208s are used on short haul freight, or bush flying. Not too many 208s doing owner flown personal transportation, the market for the SF50 jet.

I get what you're sayin (and liked your post) but if the SF50 performed like some of those single engine jets you flew they'd sell like hotcakes.

Pretty much what happened to the folks who paid deposits for the original Eclipse. I strongly suspect that the "reality" of the SF50 will greatly exceed the reality of the first Eclipse buyers. I'd even be willing to wager that most of the first batch of SF50 purchasers will love their new jets warts and all.

This is one of the most egregiously offensive things I've read here and that's quite a statement considering how far out of your way you've gone to be insulting since you showed up here Auburn. It may be, as you say, that the SF 50 is will be a "flying manhole cover" and "an airborne road block" but the people who will be buying it (not me) will be doing so with real money which most of them probably made themselves by not being as unintelligent as you posit. The other thing they will be doing is flying their own plane not the planes of others. They'll be doing that not because they are low scorers on the "Iowa Intelligence Test"(oh, I fixed the spelling and capitalization for you O Brilliant One who criticizes other's intellectual ability).

In general I find that Southerner's have a natural, and cultured, set of manners. You must not be a native.

No Sir....and they will fly many a man hole covers 1500 nautical miles........almost enough to cover the crap coming from the mouths of folks talking about the demise of GA..........


and they'll do it as safely as those incredible twin engine jets that are almost as safe (albeit at FL410)

And which jet do you own? Its a lot faster than the plane I fly. Its also about the speed of Pilatus and TBM which fly at the same altitudes. Are they manhole covers?

Auburn,

"Buy" the way, what would the takeoff and landing distances be for your Lockheed Lodestar? And what is its stall speed? What is its empty weight, max T/O weight, and max zero-fuel weight? What's the wing span, i.e., what kind of hangar will it require?

Many areas of performance in an airplane are trade-offs; I'm trying to get an idea of what you're comparing the SF 50 against.

Auburn,

"Buy" the way, what would the takeoff and landing distances be for your Lockheed Lodestar? And what is its stall speed? What is its empty weight, max T/O weight, and max zero-fuel weight? What's the wing span, i.e., what kind of hangar will it require?

Many areas of performance in an airplane are trade-offs; I'm trying to get an idea of what you're comparing the SF 50 against.

Tony,

If pointing out the performance short comings of the latest plastic jet is insulting, you have soaked up too much of what CNN is selling! I don't recall insulting anyone on this forum.

Not sure what constitutes being a Native of the South, I've been in the South 46 years and my family for the last 7 generations. Oklahoma is a relative new comer to the union...this might(or not) explain the sensitivity to legitimate criticism of a plastic air machine.

The correction to the previous post is graciously accepted, but unnecessary since it was correct as originally posted!

Auburn,

"Buy" the way, what would the takeoff and landing distances be for your Lockheed Lodestar? And what is its stall speed? What is its empty weight, max T/O weight, and max zero-fuel weight? What's the wing span, i.e., what kind of hangar will it require?

Many areas of performance in an airplane are trade-offs; I'm trying to get an idea of what you're comparing the SF 50 against.

It's going to be funny when the little jet sells like hotcakes and these same characters come back to argue that those sales "don't count" for this or that reason. Very much like people arguing that a bull market that lasted from 2009-2015 is "artificial"

bottom line - if someone wants to buy a plane that flies in the same airspace as a tbm but has a little shorter legs, who are we to call them stupid? It's their money. I think lots of people will write that check. It's the same argument that says an old bonanza is a better value than a new cirrus. may be true in a lot of ways but plenty of people want to pay up for a cirrus.

On every "what should I buy thread" at some point it gets boiled down to the mission. For the guy who wants to burn Jet-A and is looking at Piper, TBM, King Air etc - who routinely flies alone or with a passenger or two this jet is quite attractive. This conversation keeps getting steered towards what the current perception of a jet is and not what a short range, fast personal transport looks like.

The Eclipse was a cool idea that generated a lot of excitement but I believe it avionics and other flaws killed it. No one wants a SP jet that has well documented issues coupled with lousy service choices. Time will tell if the Cirrus has the dispatch rate that matches their piston products and more importantly the Piper and TBM's of the world.

Maybe the buyers of this jet will move up someday. Or maybe this product will fit their mission extremely well for a long time. It will be interesting to see how it compares on the spreadsheets on a per hour operating basis when all things are considered.

Here is the link to the latest brochure:

http://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/up ... e-2016.pdf

Peace,
Don

I thought the SF50 was built out of carbon fiber?

The Lockheed should be selling like hotcakes. Where can I buy one?

I thought the SF50 was built out of carbon fiber?