deposit of $155,000 which allowed you to get early deliveries and it was transferable.

The price for the jet was $775,000!

They sold out the first two years of deliveries in one day!

The places they will be going are fuel stops, particularly if you make any use of the cabin other than the pilot's seat.

A traveling airplane needs payload and range if it is to compete with the airlines. The SF50 lacks both. I suspect that full fuel, it is a solo airplane.

Mike C.

Mike,

You're still missing the point.....

Cirrus sells their $800K composite planes everyday to people who might be better served by a $200K A36. The marketplace is full of people who all make decisions differently - just take the last national election as an example. Just because it doesn't make sense to some of the marketplace doesn't mean they won't be hugely successful.

Peace,
Don

Just like a Premier, Mustang, Eclipse, CJ1, Hondajet etc........ But the SF50 is a fraction of the price.

Those planes have a significantly better payload/range profile than the SF50.

The payload/range profile of the SF50 is basically a match with the SR22, if not worse.

The SF50 climbs like a piston twin, cruises like a turboprop, burns fuel like a jet. Those other airplanes you mentioned climb, cruise, and burn like a jet with the safety of two engines.

Mike C.