BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2021, 07:33

Mike - if the eclipse had a cabin with volume of vision jet it would be slower.

I remember the first time I sat in an eclipse I commented it seemed like a scale model of a jet.

There seems to be no technical reason why single engine jet can’t perform well. Cirrus just chose to prioritize other design requirements.

I still think it fits a lot of missions very well. I predict within 10 years it will go to fl350 and go 350kts.

I don’t think two engines matters on safety as Pilatus demonstrates. Autoland and envelope protection are going to save many more lives than chute ever will. Chute is smart marketing though.

I have sat in all the small jets and turboprops. Outside of Piaggio, vision jet is the roomiest. I didn’t find citation cockpits comfortable, especially cj’s and m2. Tbm my shoulders rub the sidewall.

Everything in aviation is a trade off.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2021, 07:42

Username Protected wrote:

Just curious if any operators are on here. Would love to know what real world performance is like.

Can you actually put 4 adults in it and go anywhere into a headwind?

So, Anthony, after this 21-page thread got cooking along with the usual Cirrus retorts, did you learn anything new about the SF50 that is influencing your aircraft buying decisions?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2021, 08:05

Username Protected wrote:

Isn’t it great that GA has a company like this that is pumping out great airplanes into the market for private owners?!! It’s great to see..

Yes, it is. Me..still really ticked Cessna killed Corvalis. Imagine having TWO parachute equipped new airplanes to chose from.

Cirrus is awesome.
Columbia was a pilot's airplane

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2021, 10:41

From Rich Pickett’s article:

“With an OAT of 28 degrees Celsius, our density altitude was 9,700 feet. With takeoff flaps and full takeoff power (N1 – 98.6, N2 – 96), we began our departure on Runway 26. With a Vr of 85 KIAS, I rotated in 24 seconds using less than 2,700 feet of runway. At approximately 5,500 pounds, we were below the maximum takeoff weight of 6,000.”

That’s really impressive. The article doesn’t mention the winds, but if the winds were calm that is the same ground roll as my Meridian under those conditions. My reluctance to embrace the SF50 for my mission has been hot/high performance and contaminated runways. Looks like Cirrus may have alleviated one of those concerns. I hope the climb performance is also significantly improved for the first 5 minutes after takeoff. I assume it would be. Can’t wait to pour over the updated performance charts.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2021, 18:20

Username Protected wrote:

Me..still really ticked Cessna killed Corvalis. Imagine having TWO parachute equipped new airplanes to chose from.

No parachute on the Corvalis.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 02:12

Username Protected wrote:

No parachute on the Corvalis.

True.

Still love mine. And Mike C. is correct, it has a better safety record, despite no parachute.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 02:30

What, if any, calendar maintenance items are there on the SF50? Cirrus advertises it as a "personal jet" and a major part of that would be having a maintenance schedule that makes financial sense flying far fewer than 500 hours per year. That would really set it apart from the competition of relabeled corporate jets.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 08:07

Username Protected wrote:

What, if any, calendar maintenance items are there on the SF50? Cirrus advertises it as a "personal jet" and a major part of that would be having a maintenance schedule that makes financial sense flying far fewer than 500 hours per year. That would really set it apart from the competition of relabeled corporate jets.

It’s a single. All you do is annuals. Even the hot sections and other manufacturers recommend inspections are not required to be followed for part 91 on a single.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 08:22

Username Protected wrote:

It’s a single. All you do is annuals.

For no particular reason, the FAA rules on inspections say that singles must do annual inspections. 91.409(e) only applies to multiengine airplanes, so 91.409(a) is controlling, requiring an inspection every year.

This is both good and bad. The good part is that you don't have to inspect more often than every year. The bad part is that you must inspect every year.

Compare, for example, my Citation which has a phase 1-4 inspection every 3 years and a phase 5 every 6 years under a low utilization program. I am tearing apart my airplane a lot less than every year.

Quote:

Even the hot sections and other manufacturers recommend inspections are not required to be followed for part 91 on a single.

