And all these years there have been hundreds of Bonanzas flying out of the factory.

Oh.....maybe not..

No there haven't.

Apparently, SF50 buyers want a slow, low, short range, low payload jet reliant on a single engine that costs as much to fly as a real one.

Mike C.

It's because of the built in chute.

and for almost half the price of a new TBM. I still like the TBM the best though, they are sexy Almost as sexy as my V tail

Yeah but they're "Prop Planes" which is barely one step above a plastic clown plane to the general public. When you're a mover/shaker ya gotta have a JET (even if it's less capable than a turboprop).

It's so true. All non pilots who see my Pilatus think it costs about $50K to buy.

how silly. I'll give you $55k right now. Will you take a check drawn on a nigerian bank ?

Maybe you picked up on this, but the hypothetical scenario, was not which plane the pro-crew is going to better off in on those challenging trips. The pilot was a below average PPL, with 300 hours TT, and you only have 25 hrs to teach him how to fly the plane, so that he can carry your family back and forth across the country, and you aren't riding right seat. Minimal mentor time, no 3 weeks at flight safety, maybe short cut the 25 hrs Directly Observed time flying VMC day trips of 3.5 hrs on AP. We are simply talking which plane can a below average pilot with below average training have a reasonable chance of being a safe pilot in the real world?

I would feel confident that the SF50 is way easier to transition this "not the right stuff" kind of guy. After all, that is who they are marketing to. Hold your board meeting, Dinner with the client, kick the tires, light the fires, zip home that evening to your wife in your personal time machine. Way more romantic than having 2 pro-pilot's waiting on you in a drafty FBO, killing time watching CNN, while eating vending machine potato chips, wondering when to file the flight plan for the CJ3.

Which one you going to choose? I say if you pick the CJ3, I wouldn't insure your family. Not sure I would insure them in the SF50 under those circumstances either, but if I had to bet my money, I am putting the average dude in the SF50, because he is going to kill himself in the CJ3 \

I got that.

CJ3 still wins even with the rookie.

The industry knows how to train a CJ3 pilot, where he is going to make mistakes, what mistakes have caused accidents in the past, all the various gotchas.

We don't know any of that for an SF50. To a large extent, every new pilot is part test pilot. There are NO experienced SF50 instructors, either!

Further, the SF50 pilot is going to have to make twice as many takeoffs and landings due to fuel stops, going to fly many more hours, and going to be potentially in more weather on this hypothetical transcon flight. The increased exposure to riskier phases of flight is by itself a reason to favor the CJ3.


Neither is the right answer, because the SF50 simply can't replace good judgment and experience with being easy.

The hand eye coordination to fly a CJ3 is not hard. Even if the SF50 is easier in that regard, which is doubtful, that's 5% of being a jet pilot.


Your impression the SF50 is easier than a CJ is based on no actual evidence. How pitch sensitive? How much yaw wagging? How harmonized are the controls? We don't know that.

The CJ3 incorporates 50 years of refinements and experience in its design. The SF50 is the first jet from Cirrus, and in an entirely new category for the industry.


Sounds like we may need some body bags. Being romantic and being safe are two very different things.

The most dangerous thing in aviation, above all else, is a sense of feeling safe. If Cirrus has successfully made the SF50 buyers feel very safe in the SF50, expect problems. The SR series had this issue when it came out, too.

Mike C.

Really? Source?

Are you sure? Think about it, the SF50 is how much larger then the SR22? Not a heck of a lot! So material costs and construction will likely not be such a huge delta.

So then there is avionics and the engine difference. How much is that?

Tim

Dont know but he's burning a lot of fuel at 11500 ft.
97 gph at 54% torque.

Mike might be on to something.

I've read many of the posts on this thread but haven't seen any commentary on the off-center thrust. Isn't increased power going to induced pitch-down, and decreased power, pitch-up? Isn't that going to reply some discipline of pilots?

Ashley
(Hoping to see something new discussed here)

Anybody know what the huge NACA duct on the starboard side of the nose is for?