BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 11:30

Username Protected wrote:

Seems the religion is Mike smart everyone else stupid.

So far, 500+ customers have forked over about $1.5 billion dollars for a best-selling, but apparently questionable product, that they've been fooled into buying.

Surely there is a class-action lawsuit brewing...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 11:32

Username Protected wrote:

The customers were sold a false religion.

Lots of bad products are market successes this way.

That doesn't make the single jet the better product. It is telling that essentially the entire customer base are piston pilots who don't know better. Nobody who understands jets are buying these things.

Mike C.

Are you a diehard android user or do you embrace apple? Just curious

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 11:45

Username Protected wrote:

The customers were sold a false religion.

Lots of bad products are market successes this way.

That doesn't make the single jet the better product. It is telling that essentially the entire customer base are piston pilots who don't know better. Nobody who understands jets are buying these things.

Mike C.

Are you a diehard android user or do you embrace apple? Just curious

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 12:14

Username Protected wrote:

That Cirrus could have added a second engine and made a better plane is missing the point. The idea wasn't to create the best plane, it was to create a step up product for their existing customers.

Cirrus's whole goal is to keep customers in the Cirrus ecosystem. Keep in mind this is a company that successfully lobbied the FAA to change the Commercial pilot requirements to drop retractable gear so that their customers wouldn't have to lower themselves to fly an Arrow. (Which I kinda understand....I did my commercial in an Arrow it was a real turd.) They weren't going to go out and develop their own piston twin and the last thing they wanted was to force customers to slum around in a Seminole just to check a box on a way to the next Cirrus wunderkind.

My old Garmin rep had a lot of SR22 time and Cirrus let him fly a SF50. He flew it right out of the box. Brilliant! They created the perfect plane for their customers. It may not be for you and me, but that wasn't the goal.

This is key. Buying a Cirrus isn't about buying an airplane. You are buying into a lifestyle/ecosystem. Everything from the plane to maintenance to training to even socializing (my Cirrus club had regular social activities throughout the year) is handled for you. You write one check and they handle engine and airframe programs, DB updates, etc. Like Dennis said, it's not for everyone, but it's clearly for some people.

As Dennis said I do think that the current MEL regs will work against Cirrus building a twin jet. They do not want to send their customers to another school to get their MEL (I went to ATP and knocked mine out in 5 days). I think they will just use larger and larger singles as the airframe grows.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 12:35

Username Protected wrote:

That Cirrus could have added a second engine and made a better plane is missing the point. The idea wasn't to create the best plane, it was to create a step up product for their existing customers.

Cirrus's whole goal is to keep customers in the Cirrus ecosystem. Keep in mind this is a company that successfully lobbied the FAA to change the Commercial pilot requirements to drop retractable gear so that their customers wouldn't have to lower themselves to fly an Arrow. (Which I kinda understand....I did my commercial in an Arrow it was a real turd.) They weren't going to go out and develop their own piston twin and the last thing they wanted was to force customers to slum around in a Seminole just to check a box on a way to the next Cirrus wunderkind.

My old Garmin rep had a lot of SR22 time and Cirrus let him fly a SF50. He flew it right out of the box. Brilliant! They created the perfect plane for their customers. It may not be for you and me, but that wasn't the goal.

This is key. Buying a Cirrus isn't about buying an airplane. You are buying into a lifestyle/ecosystem. Everything from the plane to maintenance to training to even socializing (my Cirrus club had regular social activities throughout the year) is handled for you. You write one check and they handle engine and airframe programs, DB updates, etc. Like Dennis said, it's not for everyone, but it's clearly for some people.

As Dennis said I do think that the current MEL regs will work against Cirrus building a twin jet. They do not want to send their customers to another school to get their MEL (I went to ATP and knocked mine out in 5 days). I think they will just use larger and larger singles as the airframe grows.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 13:39

Username Protected wrote:

As Dennis said I do think that the current MEL regs will work against Cirrus building a twin jet. They do not want to send their customers to another school to get their MEL

They don't have to. They could do it in the their sims as part of the type initial.

