Steve,

Your position, thoughts and comments about Cirrus are rather self evident; just on this post alone.

Tim

Actually, I don't think that is true.

I think two PW610Fs burn slightly less fuel than one FJ33-5A at comparable altitudes.

Not saying Eclipse is better, but I am saying the reflexive assumption that one engine is less fuel than two doesn't hold for jets necessarily. This is piston think.


Remains to be seen. The odd part is that as fuel prices go down, the SINGLE jet wins more on balance due to burning more FUEL per mile. That is the opposite of pistons where higher fuel prices HURT the twin.

The SF50 is perfect because only the marketing department of Cirrus gets to say anything about it. The Eclipse has a troubled and well known history. What will we think of the SF50 ten years from now?

Mike C.

100% true.

I only file to FL210 when flying Atlanta to NYC because they're going to have me at 17K' at Washington DC and then 11K' and then 8K'. IN and out of Atlanta it's the same story. In and out of South Florida it's the same story. You see, above 18K', It's not "up to you".

A new Eclipse costs $3.2MM. Not $2MM as has been said in this thread.

You guys that poo poo'd the SF50 6 months ago and said it would never go faster than 220 were wrong and you're going to be wrong again when the SF50 dominates the market.

I think the sex appeal of the SF50 is quite underestimated by many of the poo poo'ers.

I think the SF50 looks great. The SF50 fixes everything people don't like about SR22's. It's the ultimate personal airplane. It will take sales from PC12. It will take sales from every manufacturer.

+1000

With thier pistons Cirrus was at the top tier in terms of performance and innovation. With thier jet they are dead last place in terms of performance but do have funky innovation with sacrificing all that is good about two engines in order to make one engine work.

This jet is going to be sold to piston pilots, not jet pilots. My guess is they will sell well to the affluent piston crowd.

Peronally, I would still like to see something along the lines of the SJ30 but that niche looks pretty dead.

But Erwin, then these "piston pilots" will BE -----> JET PILOTS!

The SF50 is going to be sold to people who are sick of the TSA and the Commercial Airport. That's where the market is.

"Performance" is a relative term. Anything that gets you out of the rat race of commercial airplane travel is "high performance".

The SF50 is going to be sold to people who are sick of the TSA and the Commercial Airport. That's where the market is.

"Performance" is a relative term. Anything that gets you out of the rat race of commercial airplane travel is "high performance".

The SF50 is going to be sold to people who are sick of the TSA and the Commercial Airport. That's where the market is.

"Performance" is a relative term. Anything that gets you out of the rat race of commercial airplane travel is "high performance".

Those guys aren't buying one. That's NOT where the market is.

How much faster is a 400 knot jet flying ATL to TEB going to be over a 300 knot jet? You're not getting to FL400 anyways. It's a silly thing to keep saying.

I've been told by guys at Cirrus that there target customer is the guy that bought a new Baron 30 years ago. I think Jason and Erwin are, therefore, both correct.

There are a fair number of pilots who went from an SR22 to Eclipse, TBM, Mustang and perhaps a few to PC12's. Not too many who, after flying a modern airplane went to a legacy jet or TP. Cirrus will shortly have a product that appeals to many of their existing customers (and they probably have had over 10-15,000 so far with resales) and is in fact designed for them.

Whether the plane is a perfect long range aircraft, costs more or less than some aging TP, is inferior because it only has one engine, etc. is clearly irrelevant to the marketplace which seems to have hundreds (more than any other turbine aircraft in existence - probably more than all other turbines put together) of people willing to plunk their money down. It's the same story as the SR22 which is clearly an inferior aircraft to all its competitors which is why only 6,000 or so have been sold in the last 14 years and why every airplane they produce is sold with relatively long waiting lists.

I fly a high performance piston and my average trip is between 300-500nm

I will be in market for SF50, zero turbine time

Eclipse was a new company trying to fly a proven mission with unproven technology. They fell on their face.

Cirrus is a proven company using (best I can tell) proven technology to do a mission that people have heretofore ignored because it was thought inefficient. So we might think it's a "bad" airplane, but there isn't much other that prevents someone from making it.

All Cirrus has to do to succeed is get people to buy it. They're devoting their formidable marketing engine to sell buyers on the planes "inefficient" mission. I think Cirrus has far better chances than Eclipse.