Yes, they even have billboards up on I-40 in Knoxville!

I love these guys. Manufacturing and aviation innovation at real scale in America.

If we had all invested in OLED a year ago we’d be buying positions!

I've been in OLED since 20's. It's my PC12 or TBM fund. Getting close!

I've been in OLED since 20's. It's my PC12 or TBM fund. Getting close!

Wow- what a bunch of internet board assumptions-in-lieu-of-actual-experience BS.

I got to fly the SF50 yesterday. It is an impressive machine and I believe they will sell a bunch of them to current SR22 pilots looking for the next step. I also believe they will sell some SR22s to non-pilots who want to get an SF50 at some point. The path from here to there is crystal clear and is quite compelling for those people. I was with current SR22T pilots and a few future-pilots yesterday. One or more of them will dive in.

Mike C.- just go fly one already. From what I saw firsthand yesterday, the brochure is conservative.

We had 5 Adults in the plane (195, 230, 215, 175, 135lbs each) and plenty of fuel, leaving the runway in 2400ft, and were climbing at more than 3,000ft/minute. At KSLC more than 4,000ft MSL, but it was pretty cool yesterday (high 40s/low 50s F I believe). Basically similar takeoff roll and stopping distances I see in similar conditions in my B36TC.

90GPH at max power for takeoff, 60GPH at 315KTAS in the mid to low teens. Easy to pull back to 40GPH and about 260KTAS.

I flew a little slow flight and stalls too. The automated systems make it nearly impossible to do anything wrong. I tried. I couldn't. As long as things are working at least.

I flew left seat, and I also sat in the back while another pilot flew. The comfort and room inside the cabin are unbelieveable. And all 5 after seats come out with a simple latch pull for mtn. bikes, skis, whatever. FAR more comfortable than my B36TC. Check out the legroom I had. And the guy next to me is about 6'5" tall.

Anyway- I've got no dog in this hunt. But it's a shame to see the bashing from people who haven't even flown one. Go fly it and then weigh-in with firsthand experience. It might not be for you or your mission, but it is an impressive aircraft and will meet the mission and desire of many people I think.

In my personal opinion, it is a huge success in creating a great aviation experience for pilots and passengers alike, as a step up for a current SR22 pilot. They are very close to delivering the 7,000th Cirrus. I think the SF50 is a good move and will be a success.

It happened (pics). Sorry about the sideways previews. Click to open full size and they display correctly.

Sure love the modern V tail application.

Define "plenty of fuel". it doesn't take much for a local demo flight.

State empty weight of the example you flew.

From that we can compute the actual all up weight was for you example flight.


Cirrus publishes 2036 ft takeoff, suggesting you were pretty light on the example flight.


Those sound like famous last words.


Too bad you have to wear headsets.


Imagine how much better it would have been as a twin. Faster, higher, farther, safer, quieter.

Mike C.

[/quote]
Imagine how much better it would have been as a twin. Faster, higher, farther, safer, quieter.

Mike C.[/quote]

Dumb. You could say similar comments about every single piston that exists.

Go Cirrus. It’s a cool plane, glad they got it built.

Define "plenty of fuel". it doesn't take much for a local demo flight.

State empty weight of the example you flew.

From that we can compute the actual all up weight was for you example flight.


Cirrus publishes 2036 ft takeoff, suggesting you were pretty light on the example flight.


Those sound like famous last words.


Too bad you have to wear headsets.


Imagine how much better it would have been as a twin. Faster, higher, farther, safer, quieter.

Mike C.

Not true.

For a piston, a twin is double the fuel, double the engines, for very little performance benefit.

That calculation is VERY different for a jet. And that's the point.

Witness the Eclipse, less total thrust on the same weight, but out performs the SF50 in every respect.

Mike C.

If that was true, why did you specifically mention me in your post? Next time you don't want a debate, don't call somebody by name and say their views are BS and bashing.

I'm happy to fly one if the opportunity presents itself.

I am pretty sure I'll ask very different questions than most. My first two will be "what is the empty weight of this one?" and "Can I read the AFM?". I wonder what the odds are of that? Cirrus seems more interested in an emotional response than analytical, so they have been very reserved with performance data.

Mike C.

Darn it, I felt for certain it would have been Where is the second motor I lose again...


Andrew.

Not true.

For a piston, a twin is double the fuel, double the engines, for very little performance benefit.

That calculation is VERY different for a jet. And that's the point.

Witness the Eclipse, less total thrust on the same weight, but out performs the SF50 in every respect.

Mike C.

FIFY

The cabin is not the primary reason the SF50 is a poor performer. Not even close.

The reasons are that:

It flies in thick air at FL280 or lower.
It has an angled thrust vector.
It has an X tail with lots of trim drag and wetted area.

The cabin profile is among the least of the issues with regards to performance.

For evidence, the climb rate, which occurs in the region of least parasitic drag, is anemic. The cabin is all parasitic drag.

Mike C.