29 Mar 2024, 10:27 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2017, 11:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17514 Post Likes: +21048 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Username Protected wrote: "The old way" meaning onerous maintenance schedules? If so, I agree with that. Onerous MX schedules, 2 pilots, gas guzzling engines that are really only good for "long haul" flights. Ridiculous NavData pricing for outdated and non-upgradeable avionics.
That's precisely what I ran into looking at legacy jets. When I looked at Citation IIs, they were cheap to purchase, but most had old avionics. Putting something like Garmins in could cost as much as 25% of what we would pay for the plane. Yes, the old engines only make sense for long flights with lots of folks. Low, they really burn the fuel. The phase inspections, even for low usage when in a hangar is very expensive. Same for our older King Air as far as phase inspection. If one is not flying it more than 150 hours a year, the phase inspections becomes a major part of operating cost.
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2017, 12:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +2330 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There's an opportunity to sell planes to guys running Hawkers, Lears, G200, etc. I don't disagree, that is a good market. And known, since they already bought what you're selling, they'd just be trading up-front costs for lower running costs. I just think that the opportunity at the bottom would be the real game-changer, if it could be done. The market of those who'd love to move up from pistons and props, from slogging through weather to hopping over it, together with all those airline domestic frequent flyers. They'd happily pay more, just not as much more as it costs now. How much more, we don't know. Much of Mike C.'s beef against the SF50 is that its range, speed, payload, etc. aren't as good as they could have been if only .... I think that misses the point, they don't have to be. Whatever you think is the "best" car in the world, you probably don't drive one. You drive something good enough, and cheaper. Thus the only sharp point in Mike's critique is his contention that the SF50 isn't as cheap as it could have been, although that is certainly (endlessly!) debatable. But again, that misses the point. The question that will decide the SF50's success is not whether it's as cheap as it could have been but whether it is cheap enough: Cheap enough to unlock that vast pool of jet wanna-be jet owners. If it is, it will be yuge! We'll know in a few years. If it isn't, then that vast (in jet terms) market will still be there if someone else can push the cost down far enough.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2017, 13:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: they'd just be trading up-front costs for lower running costs. "Hassle factor" is a huge motivator too. Managing a Hawker is much more involved than managing a Phenom 300. I have a buddy (non pilot) with a Beechjet (for example). The amount of hassle factor he deals with running that thing makes me shake my head. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. I'd rather fly commercial.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2017, 15:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6718 Post Likes: +7258 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Jason is dead on. There are a lot of great jets out there in the "sorta" stand up cabin class... from the Citation 650's to the Hawker 800's. These planes can be had for a song, but they are a nightmare to operate. Even if you justify the cost based on the lower acquisition price they are still a pain, the hassle of continual maintenance and the sourcing issues of expensive parts just takes the fun out of it. The Phenom 300 has really been a game changer, and it's a pretty big jump to go from there to a Legacy... so I'm thinking he's right a Phenom 400 could make a lot of sense. Before I get dog-piled I want to say that I understand that not everyone can afford a late model airplane, no matter how much lower the operating cost... and I like the legacy airplanes... my gripe is all of the jet owners that could have afforded something that made more sense, had much better value retention and lower operating cost... not to mention a better ownership experience, but a broker talked him into buying a Citation III or a Hawker 800A because that is what they could make the most money from flipping. This short-sighted approach ultimately hurts aviation. Many an owner has sold a jet and said no more. We try to guide future owners into something that makes sense and not let them get stars in their eyes from a big fancy jet with a very low price... but our motivation is different, we are looking out for them and knowing that if we do our jobs they'll use us to buy another aircraft in the future. An older Hawker, Falcon or Challenger can convince a guy to NEVER own another jet! In some cases an older big jet may be where they end up, but they need to be well versed in the operation and expense of operating a jet before they take that plunge!
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 11:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 30432 Post Likes: +10542 Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 7-8 year old Mustang... no warranty. Needs inspection and annual etc. You gotta add in all acquisition costs. It's expensive buying a used airplane. If the airframe and engines are enrolled in a maintenance program, how is this really all that different from a truly new airplane? If you buy a new Mustang, and enroll in the same programs, you pay essentially the same, despite the warranty. So what is the net true difference? Mike C.
Shinier paint, new airplane smell.
