16 Apr 2024, 19:29 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today  Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 12:27 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19892
Post Likes: +19609
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be a little annoyed if asked to pay 148k for a software update. You're not. You're paying $50 for the software update and $147,950 for the legal liability insurance to cover them against any lawsuits.
_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3109
Post Likes: +2225
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be a little annoyed if asked to pay 148k for a software update. You're not. You're paying $50 for the software update and $147,950 for the legal liability insurance to cover them against any lawsuits.
They should get cheaper lawyers. I got SV included on my G500 TXi through a special for $5k. I don't think Garmin charges much more on the NXi in the King Air.
They charge that much because they can get it. And someone has to pay for all the Bendix stuff they'll never sell.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 17:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/01/16
Posts: 453
Post Likes: +340
Location: Citrus County Florida
Aircraft: Shopping
|
|
Anthony, Although perhaps unintended, you sound angry about this. Why? You have a great airplane, and you definitely do not need to buy an SF-50.[/quote] Arlen Sorry if that is how it is perceived, not angry at all. Thanks, i definitely don't need to buy any cirrus product. I am going to add a plane with two engines so i can get into the multi engine debate also. 
_________________
Anthony Dennis
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 17:52 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6062
Post Likes: +12469
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Agreed! They should innovate more. You know, like Beechcrafessna does with the Bonanza.
Now that's funny. As said in another Cirrus bashing thread, Cirrus Bashing diminish the credibility of all content on this forum, and impunes the integrity and intelligence of all participants by association. I opened this thread because I am genuinely interested in how Cirrus is continuing to excite their customers and grow the aviation industry. (How many new Bo/Barons were delivered last year?) I would probably not buy a Vision jet, but I can absolutely understand why many pilots would. This kind of crap makes me wonder why I spend my time here.
_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 18:18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1856
Post Likes: +1828
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
This kind of crap makes me wonder why I spend my time here.
Because it’s still better than the rest of the internet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 21 Jul 2021, 19:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/06/19
Posts: 309
Post Likes: +233
Location: Maryville, Tennessee
Aircraft: Searching....
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
This kind of crap makes me wonder why I spend my time here.
I was just talking to my wife about this exact thing. I was telling her how some pilots tend to "exaggerate" things on some levels and how there are little "cliques" in aviation. The "my airplane is bigger and better than yours" and if you try to join that particular types "brotherhood" they start throwing out oh.. if this is your budget ($X.XX) then you better stay away from this particular type and if this is your mission then you're better off in a 182 or A36 or name the flavor of the day..... I was looking into P Barons and thankfully someone else was braver than I was to ask the questions on here and after seeing the bashing he took I did chime in and ask a few questions. I think most of us even brand new Private Pilots knows and understands aviation isn't cheap.. I even had friends/coworkers (professional pilots) think I'm nuts for looking into ownership and even more crazy for looking at P Barons. For me this is not only my profession but my hobby as well. I do have other hobbies but they just aren't as efficient as aviation.. I intend to use a plane to travel more often. Like I told one former coworker.. It's only money. What else would I spend it on? And you only live once. I have one kid out on her own now and a son halfway through high school I want to be able to visit and travel with them as much as I can while I'm still young enough and healthy enough to enjoy the time.
I guess that's my "mission" as well as the occasional $100 hamburger/pancake breakfast/OSH & SNF eventually...
Sometimes Pilots aren't so encouraging in this respect.... I don't know if it's intentional due to jealousy or what.
Stepping off the stump....  
_________________
CL-65, CE-525S, EMB-505, EMB-550
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 22 Jul 2021, 00:21 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3353
Post Likes: +1960
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote: They revised the operating limits so you can command more power in take off and climb under certain conditions, (but) it is limited to 5 minutes or less. Okay, but the engine ratings did not change, so the peak thrust is not different. How does that get 4% less runway used? Mike C.
You seem intent on missing the point.
You're an engineer.
Where does a turbine engine make the most power? (hint: sea level in cool conditions).
At sea level and cool conditions, the engine makes the same power.
At high elevations and hot conditions, the fuel schedule and temperature limits are revised to allow for more power.
San Diego on a 59 degree day, no improved performance. Same runway and climb performance as the prior SF50.
Denver on a 95 degree day, more engine power, considerably improved runway and climb, for up to 5 minutes.
What's so hard to understand?
Last edited on 22 Jul 2021, 00:27, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 22 Jul 2021, 00:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3353
Post Likes: +1960
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be a little annoyed if asked to pay 148k for a software update. You're not. You're paying $50 for the software update and $147,950 for the legal liability insurance to cover them against any lawsuits.
I figure you're paying the engineering costs to test and prove the extended envelope is safe for the engine, to develop new performance tables in the POH, to get all the revisions to the engine control software, the revised operating limitations, the revised POH pages through the FAA approval process. Not to mention a profit on all the above, and the extra insurance.
It's amortized costs across a couple hundred airplanes.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 22 Jul 2021, 06:42 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
This kind of crap makes me wonder why I spend my time here.
Because it’s still better than the rest of the internet.
https://youtu.be/k1BneeJTDcU
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 24 Jul 2021, 19:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: At sea level and cool conditions, the engine makes the same power. That would be 0% improvement, not 4% improvement. So a claim that they improved runway use by "4 to 20%" is wrong. Some conditions will get no improvement. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 24 Jul 2021, 19:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As said in another Cirrus bashing thread, Cirrus Bashing diminish the credibility of all content on this forum, and impunes the integrity and intelligence of all participants by association. If you can't stomach people with differing views, and say they lack integrity and intelligence, maybe you should leave this forum. The credibility of this forum would be really low if everyone must conform to one set of beliefs. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 24 Jul 2021, 19:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3353
Post Likes: +1960
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote: At sea level and cool conditions, the engine makes the same power. That would be 0% improvement, not 4% improvement. So a claim that they improved runway use by "4 to 20%" is wrong. Some conditions will get no improvement. Mike C.
Perhaps you should look at the performance tables.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 24 Jul 2021, 22:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23622
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Perhaps you should look at the performance tables. If the max thrust did no change at some operating point, then the runway performance did not change. The engine max thrust was not updated on the type certificate. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 00:04 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14144
Post Likes: +9090
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Perhaps you should look at the performance tables. If the max thrust did no change at some operating point, then the runway performance did not change. The engine max thrust was not updated on the type certificate. Mike C.
I think Honda did the same thing at some point. Same thrust but they optimized the FADEC to make a more useable thrust curve and adjusted the redlines. Reminds me of when Tesla magically increased my cars range by 5%.... same battery.
_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
