BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 20:50

So Mike, would you think that an SF50 level “D” simulator is in Flight Safety’s future?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 20:59

Username Protected wrote:

That’s a personal attack Mike.

I disagree.

Your statement that an SF50 training is 50% of a twin jet is delusional.

That is no comment on your person or character, but you are deluded in that assessment.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 21:16

You snowflakes need to get a grip. Saying someone is delusional is about on the same level as saying you are wrong. He didn’t call your mom a whore or anything.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 21:25

Username Protected wrote:

Pulled up behind this guy at a stoplight

Right.
It’s a J E T

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 21:32

Username Protected wrote:

...He didn’t call your mom a whore or anything.

But that might be next!;)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 21:47

I think the issue with this thread is that on the surface it appears to be an argument about the how and the what, when in reality it is an argument about the why.

I believe the why behind Cirrus is the democratization of general aviation and I also believe there are some who really don’t like that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 21:58

I think this thread is more about the environment of jet airplane functionality. Bleed air is your friend but how much of it can be scavenged to meet environmental needs. Lose one (if you have two) then how quickly can you get to breathable altitudes?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 22:11

100 on the registry, probably a few foreign registrations.......

Attachment:

E3C4BFBB-FB98-47C7-841D-04DCE381EB6B.png

Well done Cirrus.

Peace,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 22:27

Username Protected wrote:

100 on the registry, probably a few foreign registrations.......

Attachment:

E3C4BFBB-FB98-47C7-841D-04DCE381EB6B.png

Well done Cirrus.

Peace,
Don

Pretty sure there are a couple of BTers in that list. They just dont want to wade into this trainwreck of a thread.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 22:33

Username Protected wrote:

Pretty sure there are a couple of BTers in that list. They just dont want to wade into this trainwreck of a thread.

That’s a shame.

Kind of reminds me of “the eclipse critic blog” of the late 2000s. We need a Ken here!

Andrew

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2019, 23:14

Saw a G2 today. Plane was built in November. Has 100 on it. Was in for 100hr inspection.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2019, 01:17

Username Protected wrote:

You snowflakes need to get a grip. Saying someone is delusional is about on the same level as saying you are wrong. He didn’t call your mom a whore or anything.

No, saying someone is delusional is on the same level as saying you are crazy.

Now, personally I don't mind when someone starts throwing around insults. Just be ready for a response in kind. :box:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2019, 01:28

Username Protected wrote:

So Mike, would you think that an SF50 level “D” simulator is in Flight Safety’s future?

Not likely.

Mostly because Cirrus has bundled training in the maintenance programs and because Cirrus probably wouldn't assist FSI in building a sim that could be level D.

In other words, barrier to entry.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2019, 01:44

Username Protected wrote:

100 on the registry

23 of the registrations are to Cirrus itself. That could even be planes that haven't flown yet but nearing end of the production line.

Quote:

probably a few foreign registrations.......

Only 1 so far, serial #14, 2-AUER (Guernsey, channel island off the coast of France).

Net result is 78 SF50s registered to customers, 77 in the US and 1 foreign.

The federal shutdown has not slowed registrations, the latest one in customer hands was dated 1/24/2019, yesterday (N178FA).

Mike C.