05 Jan 2026, 05:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 15:45 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 10/28/11 Posts: 1379 Post Likes: +602
Aircraft: V35A, B300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I just flew NYC back to Atlanta VFR at 17.5k' and talked to nobody. Why? Because it's faster. Jason, you fly more than the average guy. How often is the weather (icing conditions/convective activity) a factor in your cruise altitude choice? In my past experience the mid flight levels is where most of the weather develops that one would like to avoid. I enjoy going up and over it. I realize with your plane there is very little penalty other than fuel flow for going lower. Not so much with the CJ. It's a go high, or don't go far and slow choice.
I think Jason meant he cancelled IFR and went VFR into PDK. Not that he flew the whole way at 17.5
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 15:50 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13087 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think Jason meant he cancelled IFR and went VFR into PDK. Not that he flew the whole way at 17.5
I flew the whole way at 17.5
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 15:58 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 10/28/11 Posts: 1379 Post Likes: +602
Aircraft: V35A, B300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think Jason meant he cancelled IFR and went VFR into PDK. Not that he flew the whole way at 17.5
I flew the whole way at 17.5 I’d get your transponder checked. They had you IFR at 26,000
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 16:27 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2301 Post Likes: +2088 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't doubt that the SF50 will be flown by pro's (someone other than the owner and paid to do so) but Cirrus's primary market for that aircraft was the existing Cirrus owner.
Anyone flying any airplane, no matter what kind or how many powerplants it may have, should have been trained that only professionals fly airplanes. With this kind of attitude aviation is aviation; 150 or Learjet, Gulfstream or Taylorcraft. An airplane is an airplane.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 18:36 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/16/10 Posts: 2042 Post Likes: +946 Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
|
|
I don't think there is a right or wrong perspective on this thread. It's all about ones perspective. What makes it work for one, not always works for another. Allows differentiation and competition. I enjoy the different and somewhat opposing view points. Makes for interesting food for thought. Plus it's down right entertaining sometimes 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 18:45 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13087 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’d get your transponder checked. They had you IFR at 26,000 That's not me but good job looking like a weirdo.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 Dec 2017, 19:23 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/16/10 Posts: 2042 Post Likes: +946 Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’d get your transponder checked. They had you IFR at 26,000 That's not me but good job looking like a weirdo.
You got stalkers?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 00:51 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20999 Post Likes: +26480 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cirrus interacts a lot with their customers, and determined that the Vision Jet was the most likely way to get customers to part with their cash. Cirrus buyers didn't ask for Cirrus's take on an Eclipse/Mustang/Phenom 100.
This ultimately comes down to whether or not you think Cirrus buyers are dumb, naive, and uninformed. The analogy I use is asking a group of bicycle owners what they want to see in a car. That won't result in the best car. That's no insult to the bicycle owners, either, they simply don't know what they don't know. Quote: Eclipse raised capital and structured their finances using a pro forma that described thousands of orders (you mentioned 2700). Wikipedia says Dayjet was 1400 of those, so half of their order book came from a capital-intensive startup that failed after taking 2% of their projected orders. To me, that's their market. When Eclipse was founded, Dayjet didn't exist. How did they get started with no market? Your version is bit like revisionist history, and after the fact explanation that didn't really happen. Eclipse was, and always was, a personal jet market. They even wrote white papers on that "new" market. Quote: Commercial success isn't how many widgets you produce. It's building the right number of widgets for the right cost, and selling them at the right price to your target market such that you remain in business. Cirrus is on track to smoke Eclipse. You know that? At this stage of deliveries for Eclipse, there were many to declare Eclipse was going to make it big, too. The jury is still out, WAY out, on the SF50 being a commercial success. The major issue is exactly the same as Eclipse, an order book where most of them are priced at or below cost. We know at least into the 300s positions, the price is the $1.39M number. I simply don't think Cirrus can make a profit at that number. For one thing, that is only $500-600K more than an SR22 and the parts and labor on an SF50 have to be triple that of an SR22. Quote: 100% agree that they'd have wider appeal had they built a twin. But they chose to focus on existing Cirrus owners. There's this belief that had the SF50 been a twin, the Cirrus customer base would have rejected it. I believe that to be hugely false. Cirrus marketing would have seen to that. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 00:54 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09 Posts: 14444 Post Likes: +9571 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The analogy I use is asking a group of bicycle owners what they want to see in a car.
That won't result in the best car. Might result is a pretty sweet motorcycle though.
_________________ http://calipilot.com atp/cfii
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 01:07 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20999 Post Likes: +26480 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If the Cirrus had 2 engines and flew all the way up to 41,000 feet and was faster than any other jet - you still wouldn't buy one would you? If your point is to try and label all my posts as hate against Cirrus, you are way off base. If it had been a twin and could go to FL410, I would consider it a vastly superior plane. In essence, an Eclipse done right. Probably not on my shopping list due to range and payload I require, but a FAR better entry airplane that what it is now. Quote: New product, new marketshare, new people coming into GA - I like it. Who are these "new people" who are buying SF50s that were not into GA before? Moving up an SR guy into an SF50 isn't making "new people in GA". Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 01:15 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20999 Post Likes: +26480 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In almost 4000 hours of flying in the last 10 years I have NEVER used ice protection. Not once. You either have tremendous schedule flexibility to avoid any cold clouds, Or your plane has magical properties, Or you aren't telling the truth. I can't go 40 hours without some ice encounter, including the summer. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|