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 11:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/24/11 Posts: 76 Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
|
|
Username Protected wrote: RVSM requires two independent altimetry systems including: Cross-coupled static source/system with ice protection Equipment for measuring static pressure sensed by the static source, converting to pressure altitude and displaying the pressure altitude to the flight crew (DADC Digital Air Data Computer and altimeter. Also, the static sources are checked and calibrated or moved if not getting accurate measurements. (Static source error correction.) Equipment for providing a digitally coded signal corresponding to the displayed pressure altitude. Automatic altitude control devise (A/P altitude hold) Altitude alerting system. Auto pilot. Stand by altimetery systems may not be required by regulation, but may be part of the certification certificate. MEL: any of the following inoperative will affect: Either of 2 independent altitude measuring systems. Transponder or altitude reporting feature. Altitude alerter system. Automatic altitude control Must have a periodic check and maintenance system. Follow operational practices and procedures. Doesn't the SF50 already have all of these with their Garmin suite? The SSEC table is trivial in comparison to their certification testing. Might need the more expensive ADC, but that's a $5k adder. I don't see any technical reason they couldn't make it RVSM, but it might be that most of their customers aren't interested in the training and documentation requirements. Nathan
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 11:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +2330 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Isn't the pressurization less than 5 psi? I couldn't find it listed on their website. Web search says 5.5 psi.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 12:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11885 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Doesn't the SF50 already have all of these with their Garmin suite? The SSEC table is trivial in comparison to their certification testing. Might need the more expensive ADC, but that's a $5k adder. I don't see any technical reason they couldn't make it RVSM, but it might be that most of their customers aren't interested in the training and documentation requirements.
Nathan Likely certification headaches is the reason. The FAA regs in many respects are kind of arbitrary. e.g. why a type rating over 12.5K pounds? The DC3. Why 25K for dual redundant pressurization systems... Another plane (I forget which one). Assuming I recall correctly, above 25K you need dual redundant pressurization systems (most SETP were certified before this requirement). I forget where I read it, Cirrus got a waiver to have a 28K limit from the regs above 25K. The FAA has been known to bend the rules a bit with ELOS to get overall a better safety picture (in theory); but the FAA so far seem to be unwilling to fundamentally break the rules. As such, there was likely a practical limit to how much Cirrus could push the FAA with the first generation. If Cirrus in business and the SF50 stays in production for a few years, give the model a few generations to improve the plane. Cirrus will either have to come up with some ELOS for the FAA to swallow, or find some interesting technical answers, or hope the FAA part 23 rewrite happens.... Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 12:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/24/11 Posts: 76 Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
|
|
Only 5.5 psi? Didn't realize it was that low. Means a 9,500 foot cabin at FL 280 and a 12,500 foot cabin at FL 310. They won't be increasing the ceiling of the plane above 28,000 then.
Given you don't want to be cycling the pressure relief valve, I'm guessing you'll see a 10,000+ cabin at cruise at FL 280. I'd want to be breathing supplemental oxygen, especially at night.
Nathan
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 13:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17514 Post Likes: +21048 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Only 5.5 psi? Didn't realize it was that low. Means a 9,500 foot cabin at FL 280 and a 12,500 foot cabin at FL 310. They won't be increasing the ceiling of the plane above 28,000 then.
Given you don't want to be cycling the pressure relief valve, I'm guessing you'll see a 10,000+ cabin at cruise at FL 280. I'd want to be breathing supplemental oxygen, especially at night.
Nathan My King Air is only 4.7. Above 8,000 feet cabin altitude, I use a nose straw. I just feel better on long trips and react faster. I ski above that altitude, but take a day or two to adjust. As I've mentioned above, there are a lot of things that come into play as one goes above FL280, RVSM and pressurizing the cabin are just two. When Beech made the P-Baron from the A-36 basic frame, the hull was quite a bit thicker which narrowed the cabin and that was also a low differential. The door on the higher differential plane is pretty elaborate.
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 18:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Shinier paint, new airplane smell.
My 2008 PC12 is 9 years old. A 2017 PC12 to the "lay person" looks exactly the same as mine. But it's not. There have been a lot of upgrades. Synthetic Vison and other avionics upgrades Electric gear instead of hydraulic 5 blade Hartzell prop Lots of body mods to streamline LED lights everywhere inside and out More modern paint and interior better soundproofing I can tell the difference when I'm in a new one.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 25 Apr 2017, 19:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/13/10 Posts: 20104 Post Likes: +23515 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My 2008 PC12 is 9 years old.
I can tell the difference when I'm in a new one. Jason, When you need to quietly slide that 9 year old piece of slumjack out of your life, you can park it here at Massey Airpark; I'll watch over it and exercise it regularly, and I won't even criticize its age, wrinkles, and stretch marks. Jet A is just $2.99 here.
_________________ Arlen Get your motor runnin' Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
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
|
|
|
|