16 Jun 2024, 08:52 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 12:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3649 Post Likes: +2608 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1978 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It will be interesting to see the SF50 data in 10 years with a turbine and parachute. Thanks for taking the time to put that post together. It was very informative. I hope the SF50 statistics are positive. It will require a type rating and I'm sure Cirrus will have a thorough training program that comes with it.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 13:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13066 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think anyone who says a single engine is what they'd prefer is only fooling themselves.
Nobody has ever died in a Pilatus due to an engine failure...... EVER! 20 years. What other brand can you say that about? If what you write is true there would be more twin engine airplanes being built.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 18:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6060 Post Likes: +704 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
I do, it looks goofy. Everyone I know who as bought a Mustang is looking at the M2 or updated Citation so they can get more range and speed. If im buying a jet I want a real jet capable of flying 350 kts and RVSM to FL410 with range. Username Protected wrote: Am I the only one who thinks the SF50 looks hideous? Bulbous big nose, like a sperm getting pushed through the air with a V-tail at the back. I hope it does well of course, but I won't be buying it. I might be the only one who thinks the HondaJet looks great.
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 19:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12801 Post Likes: +5229 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If im buying a jet I want a real jet capable of flying 350 kts and RVSM to FL410 with range.
You aren't the target market. If you care about speed or range compared to another turbine aircraft, it's not for you.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 19:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13066 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If im buying a jet I want a real jet capable of flying 350 kts and RVSM to FL410 with range.
You aren't the target market. If you care about speed or range compared to another turbine aircraft, it's not for you. Agreed. For you Marc it's just like me..... CJ3 or Phenom 300. Anything smaller will get a ding for payload and range compared to the TBM. Not worth it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 22:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8497 Post Likes: +8545 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the new Epic once it is certified should be brought up. Very fast, hauls alot. Their website says 325 TAS, FL340 ceiling, 1,120 lbs payload with full fuel. Id take one of those in a heartbeat over the SF50. I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 22:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/26/11 Posts: 482 Post Likes: +289 Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the new Epic once it is certified should be brought up. Very fast, hauls alot. Their website says 325 TAS, FL340 ceiling, 1,120 lbs payload with full fuel. Id take one of those in a heartbeat over the SF50. I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.
There is one in the hangar next door and even though it's experimental I'd still take it. They are really nice.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 02 Dec 2014, 22:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8497 Post Likes: +8545 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Am I the only one who thinks the SF50 looks hideous? Bulbous big nose, like a sperm getting pushed through the air with a V-tail at the back. . I think the looks thing is transitory. I can remember some cars I hated when they first came out and then grew on me. With respect to the SF 50 I'm not that crazy about the panel, which is what I care about most, it's too clean. The outside? Meh. The panel is the thing a pilot wants to look at. Having said that the Aerostar is ugly. I've tried to like it but it just is missing something. Like a big chested woman who turns around to show her fat rear end. Some is good but the whole package is off. And, virtually 99% of them have crappy looking paint jobs. The Mits? I think the tip tanks look terrible and the plane looks like a fat bow legged chick from the front. But that's just my opinion... It's all in the eye of the beholder.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Dec 2014, 01:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/09/13 Posts: 244 Post Likes: +150 Location: KICT/KFFZ/KLAS
Aircraft: CE25B+/CE25C/DA40
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think the new Epic once it is certified should be brought up. Very fast, hauls alot. Their website says 325 TAS, FL340 ceiling, 1,120 lbs payload with full fuel. Id take one of those in a heartbeat over the SF50. I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.
I think you will be presently surprised. The new company has a lot of cash.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Dec 2014, 08:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/02/09 Posts: 168 Post Likes: +137
Aircraft: M20E
|
|
Does the epic have a parachute? I know they were talking about it but don't know if it's going to happen
_________________ Ipc, BFR.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 03 Dec 2014, 12:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/18/09 Posts: 1145 Post Likes: +203 Company: Elemental - Pipistrel Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Whats' the reliability of the Williams engine used in the SF50? Any reason it would be much diffeent than the PT6? No reduction or prop should be a plus. As per Jason's comments - that would may a chute pretty much unneccesary. Just something to provide warm and fuzzy feelings. (But I expect many folk will want that with a single engine jet)
By now Cirrus and chute are pretty synonymous. Every Cirrus will have a chute.... I wouldn't buy the airplane for the chute because of reliability of the engine. I would buy the aircraft because my wife would want the chute in case something happens to me. Everyone seems to miss that the chute probably has gotten more spouses/significant others/kids into small airplanes than anything else. Candidly, I never hear much from my passengers (both in my plane and others) about mechanical reliability - it is all about something happening to the pilot during flight. Now, I don't have stats, but I think that is very low probability, but it is an irrational fear that is now addressed perfectly.
_________________ -- Jason Talley Pipistrel Distributor http://www.elemental.aero
CJ2+ 7GCBC A-1C Husky
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|