There are cases people have gotten their private pilot's license in a Citation. Odd, but true.

Quote:

I think they will just use larger and larger singles as the airframe grows.

To get real range, speed, utility, they need to go higher, and that is most easily done with two engines due to regulatory hurdles. It gets really hard to certify a single at FL410 due to lack of pressurization redundancy.

The basic design of the Eclipse EA500 is an existence proof. FL410, 370 KTAS, less fuel and longer range than the SF50, with thrust and power redundancy.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 13:47

Username Protected wrote:

As Dennis said I do think that the current MEL regs will work against Cirrus building a twin jet. They do not want to send their customers to another school to get their MEL

They don't have to. They could do it in the their sims as part of the type initial.

There are cases people have gotten their private pilot's license in a Citation. Odd, but true.

Quote:

I think they will just use larger and larger singles as the airframe grows.

To get real range, speed, utility, they need to go higher, and that is most easily done with two engines due to regulatory hurdles. It gets really hard to certify a single at FL410 due to lack of pressurization redundancy.

The basic design of the Eclipse EA500 is an existence proof. FL410, 370 KTAS, less fuel and longer range than the SF50, with thrust and power redundancy.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 14:27

Username Protected wrote:

A perfectly example of an engineer understanding math but not the customers or the market.

The customers were sold a false religion.

Lots of bad products are market successes this way.

That doesn't make the single jet the better product. It is telling that essentially the entire customer base are piston pilots who don't know better. Nobody who understands jets are buying these things.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 14:37

Username Protected wrote:

It is telling that essentially the entire customer base are piston pilots who don't know better. Nobody who understands jets are buying these things.

Mike C.

A friend of mine took early retirement as a 787 Captain and bought an SF-50. I will put him in touch with you so you can edemucate him.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 14:41

Username Protected wrote:

As Dennis said I do think that the current MEL regs will work against Cirrus building a twin jet. They do not want to send their customers to another school to get their MEL

They don't have to. They could do it in the their sims as part of the type initial.

There are cases people have gotten their private pilot's license in a Citation. Odd, but true.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 14:48

Username Protected wrote:

You cannot get an MEL rating in a jet. Feathering a prop is part of the ACS and must be simulated. There is no way to do that in a jet.

Simulated zero thrust is an acceptable alternative, I did my ride in the DA-42 which has FADEC controlling feathering, so we used the zero thrust setting which the examiner agreed he would set and verify for me, though I was PIC on the ride

KA training was similar, autofeather did its thing, then we ran checklist and shut the engine down to verify, then we did an air start

So, are you sure?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 14:58

Username Protected wrote:

You cannot get an MEL rating in a jet. Feathering a prop is part of the ACS and must be simulated. There is no way to do that in a jet.

Simulated zero thrust is an acceptable alternative, I did my ride in the DA-42 which has FADEC controlling feathering, so we used the zero thrust setting which the examiner agreed he would set and verify for me, though I was PIC on the ride

KA training was similar, autofeather did its thing, then we ran checklist and shut the engine down to verify, then we did an air start

So, are you sure?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 15:09

Username Protected wrote:

I had to spend 5 days at ATP learning how to fly a Seminole only to try and quickly forget everything I had just learned....

Ouch...the DA42 was about 2.5days, and a pleasure to fly, expensive though....but 3 more training days would have been more expensive to me

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Oct 2023, 15:23

Username Protected wrote:

Ouch...the DA42 was about 2.5days, and a pleasure to fly, expensive though....but 3 more training days would have been more expensive to me

ATP schools for me in 2006 was $3K all in, 2 days, 10 hours including check ride.

Despite the short schedule, the training was actually pretty good. It seemed on point, moved along well, and I had decent guidance. Maybe I lucked out with the instructor (who is an airline pilot wannabe building time). I assume he is now flying with an airline somewhere, and based on my experience, I would feel safe with him at the controls. I suspect my experience with ATP is not universal, though.

Like Leach, I had to unlearn a few things to fly the MU2 versus the Seminole, and then even more with the jet.

Mike C.