BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2023, 19:56

I am in a very privileged position in my life. I want "almost" nothing materially. The only "almost" is the Vision Jet. I don't want a Citation or a SETP and am not really interested in someone else's evaluation of why my choice doesn't make sense to them.

Wanting, however, is kind of irrelevant in this case. At 73, I'm simply not going to make the sacrifice to own one.

It is kind of like the recurrent debate of Bonanza vs. Cirrus. Debate all you want. No matter which side you are on, the other side doesn't give a bucket of spit for your preference and shouldn't.

Truth is, when I get in the 195, I love the 195. When I get in the 180, I love the 180. When I get in the Baron, I love the Baron. When I get in the Cub, hell I'm home. Whoever you are and whatever you fly, be grateful. You are one of a privileged few. :peace:

Jg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2023, 20:37

Well put

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2023, 22:09

Username Protected wrote:

Truth is, when I get in the 195, I love the 195. When I get in the 180, I love the 180. When I get in the Baron, I love the Baron. When I get in the Cub, hell I'm home. Whoever you are and whatever you fly, be grateful. You are one of a privileged few. :peace:

Jg

Amen, Jg, Amen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 02:37

Username Protected wrote:

I also have to imagine it is significantly quieter inside having a jet engine in the rear than a prop up front.

Not significantly. The single engine being mounted right above the cabin makes it a headset airplane like an SETP.

Quote:

Depending on priorities, I think it competes favorably against most SETP's.

Type rating, recurrent 61.58, more fuel, more expensive engine hourly cost, no reverse.

It isn't an SETP equivalent, nor a real jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 08:52

To answer the OPs question - Cirrus DESIGNED it to be slow :

"When the aircraft was launched in 2006, Cirrus officials predicted it would be the "lowest, slowest, and least-expensive" jet on the market. The planemaker succeeded in spades."

Source: B&CA review of the SF50 Nov 2017 - http://aviationweek.com/november-2017#51

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 09:16

Username Protected wrote:

To answer the OPs question - Cirrus DESIGNED it to be slow

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 15:05

Username Protected wrote:

To answer the OPs question - Cirrus DESIGNED it to be slow

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 15:13

Username Protected wrote:

To answer the OPs question - Cirrus DESIGNED it to be slow

Exactly. It's optimized for cabin width, car-like interior, comforting parachute, fitting in a cheap hangar, purchase cost and all the rest at the expense of the traditional performance metrics of speed, range, useful load and so on. They were targeting what they saw as an underserved portion of the market for new airplanes. Their advertising emphasized that it's a "personal" jet, not a repurposed business jet like every other jet. Their sales success shows that their targeting was correct, they're selling as fast as they can build them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 15:16

Username Protected wrote:

I also have to imagine it is significantly quieter inside having a jet engine in the rear than a prop up front.

Not significantly. The single engine being mounted right above the cabin makes it a headset airplane like an SETP.

Quote:

Depending on priorities, I think it competes favorably against most SETP's.

Type rating, recurrent 61.58, more fuel, more expensive engine hourly cost, no reverse.

It isn't an SETP equivalent, nor a real jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 16:28

Username Protected wrote:

Not significantly. The single engine being mounted right above the cabin makes it a headset airplane like an SETP.

Quote:

Depending on priorities, I think it competes favorably against most SETP's.

Type rating, recurrent 61.58, more fuel, more expensive engine hourly cost, no reverse.

It isn't an SETP equivalent, nor a real jet.

Mike C.

I've flown the SF50. My wife said it was comfortable without a headset in the back seat.

I'd love to have one. Just don't have $3M worth of places I need to go.

Seems the proof is in the order backlog, that the world doesn't really care if it is a SETP equivalent, nor a "real" jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 17:45

Does anybody know what the real world annual maintenance costs for the SF50? The fleet is starting to age a bit and some accruing some hours.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2023, 21:24

Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?

Well, why does the SR 71 Blackbird use so much fuel?

Maybe they were each designed for a specific purpose?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2023, 01:09

Username Protected wrote:

Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?

Well, why does the SR 71 Blackbird use so much fuel?

Maybe they were each designed for a specific purpose?

...to be a fork-tailed Barbie jet?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2023, 01:39

Username Protected wrote:

So if it isn't a "real jet", what is it? ;)

One that can operate high enough for efficient jet engine operation.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2023, 01:46

Username Protected wrote:

Does anybody know what the real world annual maintenance costs for the SF50? The fleet is starting to age a bit and some accruing some hours.

I suspect more SF50 are on the programs Cirrus sells, so a way to figure this out is to add up the costs of those programs.

The numbers are not published that I see. It may require posing as a potential customer, or finding one paying for the programs to find out what it cost.

The website on the programs:

https://cirrusaircraft.com/jetstream/

Mike C.