banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 01:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 11:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/22/21
Posts: 23
Post Likes: +110
Aircraft: SF50
Username Protected wrote:
What be the fuel burn for that mission?


About 170 gallons, leaving 60+ gallons in reserve.

_________________
Mark Woglom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6629
Post Likes: +7931
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
"You can go 725nm with a one hour reserve. The flight would take just under 2:30.
Takeoff ground roll about 2,100; 3,100 ft over a 50’ obstacle
Landing distance = 2,150 total, 1,500 ground roll[/quote]


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those payload and range numbers are close to what the SR 22 will do, probably not coincidental, as from a marketing standpoint it would be hard to upgrade SR22 owners to the SF50 if it won't at least match the 4 onboard mission profile, but doing it better with weather capability, speed, and still retaining the parachute.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 18:25 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I can't financially afford an SF50. Too costly to buy, too expensive per mile, too little capability.
but you admittedly have a completely different mission profile, no?

Yes, I have a jet mission.

But even if we treat it as a turboprop, my 45 year old MU2 was more capable.

The SF50 is turboprop performance with all the jet negatives.

Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 20:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
What other brand-new turboprop competes with a brand-new SF50?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 20:09 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9553
Post Likes: +6410
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
Username Protected wrote:
What other brand-new turboprop competes with a brand-new SF50?


I think the M600 is the only one that comes close in price.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 20:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/14/17
Posts: 373
Post Likes: +145
Company: Finch Industries,Inc.
Location: Thomasville,NC
Aircraft: TBM900,M600
Username Protected wrote:
What other brand-new turboprop competes with a brand-new SF50?

Epic 1000 And TBM 910 and 960 both are faster,burn less fuel,haul more at full fuel have more range, use less runway on take off and landing,they do cost more but are much more capable.My M600 cost the same as the SF50 and cruises at 285 KTS (12 above book) hauls more at full fuel,has greater range,burns less at cruise,uses less runway on take off and landing.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2023, 21:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/14
Posts: 6452
Post Likes: +4523
Aircraft: V35
It’s hard to call the SF50 puchase price a fair comparison if there’s a near mandatory $85,000 a year service and parts contract. A company can discount the purchase price pretty heavily if they know they get a profitable long term parts and service contract locked in. We did that all the time at GE Aircraft engines and they did it at GE Power Systems too.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 02:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/22/21
Posts: 23
Post Likes: +110
Aircraft: SF50
Username Protected wrote:
It’s hard to call the SF50 puchase price a fair comparison if there’s a near mandatory $85,000 a year service and parts contract. A company can discount the purchase price pretty heavily if they know they get a profitable long term parts and service contract locked in. We did that all the time at GE Aircraft engines and they did it at GE Power Systems too.


I don’t disagree with your fundamental premise. But, just for the sake of clarity, only a portion of the Jetstream fee is applicable to parts and service. A significant portion of the fee encompasses services that most SF50 owners would pay for whether or not they were to elect to participate in the Jetstream program. (Technically the program is optional). Examples of non parts/service items include:

Jeppesen Chart coverage for N America
Garmin navdata services\subscriptions
Sirius weather and music
Annual simulator training/checkrides, and optional mid year proficiency checks.
Satphone service
50mb per year of wifi internet data through the Gogo system.
Management of all of the above with a single payment
Consumables such as tires brakes, non-fuel fluids, and oxygen services

Conversely, both the TBM 960 and M600 include Jepp/Garmin services, and also include 5 years of free maintenance. They do not include wifi (as it is not available in those planes) consumables, or training, nor does anything get applied towards future overhauls.

So, if one is comparing a new SF50 with a new M600 or TBM, you probably need to come up with a fairly complex financial formula to account for these differences. I have my formula, but as with all “plane comparison formulas”, the mathematician doing the formula tends to take some artistic license, and the fuzzy math gets skewed towards the outcome they prefer.

When we selected our Vision Jet, there were many intangibles that went into that decision. I am more than capable of running all of the performance, load, and expense numbers for various aircraft. I’ve owned legacy airplanes, including a 182, several new/used SR22’s, a Baron, a 414, and a Cheyenne IIXL. I understand the pros and cons of owning older airframes, and the various means of propulsion. I am not a victim of market hype.

