16 Jan 2026, 16:27 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 10:11 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21090
Post Likes: +26525
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Dull people don't often write multi-million dollar checks for airplanes. The NTSB maintains a database of counter examples. For example: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/19/fugitive.pilot/Rich and smart are often not correlated. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 10:34 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20426
Post Likes: +25611
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't understand how the example argues that Cirrus buyers are somehow lesser pilots than every other jet buyer who was once a piston pilot. And....nobody here was criticizing Clint when he just transitioned from his Bonanza to his Citation Mustang. viewtopic.php?f=49&t=106767&start=0 I guess the assumption by some is that all Cirrus pilots are somehow lesser pilots and therefore incapable of making the successful transition to jet.. 
_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 10:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21090
Post Likes: +26525
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't understand how the example argues that Cirrus buyers are somehow lesser pilots than every other jet buyer who was once a piston pilot. You don't understand because that wasn't the theory you proposed, namely rich equals smart. Clearly, that doesn't hold in some cases, and I gave an example of this. It is a separate debate to argue that Cirrus piston pilots are more or less stupid than other piston pilots. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 10:58 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12837
Post Likes: +5280
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Energy management will eat the piston pilot alive on short final when he's 20 kts fast. Stabilized approach? What's that... I was discussing energy management with a student in a 182RG last night. We're not all clueless, thank you.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 11:06 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7099
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Energy management will eat the piston pilot alive on short final when he's 20 kts fast. Stabilized approach? What's that... I was discussing energy management with a student in a 182RG last night. We're not all clueless, thank you.
Charles, you're a CFI, I had NO CLUE, kinda clueless I guess 
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 11:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Energy management will eat the piston pilot alive on short final when he's 20 kts fast. Stabilized approach? What's that... Maybe a Cessna 172, Piper Cherokee pilot. Pilots coming up from high performance, slick aircraft understand energy management and trending. Quite frankly might easier to transition to a jet from a Cirrus than from a King Air as far as energy management is concerned.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 11:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Quote: No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. It's pointless to debate the SF50...... yet Sorry you did not say "wanna bet" in the begining of the thread you refused to bet. That offer might still be available if you "wanna bet"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 11:47 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2849
Post Likes: +2805
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Energy management will eat the piston pilot alive on short final when he's 20 kts fast. Stabilized approach? What's that... I was discussing energy management with a student in a 182RG last night. We're not all clueless, thank you.
Try acro sometime - You'll get a really good sense of energy management!
One of the issues on jets is that it's harder to dissipate energy because you don't have the props to help. Curious if the SF50 will have speed brakes to help with that.
For the record, I think that:
a) The SF50 will sell very well, and could easily be the highest selling jet by volume on the market (admittedly, a somewhat low hurdle)
b) Piston pilots will transition without much difficulty, and they won't kill themselves in any greater number/percentage than other similar planes.
At the end of the day it's an airplane, and just because it has a jet engine versus a prop doesn't mean it's more difficult to fly. In fact, in many ways, I bet the SF50 is a hell of a lot easier to fly than my 421.
Robert
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 11:50 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. It's pointless to debate the SF50...... yet Sorry you did not say "wanna bet" in the begining of the thread you refused to bet. That offer might still be available if you "wanna bet" It was a multi page debate. My offer to bet still stands if you'd like to take it. I'll bet you $1000 the sf50 will be a wildly successful plane if it makes it to market. Deal?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 12:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
No, I dont bet. Maybe you should ask the original guy if the bets still out there.
The devils in the details! Wildly Successful?
Page 11 - 12
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 12:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No, I dont bet. Maybe you should ask the original guy if the bets still out there.
The devils in the details! Wildly Successful?
Page 11 - 12 He won't bet me either. He backed out.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 12:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
Can you define "Wildly Successful" for us?
Last edited on 30 Apr 2015, 12:34, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 12:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
Failure is quite a bit different than wildly successful. Two completely different ends of the spectrum.
In my mind its a failure if its unprofitable, does not give return on investment.
|
|
| 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 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
