Turboprop pilots are allowed to be less trained for financial reasons, not because they are easier. Basically jet expectations are higher artificially, not because the jet is harder to fly.

My jet recurrent is not materially longer than MU2 one was. It took about 2 days in airplane either way.


Not when an engine quits.

Which procedures are easier in the turboprop? Are they related at all to being a twin?


Give me an example of something harder to do in a twin jet than a single turboprop.

It can't be engine failure, the twin wins that one easily. Now with both engines operating, how is the twin different than the single? It is not.

Mike C.

Correct.

What I underestimated was Cirrus ability to sell an inferior product to their brand loyal believers.

The four major parameters of any airplane is speed, range, altitude, and payload. The SF50 scores poorly in all four areas.

It is an expensive airplane to own for what it does.

I also note that the fact Cirrus is owned by China is somehow simply ignored.

The SF50 development program was probably the principle reason Cirrus got sold in the first place, it put Cirrus on the brink of bankruptcy. Cirrus profits go to China now.

Mike C.

Those folks had progress payments and waited a long time to get their airplanes. To compute their TCO would require knowing all the payments they made on given dates and their expenses. It will still come to a large number.


They could have been flying a more capable airplane for less during that time, and today they could certainly buy a more capable airplane if they waited with what they invested.

Correct.

What I underestimated was Cirrus ability to sell an inferior product to their brand loyal believers.

The four major parameters of any airplane is speed, range, altitude, and payload. The SF50 scores poorly in all four areas.

It is an expensive airplane to own for what it does.

I also note that the fact Cirrus is owned by China is somehow simply ignored.

The SF50 development program was probably the principle reason Cirrus got sold in the first place, it put Cirrus on the brink of bankruptcy. Cirrus profits go to China now.

Mike C.

$1.6M in 2016 is now $5.0M. If they sell for $1.8M now, they will be out a total of about $5M on 2026 dollars for the use of the plane for 10 years. That is the TCO for the SF50 for the last 10 years *if* you got it below cost as an early position holder.

Is $5M negligible? Hmm.

Mike C.

Ouch, that hurts.


Actually, an SEJ is not a new idea. The first proposed SEJ was by, of all companies, Gulfstream, with the Peregrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_Peregrine

43 years ago. Like the SF50, it was borne of misguided thinking and the project died when saner heads prevailed. Cirrus didn't know when to stop, so they finally, after nearly bankrupting the company and selling to the Chinese, made one lame airplane and got it to market.

They have superior marketing selling an inferior airplane. Nearly all SF50 owners are prior SR owners, so it really only sells within a small cultish market.

I was annoyed that Eclipse fracked up with avionics and system decisions and Cirrus fracked up with planform decisions. If we could have taken the best of both concepts and merged them, we'd have a really revolutionary airplane. But now, each had to be crippled in some serious and unfixable way. Both companies had head strong religions that led them to bad outcomes. If only they had listened to just a tiny bit of expert guidance, what a difference that would have made.

Mike C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstrea ... an_Hustler

Well, the Peregrine sure led me down a rabbit hole! Thanks, Mike........never knew either of those planes existed......but I was only 8 or so at the time!!!!

Ouch, that hurts.


Actually, an SEJ is not a new idea. The first proposed SEJ was by, of all companies, Gulfstream, with the Peregrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_Peregrine

43 years ago. Like the SF50, it was borne of misguided thinking and the project died when saner heads prevailed. Cirrus didn't know when to stop, so they finally, after nearly bankrupting the company and selling to the Chinese, made one lame airplane and got it to market.

They have superior marketing selling an inferior airplane. Nearly all SF50 owners are prior SR owners, so it really only sells within a small cultish market.

I was annoyed that Eclipse fracked up with avionics and system decisions and Cirrus fracked up with planform decisions. If we could have taken the best of both concepts and merged them, we'd have a really revolutionary airplane. But now, each had to be crippled in some serious and unfixable way. Both companies had head strong religions that led them to bad outcomes. If only they had listened to just a tiny bit of expert guidance, what a difference that would have made.

Mike C.

And to throw more jet fuel on the fire… the SF50 has outsold the Citation V/Ultra by a wide margin.

Dang, using math like that I sure hate to think what that Starbucks coffee I bought back in 2016 cost me

Given the hull value of SETPs, I bet they are spending quite a bit more on insurance than I do. The SF50 is likely even more.

I pay more for fuel, SETP guys pay more for sunk capital. My fuel costs scales with use, the sunk capital doesn't.

Mike C.

Dang, using math like that I sure hate to think what that Starbucks coffee I bought back in 2016 cost me

Sometimes you just have to enjoy life and forget about the rest because you never know when it will end.

Willful blindness seems to be the most common coping mechanism for dealing with the financial impact of capex for an aircraft. The focus on operating cost ignores the often larger impact of capex on the total cost of ownership.

My life is more enjoyable because I am aware of the capex impact and I fly a plane that would otherwise be beyond my means if I didn't take that into account.

Mike C.