I’m cognizant of the benefits of the SF50, and I’m equally cognizant of the detriments. The Vision Jet accomplishes much of our mission, in a manner that provides a simple, safe, and comfortable flying experience. I’m lucky enough to be able to afford a plane such as the SF50, without needing to make economics the primary factor in my purchase decision. It’s one of many great planes on the market.

Lastly, as you can probably tell, I’m not a big proponent of bashing the planes other people fly, nor do I like to embellish the plane I happen to fly. At the end of the day, there is an ass for every seat. I’m just thankful my ass landed in a pilot’s seat.

_________________
Mark Woglom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 12:21 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 727
Post Likes: +340
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
50mb per year of wifi internet data through the Gogo system.


Beautifully put!

As I’m fairly certain the above is a typo, I’m just curious how much data per year is included under the prepaid program.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 12:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/22/21
Posts: 23
Post Likes: +110
Aircraft: SF50
Username Protected wrote:
50mb per year of wifi internet data through the Gogo system.

As I’m fairly certain the above is a typo, I’m just curious how much data per year is included under the prepaid program.


Good catch. I was doing that from memory, and I stack bricks for a living! It’s 14K MB per year.

I use it on every flight, but avoid any sort of streaming or large downloads. My wife loves it! I’ve used about 40% of my allotment, over 120 hours and 7 months of flying.
_________________
Mark Woglom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 12:46 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/01/13
Posts: 6268
Post Likes: +6942
Location: Overland Park, KS (KOJC)
Aircraft: 1975 Bonanza F33A
Username Protected wrote:
Good catch. I was doing that from memory, and I stack bricks for a living! It’s 14K MB per year.

I use it on every flight, but avoid any sort of streaming or large downloads. My wife loves it! I’ve used about 40% of my allotment, over 120 hours and 7 months of flying.


A simpler way to express 14K Megabytes is just to call it 14 Gigabytes. 14 GB seems like plenty for checking emails, sending texts, and generally surfing. You could chew it up pretty quickly if you started watching videos, but for inflight WIFI it seems adequate for 150 hours.

Personally, inflight WIFI is pretty low on my list of things that I want. I like being able to "unplug" for a while when I fly. But I can see why a lot of people want it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 13:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3578
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
What other brand-new turboprop competes with a brand-new SF50?


Mentioned above, but the M600 is essentially the same price as the SF50. The plane is about 40 knots slower, but comes in significantly lower in operating costs. The SF50 burns 50% more fuel but is a little faster so offsets that a little. We burn about 40 gph in normal cruise. Maintenance is covered for 5 years including annuals with exceptions for expendables like tires, brakes, beta blocks and ignitors. Those are all pretty cheap in turbine terms. Training is not included, except first year on Piper, and sim training is $2700/yr. The SF50 has a nice cabin, but so does the M600. The leather seats, work table, 110 V plugs and 6 USB ports make it a real productive space for pax, and club seating is more interactive for pax that know and like each other. Windows have shades, and seems most people in the flight levels want the shades down as there is not much to see in the flight levels and flight level sun is intense above the clouds. The real difference is capability. The M600 can essentially take off and land at any paved runway in the US regardless of temperature and altitude. Although certainly you want to run the performance tables at marginal runways. Contaminated runways are not as big a concern as in a jet with Beta and reverse. You can hold 6 adults as opposed to 5, and the M600 can carry 1000 lbs, 1000 nm. Or 550 lbs 1700 nm. So both great aircraft. The SF50 is a little faster, has a great community, and people like the open cabin. The M600 is far more capable and much cheaper to operate. I lean on the utility side of things, because I have some really challenging missions. But the SF50 is a nice step up from the piston world, with its known limitations.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 15:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/13/18
Posts: 214
Post Likes: +174
Should the M600 current life limit factor in here at all? What if it never gets increased?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 17:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/14/17
Posts: 373
Post Likes: +145
Company: Finch Industries,Inc.
Location: Thomasville,NC
Aircraft: TBM900,M600
Username Protected wrote:
Should the M600 current life limit factor in here at all? What if it never gets increased?

The first phase has already been adresed with a service letter that Piper pays for and Piper is contining testing to increase it further.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why is the Cirrus Jet so slow?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2023, 18:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Yeah, I figured the M600 was closest competitor.

Having been in both, I'd have to say, the SF50 was far easier to get into and out of and much more comfortable for me in the pilot's seat. I didn't fly the M600, but have in the Meridian, my impression of the flights (many moons apart if not years) was the Meridian was noisier too.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.Wingman 85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.