08 May 2025, 18:43 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:04 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 12/12/10
Posts: 564
Post Likes: +140
Location: Atlanta
Aircraft: Cheyenne II, BE-55
|
|
|
From first hand experience, flying out of the Atlanta Class B VFR, then climbing to 17,500 once outside the B’s limits, can create consistent and scary conflicts with airline traffic. I fly frequently from PDK northwest out of the ATL Class B, starting out VFR, then picking up my clearance 50 nm out at the RMG VOR. Every single time until I discussed it with them and figured a solution, ATC called me as conflicting traffic to multiple airliners descending inbound on a STAR to ATL. They appeared on TCAS and visually as they passed off my left wing, frequently coming out of the sun with a more than 500 knot closure rate. Uncomfortable. A potential for errors. Not good. I finally talked with ATC about it. Learned if I stayed at 12,500 or below until after RMG conflicts would be avoided. A fine solution. No need to push up VFR into a conflicting altitude. I do not fly with an equal taxpayer, they can get out of my way, not my problem attitude. That’s not what pilots do.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:13 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13379
Post Likes: +7450
Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC, E-55, 195
|
|
Username Protected wrote: From first hand experience, flying out of the Atlanta Class B VFR, then climbing to 17,500 once outside the B’s limits, can create consistent and scary conflicts with airline traffic. I fly frequently from PDK northwest out of the ATL Class B, starting out VFR, then picking up my clearance 50 nm out at the RMG VOR. Every single time until I discussed it with them and figured a solution, ATC called me as conflicting traffic to multiple airliners descending inbound on a STAR to ATL. They appeared on TCAS and visually as they passed off my left wing, frequently coming out of the sun with a more than 500 knot closure rate. Uncomfortable. A potential for errors. Not good. I finally talked with ATC about it. Learned if I stayed at 12,500 or below until after RMG conflicts would be avoided. A fine solution. No need to push up VFR into a conflicting altitude. I do not fly with an equal taxpayer, they can get out of my way, not my problem attitude. That’s not what pilots do. Get ADSB In. You'll never conflict with an airliner again.
_________________
Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients
My E55 : https://tinyurl.com/4dvxhwxu
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:19 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3354
Post Likes: +4824
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
The price is within about 10% of the Meridian. No prop, add the chute, roomier cabin, fits in a small hangar, a little faster, heavier wing loading (better ride)... Did I mention no prop?
How does the payload for a similar mission compare? I don't fit in the Meridian. I'm not alone.
Won't ask about your dimensions, that is a personal thing  The newer P46's have made improvements in the cabin. With the extra hip room, taking the seat back behind the spar, and the new head cutouts, I find the P46T quite roomy up front. I am 6'2 and 200, maybe my drivers license says 190....  Few of the cabin class planes seem to be built for the guy flying, they are built for the passenger experience. I would put the TBM, PC12, M2 and P46T all in the same category. Need a little athleticism to get into the seat, once there pretty comfortable. The Mustang, Eclipse and the SF50, seem to care a little more about the pilot.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/20/12
Posts: 273
Post Likes: +46
Location: Oklahoma
Aircraft: C-90, Evolution
|
|
Boom! 200  I never would have believed it when this all started. Mg
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:28 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13077
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I finally talked with ATC about it. Learned if I stayed at 12,500 or below until after RMG conflicts would be avoided. . I've had the same conversation with ATC and that's not a big deal. I do the same. After RMG I climb to 16.5 and pick up my IFR. This doesn't impeded my performance or range at all.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:33 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8669
Post Likes: +9159
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The old Lockheed is a two pilot rig so that might not be so much to your liking ! Big and Cool.  If you want one, I can fix you up! I have more than one  ! You remind me of a crack dealer hanging around the jailhouse exit... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50am Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/13
Posts: 1207
Post Likes: +1197
Company: Tupelo Aero, Inc
Location: Pontotoc , MS (22M)
Aircraft: 1959 Twin Beech 18
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Maybe maybe not! It might just be a vivid illustration of what a tremendous product Lockheed produced or how far Jet engineering has progressed. The Howard 500 would do 270kts at the same altitude as this "jet". How far have we really advanced ?  Nice illustration which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why don't you compare SF50 to a Concorde instead? It's 70th technology, and look how much faster it goes.
A comparison is exactly that! The original comment was the performance offered in the SF50 was not stellar in my opinion. It probably has more to do with a company driven to build a single enginejet simply to be different. I'm sure there are challenges to over come building this design. The hypeis a bunch of hub Bubb about nothing. It performs much like the original Cessna 500 on less fuel. It out performs a piston single ...yea!
But selling it as a real jet will take some marketing spin! 
_________________
I shop at Lane Bryant....Because that’s where they sell “Big Girl Panties” !
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 18:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/13
Posts: 1207
Post Likes: +1197
Company: Tupelo Aero, Inc
Location: Pontotoc , MS (22M)
Aircraft: 1959 Twin Beech 18
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The old Lockheed is a two pilot rig so that might not be so much to your liking ! Big and Cool. If you want one, I can fix you up! I have more than one ! You remind me of a crack dealer hanging around the jailhouse exit...
Tony,
Send me a picture, we might have been locked up in the same time!
Aubie
_________________
I shop at Lane Bryant....Because that’s where they sell “Big Girl Panties” !
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50am Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 19:06 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8109
Post Likes: +7828
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A comparison is exactly that! A comparison is useless when you are comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50am Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 19:57 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/13
Posts: 1207
Post Likes: +1197
Company: Tupelo Aero, Inc
Location: Pontotoc , MS (22M)
Aircraft: 1959 Twin Beech 18
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A comparison is exactly that! A comparison is useless when you are comparing apples to oranges.
If you compare the SF50 to other single engine jets like the F16 or the F105 it stills comes out poorly! I'm sure the original idea on the cocktail napkin made sense to the designer!
_________________
I shop at Lane Bryant....Because that’s where they sell “Big Girl Panties” !
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 20:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/11/12
Posts: 1602
Post Likes: +839
Location: san francisco (KHAF)
Aircraft: C55 baron
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Boom! 200 I never would have believed it when this all started. Mg It might have helped if they'd delivered the SF50 remotely on schedule
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 20:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/20/12
Posts: 273
Post Likes: +46
Location: Oklahoma
Aircraft: C-90, Evolution
|
|
|
I hope it's not 300 pages before the first SF50 delivery.
Mg
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 21:04 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12130
Post Likes: +3031
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I hope it's not 300 pages before the first SF50 delivery.
Mg  Well played. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50am Posted: 26 Apr 2016, 21:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8109
Post Likes: +7828
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you compare the SF50 to other single engine jets like the F16 or the F105 it stills comes out poorly! I'm sure the original idea on the cocktail napkin made sense to the designer! Great, now you are comparing a passenger plane to a fighter jet. Talk about that intelligence test... 
|
|
| 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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
