19 Jan 2026, 06:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 04 May 2017, 23:35 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16156 Post Likes: +8874 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No. I've owned three SR22's. I'm a Cirrus fan. When the SF50 has 2 or 3 more seats I'm all in. Edit: I'm hoping it has 2 engines at that point  ... That'l be the SF60. One thing the SF60 won't have is any more screens, knobs or levers. Maybe they'll give you a separate lever for the second engine, but even that doesn't really serve any purpose. If the second engine quits, the computer just cages it and you get a pop-up on the G6000 that advises you of the reduced climb rate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 07:41 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13087 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No. I've owned three SR22's. I'm a Cirrus fan. When the SF50 has 2 or 3 more seats I'm all in. Edit: I'm hoping it has 2 engines at that point  ... That's called a Mustang... or an M2.... Or HondaJet
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 07:50 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 10/05/11 Posts: 10403 Post Likes: +7478 Company: Hausch LLC, rep. Power/mation Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: For example, the door is designed such that the pilot seat slides way forward allowing everyone else to get in, then the pilot slides the seat back and gets in and closes the door. This feature was a big deal for one person getting a tour. No crawling / sliding past each other. Civilized. So the "captain" has to be the first to abandon ship after a crash?
Not really. My recollection, from a mock up, is the pilot seat, when in the flying position, is in front of the door opening (more or less). It can slide back very far and be almost behind the door when the pilot boards. The seat is "walked up" to the flying position by the pilot (easily).
Does that make sense?
_________________ Be Nice
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:00 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 06/08/12 Posts: 12581 Post Likes: +5190 Company: Mayo Clinic Location: Rochester, MN
Aircraft: Planeless in RST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Perception is reality now. So you are telling me that complexity wise this: Attachment: SF50.jpg Is the same as this: Attachment: CJ_M2.jpg Or if we want to compare to something in the same price range this: Attachment: CJ1+.jpg [/quote] Matt and Florian captured it well. I'm just a lowly SEL, IR pilot within about 1500 hrs. May get to 3000 hrs in my life time. In my sixties. I sat in that thing in OSH last year. Easiest cockpit ever to get in to for this 6'3", 250 ish # pilot. I studied the panel for about 20 minutes. If I knew how to start a jet, I don't, I could easily fly this thing, flight plan etc. Not all that different from my panel. The jet jockeys poo pooing this thing are looking at it wrong IMO. This isn't some small jet. This is a really easy to operate fast single engine plane. No different than my Bo, or a Cirrus. Same risk factors. For Nancy and me and the occasional kids or friends, this will cut 30% or more from any flight we take longer than 2 hrs. Plus I thought no you wouldn't hesitate to pull it out of the hanger for a lunch or dinner hop to somewhere. Many of my friends graduating to bigger, faster, multi planes just disappear from the flying social scene. I think it stops being fun. In addition the thing looks, feels and smells like my cars. Me like. I can't afford a new one. But I'll buy a used one when they come up. Or a TBM.... Would have to study up on SID's and remember the 250 knot limit ... Domt deal with that often...
_________________ BFR 8/18; IPC 8/18
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:13 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16156 Post Likes: +8874 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The jet jockeys poo pooing this thing are looking at it wrong IMO. This isn't some small jet. This is a really easy to operate fast single engine plane. No different than my Bo, or a Cirrus. Same risk factors. Even less than that. It's a car. And it flies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:40 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 6025 Post Likes: +3389 Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The jet jockeys poo pooing this thing are looking at it wrong IMO. This isn't some small jet. This is a really easy to operate fast single engine plane. No different than my Bo, or a Cirrus. Same risk factors. Even less than that. It's a car. And it flies.
Yeah! and you need a type rating to ATP standards. oops..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:47 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 12201 Post Likes: +3086 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even less than that. It's a car. And it flies. Yeah! and you need a type rating to ATP standards. oops..
I am willing to bet that is a lot easier in the SF50 then in a Citation, Hondajet, MU2... Having never gone through ATP, it is on my bucket list, I have read enough about it to know the a few major failure points. The more complex the aircraft, the more likely a pilot is going to fail. The more options the plane presents, the more checklists and SOP you need to memorize. Second, in terminal zone, the faster the plane flies, the more likely you are to become task saturated and miss something. The approach speeds on the SF50 are slower then on the Aerostar I had. This pattern repeats on and on....
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:50 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 02/10/12 Posts: 6712 Post Likes: +8239 Company: Minister of Pith Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The jet jockeys poo pooing this thing are looking at it wrong IMO. This isn't some small jet. This is a really easy to operate fast single engine plane. No different than my Bo, or a Cirrus. Same risk factors. Even less than that. It's a car. And it flies.
In case anyone forgot, it costs TWO MILLION DOLLARS!!!!
Even after 50% depreciation, it will cost-
_________________ "No comment until the time limit is up."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 09:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16156 Post Likes: +8874 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah! and you need a type rating to ATP standards. oops..
Would you be worried about passing a SF50 type rating?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 10:08 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16156 Post Likes: +8874 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even after 50% depreciation, it will cost-  Lol. I suspect a number of the position holders have more than that tied up in their car, boat, motorhome.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 10:09 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 6025 Post Likes: +3389 Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah! and you need a type rating to ATP standards. oops..
Would you be worried about passing a SF50 type rating?
I don't have to be; too poor. I was just saying the narrative you guys were on (it's just like a car) breaks pretty quick at the type rating
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 11:03 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2954 Post Likes: +2929 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was just saying the narrative you guys were on (it's just like a car) breaks pretty quick at the type rating Nah, it's only one day. I may never be as good as I once was but I can still be as good, once, as I ever was.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 11:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13087 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah! and you need a type rating to ATP standards. oops.. No big deal. Insurance mandates recurrent training every year once you're at a certain hull value anyways.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 05 May 2017, 17:52 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16156 Post Likes: +8874 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't have to be; too poor. I was just saying the narrative you guys were on (it's just like a car) breaks pretty quick at the type rating
So you go to Knoxville for a week and get a type rating. After that, it's a car. A car that flies. I did notice that Cessna provides more cup-holders.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|