02 Jan 2026, 15:03 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 11:54 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 09/29/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +10
|
|
|
Sheesh...talk about a combo of mental masturbation combined with a circle jerk.
One could argue about stupid crap all day...but why?
For example, I would not buy an ultralight costing $15,000, I could rant on and on and on and on and on....and a few more on's.....about all the reasons they wouldn't sell and wouldn't be profitable...it's a stupid design, under powered, too expensive, not fast enough, can't climb high enough..etc....
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 12:07 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Sheesh...talk about a combo of mental masturbation combined with a circle jerk.
One could argue about stupid crap all day...but why?
For example, I would not buy an ultralight costing $15,000, I could rant on and on and on and on and on....and a few more on's.....about all the reasons they wouldn't sell and wouldn't be profitable...it's a stupid design, under powered, too expensive, not fast enough, can't climb high enough..etc....
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough. no, no no. You just do not get it. An ultralight is under powered. If you just put two engines on there it would go farther, fly higher, be faster. That is the example of glider think. One is not better, you need two in case of failure! Just look at the regulations, with one engine it is difficult to fly faster than the regulation max stall speed. Therefore the plane is not safe! And what happens when flying around Breckenridge CO? You are in an situation of potential explosive decompression! You need that second engine. Anyone who buys an ultralight is just deluding themselves of the better choices for more capable aircraft. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 12:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09
Posts: 5193
Post Likes: +3038
Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The eclipse has a major fadec weakness.
Most fadec systems can take elec power from either ships power or from a dedicated, engine driven fadec generator. The eclipse fadec can only get power from ships power.
A dual failure in an eclipse is not meaningful unless the Cirrus installation suffers from the same cheap ass archetecture as the eclipse. Williams FADEC has its own engine driven power if it loses ships power.
_________________
Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 12:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/29/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Sheesh...talk about a combo of mental masturbation combined with a circle jerk.
One could argue about stupid crap all day...but why?
For example, I would not buy an ultralight costing $15,000, I could rant on and on and on and on and on....and a few more on's.....about all the reasons they wouldn't sell and wouldn't be profitable...it's a stupid design, under powered, too expensive, not fast enough, can't climb high enough..etc....
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough. no, no no. You just do not get it. An ultralight is under powered. If you just put two engines on there it would go farther, fly higher, be faster. That is the example of glider think. One is not better, you need two in case of failure! Just look at the regulations, with one engine it is difficult to fly faster than the regulation max stall speed. Therefore the plane is not safe! And what happens when flying around Breckenridge CO? You are in an situation of potential explosive decompression! You need that second engine. Anyone who buys an ultralight is just deluding themselves of the better choices for more capable aircraft. Tim
I'm with you brother....I just dropped a 426 Hemi in my Schweizer 2-33 Sailplane....now, I haven't gotten it off the ground yet...seems to be a slight W&B issue ( a little nose heavy) and the tow plane can't budge it...but when I get it worked out I won't have to worry about not having enough power. The horsepower to weight ratio tops any other plane. Now back to work....
Oh wait...one engine won't cut it...so I'm mounting two 1,000 lb JATO bottles in case the Hemi takes a dump. Problem solved...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 13:31 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11
Posts: 5248
Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Sheesh...talk about a combo of mental masturbation combined with a circle jerk.
One could argue about stupid crap all day...but why?
For example, I would not buy an ultralight costing $15,000, I could rant on and on and on and on and on....and a few more on's.....about all the reasons they wouldn't sell and wouldn't be profitable...it's a stupid design, under powered, too expensive, not fast enough, can't climb high enough..etc....
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough. You new around here or something?
_________________
“ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 13:44 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 04/16/12
Posts: 7472
Post Likes: +14391
Location: Keller, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: '68 36 (E-19)
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough.
No, it's not good enough as the whole point is they SHOULDN'T be happy, damnit, could be happier, and their happiness is doomed to dissipate once they realize the limitations.
_________________
Things are rarely what they seem, but they're always exactly what they are.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 13:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/29/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +10
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
None of which matters....there are people buying them, they are happy....which is good enough.
No, it's not good enough as the whole point is they SHOULDN'T be happy, damnit, could be happier, and their happiness is doomed to dissipate once they realize the limitations.
Russell...damn you're right....them sonsabitches shouldn't be happy...why I ought to call them up and 'splain their errors in their thinkin'. I'll do that, right fast quick, can't let them have any more joy from here on out! I have a mind to tell them there ain't no Santy Claus too.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 13:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/16/12
Posts: 7472
Post Likes: +14391
Location: Keller, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: '68 36 (E-19)
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Russell...damn you're right....them sonsabitches shouldn't be happy...why I ought to call them up and 'splain their errors in their thinkin'. I'll do that, right fast quick, can't let them have any more joy from here on out! I have a mind to tell them there ain't no Santy Claus too.
Stanley, someone beat you to the phone, and since they will never hang up, your calls will not go through anyway.
_________________
Things are rarely what they seem, but they're always exactly what they are.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 14:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/29/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +10
|
|
|
Hi Arlen...thanks. I have to say...much like college...I took the Cliff Notes approach to this thread....did I miss anything important?
I did glance over several summaries....they seem logical and consistent.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 14:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 17020
Post Likes: +28973
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Hi Arlen...thanks. I have to say...much like college...I took the Cliff Notes approach to this thread....did I miss anything important?
I did glance over several summaries....they seem logical and consistent. cliffs notes version: Cirrus jet is an underpowered, over-compromised design with many shortcomings, something a "real jet pilot" would never touch. And it is going to sell like hotcakes at an EAA breakfast.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 14:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/11
Posts: 5248
Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ....they seem logical and consistent. Good Grief. Like we need another smartass in this thread. Or this site......
_________________
“ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Oct 2017, 15:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/29/17
Posts: 6
Post Likes: +10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ....they seem logical and consistent. Good Grief. Like we need another smartass in this thread. Or this site......
For clarity....by "another"...did you mean you or someone else...please be specific.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
| 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 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
