18 Apr 2024, 05:56 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 13 May 2018, 18:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Maybe with a single engine jet you leave it running for a last burst of power before it seizes? I have heard Williams say they have run their engines with little oil for hours without seizing. Same with P&WC PT6A. Bearings may overheat and require replacemnent but most of the bearings in a turbine run on air cushions vs oil. Shutdown upon low oil pressure is to prevent an expensive maintenance event. If you need the engine for safety it will keep running.
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 09 Jul 2018, 15:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/06/11 Posts: 59 Post Likes: +68
Aircraft: M600
|
|
Here's a repost from page 399 of this thread:
I flew the SF50 last week. I have also flown an Eclipse, a Mustang, a TBM, a M500 and currently own an M600. With the exception of the Meridians, my time in the other plans were just demo flights. The Eclipse was more of a cross country from San Diego to Salt Lake City and I have about five hours in the TBM.
You guys really need to fly an SF50 to understand it before making some of these comments. For a piston step up plane, it's incredible and easily beats the competition. It is dirt simple to fly. I'm not talking about stick and rudder stuff - frankly once the engines are going all these planes are pretty easy to fly. I mean everything about it is simple. From start to landing to avionics to check lists, to training to maintenance, it is by far the least complicated plane to fly in this class. This is going to appeal to every piston pilot, especially Cirrus pilots and Garmin glass guys that are ready for more but are scared a twin jet is too much. It also has lower operating costs than either the Eclipse or the Mustang.
The interior of the SF50 is better than the TBM, the Meridians and the Eclipse. It's bigger with more cargo room and better pilot comfort. I liked the Mustang a little better on the inside but I prefer facing seats in the back. The visibility and windows on the SF50 are staggeringly big.
Unless you need the range (which I do) or runway performance of a TP, I'd rather have a SF50 over a TBM or any Meridian. The TBM and M600 beat it on load too which can be a deal breaker for the SF50 buyer.
I agree flying at FL410 makes weather flying a lot easier than FL280 but new vs. new the SF50 is at least a million less than an Eclipse or Mustang and is much easier to learn. Soon enough we'll be able to compare used vs. used and I bet the SF50 will do really well against the used competition when that day comes.
Cirrus is gong to sell a bunch of these. They have done a better job of making the leap from piston to turbine much more approachable than any competitor.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 09 Jul 2018, 16:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6059 Post Likes: +703 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
I dont see bigger windows as an advantage. Flying in the FL the sun is so strong and most of the time im trying to find a way to block it on the windshield and pilot/copilot side windows. Those large picture windows on the SF50 would be a problem not an advantage.
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 09 Jul 2018, 16:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2894 Post Likes: +3602 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
I feel like you do Marc. I have struggled with this in the flight levels in my M600. The sun is brutal up there above most of the protective atmosphere. There are a bunch of threads in fact on several aviation forums right now, on just how to block the sun. These planes spend 90% of their life too high to see much out the windows anyway, and leaving Vegas this morning right at 100 degrees. We had the internal window shades up right until engine start, and the amount of heating that occurred in that short period of time is pretty amazing. We do abbreviate the checklist on these days. Step 1 start engine turn on AC, step 2. find the checklist. Right now we are talking about trying the Jetshades to block out our tiny, little, microscopic windows. Those big windows in the SF50 do sell in the show room or low level demo flights, but for day to day flight level travel, not my preference. As far as pax, it is all I can do to get them to keep the pull down shades up until 10,000 feet. First thing they do is pull those shades to see their iPads better.
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 09 Jul 2018, 21:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6059 Post Likes: +703 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
Exactly Dont know why Cirrus make such a big fuss about all this glass. Username Protected wrote: I agree about the windows. Another thing I like about the Mustang is the glass. It has smaller windows than the CJs, and it's an advantage. In the flight levels you're looking to minimize the window area, not maximize.
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 09 Jul 2018, 23:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Dont know why Cirrus make such a big fuss about all this glass. Like much of the SF50 concept, having large windows sounds good to piston pilots who have never flown in the flight levels. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Jul 2018, 00:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2595 Post Likes: +2352 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Like much of the SF50 concept, having large windows sounds good to piston pilots who have never flown in the flight levels. Which is the point, since that is the target market for an entry-level jet. Making your entry-level product only appeal to customers who aren't entry-level is the kind of mistake Cirrus avoids. This "sun too bright at altitude" thinking was also the reason for the triangular (narrow end up) windows of the early Sabreliner. But salesmen complained that it made the cabin gloomy on the ground, where prospects first saw it. The later models went to bigger, squarer windows.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Jul 2018, 07:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/23/12 Posts: 2373 Post Likes: +2875 Company: CSRA Document Solutions Location: Aiken, SC KAIK
|
|
Meanwhile over at Cirrus they keep building and delivering jets. Too slow Flies too low Not enough range Single engine Tough training Big windows What’s next - real jets have dual tires on the main landing gear? Good thing several of you guys aren’t on their design team or they’d have a plane that looks just like a citation. Personal jet, great price point....selling faster than they can make them..... Peace, Don Attachment: F2480894-0E2F-46F2-A8E7-E1FDA5E5CA80.png
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
Last edited on 10 Jul 2018, 13:13, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Jul 2018, 09:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11898 Post Likes: +2854 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I agree about the windows. Another thing I like about the Mustang is the glass. It has smaller windows than the CJs, and it's an advantage. In the flight levels you're looking to minimize the window area, not maximize. How often do you think the Cirrus will get to 30+ or even 40k? The jet is designed around the short flight, where you spend more time climbing and descending. It is not made for hours and hours in the flight levels. Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Jul 2018, 09:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How often do you think the Cirrus will get to 30+ or even 40k? The jet is designed around the short flight, where you spend more time climbing and descending. It is not made for hours and hours in the flight levels. Well, at least one flaw (lack of range, altitude) covers up another one (too much window area). Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Jul 2018, 09:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: selling faster than they can make them..... Which planes aren't sold before they are made? Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|