Explain how this is so.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 08:36

Turbine aircraft require an individual FAA approved maintenance program not necessarily dictated by the manufacture. Even if a single or an experimental and if operated under part 91.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

Turbine aircraft require an individual FAA approved maintenance program not necessarily dictated by the manufacture. Even if a single or an experimental and if operated under part 91.

Not if an airplane with one turbine engine.

Read 91.409(e).

No person may operate a large airplane, turbojet multiengine airplane, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplane, or turbine-powered rotorcraft unless the replacement times for life-limited parts specified in the aircraft specifications, type data sheets, or other documents approved by the Administrator are complied with and the airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft, including the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, survival equipment, and emergency equipment, is inspected in accordance with an inspection program selected under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section, except that, the owner or operator of a turbine-powered rotorcraft may elect to use the inspection provisions of § 91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d) in lieu of an inspection option of § 91.409(f).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 09:04

Username Protected wrote:

Turbine aircraft require an individual FAA approved maintenance program not necessarily dictated by the manufacture. Even if a single or an experimental and if operated under part 91.

91.409(e): 'No person may operate a large airplane, turbojet multiengine airplane, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplane, or turbine-powered rotorcraft ... is inspected in accordance with an inspection program selected under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section"

No program required for single engine turbine airplanes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 09:06

Username Protected wrote:

Even the hot sections and other manufacturers recommend inspections are not required to be followed for part 91 on a single.

Explain how this is so.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 09:13

Username Protected wrote:

What, if any, calendar maintenance items are there on the SF50? Cirrus advertises it as a "personal jet" and a major part of that would be having a maintenance schedule that makes financial sense flying far fewer than 500 hours per year. That would really set it apart from the competition of relabeled corporate jets.

It’s a single. All you do is annuals. Even the hot sections and other manufacturers recommend inspections are not required to be followed for part 91 on a single.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Aug 2021, 12:18

Geez, you guys are too much: 3 pages back Benton boldly steps up to the plate and lays it out why he has put his hard earned $$$ on a SF50 and you guys are so busy slugging it out that you can’t even consider this very informative & thoughtful post ???

Username Protected wrote:

I'm in line to take delivery of an SF50 in 27 more days (31/8) and currently fly an KA F90. So....... you want to hear my take?

Different missions. 7 people and baggage going cross country? F90. Wife and I going for a weekend? SF50. It is a fun, fun airplane to fly. It's new (wife likes that)...it has all the latest gizmo's and gadgets and, most importantly, I can get insurance on the thing. I never looked at the Eclipse because I live in Brazil and support is non-existent for such a thing. The Eclipse, TBN, and Pilatus were all looked at but there is minimal support for all of them, a gently used TBN or Pilatus costs the same as a new Vision, the Mustang is nice but was going to be a devil to insure here and isn't available new, and when you buy an SF50 you can get finance for a decent length of time via Exim bank. No other plane I could have bought offered that as it's built in the US. A new King Air? Yes, at double the price.

If you are looking at the limitations (FL310, 310 kts, capacity with full fuel) yes, it comes up short on many things vs. other light jets and many turboprops...but for a private pilot like me that has no jet time, limited turbine time, wants to fly it, and you factor in credit and insurance availability than it's just one more "gateway drug" ...

So that was my reasoning...oh, and the fact you can sell it a year or two later with 300 or 400 hours for essentially what you have in it was nice too. Of course they will probably pop a G3 on me and make the G2+ sell at a discount then but there isn't much choice for me. CAPS or no CAPS, single or twin turbine, there is simply no other option that allows me to purchase a zero time airframe that has parts availability and support in Brazil, can get Exim finance out of the US at a decent rate and term, and allow me to get it insured it and fly it. And when you are used to pistons or a 40 year old King Air it's still a kick in the seat of the pants to fly the "near-jet" Vision. It's a good plane if you can live with and accept the limitations.

These are indeed very valid and relevant points and it is refreshing to hear an informed opinion on the SF50 .

Obrigado Benton !

Anyone here flying a Vision jet?