01 Jan 2026, 19:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 13:59 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 17018
Post Likes: +28970
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: nor does it make Mike wrong for pointing out that they are stupid. at some point you have to stop fighting the trend. He's been wrong with virtually all his other prognostications on the topic.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/07/12
Posts: 606
Post Likes: +1096
Location: Addison, TX
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Much of our population embraces stupid ideas. That so many people embrace them doesn't make the ideas any less stupid, nor does it make Mike wrong for pointing out that they are stupid.
I thought the "Pet Rock" idea was stupid until they sold a million of them ; then I thought it was brilliant.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:10 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3389
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I thought the "Pet Rock" idea was stupid until they sold a million of them ; then I thought it was brilliant. LOL
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:18 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/11
Posts: 874
Post Likes: +489
Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As an Engineer, I disagree. He should stick to it. Good engineering principles are not a popularity contest. Until your engineering product needs funding..... Chip-
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3389
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: SALES are all that matter. Not in this discussion forum they don't. But I understand what you are trying to say and agree: All that matters for Cirrus is if they sell.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:50 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If they are Do you think a lot of people are buying a SF50 because it is a jet and only because it is a jet? https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... ostar-702p this is the most expensive Aerostar I can find and it is 1/3 the price. No. The planes are not even in the same class. Cirrus is like a new luxury car. The Aerostar is like 1960s muscle car. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 14:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12201
Post Likes: +3086
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The normal advice is, get a plane for 80% or 90% of your flights.
I believe that is a quaint idea left over from the days that you could easily rent a plane for the other 10%. Not the case any longer among pistons, there isn't much available to rent on short notice. Maybe in the case of an SF50 the idea still holds if it means chartering for the 10%.
Not really. I am considering getting another plane next year.
And I am considering getting a much less capable plane which handles 90% of my flights. I know that two or three trips a year, instead of being non-stop I am going to take two days to get there or I will fly commercial. Since this cuts my costs by roughly 50-60%; it is worth it.
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 15:15 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/04/08
Posts: 1799
Post Likes: +1404
Location: MYF, San Diego, CA
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Mike, 540 miles is simply the mean distance, as calculated in grade school. It is weighted by distance AND departures, then divided by departures. The simple calculation is appropriate. If we neglect that average speed will change with the distance of flight, then distance is a proxy for time. One of your points is that short distances will involve slower average speeds. More time will be spent flying shorter distances. The average duration of a flight will be greater than the duration of a flight of the average distance. The fact that pilots spend more of their time on short trips reduces the utility of a higher cruise speed for any mix of flights. Ashley Username Protected wrote: Note that when you weight this for miles flown and not per departure, the average increases a lot.
That is, more miles are flown on longer legs.
So let us say your trip mix was as follows:
80% are 400 miles
15% are 800 miles
5% are 2000 miles
The distance weighted average trip is then 540 miles, and 41% of the miles flown are on trips of 800 miles or more.
It doesn't take that many long trips for a lot of the miles flown to be on long legs.
Mike C.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 21:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: SALES are all that matter. Not in this discussion forum they don't.
Really? Since when? That's been my point the whole thread..... It doesn't matter if you don't like the airplane. They have 600 deposits?
Most folks are smart enough not to spend years building something that won't sell. Therefore, if you've spent this whole thread explaining why it won't sell and it does..... guess what that makes you?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 22:07 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8235
Post Likes: +7969
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What's the average length (in nm) of the typical biz-jet trip? That line of thinking leads to cars with a 2 gallon tank.
It doesn't. The reason cars have the range they do is because there is almost no cost penalty for having the bigger tank, and because refueling every day is inconvenient. Which is not the case with the airplanes.
Now, if they would make a car that has 1/2 the normal 300-400 mile range and costs 1/2 as much, there would be plenty of buyers. As a matter of fact, I currently have Tesla model 3 on order, and I am planning to go with the lower-range model because I don't need the 300 mile range, and I can save 5 AMUs that way.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 22:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8235
Post Likes: +7969
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Note that when you weight this for miles flown and not per departure, the average increases a lot.
That is, more miles are flown on longer legs.
So let us say your trip mix was as follows:
80% are 400 miles
15% are 800 miles
5% are 2000 miles
The distance weighted average trip is then 540 miles, and 41% of the miles flown are on trips of 800 miles or more.
It doesn't take that many long trips for a lot of the miles flown to be on long legs.
So what exactly does that prove, besides being a mathematical curiosity? The way I see it, if I have a plane with 800 miles no-wind range and I make 100 trips in it, on 80 flights I won't have to stop for fuel. On 15 flights I might stop or not, depending on the wind, so call it 7 average. And on 5 flights I will have to stop. 12 flights out of 100 sounds pretty good to me.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 01 Nov 2017, 09:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3389
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Therefore, if you've spent this whole thread explaining why it won't sell and it does..... guess what that makes you? Just another guy arguing on the internet?
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
