BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 15:23

Username Protected wrote:

I don't know how you can avoid it if you want to maintain any semblance of a schedule. Now that I'm back to making night trips in a king air (just like back in college, have i made no progress?????) I'm reminded that turboprops live in icing altitudes, unable to go higher and too thirsty to go lower.

I'm not "avoiding it". I fly right into it. It has never amounted to anything.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 15:38

Username Protected wrote:

Except for the Eclipse, the rest are largely perceived as "professionally" flown.
Tim

Oh here we go.... The SF50 somehow get's you for point A to B differently than a Mustang does? Requires a "pro" to handle that Garmin right? LOL.

I hate to break to all of you but I'll bet $100 that MOST SF50's end up being privately owned but pro-flown.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 17:05

Great points, a few comments inline:

Username Protected wrote:

The analogy I use is asking a group of bicycle owners what they want to see in a car.

I like that analogy.

Quote:

When Eclipse was founded, Dayjet didn't exist. How did they get started with no market? Your version is bit like revisionist history, and after the fact explanation that didn't really happen. Eclipse was, and always was, a personal jet market. They even wrote white papers on that "new" market.

Eclipse was a "new market" - they founded the company with no existing market. Part of their fund raising would have included a story about how they intended to create that market, and what it would look like. They needed to sell 1000/year, so they had to tell investors a very good story.

I've always suspected but never confirmed that DayJet started with Vern asking a buddy with a networking background and airplane obsession to create a company that would buy Eclipse's. Call this "Graham's conspiracy theory #384." No data. But it's weird that Vern started his jet company, then shortly thereafter another couple with a tech background decided to buy enough airplanes to make Vern profitable and based their new company (DayJet) on a non-existing market as well. It would explain his solution to a huge ecosystem problem.

I haven't read anything to suggest Eclipse started with the plan to sell most of their planes to owner-operators. The air taxi and SATS concepts were promoted by NASA around 2000 and the VLJ and the Eclipse were tightly intertwined with that concept. There's the 2001 NASA SATS paper that specifically mentions Eclipse and has a photo of a Columbia 300. There's an AvWeb article from 2002 in which Vern Raburn stated one reason they dumped the Williams was due to questions around it's suitability for an air taxi duty cycle. The 2005 Collier Award won by the Eclipse cited the spurring "...of a new type of air travel - the air taxi" as part of the reason it won.

I cannot find reference to the white paper you mentioned, but I'd imagine it'd be a great read so if you have a copy or link, I'd love to have it.

Quote:

You know that? At this stage of deliveries for Eclipse, there were many to declare Eclipse was going to make it big, too.

The jury is still out, WAY out, on the SF50 being a commercial success. The major issue is exactly the same as Eclipse, an order book where most of them are priced at or below cost. We know at least into the 300s positions, the price is the $1.39M number. I simply don't think Cirrus can make a profit at that number. For one thing, that is only $500-600K more than an SR22 and the parts and labor on an SF50 have to be triple that of an SR22.

You're correct. I won't speculate on Cirrus's future success or lack thereof with the SF50. It is worth noting that Cirrus introduced the SR22 for $279k in 2001, and they now sell them for triple that.

Quote:

There's this belief that had the SF50 been a twin, the Cirrus customer base would have rejected it. I believe that to be hugely false. Cirrus marketing would have seen to that.

Mike C.

That's probably right re: the marketing. But they didn't, I assume they calculated that they had a better chance at commercial success doing it this way. We'll have to wait to find out. We've already discussed the competitive marketplace, product differentiation, the target buyer, etc. You and I see that differently.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 17:25

Username Protected wrote:

Question: You are not including the inertial sep in your statement of never needing anti/de-icing equip, correct?

Needing = Ice is building on the wings and if I don't use the boots were gonna die.

Opening the inertial sep going into icing conditions is just "by the book". It's not "need".

I flew in perfect icing conditions today. -12 and moderate precipitation. I picked up plenty of ice. Not nearly enough to slow the plane or cause concern.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 17:26

Username Protected wrote:

The analogy I use is asking a group of bicycle owners what they want to see in a car.

Me too....

Attachment:

Slingshot.jpg

Attachment:

can-am.jpg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 18:01

Username Protected wrote:

Question: You are not including the inertial sep in your statement of never needing anti/de-icing equip, correct?

Needing = Ice is building on the wings and if I don't use the boots were gonna die.

Opening the inertial sep going into icing conditions is just "by the book". It's not "need".

I flew in perfect icing conditions today. -12 and moderate precipitation. I picked up plenty of ice. Not nearly enough to slow the plane or cause concern.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 18:03

So does the following represent this thread?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/dmzwfFDvWn4[/youtube]

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 18:35

My delusional thoughts:

I wish I could order ten SF50s today for $2.5 mil and get them in one month.

