BeechTalk - BT - The Cirrus SF50 VisionJet "Fast Track to Production"

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 05:36

Username Protected wrote:

Well Jason you fly mostly in the south east were there is less weather. Flying in the north east is different. I got in icing just last week on 2 legs with enough ice to run the boots and it lasted 15-20 min from 8000-FL200. I landed right at min, almost went missed.

Im with Ted on that one, if I was buying a jet I want FL410 and 2 engines.
Ive been in weather at FL280 that I would have avoid at FL360 probably.
Im in vmc about 90% of the time at FL280 but there is always that 10 %.

It's true that I'm based in south. But I've flown into O'hare and Midway and Teterboro and the ski resorts etc many, many times. Granted, I'm not in based in Canada like you are and I'm sure you need ice protection living up there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 05:38

Username Protected wrote:

In my 2000 hours, "stay away from the red" has never failed me. I've also delayed maybe 1 flight in that time.

BS

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 07:21

Username Protected wrote:

Why would I BS?

Why does anyone BS?

Really...

Fear

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 08:06

Username Protected wrote:

This debate is a lot like the "boots vs. hot wings" debate......

In my 2000 hours of flying since 2007 I've needed ice protection ZERO times.

I agree with you that FIKI is not a big deal. Especially in a jet, you are rarely in icing conditions. My (little) TP and (a lot) of 414 time tell me that those airplanes spend a lot more time flying in the ice, rather than climbing or descending through it like a jet does. (Plus, they don't have the excess power to climb out of it like a jet does.)

But let's not shift the focus of this argument. A huge 'pro' for the jet column vs a TP is being able to top 98% of weather in smooth comfort at FL410 or so, when TP guys are having to fly through or around it. Admit it or not, this is a big deal. While we are talking about flying low, I can look at the performance charts for the Eclipse to get exact numbers, but I know it burns close to twice the fuel for the same speed at FL250 as it does at FL410. Turbofans and jets are just not efficient down low.

I look at the Vision as a Cirrus SR22 without a propeller. I think they are going to try to fill a niche even smaller than the Eclipse. Me? I will spend my money elsewhere, but I would love to fly one and am pleased to see any innovation in GA. I hope they sell a ton of them.
:cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 09:21

Username Protected wrote:

Flew the Lear 28's at FL510 and didn't see much up there. Once you get above the tropapause-height the lapse rate goes away and so does the lifting action.

John,

That is just showing off.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 12:20

Since it looks like we have finished beating our chests about how high we need to go to top the weather (I think John wins at 51K; even is only SIC) any comments on my post below?

Tim

Username Protected wrote:

Guys,

I think there is way to much over thinking this.
If you are flying an SR22 and want an incremental step up in plane; what requirements do you have?
-- Faster
-- Pressurization
-- Range
-- Payload and cargo

In each category, the SF50 makes a incremental jump over the SR22. Note enough of a jump to require months of training, but an incremental jump in each category.

Skipping the whole new/old debate. The number of planes in the incremental jump up category are rather limited. e.g. Meridian...

The Eclipse, TBM, PC12 and KA are much more expensive and even more capable. They are fundamentally in a different category.

As for the 25K MSL Service Ceiling, that makes certification much easier. And jet engines like all engines can be tuned for specific altitude ranges to achieve optimal efficiency. We are just used to thinking of Turbofans being tuned for high altitudes. When you see the numbers Cirrus has been getting, I think it is likely they have had the engine tuned for lower altitudes.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 12:32

Tim,
I agree that the Cirrus Jet is not in the category of jets with two engines and FL40. It is a hybrid of sorts. What should it be compared too? It flies comfortably in the low to mid 20,000' and it burns $250 of gas per hour while cruising 230-240kts. Pressurized.

What is the upkeep/maintenance costs on a single jet engine? Can you operate a SF50 for $500-$600 an hour? I think the biggest positives is 1) it is a cool looking jet; 2) operating costs for the performance; and, 3) acquisition costs.

Of course, they have to get it to market at $2M or less. Let's say those soon to be 600 deposits result in 400 deliveries. How many can they make a year?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 12:41

Username Protected wrote:

What is the upkeep/maintenance costs on a single jet engine? Can you operate a SF50 for $500-$600 an hour?

One time I did some really rough math on a PC-12 and thought it was about $550-600 an hour to operate. Maybe Jason can chime in and confirm or deny.

If the Cirrus Jet is comparable, I'd rather take the extra room/carrying capability of the Pilatus any day. I think Cirrus needs to be able to demonstrate some real, sub $400/hr operating costs to set themselves apart.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 14:24

I think a lot of buyers will buy it just because of the "kewl" factor and accept the limitations.

Turboprops are, well, so 1970s. :hide:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 14:42

Username Protected wrote:

I think a lot of buyers will buy it just because of the "kewl" factor and accept the limitations.

Turboprops are, well, so 1970s. :hide:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 15:07

Username Protected wrote:

I think Cirrus needs to be able to demonstrate some real, sub $400/hr operating costs to set themselves apart.

As much as it'd be great to see it happen, I can't see it being even close this figure. Not unless you fly the wings off the thing to amortize down the fixed costs. Assuming personal jet scenario @ 300 hours a year, you'd get close to$400/hr with fuel, insurance, and hangar expenses alone. I think Glenn's figure is more realistic.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 15:10

Trip,
I agree that the operating costs need to be $500 or less per hour. If they are and the purchase price is $2M or less, there will be a market for these. You and I know if you park a PC12 next to a SF50, that the PC12 is a much larger and more capable plane. However, others (passengers, customers, clients and trophy wives) will think the JET is better. It ain't got no propeller attached to it.

There is a niche for this thing at that price and $500 or less operating costs.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 15:25

Username Protected wrote:

What is the upkeep/maintenance costs on a single jet engine? Can you operate a SF50 for $500-$600 an hour?

One time I did some really rough math on a PC-12 and thought it was about $550-600 an hour to operate. Maybe Jason can chime in and confirm or deny.

If the Cirrus Jet is comparable, I'd rather take the extra room/carrying capability of the Pilatus any day. I think Cirrus needs to be able to demonstrate some real, sub $400/hr operating costs to set themselves apart.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 15:27

I'll say it, not a chance in **** you could run one of these things for under $500/hr, even if excluding acquisition cost. Some salesman might be able to throw some spread sheets up which indicated this range of cost while the airplane is under warranty, but I still don't believe it. $1,000/hr minimum, long term. Gas, hangar, insurance and landing fees alone takes you over $500/hr doesn't it? :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2013, 17:05

I figure my plane with me flying NOT including cost of money is $650-$750 per hour.

There is a fractional Cirrus program here in Atlanta and they are getting SF50's. They are quoting $800 per hour as a cost to the fractional owners.