Mike Ciholas

"Anyone who has flown a "real jet"......

What defines a "real jet?"

One that operates at an efficient altitude where jets work well.

Mike C.

One that operates at an efficient altitude where jets work well.

Mike C.

This.

I don't completely trust the C&D numbers on the SF50 yet, they haven't been flying long enough. But, the SF50 looks to be slightly more operating cost to an M50/M60 and cheaper than the PC-12 and TBM. Factoring in the speed, it's pretty compelling.

I look forward to hearing more real ownership experiences.

Mike, would your opinion on the Cirrus change if the FAA mandated ceiling was lifted to 310? how about 340?

The two SF50 owners I talked too; actually own multiple planes including Citations, a Challenger and KAs. They are selling the jets and smaller turboprops, getting NetJets cards and using the SF50 for local/regional flying. Basically the SF50 does 80-90% of the flights they take with less carry cost.

Tim

Not if made the same size, like the Eclipse EA500 was.

A twin VLJ for the owner flown market would not be higher cost. It's been done.

Mike C.

Every bit helps, but you really need to get to the high 30s if you want something resembling real jet range and speeds.

The max cabin pressure differential is going limit the SF50 to where it can't go up there with a comfortable cabin even if the FAA relaxed the rules.

An additional concern is that the SF50 has stability issues given the dual yaw dampers, stick pusher, and being a V/X tail. As you go higher, those problems get worse so the plane might not work that well up there even if the other issues are somehow addressed.

Mike C.

LOTS of comparisons of the SF50 vs. all kinds of small jets.

What if Cirrus DIDN'T want the SF50 to compare favorably, rather the opposite?

"Jets" are designed to be flown by professional pilots (two), with no other job or distraction from flying the aircraft. The SF50 is designed for an owner pilot with much less experience and currency than a typical professional pilot. Not to mention that the SF50 owner will likely be flying very early in the morning or after a long day at work, a perfect time to make mistakes.

Slower, simple, easy to operate, easy emergency procedures, etc. seem like a good idea and A LOT more important than performance given the likely condition of the pilot.

Eclipse EA500 and Cessna Mustang are two counter examples, designed for the owner pilot, flown single pilot.


Slower? Yes, but not appreciably in the regime it matters, down low, approaches, pattern work, etc. Speeds about the same. EA500 was only 2 knots higher stall speed, for example, which makes all other speeds similar (Vapp, Vref, Vr, etc). Does being slower in cruise really tax pilots? I'd think that faster makes things less fatiguing, actually.

Simple? Well, I haven't seen the AFM yet (still secret), so this is a presumption. Notably, the EA500 and Mustang had no stick pusher, didn't require dual yaw dampers, and had no chute, all of which are complexity. During an engine failure, the twin is definitely simpler, and no more work when both operate.

Easy to operate? Again, presumption, let's see the AFM procedures and judge that against what an EA500 or Mustang burdens it pilots with.

Easy emergency procedures? Again, presumption. The chute is not an "easy emergency procedure", especially now that the automatic autopilot chute envelope protection feature has been disabled by service bulletin. Engine failure is not an easy procedure, either, in the single since it means total loss of thrust, loss of pressurization, and loss of electrical power generation all at the same time. None of those happen in a twin.

Until we read the AFM and really see what the pilot burdens are, one doesn't know. Jets are not like piston aircraft, a second engine is not a burden but a blessing.

Mike C.

Tom Siebel has one here in San Jose. Think his other airplanes count as real jets. He flies most of his other stuff besides the BBJ. Billionaire that’s ok flying around in a single engine jet that’s slow and can’t go high. Cirrus must have done some thing right for him to take it to Mexico over the BBJ or Global.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Siebel

Tom Siebel has one here in San Jose. Think his other airplanes count as real jets.

So you said, "I've yet to hear of an SF owner who wasn't stepping out of an SR."

And he replies:

It's called "changing the subject once you've painted yourself in a corner". Those who are really good at it don't realize everyone can see through it.

Yes Nate I was pointing out that Mike doesn’t know everything specifically that he hadn’t heard of an owner that stepped out SR hence me quoting that statement. And Mike he sold the Falcon 2000 to upgrade to the more efficient, safer Vision jet. That should get another 2 pages on this thread from you.