BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:03

Username Protected wrote:

My decision to buy PC12 was 100% because I fly in and out of Atlanta. Nobody gets direct to FL410. Going to NYC from Atlanta you'll be lucky to get to FL210 and then they drop you to 13K around Washington D.C. My buddy coming back from NYC in an Excel not long ago had to stop for gas in NC because of head winds and ATC keeping him low.

If I was based at a non towered airport in Kansas, I'd have a jet.

The above is wrong, all-around

Didn't descend below 13,000' until 15 minutes prior to landing, and cruised at FL370.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N112 ... /KATL/KHPN

Another flight cruising at FL370, and descending below 13,000' 15 minutes prior to landing.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL1 ... /KATL/KJFK

My tail number is blocked so cannot be tracked, but we did KPDK to KHPN about three weeks ago and flew at FL400, and were not descended to 13,000' until in the vicinity of JFK. We were on this arrival:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1412/00651BOUNO.PDF

As far "nobody gets direct to FL410," that's not true either as is evidenced by my experience, as well as this flight track.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DPJ3 ... /KPDK/KTEB

As far as your buddy in the Excel coming from NY to Atlanta needing a fuel stop, I can assure you, there's more to the story. A Citation Excel can do the entire trip below 15,000' and still make it with very adequate reserves.
http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/ces ... ls_fpg.pdf

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:05

How fast would the SF50 be going using your assumptions?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:05

Username Protected wrote:

The above is wrong, all-around

Didn't descend below 13,000' until 15 minutes prior to landing, and cruised at FL370.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N112 ... /KATL/KHPN

Another flight cruising at FL370, and descending below 13,000' 15 minutes prior to landing.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL1 ... /KATL/KJFK

My tail number is blocked so cannot be tracked, but we did KPDK to KHPN about three weeks ago and flew at FL400, and were not descended to 13,000' until in the vicinity of JFK. We were on this arrival:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1412/00651BOUNO.PDF

As far "nobody gets direct to FL410," that's not true either as is evidenced by my experience, as well as this flight track.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DPJ3 ... /KPDK/KTEB

As far as your buddy in the Excel coming from NY to Atlanta needing a fuel stop, I can assure you, there's more to the story. A Citation Excel can do the entire trip below 15,000' and still make it with very adequate reserves.
http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/ces ... ls_fpg.pdf

Thanks for referencing Gulfstreams and Challenger. How about some single pilot jets? You know, the kind a BT'er would fly.

Your CJ3 was brought to 13K' 30 minutes before landing.

You reference a Delta flight? Why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:11

Username Protected wrote:

Why are they waiting for the SF50? They can scratch that itch today with no waiting.

I agree. I'm not sure who "they" is. I don't want an SF50. Never will. I also don't want an SR22 but they sure do sell.

I love the SF50. I love the operating costs that are now on paper. We all need to wait and see what this thing really does once it's out. The whole discussion is "academic". Mike Ciholas seems to think he already knows it can't work and maybe he's right. I just don't think Cirrus is dumb enough to invest this much time and money into something that can't work.

I suppose we will see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:14

Username Protected wrote:

It's his opinion as it is mine that the plane will never be profitable maybe never sold.

But the reasons you claim so are reasons that were widely known BEFORE Cirrus ever took this project on right? You guys speak as though these issues are "JET101". How could Cirrus make such a miscalculation?

I don't agree with comparing Cirrus to Moller, Starship and some of the others. Cirrus has proven many folks wrong.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:14

Username Protected wrote:

Thanks for referencing Gulfstreams and Challenger. How about some single pilot jets? You know, the kind a BT'er would fly.

Your CJ3 was brought to 13K' 30 minutes before landing.

You reference a Delta flight? Why?

Man you're quick..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:24

Username Protected wrote:

It's his opinion as it is mine that the plane will never be profitable maybe never sold.

But the reasons you claim so are reasons that were widely known BEFORE Cirrus ever took this project on right? You guys speak as though these issues are "JET101". How could Cirrus make such a miscalculation?

I don't agree with comparing Cirrus to Moller, Starship and some of the others. Cirrus has proven many folks wrong.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:26

Username Protected wrote:

IF I were in the lofty position to write type limitations for an aircraft, one that I didn't want to go into RVSM airspace would I:

Make the limitation 280, as in no flight above 280.

or

Make the limitation below FL290

Knowing that SF50 pilots are going to be challenged to top weather, I would do the later so that a pilot could request a block and pick up an extra 999' of altitude ATC permitting without exceeding the service ceiling.

Once again, I am just saying what I would do, maybe you can educate me on what Cirrus will do?

Would not matter; at least not in the USA. Non-RVSM aircraft must be separated by 2,000' vertically. So an RVSM aircraft at FL300 needs 2,000' separation from a non-RVSM at FL280. In other words, if a SF50 requested a block altitude above FL280, it would almost certainly be denied, because that would put it in conflict with RVSM traffic and/or RVSM airspace.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:30

Username Protected wrote:

Thanks for referencing Gulfstreams and Challenger. How about some single pilot jets? You know, the kind a BT'er would fly.

Your CJ3 was brought to 13K' 30 minutes before landing.

You reference a Delta flight? Why?

Why do you feel that a single pilot jet would be treated differently by ATC, as far as altitudes are concerned?

The Delta flight was referenced to show that ATC will give altitudes above FL210 and isn't descended abeam Washington DC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:31

Username Protected wrote:

Most if not all manufactures have made a SF50 because they misjudged the market.

Define "misjudged the market". If the SF50 does 200 knots and burns 100 gallons an hour I agree it's not a viable airplane. But Cirrus would have known this years ago and could've pulled the plug by now. If the SF50 does what Cirrus says it will do right now then the market is more than there. It's huge.

Again, I feel the issues you present are JET101. Why wouldn't they just pull the plug now and go work on something else?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:34

Username Protected wrote:

Why do you feel that a single pilot jet would be treated differently by ATC, as far as altitudes are concerned?

The Delta flight was referenced to show that ATC will give altitudes above FL210 and isn't descended abeam Washington DC.

You gotta be kidding.

Phenom 300, CJ, Pilatus Jet, SF50 etc. are single pilot jets that are much slower than a Gulfstream at FL410. So they get in the way. C'mon man. You referencing $50MM jets flown by a crew is totally inaccurate. You should delete that post. It's misleading. The thread is about the SF50 and at the very least "owner flown, SP jets". Don't bring a Delta 737 into the mix. That's silly.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:48

Username Protected wrote:

Again, I feel the issues you present are JET101. Why wouldn't they just pull the plug now and go work on something else?

Perhaps they didn't take JET101?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:49

Username Protected wrote:

Again, I feel the issues you present are JET101. Why wouldn't they just pull the plug now and go work on something else?

Perhaps they didn't take JET101?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:57

The plane will match the pilot with the SF50.

Nobody goes from an unpressurized piston single to a twin jet (without a lot of help).

The jet is a half step, and allows a direct transition for Cirrus flyers. It is somewhat limited, and that alone reduces skill requirement. Cool factor is high. If it is simple, reliable, and has decent numbers it will save many pilots a step and could be justified on that point alone.

If the engine can be tuned for lower altitudes, vfr departures would give it a big advantage over twin jets. Avoiding DPs and arrivals is a major savings around here.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2014, 19:58

Jason, I think you just don't ask nicely enough.

yesterday KFTY-KAPF. FL410
Pretty much right up.

Cirrus SF50