At gross weight in the SF50 with 15 kt winds on the nose your ground roll would have been 3,952, leaving 700' remaining, correct?

No wind at gross weight and 30°C would be tight (no go) with only 200' to spare. But are you at gross?
500 lbs under gross with no wind at 6,000 ft elevation and 30°C (86°F), ground roll is 4,070.

FWIW, the Citation Mustang takeoff distance at gross weight, 6,000 ft altitude, zero wind, 30°C, OEI at V1, over a 35' obstacle is 10,610 ft.
To take it one step farther, in the Mustang POH at those conditions they publish a maximum takeoff weight of 7,590 lbs (1,055 lbs under gross) to meet climb requirements.

I know the Mustang vs SF50 charts are a bit 'apples and oranges', but let's keep it in perspective. Your conditions are pretty extreme.

I've read this thread and kept up on the other one about the SF50. Here's my conclusion; the SF50 was made for me.

Here's my mission. Most of the time the flights are really rather short 150Nm to 250Nm. Our company is regional so most of our customers are close enough to drive and not more than 250Nm from Kansas City. The fact that the SF50 is faster wouldn't mean all the much on a 150Nm trip, but I could bring more people and tools which would be an improvement.

We also go to a number of sales meetings and trade shows. They could be anywhere in the US, but tend to be in the Mid-West. I generally fly to one of the coast 1 or 3 times a year for business. I usually fly the Bonanza because I hate the airlines, but I do fly commercial sometimes for trips to the coast, particularly in winter.

We also do use the plane for family travel. The two places we go most often are 650Nm in opposite directions; one in the Great Lakes, the other in the mountains. Easy non-stop for the SF50 that would cut a 4-hour trip down to 2 hours.

The SF50 could put us almost anywhere in the CONUS in 4 hours. Might have to stop for gas sometimes, but usually not. The fact that we live nearly dead center in the CONUS makes the speed and range of the SF50 seem perfectly adequate and an enormous step up from the Bonanza that has gotten me around for years.

The TBM would be a great fit but it's 40% more expensive than the Cirrus. Also, I'm a big guy and it's uncomfortable. The M600 would be a good fit for the mission but the comfort is even worse. Like trying to put a 38 Caliber bullet into a 22 Caliber chamber. I sat in the SF50 at Oshkosh. It's got a seat I'd like to spend 4 hours in.

I could keep the SF50 in my T-Hanger which is 1200' from my house. It has the speed and range for the vast majority of my flights. The occasional flight where I had to stop for gas isn't a big deal. The price seems within reach particularly when used examples start showing up on the market in a few years.

Overall it's just a great fit for my mission. I want one. Need to grow the business, but getting one of these things in the next few years is the goal.

Jack

Now I'm waiting for Mike to tell me why it won't work. I am keeping an open mind.

At gross weight in the SF50 with 15 kt winds on the nose your ground roll would have been 3,952, leaving 700' remaining, correct?

No wind at gross weight and 30°C would be tight (no go) with only 200' to spare. But are you at gross?
500 lbs under gross with no wind at 6,000 ft elevation and 30°C (86°F), ground roll is 4,070.

FWIW, the Citation Mustang takeoff distance at gross weight, 6,000 ft altitude, zero wind, 30°C, OEI at V1, over a 35' obstacle is 10,610 ft.
To take it one step farther, in the Mustang POH at those conditions they publish a maximum takeoff weight of 7,590 lbs (1,055 lbs under gross) to meet climb requirements.

I know the Mustang vs SF50 charts are a bit 'apples and oranges', but let's keep it in perspective. Your conditions are pretty extreme.

I suspect you don't have the seats set up correctly, or you are just too big. The seats adjust 3 ways, up down, back forward and recline. I know people that have been flying these for years that don't know where the button to raise and lower the seats is. I am 6'2 , and don't even have to put the seat all the way back to be comfortable. Here is a flight from this morning. There is several inches between my knees and the lower instrument panel (Arrow). I fly a lot, and long legs as well. The M600 is as comfortable as any plane I have flown, and I am pushing close to 30 different aircraft. With 7 hours of fuel at normal cruise, the seats better be comfortable and they are. Getting used to the technique to get in, is not hard, but takes a few reps. Once you figure out what works for you, once in place is very comfortable. Any cabin class plane I have flown has a technique to get in place. But there are some very big people happily flying PA46's. Now for someone taking a demo flight in the turbine 46/500/600, the right seat does have less room than the pilot seat due to the O2 cabin behind the copilots seat. The newer ones do have more room than the older ones as well, but there are mods for the older aircraft, to let the seat back travel over the wing spar like the newer ones do.

