19 Mar 2024, 09:56 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 14:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/12 Posts: 170 Post Likes: +117 Location: Des Moines, IA
Aircraft: CE-525
|
|
If you're up for some light reading, check out the FAA's FSB report on the SF50. Some weird stuff--apparently slips to a landing can cause stick shaker/stick pusher activation?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 14:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/06/14 Posts: 1038 Post Likes: +606 Location: Everywhere
Aircraft: TP/Jet
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Keith,
Steven S. deserves a medal. So well stated. Money talks...
Tim How does this relate to the SF50 discussion? Or are you confused about your $3 savings in the other thread. Which does involve a conversation about single pilot operations?
_________________ tREX terSteeg, aka PEE-TAH, aka :deadhorse:, Mr 007
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 15:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11879 Post Likes: +2846 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Keith,
Steven S. deserves a medal. So well stated. Money talks...
Tim How does this relate to the SF50 discussion? Or are you confused about your $3 savings in the other thread. Which does involve a conversation about single pilot operations?
Nah, Keither posted in the wrong thread, I replied and did not notice. At least that is what I believe....
Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 17:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14497 Post Likes: +22799 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Or maybe they created a motorcycle and you're comparing it to a Cadillac? Motorcycles are dangerous. if they wanted their motorcycle to be successful it would have 2 engines
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 17:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2848 Post Likes: +3525 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: The PC-12 holds the distinction of being the best-selling pressurized, single-engine, turbine-powered aircraft in the world Well, there are only really only two contenders, the other being a TBM, so perhaps not as bold a statement as it may appear. Mike C. Attachment: M500.jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 20:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2567 Post Likes: +2325 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There were a lot of negative comments about the Pilatus PC-12 back in 1989; that Pilatus couldn't compete against Beech's King Air, no one will buy a single-engine turbine, unproven design from a unproven aircraft manufacturer, etc....I hope the people at Cirrus succeed. Except that Pilatus is building a twin jet. So? That doesn't make the PC-12 a mistake. Honda now builds some very nice cars, that doesn't make their motorcycle business a mistake.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 21:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6681 Post Likes: +7212 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The CJ series aircraft are far more economical than the legacy Citations. My research tends to indicate this isn't true, there isn't much difference of comparable airplanes, say CJ3 versus 560, or CJ versus 501. The workhorse of the legacy fleet, the 550, is out there flying everyday on trips where cost is an issue, and doing it well. This is the sort of thing some says to justify spending a lot more on a newer airplane. Mike C.
If you add the acquisition cost maybe... otherwise the CJ series are simpler, burn less fuel, require less maintenance, are much newer... how could they not be much cheaper to operate?
Having said that, you can "poor boy" a legacy Citation and take it to small shops and operate it economically. 550's and 560's are still going to cost more per mile than a 525... especially when things break.
Newer (not new) airplanes are generally a better investment... same is true of houses, cars and boats. Of course if you buy on the bottom there's not much room to fall... but if a jet airplane is cheap it is probably because it's expensive to operate.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 21:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19229 Post Likes: +23557 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: otherwise the CJ series are simpler, burn less fuel, require less maintenance, are much newer... how could they not be much cheaper to operate? The legacy airplanes aren't any more complex. In fact, the avionics on the 525 series can be quite complex and expensive to maintain, particularly early generation EFIS systems. The legacy airplanes have a much larger supply of used and surplus parts out there, plus a lot of shops that work on it. The newer airplanes tend to have less third party parts sources and tend to be maintained only at official service centers. The legacy airplanes have few unknown issues. The newer airplanes sometimes have "new" issues. I have developed this view from reading posts on the Citation Jet Pilots forum. The legacy airplanes and the 525 series don't seem all that different in what trouble people have. Quote: Newer (not new) airplanes are generally a better investment More capital tied up, more downside risk. Quote: but if a jet airplane is cheap it is probably because it's expensive to operate. That's too simplistic. Seems more true for other types (like Lears, Sabres, etc) than Citations, IMO. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 22:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19229 Post Likes: +23557 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When Pilatus went to market with the PC12 they weren't even focused on the corporate executive travel I recall the early ads very specifically targeting King Airs and business/personal use. Example from the very early years: Attachment: l1600.jpg Quote: How many other have gone to market with a totally new design without going bankrupt? If the Chinese had not bought Cirrus, they might have ended up bankrupt. They did run out of money on the SF50 project and stopped it. A twin would have been faster, simpler, cheaper to design and certify. Mike C.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 22:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6681 Post Likes: +7212 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Mike, with all respect we are comparing your research with my direct experience.
The legacy airplanes are more complicated, a lot more complicated. The legacy aircraft are more time consuming to inspect and maintain.
Yes, you can poor boy them, I've sourced a lot of used parts over the years.
I'm not saying you should buy a CJ... you should buy a Citation V. But, let's be careful not to mislead someone who could buy and operate a newer airplane for the overall cost of an old one.
As far as Citations being cheap because they are expensive to operate, this is true of the Bravo, the Citation III, VI and VII and to a lesser degree the II and V.
Even more so for Hawker 800's, Challenger 600's and the like.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 22:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6681 Post Likes: +7212 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A twin would have been faster, simpler, cheaper to design and certify.
Mike C.
And a whole lot more expensive to build.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 23:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19229 Post Likes: +23557 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The legacy airplanes are more complicated, a lot more complicated. Use your vast experience and explain exactly where they are more complicated. Give details. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 29 Apr 2017, 23:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11879 Post Likes: +2846 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A twin would have been faster, simpler, cheaper to design and certify.
Mike C.
And a whole lot more expensive to build.
Only if you built it to go higher then 28K, and more then 300 miles with a full load...
Tim
|
|
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
|
|
|
|