Adam,

On this subject, I think you're wrong. The side yoke is not only just as easy to use as a regular yoke, but it opens up the cockpit to create a more comfortable, more spacious look and feel, and it eliminates that hard uneven edge for a face to bang into during a sudden stop.

I wish my 310 had a side yoke.

It's really nice. 1400NM. Due beginning of 2018 according to the July 2016 article.

I've always wondered why they didn't build it like this in the first place. I remember looking at the Eclipse back in the day and thinking "I hate the avionics". ha

Adam,

On this subject, I think you're wrong. The side yoke is not only just as easy to use as a regular yoke, but it opens up the cockpit to create a more comfortable, more spacious look and feel, and it eliminates that hard uneven edge for a face to bang into during a sudden stop.

I wish my 310 had a side yoke.

Didn't stop them from selling a large number of them.

Mustang?

Ah, yes, the "land-o-matic".

This was preceded by the "boing-o-matic" gear on the Cessna 170. That gear was steel struts with no energy absorption, so any extra energy at touch down and you bounced back into the air.

Mike C.

Very little is related to being a twin.

The "rattling speed" is basically the same in the terminal area.

CJs have simple systems.


If they can't fly a CJ, they can't fly an SF50.


We don't know yet why this happened, but we could just as easily be talking about that poor chap whose engine failed in the SF50 and how he would have lived in an CJ.


We have yet to have an objective assessment of the SF50 flying qualities. Cirrus has carefully kept that secret. You have presumed the SF50 is easier and more forgiving.

Mike C.

Who is working harder, this dude or the pilot in the CJ videos.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jrT1kbmMudI

Give the CJ guy CAVU and a good video editor, then he isn't working hard, either.

Mike C.

... and x1.5 the price. Not clear at all it would sell.

I doubt the SF50 will compete with the TBM. 2 totally different aircraft.
Daher sold 54 TBM 900/930 in 2016.
Lets see if they sell less aircraft next year.

Why would anyone want to go slower on more fuel burn with less range and payload?





I doubt it'll be a million less by the time the fixed price option orders are delivered. It'll probably cost right around the same as a M600 and a million less than a TBM900. And yes, that's the market the SF50 is competing for.

Because they don't want to spend an extra million?

I don't think the twin costs 50% more, apples to apples. The twin has economic and liability advantages that the single doesn't have.

PWC and/or Williams would prefer to sell pairs of engines. A lot less liability and somewhat more hourly revenue. The way engine programs are priced these days, they should give the engines free to the OEMs.

Mike C.

At the average hourly rate each poster on this thread earns i am guessing we could have pooled the money and bought a new SF50 and conducted our own flight tests on it to get real numbers. Hell, we might have even been able to contribute some R&D back to Cirrus and generated SF50 2.0 by now......

That is a really cool video.

Love the trailing link gear, the ability to slow from 300 TAS to Approach speed in less than a minute, the cockpit layout, the approach and landing speeds like an SR22, and I'd love having Rob Haig teaching me....