Can you imagine if someone built a competitor to the Bonanza that had the same engine power, same gross weight, but climbed half as fast?

Yup, that would be lame.

Mike C.

As stated, an airplane of the same power and weight, thus a valid comparison of technical achievement of performance.

Cirrus managed to bungle the design of the SF50 so badly they can only get half the climb performance of an Eclipse even though they have slightly more thrust.

You can chose whatever coping mechanism suits you to accept the climb performance of the SF50, but that won't change the fact it is very poor.

Mike C.

The Eclipse cabin does not compare, nor does the company/support.

Show me the NEW AIRCRAFT COMPETITOR that has better performance for the SAME MONEY.

Presently, the SF50 is costing their owners more than the EA500 did, even when corrected for inflation, on a per serial number basis. That is, serial #7 SF50 cost its owner more than serial #7 EA500 did.

In any case, regardless of price, Cirrus built a technically poor airplane. Climb performance is the best indicator of aerodynamic efficiency.

Mike C.

If a buyer has $2MM and must buy a new aircraft currently under production, which plane has the best performance?

Mike - 730fa aligns with my flight and my route. I thought he had checked in at 280. I believe I asked what was his TAS and fuel burn at the moment. I was assuming 280 bc that is what i thought he checked in at.

If he was actually at fl250, 315 on 65gph is impressive. That would imply better range than the numbers I have previously seen.

As you have said before, 300kts will change your life:-)

From what I can tell, the Cirrus performs almost the same in all categories as a TBM 700a with a better cabin (my opinion). Failing to see how this is a bad plane. Just bc it has a jet engine doesn't mean it should be compared to jets. That's like comparing a kodiak to a pc12.

As stated earlier - I remain impressed with the aircraft. We have a stake in it's success, but with exposure to nearly every aircraft manufacturer and aircraft save military, the aircraft is world class.

And I am biased - that includes the fuel quantity system.

The N9943H example, regardless of not crossing path with you, shows 293 KTAS, ISA+3, FL280.

I do not believe the SF50 can reach 315 KTAS, and not 65 GPH at FL250.


They could have built something that changes my life even more.


So that should be the Cirrus tag line:

The SF50, a jet with turboprop performance.

Except it doesn't even manage turboprop climb rates...

Mike C.

The SF50 isn't in production. They hand made a few, now expect a production certificate in June. Maybe.

The SF50 costs more than $2M. If you order one TODAY, you will end spending very near $3M when it is delivered. It will also take 5 years.

So does the SF50 qualify for your test? Seems not.

Mike C.

Don't even go there chisel chest, Pilatus will school this airplane on a long haul with many people!!!!

The SF50 isn't in production. They hand made a few, now expect a production certificate in June. Maybe.

The SF50 costs more than $2M. If you order one TODAY, you will end spending very near $3M when it is delivered. It will also take 5 years.

So does the SF50 qualify for your test? Seems not.

Mike C.

Really? Where?


You can't buy one for $2M, even as a position. Read the fine print in the purchase contract. The price escalators and required "options" will get you well over $2M, especially by the time it is delivered.

Mike C.

Is this better?

The SF50, a jet with mediocre turboprop performance.

Mike C.

So does every other plane. Now or 5 years from now, it's still 1/2 price of the nearest competitor.

Is this better?

The SF50, a jet with mediocre turboprop performance.

Mike C.