It isn't a significant step up from an SR22. For the short 500 mile flights, it doesn't even save an hour over a piston single, more like 30 minutes.

It is all the complexity, effort, and cost of a jet without the benefits. A second engine makes it simpler, go further, go higher, go faster. It also makes it safer.

It is a crippled plane caused by piston think. Twin is not more complex as a jet, it is simpler.


In the end, a plane is judge by what it can do and the SF50 is the slowest, lowest, shortest range jet out there.

Fundamentally, Cirrus wasted an opportunity to truly change the personal jet market.

Mike C.

You should get a plane for 80-90% of your MILES.

Also, when you get a better plane, your flight profile changes because you are enabled by that. Otherwise, we'd all be flying planes 100 miles like we did with a Cessna 172.

My next plane will have non stop range to all points in the CONUS. That may be only 10% of my flights, but it will be 30% of my miles.

Mike C.

And it met the design goals. From teh start, Cirrus said it will be the slowest, lowest cost, and shortest range plane out there. It is designed as a step up to the SR22.

If you go back to the vision Dale and Alan stated when they started the SF50, they envisioned Cirrus eventually building a complete line of jets to compete with Textron/Cessna. The goal was to start with the step up entry jet, then a small mid range....

When you look at it from that perspective, the plane makes perfect sense. And if I had a few spare million, it would be perfect for how I will likely be flying for the next ten/fifteen years.

Tim

That's the sort of thing you say when you want to be protected from a logical and reasoned point of view. Make sure to characterize it as some sort of illogical and emotional crusade.

The SF50 is broken. It just is. Plenty of broken products are sold to customers. Eventually, the brokenness of it becomes apparent at some point.

Mike C.

Eclipse wins! 2800 SOLD!

Eclipse is less broken than the SF50, and look where they are now...

Mike C.

Can the SF50 carry more people? I think it has less full fuel useful load than an SR22.


Well, after about 10 years of hard effort, they achieved that.

The SR22 design goals were to build the best performing piston single airplane. Why is aiming for the worst the right thing here? Slower, lower, less safe, and shorter range do NOT make things simpler for the pilot!


That's a bad strategy. Makes no money, has poor sales volume.


You are flying the brochure, not the real plane. You don't see the deficiencies of an SF50 yet.

Over the next 15 years, you will have to go to type school 15 times. The SR22 saves you time over that.

THE SF50 IS NOT AN SR22 WITH A JET ENGINE. It is a jet, and with that comes a whole host of operational burdens and requirements that negate its marginal benefits. Thus a jet HAS to be better than an SF50 to be worthwhile.

Mike C.

Betamax vs VHS.
VHS was so inferior in so many ways.
Or more recently, Blueray and HDDVD....
Mac vs Windows
iOS vs Android
IBM mainframe vs Amdahl

What is technically smart, and a better engineered product, does not mean it does well in the marketplace. Often technically inferior products which are managed well from a business perspective, will outlast or outperform other choices eventually.

A long time ago, I had a really interesting discussion with an academic who studied product management and manufacturing. He had some very interesting questions:
1. What is quality?
2. What is value?

The answers were very counter intuitive and work together.
The answer for #1, It is about always meeting expectations.
The answer for #2, It is consistently providing the expected result for the price paid.

For now, it appears that Cirrus has done a good job of meeting the definition of quality. The company has a history of continuously making the products better, more refined and gradual improvements in capability. Based on the track record in sales in the piston space, Cirrus has done well with the second so far. Time will tell if SF50 continues to meet the second questions.

Tim


Tim

On this we just disagree. For the proposed mission, 450 miles plus reserve with three to four people. The SF50 is perfect.

Tim

yes you've made that very clear. you further explained the reasons that it will never achieve certification, or be issued a production certificate. Considering all that, it must already be dead, i don't know why you continue to talk about it at all.

Right Fighter: One who argues continuously until it is agreed they are correct.

Resistance is futile.

Right Fighter: One who argues continuously until it is agreed they are correct.

Resistance is futile.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/AyenRCJ_4Ww[/youtube]

Tim

Every bird has strengths and weaknesses. We all have to weigh those against our mission profile. I'm glad there is a step up from a single to a jet, but it doesn't fit me. To me, a jet is to go high, go far and carry a lot of folks, but others have different missions. I really liked the Eclipse concept, but shied away when their head got too large for their hat. These folks are very credible; unfortunately, their plane doesn't fit my mission. If there's a large group of buyers, good for them. These will become more affordable used models in the future and round out the market.

I think you guys are being hard on Mike. Once the luster wears off, the Cirrus jet becomes just another turboprop competing with the others and has to stand up to side by side comparisons. Right now, there are not many flying, and those flying them are conspicuously quiet on the forums, even on the Cirrus forums. The few reports we hear, seem to have come from demo flights and have a marketing flare, as if written by someone else. Many will enjoy the turbine experience and the open cabin, but at the end of the day, you want to go places and turbines beckon to travel far. Many will expand their mission profile, realizing the range payload limitations of the SF50, they will putting those used aircraft on the market stealing sales from the new birds, and there will very unlikely be 600 visions sold. At least the current iteration. Maybe the SF51 or 52 keeps sales alive with RVSM or a new wing that holds more fuel (Cirrus innovates). In 2020, the new SF50's will be competing with used TBM's, Mustangs, Eclipse jets, P100's, M600's, Meridians, M500's all in the same or lower price range that all have advantages... and disadvantages over the SF50. Not to mention competing with the used SF50's. Even the parachute will lose its luster on the turbine. Breaking News. Another single engine turbine takes off, completes flight, engine didn't stop. Envelope protection kept the plane sunny side up the whole flight, parachute handle not pulled... hmmmm.

The difference in hangar cost alone could represent a savings equivalent to post tax returns on a $4-500k investment.

It seems like I am the only guy tooting this horn, but it is real money for actual owner/operators who already have a low-cost Tee or Box for their piston single. It also allows for cheap inside storage when traveling which is especially nice in the mountains.

Larger turbine or jet hangars are not cheap at many airports, let alone readily available.