10 Jan 2026, 06:03 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 18:06 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Do you believe the SF50 will be a financial success, or failure? You didn't precisely define either of those words, so hard to say a simple yes or no. I think the SF50 will be a financial failure for its owners. Used prices will be low. I think Cirrus will find it hard to sell many more past the 500 initially on the order book. I expect about 100 positions will evaporate, so maybe only 400 get delivered. If Cirrus didn't have the SR line and Chinese money, the SF50 line would bankrupt them (and nearly did already). I expect Cirrus to keep production rate fairly low. There's no incentive to reach the end of the order book too quickly, and they are losing money on each one presently, so don't invest in a production ramp up to lose money faster. A short range, fuel thirsty, no redundancy, inadequate parachute, altitude limited, noisy cabin jet that ATC treats like a turboprop. Wow, what a deal! It is really frustrating that Eclipse frakked it up with their damn innovation religion and Cirrus frakked it up with their damn single engine religion. If either company had listened to the tiniest amount of common sense from the industry, they would have been successes. Sigh. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 18:08 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You seem to have forgotten about the Eclipse 400, an SEJ by a company that had no piston background at all and were very, very current on twin jets. Which was promptly killed. Eclipse is a poor poster boy for an "experienced" twin jet maker, but even they saw the light before making a bigger mistake. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 18:10 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If the SF50 was available in 2007 I'd have bought one. What happen to carrying 8 people from KASE to KPDK? Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 18:13 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Slower approach speeds from the mandated 61 kt. stall speed limitation for singles. EA500 stall speed 69 knots. SF50 stall speed 67 knots. If you are a pilot who can't fly 2 knots faster, get a bicycle. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 19:03 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13087 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If the SF50 was available in 2007 I'd have bought one. What happen to carrying 8 people from KASE to KPDK? Mike C. That was then. This is now.... just like your silly Eclipse comparisons.... ha.
I think you're stuck in a time warp. It's 2018 now. Times changed. The don't build MU2's and Eclipses anymore.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 19:17 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3503 Post Likes: +2476 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Their customers fly singles. They don’t typically have multi ratings. But now they need a type rating, far harder to get than a multi rating. Mike C. I don’t think the SF50 check ride is too tough. Cirrus just convinces customers the training is simple single engine flying like that they’re already familiar with.
It doesn’t matter which is harder or easier. It just matters what customers are willing to do.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 23:16 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don’t think the SF50 check ride is too tough. Cirrus just convinces customers the training is simple single engine flying like that they’re already familiar with. Reality bites. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -jet-pilotHis transition to flying the Cirrus Jet took four weeks of intensive training, including a challenging ground school curriculum; 10 hours of flight time with an instructor in Duluth, Minnesota; and 25 hours of flight time with a mentor flying across the United States to gain real-world experience as a jet pilot. To supplement his training, Jolley also amassed another 25 hours of flight experience flying with an instructor in another Cirrus Jet prior to his delivery. ... "I passed the ride, but it took me three to four weeks to decompress," said Jolley, obviously relieved to have that hurdle behind him.Sounds like it took him at least 2 months to be able to fly his plane solo. This sounds quite a bit worse than the Eclipse training program which was deemed tougher than typical twin jets at the time. Quote: It doesn’t matter which is harder or easier. It just matters what customers are willing to do. I doubt any SF50 depositor truly understood what they were signing up for with regards to training. Cirrus sold the plane as "simple", really just an SR22 with a jet engine. It really isn't, so that was a bit of a ruse. Has a lot of complex systems, often more complex than twin jets. For example, the two yaw damper systems required as a consequence of the V/X tail stability problems. Now that the plane is real, and the realities of training, operating, paying for it are real, you can't sell dreams any more. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 23:47 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It just matters what customers are willing to do. No SF50 owner knew what they would have to do when they signed the contract. So the fact the plane was sold to them a decade ago is not testament to customer's willingness to spend 4 weeks to get a type rating. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2018, 23:57 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3503 Post Likes: +2476 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No SF50 owner knew what they would have to do when they signed the contract.
So the fact the plane was sold to them a decade ago is not testament to customer's willingness to spend 4 weeks to get a type rating.
Mike C. To say that no customer knew what he was getting into is assuming you know absolutely everything about every situation. Furthermore, not everyone is going to take four weeks to get a type rating. You’re doing too much generalizing to support your opinion.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 Dec 2018, 00:01 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 07/21/08 Posts: 5868 Post Likes: +7377 Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No SF50 owner knew what they would have to do when they signed the contract.
Mike C. Wow
_________________ I'm just here for the free snacks
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 Dec 2018, 00:08 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21016 Post Likes: +26483 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: To say that no customer knew what he was getting into is assuming you know absolutely everything about every situation. Not at all, it is saying that no one knew, not even Cirrus, what the training program would be like when the airplane contract was signed 10+ year ago. So buyers did not know what they were signing up for. Quote: Furthermore, not everyone is going to take four weeks to get a type rating. I would expect any given pilot to take less time to get a Mustang type rating than an SF50 type rating. Typical Mustang type rating initial course says 12-13 days. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 Dec 2018, 00:40 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 07/21/08 Posts: 5868 Post Likes: +7377 Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So the fact the plane was sold to them a decade ago is not testament to customer's willingness to spend 4 weeks to get a type rating.
Mike C. It didn't take 4 weeks. Read the article again.
_________________ I'm just here for the free snacks
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|