BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 12:21

Username Protected wrote:

I don’t get it. If Cirrus could do that with a clean sheet SE jet why not with TP? A clean sheet SETP for under 2M that seats 6 and goes 300 knots would have been more disruptive to the market. My guess is they know this and didn’t do it because it’s THEIR market on the SR22 that would be disrupted most.

Who wants a turboprop when they can have a jet?

Of course Cirrus is disrupting their own piston market. They're smart. They see the writing on the wall. Now they have a product nobody else has. No, the M500 is not comparable.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 13:02

Username Protected wrote:

Isn't the Sf50 really $2.1 unless you want to wait until 2021? I am big fan of the snazzy new SF50 design, but a bigger fan of an established mature airframe like the Meridian.

That being said if the SF50 and Meridian 500 are both $2.0-$2.1MM I would probably go with the jet "because it looks cool"

Kevin

I think Cirrus is far more "established" than Piper.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 13:03

Username Protected wrote:

I get the surface value of that statement but when do performance factors, range and economics factor in? A SETP could go just as fast, travel farther, burn less fuel and have all the whiz bang sporty new stuff as the SF50. If they did it with a clean sheet jet they could have with clean sheet TP. Nothing about it being a jet made it cost more. You say who wants a TP When they can have a jet? I would if the performance was the same and the fuel burn was much less. I can’t believe you’d take the jet just because it’s a jet if everything else was equal.

If were taking M500 vs. SF50 I am 100% taking the SF50. I don't care about the fuel burn when comparing those 2. It's negligible. The SF50 is soooooo much cooler.... and faster and I don't have my ass in everyones face when I'm trying to twist myself in the pilot seat.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 13:26

Username Protected wrote:

I think Cirrus is far more "established" than Piper.

Not in making, and supporting, turbine airplanes.

Piper has made more types of airplane, more quantity of airplanes, for far more decades, than Cirrus. Cirrus was basically a single product company, the SR series, until the SF50.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 13:50

Out of curiosity, what would be your guess on the price of a factory built Evolution or equivalent? I realize this is hypothetical.

Where would a pretend airplane like this be positioned in the market?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:07

Isn’t the Cirrus just a modified Wheeler?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:14

Chuck, have you sat in the Cirrus?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:21

The primary story of SF50 is the cabin. The performance numbers aren't monumental, especially when compared to an M500 or earlier Meridian. However the cabin is simply spectacular. There is just no other in-cabin experience in the class that compares to the SF50. If you haven't sat in one, then make it a point to go to Oshkosh this year and sit in it. If the cabin doesn't blow you away, then you're probably happier in something else.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:28

Username Protected wrote:

I get the surface value of that statement but when do performance factors, range and economics factor in? A SETP could go just as fast, travel farther, burn less fuel and have all the whiz bang sporty new stuff as the SF50. If they did it with a clean sheet jet they could have with clean sheet TP. Nothing about it being a jet made it cost more. You say who wants a TP When they can have a jet? I would if the performance was the same and the fuel burn was much less. I can’t believe you’d take the jet just because it’s a jet if everything else was equal.

If were taking M500 vs. SF50 I am 100% taking the SF50. I don't care about the fuel burn when comparing those 2. It's negligible. The SF50 is soooooo much cooler.... and faster and I don't have my ass in everyones face when I'm trying to twist myself in the pilot seat.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:31

Username Protected wrote:

I get the surface value of that statement but when do performance factors, range and economics factor in? A SETP could go just as fast, travel farther, burn less fuel and have all the whiz bang sporty new stuff as the SF50. If they did it with a clean sheet jet they could have with clean sheet TP. Nothing about it being a jet made it cost more. You say who wants a TP When they can have a jet? I would if the performance was the same and the fuel burn was much less. I can’t believe you’d take the jet just because it’s a jet if everything else was equal.

If were taking M500 vs. SF50 I am 100% taking the SF50. I don't care about the fuel burn when comparing those 2. It's negligible. The SF50 is soooooo much cooler.... and faster and I don't have my ass in everyones face when I'm trying to twist myself in the pilot seat.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 14:31

From the looks of that picture, is it possible that the pilot saw that he was going to run off the runway and then concocted the brake failure to save face when he intentionally ran it off into the conveniently located arresting snow bank?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 15:11

Username Protected wrote:

I think that it is pretty common for someone to buy a turbine with a mission in mind defining that mission with "piston think". Not meant to be derogatory, "piston think" is not a disease, but only an innocent paradigm built upon the inherent limitations of piston aircraft. When you get into a turbine, suddenly you are going faster, climbing effortlessly, descending with impunity. Pressurization, increased speed, and decreased vibration lead to less fatigue, and suddenly longer day trips are not so daunting. Weather is almost never an issue, as you climb up through or descend down through it or fly over the top of it. This leads to "turbine mission creep"

Not sure if everyone gets it, but I suspect it is more common than not. While the SF50 seems like a fine plane, I would not count on the SF50 being your designation plane. That is not a bad thing. That sweet kerosene elixir has been known to really expand ones mission. It does look good in red though.

I have certainly found this to be the case. When I purchased the TBM I essentially quit flying the airlines. "Most" of the time you can go with minimal issues where you might be stuck in a piston and so dispatch reliability is also much higher. One of the things that jets do better than turbo props is climb through ice. I wonder what the Cirrus will be capable of in that regard in comparison to a TP?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 15:48

Username Protected wrote:

I get the surface value of that statement but when do performance factors, range and economics factor in? A SETP could go just as fast, travel farther, burn less fuel and have all the whiz bang sporty new stuff as the SF50. If they did it with a clean sheet jet they could have with clean sheet TP. Nothing about it being a jet made it cost more. You say who wants a TP When they can have a jet? I would if the performance was the same and the fuel burn was much less. I can’t believe you’d take the jet just because it’s a jet if everything else was equal.

If were taking M500 vs. SF50 I am 100% taking the SF50. I don't care about the fuel burn when comparing those 2. It's negligible. The SF50 is soooooo much cooler.... and faster and I don't have my ass in everyones face when I'm trying to twist myself in the pilot seat.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 15:56

Username Protected wrote:

There is just no other in-cabin experience in the class that compares to the SF50.

Shame it doesn't fly at FL410 behind two jet engines. Then it would be a nice cabin AND better range, speed, economy, safety, redundancy, quiet, etc.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 May 2018, 15:57

Username Protected wrote:

Agreed, it would be like taking a Pilatus over a Phenom 300, who cares about the fuel burn difference and the phenom doesn't look like an Amtrak car!

Now you're comparing a $9MM Phenom to a $5MM PIlatus. Not really the same thing. I'd take the Phenom over a Pilatus too..... so would everyone.

For the record, there isn't much fuel burn difference between a Pilatus and a Phenom. It's really just acquisition cost.

Cirrus Jet