“Thou shalt have no god before me....”

(Did I read that in the BT rules?)

I'm sure every real jet maker sees SF50 owners as potential customers when they find out they don't have a real jet.

Thee are already a fair number of SF50s for sale with a couple hundred hours.


An SF50 chute after a MANPADS hit is unlikely to be functional, and neither are the occupants. Flying higher and faster would probably lead to more safety than having an SF50 with a chute, but that requires a real jet.

So far, zero uses of the SF50 chute, so no lives "saved". It may be quite a while before we have our first one.

One of the "benefits" of the SR20/22 series having unreliable engines is that Cirrus gets a lot of good publicity from that with the chute deployments plus more sales on replacement aircraft. Not a great thing when less reliability drives more revenue.

The SF50 is not providing the same "benefits" so far.

Mike C.

I never considered this issue in my purchase decision.

I need to go research STCs for counter measures. Should I get chaff or flares? Maybe both?

Mike C.

Exactly, you aren't getting high enough, literally.

Mike C.

Exactly, you aren't getting high enough, literally.

Mike C.

If a dedicated Citation V owner and an SF50 owner buy their airplane, operate it on the same missions, and then sell in 5 years, it isn't clear to me the SF50 was cheaper when considering net dollars.

Mike C.

I'm sure every real jet maker sees SF50 owners as potential customers when they find out they don't have a real jet.

Thee are already a fair number of SF50s for sale with a couple hundred hours.


An SF50 chute after a MANPADS hit is unlikely to be functional, and neither are the occupants. Flying higher and faster would probably lead to more safety than having an SF50 with a chute, but that requires a real jet.

So far, zero uses of the SF50 chute, so no lives "saved". It may be quite a while before we have our first one.

One of the "benefits" of the SR20/22 series having unreliable engines is that Cirrus gets a lot of good publicity from that with the chute deployments plus more sales on replacement aircraft. Not a great thing when less reliability drives more revenue.

The SF50 is not providing the same "benefits" so far.

Mike C.

...and it's also a V-tail!!!

BT is a religion.

Mike C.

I've heard several of those slang terms. "Nearjet" and "Slowtation" come to mind. However, since the Learjet is no longer, I'll call it the past jet instead of the fast jet.

If a dedicated Citation V owner and an SF50 owner buy their airplane, operate it on the same missions, and then sell in 5 years, it isn't clear to me the SF50 was cheaper when considering net dollars.

Mike C.

Good point Chuck, and begs the question why the Citation got SP certification and the Lear 24 didn't. I can only think it was the performance, but there's only one guy on the controls at a time in either jet.

If they would give me SP authorization for a Lear 24, I'd buy that one on Controller and have my friends chip in for gas on the $1,000 hamburger flights.

In the 2 1/2 years I operated the Lear 24 it had almost 100% dispatch reliability, and the maintenance costs were low, operating Part 91. We kept a 10,000 gallon tank of Jet-A at the ranch which helped keep the fuel costs down.

But I'd still like to have a Cirrus SF50, unfortunately they're out of my income bracket, but I have my eye on this popular idea of "income equality." Why should a guy have two jets, when I have none?

"Income equality" means no one has a jet.

Making the rich poor doesn't make the poor rich.

Mike C.

"Income equality" means no one has a jet.

Making the rich poor doesn't make the poor rich.

Mike C.

Man, if you're kvetching about who has the better jet, your life is pretty damn good. Sometimes a little perspective is important.