A delivery is not a sale.

Mike C.

A delivery is not a sale.

Mike C.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mike C is saying (in my words, not his) that there are too many kool aid drinkers here irrationally fawning over a deficient plane, and you're saying someone is being paid to advocate. Based on the ratio of supporters to detractors in this thread, me thinks you might have this backwards.

I can get paid for this?

Mike C.

I can get paid for this?

Mike C.

A delivery is not a sale.

Mike C.

Ridiculous. All of these airplanes require at least 3-4 days of training a year. In almost all cases it's an insurance requirement but even when it is not, a basic appreciation of your passengers' safety and your own non-suicidal desires require it.

If the fact that at the end of those three days, an FAA examiner may say "you are not safe to fly this plane, practice some more" deters you, fly a DA40. Solo.

Given that Cirrus does both the initial and the recurrent and has their own examiners, I would say training in an SF50 is much more TP-like than a "real" jet.

viewtopic.php?p=1294810#p1294810

here we are

Saw a “Vision jet” in the real world today. The pilot was doing an ILS in severe clear conditions, so it was probably one of those training flights.

Of course I knew it was a Vision Jet because the Tower said “Vision Jet xxxx, cleared for the ILS Runway 12”.

I guess he didn’t want to practice the back course localizer (runway 30) which was the runway in use at the time, so he got to circle to land.

The reality is that Cirrus found a niche in the market that no other company has filled. There certainly appear to be a fair number of folks willing to part with their hard earned money to have the Vision Jet.

I hope they enjoy them. It would be fun to get a ride in one and see how they perform.

here we are

"I want to fly private" is not a "niche". It's a gigantic hole in the market with folks begging to throw money into.

It's just that some folks on BT still think flying needs to be difficult to be effective.

Funny, a twin jet takes not more time to complete recurrent. Where's all the effort saved by being a single?

The jet requires a checkride every year, the other planes require training. That's not a trivial difference.


You aren't a believer in how easy the single engine makes flying and the chute to deal with any problems?


Are you saying Cirrus instructors are more lax than "real" jet instructors?

Mike C.

It is when it requires a hefty deposit and signed contract.

The question remains, how many SF50 G2s are going to be sold at the $2.7M price?

Very few is my guess.

Mike C.

It is when it requires a hefty deposit and signed contract.

The question remains, how many SF50 G2s are going to be sold at the $2.7M price?

Very few is my guess.

Mike C.

I'd guess 99% of simulator recurrent training events are progressive checkrides. I always do that, and there's no "checkride" per se. Instead, all of the training is done by a TCE (simulator version of a DPE). When they observe something done to standards they check it off. They can also train you, unlike a checkride. So, no different than any decent turboprop recurrent course. If you don't make it through a progressive recurrent...you really shouldn't be flying that airplane IMHO.