16 Jan 2026, 15:21 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:41 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This is on page 10 and on page 12 you said you did not accept the bet.
Its a big thread what am I missing? Show me where I didn't accept the bet. I'm not seeing it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
30 copies a year is about how many Barons are sold each year is that your idea of Wildly Successful?
That was your chance to make a case. Instead you just negate me. What's "wildly successful" to you Mr. I'm not gonna bet you anyways because I don't bet? Who "doesn't bet"?
Wildly Successful to me would be it outsells any other VLJ.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Wildly Successful to me would be it outsells any other VLJ. OK. I can deal with that. Let's define VLJ. Eclipse and Mustang?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
Mike Ciholas wrote:
Jason Crandall wrote:
As for 3 years, I agree that should be plenty of time.
So you accept the bet.
We will know on 1/1/2018.
Mike C.
No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. It's pointless to debate the SF50...... yet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
As for 3 years, I agree that should be plenty of time.
So you accept the bet.
We will know on 1/1/2018.
Mike C.
No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. It's pointless to debate the SF50...... yet. What were Mike C's terms that I wouldn't agree to? None of this text is in the previous post where you quoted me. Can't you just use the "quote" feature?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
I am lousy with the 2 embedded quotes not sure how to display that and a comment.
This is killing my day. VLJ are light weight jets that can be flown single pilot. I would consider anything under 12.5k to be light
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
As for 3 years, I agree that should be plenty of time.
So you accept the bet.
We will know on 1/1/2018.
Mike C.
No, I don't accept the bet. I agreed with you that it's vaporware. It's pointless to debate the SF50...... yet. What were Mike C's terms that I wouldn't agree to? None of this text is in the previous post where you quoted me. Can't you just use the "quote" feature?
Its on page 12 just read it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
I think you had it right on page 12 when you said "its pointless to debate the SF50....yet"
Last edited on 30 Apr 2015, 13:49, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I am lousy with the 2 embedded quotes not sure how to display that and a comment.
This is killing my day. VLJ are light weight jets that can be flown single pilot. I would consider anything under 12.5k to be light Embraer has delivered about 400 Phenoms since 2008. That's 57 a year. Is that "wildly successful?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 13:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think you had it right on page 12 when you said "its pointless to debate the SF50....yet" The bet I offer you is the same bet you and Mike C won't take. Never backed out on a bet regarding the SF50. Nobody will take my bet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 15:23 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I am lousy with the 2 embedded quotes not sure how to display that and a comment.
This is killing my day. VLJ are light weight jets that can be flown single pilot. I would consider anything under 12.5k to be light Embraer has delivered about 400 Phenoms since 2008. That's 57 a year. Is that "wildly successful?
Is that the most VLJ ever sold in a year? In order to do that they sold over 100 to jet suites. Hardly a market for the SF-50.
I do know that cessna stop producing the mustang when production numbers fell to--
30 units per year.
If the cirrus makes it to market it will not be profitable, that is what I am saying.
I hear you, you think It will be wildly successful.
What else Is there to say? Time is too precious to go in circles!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 16:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/18/13
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +770
Aircraft: 737
|
|
|
Christ on a pony.
Frankenthread lives again!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 16:55 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/30/12
Posts: 2388
Post Likes: +364
Company: Aerlogix, Jet Aeronautical
Location: Prescott, AZ
Aircraft: B-55, RV-6
|
|
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.
Sorry to offend you, wasn't my intention. Discussing energy management is great.
I see King Air guys that have a hard time with the extra kts in a jet on final. In the King Air you just bring the props forward a couple hundred rpm, problem solved. Props are great for slowing down, they are an extra tool. You lose that with a jet. Additionally, most new small jets don't have TR's anymore. Not saying that you can't do it, just that it's very challenging to turbo-prop guys to begin with, it will be even a bigger challenge to a piston pilot. CRM, profiles and energy management are the most challenging aspects of the transition. Used to be insurance, they've since dropped their droors. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 17:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/18/13
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +770
Aircraft: 737
|
|
|
Here comes an opinion that's bound to be unpopular with the jet guys...
It's just a freakin' airplane. Piston, turbines, props, TRs, really, who cares. Big, small, doesn't matter. Fly the numbers, you get the result. Is training needed? Sure. You're nuts if you don't take a check ride in any airplane you don't know, and high performance aircraft that have more systems will naturally require more training that takes more time. But can we not make this something it isn't?
It's just a freakin' airplane. Throttles forward, ground gets smaller, noise gets bigger. Throttles backward, opposite happens. Plenty of young punks with a couple hundred hours in pistons learned to be aces in the service shortly thereafter in trickier birds than a damned Citation or a Lear.
Also, Steve, that wasn't directed at you. I like and agree with your posts the majority of the time and respect you as a pilot. Just had enough hearing about how special turbines are. Same sh!t, different smell, I fly both and I find the turbines less challenging. Yeah, I've got a few hours and quite a few landings in jets, I'm not just talking out of my rear end.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 Apr 2015, 17:34 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7099
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here comes an opinion that's bound to be unpopular with the jet guys...
It's just a freakin' airplane. Piston, turbines, props, TRs, really, who cares. Big, small, doesn't matter. Fly the numbers, you get the result. Is training needed? Sure. You're nuts if you don't take a check ride in any airplane you don't know, and high performance aircraft that have more systems will naturally require more training that takes more time. But can we not make this something it isn't?
It's just a freakin' airplane. Throttles forward, ground gets smaller, noise gets bigger. Throttles backward, opposite happens. Plenty of young punks with a couple hundred hours in pistons learned to be aces in the service shortly thereafter in trickier birds than a damned Citation or a Lear. Basically Sanderson with a POH 
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