A number of people lie on my behalf, like above.

Mike C.

Cirrus Jet is a cool little turboprop...

Seriously though, it's a great airplane. I considered one. But when you factor in the capital expense of the SF 50, you can fly a Mustang or a Phenom 100 for less TCO. For me, it was compelling to have two engines, go higher, faster, quieter and farther with a lot more baggage space for less money.

All it took was getting rid of the "new airplane smell". But man, if cap ex isn't a factor or there are tax situations that favor an accelerated depreciation, it has some appeal. It certainly will have a place in the market for the entry level jet owner. They will sell a ton of them, and there will be a solid used market as those owners move up the jet chain.

And yes, I know that people who buy them swear it's their last airplane. Why would you want anything else. I get it. I'm on my 4th "last airplane"...

No doubt for the money the USED Phenom 100 or Mustang is the better buy. SF50's will be sub $1MM in a few years which will bring the price of every used airplane down.

I do believe the SF50 fits 90% of EVERYONE's mission. Every manufacturer better be upping their game.

That will make it very hard to sell new ones for $3M.

I think you are right, owners of SF50 will quickly figure out they want something better and there will be high turn over, leading to an active used market.


So would a 1 room studio apartment. Yet, most have something better.

It is a plane that combines the negatives of a jet (long runway use, poor handling of wet/icy runway, high fuel flow, type rating) with the negatives of a turboprop (headset noisy, low altitude, low speed, low climb rate).

Mike C.

Define "better".

I want to get from point A to Point B as quickly and hassle free as possible. Sure I can buy a Gulfstream for my 1500NM flights but for a fraction of the price I can still do it non stop in my PC12.

SF50 is $3MM. If you want a better and faster plane pay more and get one.

Perfect example.

Citation X got a reputation for being a maintenance hog and the used market prices collapsed (there is one listed for $2.5M, cheaper than a new SF50).

Textron sold only 4 750s last year, new market basically gone for exactly that reason, too many cheap ones for sale in the used market.

A bunch of nearly new SF50s for under $1M will kill new sales of SF50.

Mike C.

It's not there yet but it will be there one day.

The market always fluctuates. All luxury goods are stagnant right now.... Exotic cars, boats, airplanes, vacation real estate. They've built too much of it. SF50 is part of the changing aviation world. Big business jets are not. Nobody wants to fly Commercial.

A slight tweak to that would be - a bunch of similar to new SF50s for sale under $1M will kill new sales of the SF50.

Cirrus is already making changes to the SF50 - kind of like TBM does. That will ensure that there are always people that are willing to pay for the new features, range, thrust, etc that the older aircraft do not have.

I think this is one of the reasons that the Mustang ultimately got discontinued at Cessna - the plane that came off the line in 2008 was identical (maybe different interior and paint choice) to the plane that was sold new in 2017.

The Phenom 100 now has the 'E' model and I have heard that they may not be making the upgrades available to the older fleet as it would kill new sales.

Cirrus has a good record of coming out with a new model in their piston line - I expect the same. The low priced SR22s that are used hasn't killed their new production.

Of course - if they produce too many SF50s, that leads to a different problem.

-Jason

Cirrus seems in most cases to understand how to keep the pipeline of sales alive. They frequently revise models to add improvements, which stimulates interest.

They have also been pretty good at keeping the secondary market alive.

After all, there are only so many people who can fly and afford to own brand-new airplanes. With a new Cirrus SR22T scraping $1M, that's a small audience of pilots with substantial wallets.

But notice their pre-owned program and their relatively good support of the existing fleet.

Got to not only stimulate interest, got to keep the market alive so your best new sales prospects have a way to move their existing 2-year old airplane to make room for this year's model.

I think they'll do the same for the SF50.

Textron doesn't seem to have the same vision. It's kind of like, "you bought it, your problem now!"

SF50 "G2" in 2020, "G3" in 2023, etc... (or maybe it'll be X2 and X3 or whatever...)
Always improving; people will buy the new ones. This is what Cirrus is really good at.

Just like Mercedes Benz and Apple and Tesla. Not rocket science. Been going on since the beginning of time. Amazing this needs to be debated.