I would take $5,000 deposits at $2.6 mil and fly them to buyers for a two day trial.

Bettcha a 1955 double die penny they would all be gone in less than a month.

No airplane is perfect....Cept an SR71 that fits in my hangar, needs no maintenence and burns 10 gallons an hour of mogas

Biggest drawback to me is non RSVM......IT’S GONNA SELL ANYWAY

second biggest drawback is.......

I’m still thinking

Still....thinking

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 23:17

Username Protected wrote:

In almost 4000 hours of flying in the last 10 years I have NEVER used ice protection. Not once. I turn it and let it cycle to test it and sometimes I turn it on when I have a little ice on the wings just for the novelty but not one time have I had to use it.

If you spend 400 hrs/yr flying to the places you purport, this seems highly unlikely.
I fly less than half the hours you fly per year, to many of the same places, yet somehow I use deice systems (for real ice) quite often.

The 2nd worst icing event I've experienced was departing KCAE Columbia, SC on a nice night in early autumn...with a forecast of little or no ice. This has to be common in ATL.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 23:33

We are so close, guys.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2017, 23:35

I flew the SF50 last week. I have also flown an Eclipse, a Mustang, a TBM, a M500 and currently own an M600. With the exception of the Meridians, my time in the other plans were just demo flights. The Eclipse was more of a cross country from San Diego to Salt Lake City and I have about five hours in the TBM.

You guys really need to fly an SF50 to understand it before making some of these comments. For a piston step up plane, it's incredible and easily beats the competition. It is dirt simple to fly. I'm not talking about stick and rudder stuff - frankly once the engines are going all these planes are pretty easy to fly. I mean everything about it is simple. From start to landing to avionics to check lists, to training to maintenance, it is by far the least complicated plane to fly in this class. This is going to appeal to every piston pilot, especially Cirrus pilots and Garmin glass guys that are ready for more but are scared a twin jet is too much. It also has lower operating costs than either the Eclipse or the Mustang.

The interior of the SF50 is better than the TBM, the Meridians and the Eclipse. It's bigger with more cargo room and petter pilot comfort. I liked the Mustang a little better on the inside but I prefer facing seats in the back. The visibility and windows on the SF50 are staggeringly big.

Unless you need the range (which I do) or runway performance of a TP, I'd rather have a SF50 over a TBM or any Meridian. The TBM and M600 beat it on load too which can be a deal breaker for the SF50 buyer.

I agree flying at FL410 makes weather flying a lot easier than FL280 but new vs. new the SF50 is at least a million less than an Eclipse or Mustang and is much easier to learn. Soon enough we'll be able to compare used vs. used and I bet the SF50 will do really well against the used competition when that day comes.

Cirrus is gong to sell a bunch of these. They have done a better job of making the leap from piston to turbine much more approachable than any competitor.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2017, 00:12

Username Protected wrote:

I flew the SF50 last week. I have also flown an Eclipse, a Mustang, a TBM, a M500 and currently own an M600. With the exception of the Meridians, my time in the other plans were just demo flights. The Eclipse was more of a cross country from San Diego to Salt Lake City and I have about five hours in the TBM.

You guys really need to fly an SF50 to understand it before making some of these comments. For a piston step up plane, it's incredible and easily beats the competition. It is dirt simple to fly. I'm not talking about stick and rudder stuff - frankly once the engines are going all these planes are pretty easy to fly. I mean everything about it is simple. From start to landing to avionics to check lists, to training to maintenance, it is by far the least complicated plane to fly in this class. This is going to appeal to every piston pilot, especially Cirrus pilots and Garmin glass guys that are ready for more but are scared a twin jet is too much. It also has lower operating costs than either the Eclipse or the Mustang.

The interior of the SF50 is better than the TBM, the Meridians and the Eclipse. It's bigger with more cargo room and petter pilot comfort. I liked the Mustang a little better on the inside but I prefer facing seats in the back. The visibility and windows on the SF50 are staggeringly big.

Unless you need the range (which I do) or runway performance of a TP, I'd rather have a SF50 over a TBM or any Meridian. The TBM and M600 beat it on load too which can be a deal breaker for the SF50 buyer.

I agree flying at FL410 makes weather flying a lot easier than FL280 but new vs. new the SF50 is at least a million less than an Eclipse or Mustang and is much easier to learn. Soon enough we'll be able to compare used vs. used and I bet the SF50 will do really well against the used competition when that day comes.

Cirrus is gong to sell a bunch of these. They have done a better job of making the leap from piston to turbine much more approachable than any competitor.

Noooooooooo!
We have avoid logic for at least a dozen pages. How dare you bring it back.

More seriously, interesting perspective on the simplicity and comfort aspects.

Tim