Could someone who read it please summarize or repeat it? That thread was a monster....

Could someone who read it please summarize or repeat it? That thread was a monster....

You forgot slow.

Aren’t they really slow?

300 knots at FL280 burning 65GPH.
https://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-sf50-v ... fly#page-5

Tony you could do the same or better in the TBM. At 260 kts cruise, your burning 38 gph in an 850 at FL280. And your cabin will be at around 8000 ft.

Perhaps, but who wants to go that slow?

We tend to get hung up on knots, but the difference between 260, 280, 310 knots on your average GA trip is less than the time that is wasted on an inefficient pre-flight, ATC sequencing delays, or missing a couple of red lights on the way to the airport. I have many times been going the same direction as TBMs, and had them sitting in my TCAS ring the whole time on a long cross country. If 50 knots is a deal breaker, get the TBM, but you can go even faster for less money getting a Mustang or Eclipse if speed is your deal. I pull out my credit card every time I get fuel or maintenance, so those costs are very real to me. The acquisition and depreciation are just monopoly money, and since I fly for business is heavily compensated. The TBM is going to cost more for everything, and for every trip to get those extra 50 knots. 50 knots would save me about 3 minutes on one of my common 213 nm flights that I just plugged into flt.plan. Both great planes. The best one for somebody is just going to be determined by preference.

It seems to be there is the "Cult of Cirrus" and then the "Cult of the Turbofan" and when you combine these two together into a prospective buyer, what infinitesimal amount of rational thought capacity is available for critical evaluation of owner-flown pint-sized VLJs goes right out the window.

The SF50, and Cirrus airplanes in general are packaging-focused and they (will) sell, but there are "frustrations" for those of us who don't fully drink the kool-aide.

I feel that this all comes down to either you MUST have the SF50 or, if you are "on the fence" or the critical thinking neurons are firing today for some reason (perhaps lack of Jet-A money-on-fire Pratt or Williams fans running on the ramp near you), then I don't see how you end up with a SF50 vs. a M600.

That said I'm looking to have M600 vs SF50 type problems so please indulge us with pics/reviews/video of whatever you end up flying

You guys are so funny.... for 10 years on BT it's been "I want a turbine bonanza with pressurization blah blah"..... It's here in the SF50 and everyone is like "that's just for fan boys".

The trend on BT is 100% "we hate change and everything that's new". Just look at the "Garmin buys Fltplan.com" thread. It's all "horrible idea", "it'll never work", "they're gonna take away my free". Don't forget all the "GA is Dead" threads too.

Imagine a "theoretical" (for argument's sake) Cessna Denali that is single turbofan powered, it's 300 kts (thus faster than your PC-12), there will be some who say it's got a better interior than the PC-12 (I prefer M600 interior to SF50 for putting my feet up in back in the club seating but some will surely prefer the SF50 interior for cabin dimensions and large windows).

BUT... this theoretical Denali is altitude limited to the max altitude of your PC-12 (strike one against turbofan), it burns 50% more fuel to go 40 kts faster (strike 2 against the turbofan), and it's range is substantially shorter on paper, and in the real world of being held low on departures etc, it's even much WORSE as the fuel burn at sub flight-level altitudes is crazy high (strike 3 against turbofan). Oh and throw in runway performance issues (especially hot/high).

Would you trade in your PC-12 on this "theoretical" Denali as described above for better/more modern cockpit ergonomics, maybe a better cabin design (debatable), and more theoretical speed but at the cost of range / fuel burn, possible runway performance issues, and no true (bad) frontal topping ability over a PC-12?

It's crazy talk for any rational buyer, but these things are going to be 100% crazy gotta-have-it emotional purchases for the Cirri tribe, so for those buyers this debate doesn't matter as they have to have it, it's straight out of WIlly Wonka, "but Daddy, I want THAT ONE".

I'm not sure there is any such thing as an economy-jet, but I'd say maybe, maybe the Eclipse if the parent company were stable would qualify. I feel like in the owner-flown turbine world, it's bargain priced Mustang (to top weather with two engines and a makeshift potty), or make the jump all the way to a Phenom 300 (or PC-24) which is really where, yea the costs are crazy, but there is an actual capability justification versus PC-12 (the benchmark in my view), or even M600/TBMs.

I’m not really following your analogy.

The SF50 is a fast SR22. The means of propulsion is meaningless. Quit calling it a jet. It’s a time machine. Hondajet and Mustang etc were poorly thought out platforms. The SF50 is not those things.

I remember when everyone on BT thought Garmin was a toy and would never be installed on anything but a piston plane. If you want to know what’s gonna happen tomorrow don’t listen to these guys. Do the opposite of what BT says and you’ll be in good shape.

Are you saying the world isn't really flat?

(i tried to use green font but i'm not smart enough)

I read this again and it's not a good analogy for comparing the SF50. The SF50 is half the price of a HondaJet or Mustang or Eclipse. If the HondaJet were $2MM it would have sold like hotcakes. Instead it's close to $5MM and competes with much more capable airplanes.

I think Jason's point of view on how Cirrus see's the SF50 as an extension of their product offering for their core audience is spot on. Cirrus is focused on building airplanes for their single engine customers. I don't think they have any interest in building something for folks like myself because there is already a competitors in that space. Why build something you have to compete with the likes of Cessna and Embraer? They chose (wisely in my opinion) to focus on products that appeal to their core and loyal customers.

I don't want to argue if the SF50, or the SR22 is a good product or not. It doesn't matter. Their customers and orders have validated to Cirrus that it is with their wallets.