23 Apr 2024, 02:38 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Jul 2017, 10:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/08/11 Posts: 925 Post Likes: +1278 Location: California
Aircraft: C182 B350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm starting to understand.......
300kts or so....(a few turbo-props are faster and go further) FL 280 and Below.....(no rvsm manual required) 1000-1200nm range....(reasonable) 4-6/7 place seating (curious of the range with 6-7 peeps and bags?) Price point is appealing, even at $1.9m ish
This is a great pathway for cirrus customers looking to stay on the cirrus bandwagon.
I'm still a bit skeptical of real world performance in the ATC system. If this bird is sluggish in the climb, how accommodating will ATC be to get it up in the flight levels where it will need to be to realize any speed and range?
Having spent a few years flying in the 20's, this is where the fugly weather tends to be. I fear the outcomes of the chest beating "I have a jet" bravado to push the limits of aircraft and pilot capability. I hope Cirrus goes above and beyond in training for these fortunate clients.
I like my CJ that goes to the upper 30's or so......yes, I needed to develop an RVSM manual, but it wasn't difficult to do so. Goes about the same distance carrying similar passenger counts. Goes a bit faster, and has a potty for emergencies. Burns more, but goes faster and climbs faster and goes higher, above all but nastiest of CB's.
Yes, mine is used, and doesn't have touch screen. But it has heated leading edge anti-ice. Lots of redundant systems, excellent service and support, and lots of pathways for upgrading.
I like the cirrus jet. I think it will be successful by measuring units on order and units delivered. I also think that the customers will be quickly yearning for more.
Time will tell. Excellent summary, IMO. This thing was not created to be bought, it was created to be SOLD. That, it will. And resold, quickly; but that doesn't make it bad.
_________________ NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Aug 2017, 11:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8452 Post Likes: +8428 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
He likes it a lot because he sees a very well executed version of what Cirrus set out to build instead of what all the "experts" with no risk in the game said they should.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 15:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17628 Post Likes: +21394 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Yes, and improve engine with twice the power, and half the fuel burn with less weight Sign me up!!
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 15:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5303 Post Likes: +2423
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The SF50 looks well-placed to take advantage of the recent NPRM on making RVSM cheaper and easier. It already has the dual systems and fancy autopilot. A couple more flight levels would really help the fuel burn and range. Maybe once they catch up a bit with deliveries they'll put it in the SF50 2.0 Isn't the service ceiling 28k?
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 16:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17628 Post Likes: +21394 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Isn't the service ceiling 28k? Geesh Sam, are you trying to bring me back to reality I'm sure that was just so they could move through the certification process quicker, wasn't it?
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 16:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5303 Post Likes: +2423
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Isn't the service ceiling 28k? Geesh Sam, are you trying to bring me back to reality I'm sure that was just so they could move through the certification process quicker, wasn't it?
Not sure Dave. This thread went to sleep, along with the plane, a long long time ago.
Can't believe somebody is trying to resurrect it. Good luck. Wish you the best.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 16:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/13/10 Posts: 20127 Post Likes: +23624 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
The SF-50 is underpowered, grossly inefficient, altitude-limited, lacking in range and useful load, has an ugly V-tail, has been stupidly made with one engine, and it's being sold to novice, ignorant pilots who will crash a lot. (I thought there should be a summary of the hundreds of previous pages in this thread to get everyone up to speed on the discussion...)
_________________ Arlen Get your motor runnin' Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 16:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/14/09 Posts: 6071 Post Likes: +3313 Company: tomdrew.lawyer Location: Des Moines, IA (KDSM)
Aircraft: 1973 Baron E55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The SF-50 is underpowered, grossly inefficient, altitude-limited, lacking in range and useful load, has an ugly V-tail, has been stupidly made with one engine, and it's being sold to novice, ignorant pilots who will crash a lot. (I thought there should be a summary of the hundreds of previous pages in this thread to get everyone up to speed on the discussion...) On another level, but similar to the Cessna 182! Those didn't sell either.
_________________ C340A/8KCAB/T182T F33C/E55/B58 PA 28/32 Currency 12 M: IPC/BFR, CFII Renewal
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Sep 2017, 17:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/12 Posts: 712 Post Likes: +127 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA (CID)
Aircraft: 2008 Cirrus SR22TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The SF-50 is underpowered, grossly inefficient, altitude-limited, lacking in range and useful load, has an ugly V-tail, has been stupidly made with one engine, and it's being sold to novice, ignorant pilots who will crash a lot. (I thought there should be a summary of the hundreds of previous pages in this thread to get everyone up to speed on the discussion...) Arlen - please don't forget to mention that these cirrus pilots are "known" to take more risks than other pilots.... This based on conclusive scientific opinion.
_________________ Joe Kirby "Without a plan, everything makes sense."
|
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|