06 Jan 2026, 21:31 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 17:56 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaris_LAR01 Looks great.... I'd rather drive. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:02 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2625
Post Likes: +1230
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: None currently
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Well those are some substantial improvements, Cirrus doesn't sit still for long. The SF50 is now almost as fast as a Mustang, and goes about as far. Hmmmm. Quite appealing for the turbine step up crowd. Right now for currently produced light turbines, as I see it: range/payload M500<SF50<M600<=TBM 930<PC12 Speed: M500<M600<=PC12NG<SF50<TBM High hot and short capability: SF50<TBM<M600<M500<PC12NG. Price: M500<SF50<M600<TBM<PC12 Technology: PC12<M500<SF50=M600 Still no clear winner, is going to be cost and mission dependent, and the value of toys. Love the innovation though. Great summary Chuck! But do you really think the technology in the SF50 is equal to the M600? I would have put it M500<PC12NG<M600<SF50. The autothrottle puts it over the top along with the clean sheet design, IMHO. Niggling points for sure.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2625
Post Likes: +1230
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: None currently
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
I think the fact that these planes are so easily compared speaks volumes.
...
Yes, I think it does. The fact that you are mixing turboprops and a jet does not matter to the market Cirrus is targeting. I think the buyer sees the SF50 as an upgraded SR22 that is equal to those in this class (M600, M500, TBM). Not Phenom 100, definitely not P300, don't think Mustang... Regardless of the method of propulsion. Just because it has a jet engine I don't consider it a "jet" as I do some of the twin jets. I mean it is a jet, but what I am trying to say (not very eloquently) is that the TARGETED BUYER of the SF50 sees it as a "entry level turbine" that meets a lot of the same specs the rest of it's class (M Series, TBM, etc...) does, with a big cabin and advanced avionics. If going the fastest possible is the only goal, get an old Lear... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:15 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4035
Post Likes: +2051
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaris_LAR01 Looks great.... I'd rather drive.
details here
http://www.flaris.pl/offer/
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 19:03 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I want one. Which one? The SF50 G2 or the Polish one? Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 19:29 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 6305
Post Likes: +5674
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think we need to start a new 500 page thread titled the Cirrus “SF50 G2.” Do that in 32 pages.....
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 19:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So if you're a position holder, how would you feel about this change of events?
Cirrus was obligated to deliver you a $1.3MM plus CPI plane - approx $1.5MM.
You put $100M down 10 years ago. You don't want/can't afford a $2.5MM airplane. So here's your $100K back after 10 years? Gee, thanks.
I get it that they have language in the contract to permit this, but some might see it as weaseling out of delivering a $1.5MM airplane at a loss (or much less profit to Cirrus).
Or am I missing some concession to the original position holders?
-de So far on COPA, it has been well received. Even by existing position holders. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 20:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yes, I think it does. The fact that you are mixing turboprops and a jet does not matter to the market Cirrus is targeting. I think the buyer sees the SF50 as an upgraded SR22 that is equal to those in this class (M600, M500, TBM). Not Phenom 100, definitely not P300, don't think Mustang... Regardless of the method of propulsion. Just because it has a jet engine I don't consider it a "jet" as I do some of the twin jets. I mean it is a jet, but what I am trying to say (not very eloquently) is that the TARGETED BUYER of the SF50 sees it as a "entry level turbine" that meets a lot of the same specs the rest of it's class (M Series, TBM, etc...) does, with a big cabin and advanced avionics. If going the fastest possible is the only goal, get an old Lear... Phenom 100 = Entry level turbine
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 20:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/26/16
Posts: 476
Post Likes: +692
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So if you're a position holder, how would you feel about this change of events?
Cirrus was obligated to deliver you a $1.3MM plus CPI plane - approx $1.5MM.
You put $100M down 10 years ago. You don't want/can't afford a $2.5MM airplane. So here's your $100K back after 10 years? Gee, thanks.
I get it that they have language in the contract to permit this, but some might see it as weaseling out of delivering a $1.5MM airplane at a loss (or much less profit to Cirrus).
Or am I missing some concession to the original position holders?
-de If you had 100k to put down on it 10 years ago considering where the stock market is today and could afford it then, then you can afford it now.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 08 Jan 2019, 21:10 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 1830
Post Likes: +1917
Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So if you're a position holder, how would you feel about this change of events?
Cirrus was obligated to deliver you a $1.3MM plus CPI plane - approx $1.5MM.
You put $100M down 10 years ago. You don't want/can't afford a $2.5MM airplane. So here's your $100K back after 10 years? Gee, thanks.
I get it that they have language in the contract to permit this, but some might see it as weaseling out of delivering a $1.5MM airplane at a loss (or much less profit to Cirrus).
Or am I missing some concession to the original position holders?
-de If you had 100k to put down on it 10 years ago considering where the stock market is today and could afford it then, then you can afford it now.
Dan’s post has merit to me.
I want to fly....myself....on my schedule.
If $ was no object....I would probably relax on wanting to fly myself ALL the time but would Likely have a CJ4 or other top single pilot twin jet.
1.5 vs 2.5 is significant if 1.5 is all ready a bit of a stretch...either financially or even JUST justifiably......
It is however the norm and to be expected.
If I had a deposit down on an SF50 then When time to take delivery I would also buy an SR20 And find a great partner
We might have to flip a coin every now and then
_________________
I wanna go phastR.....and slowR
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
