You lost the SF50 debate a long time ago Mike. Take your lumps, it'll be ok.

What the rest of us see:

I'm not here to win, I'm here to educate for those who still have open minds.

You should ignore what I post since you have formed a hard opinion.

Mike C.

Mr Investor wrote on BT:

"But unless comparing to a piston, I have never heard the Vision described as quiet."

Would not this be true in any market conditions? Some sell, some slow down? Prices go up and down. Come on Chip, sounds like you're trying to keep it positive. What's the real deal?

I'm not here to win, I'm here to educate for those who still have open minds.

You should ignore what I post since you have formed a hard opinion.

Mike C.

What's wrong with the low FL30s flying? That's where I fly most of the time in a twin jet engine plane. Why? It's the fastest from point A to point B most of the time for me. It's my highest TAS and it means I'm climbing less and cruising more. Sure PPH suffers but if I don't need the range, why would I fly slower, higher?

Chip-

Because Mike said so.

Because it’s the heart of thunderstorms in the south Chip. Worst place to be.

M2 Max cruise at FL410 = +/- 390 KTAS
SF50 Max Cruise at FL310 = + 310 KTAS

M2 Range @ Max Cruise with a 200nm alternate to empty = 1,247 nm
SF50 Range @ Max Cruise with a 200nm alternate to empty - 987 nm

M2 Payload, full fuel to MTOW (my plane) = 540 lbs
SF50 Payload (my plane), full fuel to MTOW = 358 lbs (4 seats installed)

* the M2 will take an additional 100 lbs of fuel beyond book, allowing for a bit more range, but a bit less full fuel payload.

Safety: Debatable, assuming the same pilot qualifications in both aircraft. I could make arguments both ways.

Insurance: I have paid about 1% of hull value for each of these planes, with the same liability coverage each time. Accordingly, the M2 is considerably more expensive to insure. My CJ3+ is just under 1%, but I think that is partially attributable to a better market now, than a couple of years ago.

I think it is fair top say that my M2 is roughly close to 2X the ownership cost of the SF50. I'd have to do the numbers, but I think I am close.

If my mission were 600nm to 800nm, I would go back to the SF50 in a heartbeat. If I needed shorter field performance, or more range/payload I would go with a SETP. If I wanted to go with an older airframe, I think you nailed it with your V, which obviously provides a great combination of economics and performance.

The market has spoken. Some of us may not agree with market choices, but our disagreement, except for our own, particular situation, is largely irrelevant.

For years Apple had a much simpler, more robust operating system. Some would say it still does. But it did not matter, for lots of reasons, some software related, Microsoft largely owns the PC operating system world. We can rail about whether we agree with it or not, but our railing is largely irrelevant.

Same with Cirrus. Looked hard at the Cirrus piston single. There are aspects of it that we did not like, and went the twin route. Doesn't matter... they build the most popular, single engine piston in the world.

OK Cirrus jet.... we can rail all we want about what we perceive, at an individual level, are its benefits and its shortcomings. Does not matter... they delivered 101 units in 2024. That's right over one hundred, single engine jets. And people who are buying new SF50s have made enough $$ to afford same. So in some respects, they have made some good decisions in their lives. They are not all stupid or ignorant of the SF50 benefits and limitations. They have just decided that for their mission, the benefits outweigh the limitations.

Given the market success of their piston singles and single engine jets, not sure I would be first in line to question the wisdom of Cirrus' product decisions.

Don't know why on earth folks cannot just accept that we have different tastes, different pocketbooks, different missions, different preferences. It is OK that people like different things and make different purchasing decisions. If everyone liked the same "stuff" the demand would make things even pricer and less affordable.

Some of us like esoteric, no longer made, turbo props and legacy jets. Super, enjoy, seriously enjoy every minute. Some of us like different planes... even Cirri.... let those enjoy them.

M2 Max cruise at FL410 = +/- 390 KTAS
SF50 Max Cruise at FL310 = + 310 KTAS

M2 Range @ Max Cruise with a 200nm alternate to empty = 1,247 nm
SF50 Range @ Max Cruise with a 200nm alternate to empty - 987 nm

M2 Payload, full fuel to MTOW (my plane) = 540 lbs
SF50 Payload (my plane), full fuel to MTOW = 358 lbs (4 seats installed)

* the M2 will take an additional 100 lbs of fuel beyond book, allowing for a bit more range, but a bit less full fuel payload.

Safety: Debatable, assuming the same pilot qualifications in both aircraft. I could make arguments both ways.

Insurance: I have paid about 1% of hull value for each of these planes, with the same liability coverage each time. Accordingly, the M2 is considerably more expensive to insure. My CJ3+ is just under 1%, but I think that is partially attributable to a better market now, than a couple of years ago.

I think it is fair top say that my M2 is roughly close to 2X the ownership cost of the SF50. I'd have to do the numbers, but I think I am close.

If my mission were 600nm to 800nm, I would go back to the SF50 in a heartbeat. If I needed shorter field performance, or more range/payload I would go with a SETP. If I wanted to go with an older airframe, I think you nailed it with your V, which obviously provides a great combination of economics and performance.

All this talk about quiet and roomy interiors in 4 million dollar aircraft is frankly laughable compared to the Piaggio Avanti. The SF50 is a garbage truck in comparison to the Piaggios cabin comfort and speed… for 1/2 the money (and 70 knots faster).

Why did you compare the new price of one plane to the used price of the other?

Do they have similar operating costs?


IMO, you’re comparing a banana and an end table. Wildly different buyers, missions, markets, etc.