08 May 2025, 20:19 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet  Posted: 27 May 2018, 09:18 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1328
Post Likes: +1833
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Having 120 hrs in a Cirrus, I bet I could fly that thing in no time at all. Very logical and intuitive amd familiar. Every flight review and article I have read says it's easier to fly than the SR22. Something else to consider and I don't believe I've seen discussed, resale value. If you think about the SR pricing and used values and apply that to the SF50, I bet not much money would be lost. Add to that the hefty demand for the plane and it should be easy to sell if you get in one and either don't like it or don't use it. Nice to meet you in Knoxville BTW. Warren G
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 09:37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 58
Post Likes: +44
Aircraft: CC EX-3
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Indeed.
It’s not for everyone.
It will do what we want. Pressurized, a lot faster than my Bo and....it’s a JET! And here is Cirrus, once again, reduced to one sentence, and it WILL be successful. "It's a JET!" As before, "It has a PARACHUTE!" Smart people.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 11:24 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13077
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I see people wanting a coast to coast hauler. This isn’t it. You’ll need a fuel stop
I hear people wanting to haul 4 business associates long distances. This isn’t it.
It is a cross country machine but not across the country.
I want one bad.
We don’t do any of these things anyway.
It will do what we want. Pressurized, a lot faster than my Bo and....it’s a JET! Every single pilot airplane needs to stop for fuel going West "coast to coast". That's not an SF50 issue. Coast to Coast 2 pilot jets start at $10MM. I'm not sure why everyone expects so much from the $1.7MM SF50. It's better than any piston and that's all that matters because new piston planes cost $1MM. Just because the SF50 is a "jet" doesn't mean it's like a Gulfstream
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 11:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13077
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Its not the jet, its the manufacturer people don’t like. If Beech had done this it would be all praise here. I think you're right. Now sure why anyone cares though.... Beech = Cessna
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 11:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19968
Post Likes: +25035
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: its a JET. ATC has classified it as a turboprop as far as routing due to its altitude and speed limitations. It makes as much cabin noise as a turboprop, if not more. A "headset" airplane. It is the most "turboprop like" jet ever made. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 11:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13077
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: See. Its all about labels. The debate has never been about bang for buck where it wins easily. Buyers could care less about forum BS. If it was up to BT, the SR series would have been a miserable failure. +1 Label the SF50 a "jet" or "turboprop".... It's meaningless. It's an airplane. It gets you from point A to B quickly and safely without having to fly Commercial. SOLD! What propels it through the sky doesn't matter as long as it works.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 12:18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8669
Post Likes: +9159
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: its a JET. ATC has classified it as a turboprop as far as routing due to its altitude and speed limitations. It makes as much cabin noise as a turboprop, if not more. A "headset" airplane. It is the most "turboprop like" jet ever made. Mike C.
I’m glad you’re not a typewriter salesman!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 12:40 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/08/12
Posts: 12581
Post Likes: +5188
Company: Mayo Clinic
Location: Rochester, MN
Aircraft: Planeless in RST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: its a JET. ATC has classified it as a turboprop as far as routing due to its altitude and speed limitations. It makes as much cabin noise as a turboprop, if not more. A "headset" airplane. It is the most "turboprop like" jet ever made. Mike C.
Mike you and I will not agree on this topic.,
We have different needs and requirements.
For me, at this stage of my life and career, an airplane, any airplane, is just a fancy tool for Nancy and me to get to nice hotels and restaurants. I dont need to be anywhere in a hurry. I don’t absolutely positively have to be there. I’ve been there and done that and had United or a Phenom 300 or an Eclipse to get me there.
It’s an expensive, self indulgent toy. I make no apologies.
Don’t really care what ATC calls it. I will have to learn a lot more than I know now about arrivals and departures procedures. I will have to load the high IFR charts, gasp, which I don’t do now. Plenty fast anought for me and I love my Bose headset!
May even have to get the fancy new in the air ones....
_________________
BFR 8/18; IPC 8/18
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 13:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19968
Post Likes: +25035
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike you and I will not agree on this topic. ATC does treat the SF50 like a turboprop for routing, and the reviews all mention the cabin noise and the need for headsets, so you aren't disagreeing with me, but with pretty solid factual statements coming from others. You can shoot the messenger, but that doesn't eliminate the truth of the message. An SF50 is basically a jet with turboprop capability, assuming dry runways. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 18:11 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 10/03/16
Posts: 326
Post Likes: +202
Location: Chicagoland
Aircraft: Mooney Acclaim
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Indeed.
It’s not for everyone.
It’s not a business hauler.
It’s not a across the country machine
Explain.... It has the same range and useful as an SR22 and I flew my SR22 for a couple years as a "cross country machine" and a "business hauler". Then I did the same with my A36 for 1000 hours. I'd much rather have been doing those trips in an SF50. Yes, everyone could use an SF50.
If short fields are part of your mission, then the TBM works better. This won't be meaningful to a lot of people, but it is to me.
-de
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 18:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13077
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If short fields are part of your mission, then the TBM works better. This won't be meaningful to a lot of people, but it is to me.
-de You're comparing a $4MM TBM to a $1.7MM SF50. It's a silly comparison. Of course the TBM is a better airplane. You're basically saying "why buy a Bentley when you can have a Honda"? Both are good cars. Both get you from point A to B. Some people want more.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Jet Posted: 27 May 2018, 19:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/03/16
Posts: 326
Post Likes: +202
Location: Chicagoland
Aircraft: Mooney Acclaim
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If short fields are part of your mission, then the TBM works better. This won't be meaningful to a lot of people, but it is to me.
-de You're comparing a $4MM TBM to a $1.7MM SF50. It's a silly comparison. Of course the TBM is a better airplane. You're basically saying "why buy a Bentley when you can have a Honda"? Both are good cars. Both get you from point A to B. Some people want more.
No, but if you read what I wrote, it was in response to your "Yes, everyone could use an SF50." I can't. Anyone who needs short field capability can't. There is no perfect airplane for "everybody."
|
|
| 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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
