This is how car dealers have been as well, with 5-6% financing and supply chain issues resolved, this will change rapidly

First off....I barely afford my old stretch debbie.... I'm not looking at jets....

I didn't know the guys in the video... I thought maybe they were Epic salesman to bash the CJ so badly.

Since when did performance matter? Marketing, sizzle, and sex appeal.... sell most things... even in aviation....did I say marketing?

I was at a 5000 foot Texas airport last fall and a CJ was based there. Took most of the runway to get off the ground.... inital climb was pathetic.... only slowly climbed and accelerated.... and that was on a cool fall day... not a 100+ summer day.

We went over and got a good look at the jet. Beautiful paint job with bright vibrant colors, sexy curves/ lines and a "V" tail...nice cabin....State of the art avionics.... a JET ENGINE.... and a Parachute.

Leldon

If a Cirrus Jet showed up in my hangar, I would not throw it out. Granted there are some single engine turboprops that have equal or better performance for maybe the same capital investment. 300 kts is a pretty good step up in performance when coming from most piston aircraft. Flying in low flight levels it is probably better compared to a turboprop than other turbojet aircraft.

Sounds like one of those repercussions of staying out at the local watering hole past midnight, and if an SF50 showed up in my hangar, it would draw the same response of “ what in the hell was I thinking”?

Yeah, the tone of the video was a bit over the top. That guy has some insecurity/jealousy issues that he needs to work out.

There are plenty of airplanes, boats, cars, etc that don't fit my mission but may fit other people's missions. If it doesn't fit your mission then don't buy one.

Everything in life is a compromise. Cirrus made the decisions that they thought would be best for their customers and the company. I most recently flew a G6 SR-22 (part of a club - never owned one) and it was a great machine. Visibility was excellent, cabin was comfortable, avionics integration was solid, training and support network outstanding. My wife liked the idea of the parachute in case I keeled over mid-flight. Also, the interior is very car-like compared to, say, a brand new Bonanza that still looks like 1969 inside. Heck, even the key fob for locking and unlocking looks like a car. It makes people feel comfortable being inside it and how you feel goes a long way to buying, whether it's a house, car, boat, or airplane.

Finally, the endless comments about the wing shape just shows ignorance. If all jets should have heavily swept wings then Learjets should still dominate the industry and Citations shouldn't exist. There is something to be said for the docile slow-speed handling characteristics of a straight wing. Mike C will be along shortly to describe how the wing on the 560 is a great compromise between swept and straight and I agree. But as a low time pilot, my plane really does fly like a big 182 (that stalls at 82 knots and cruises at 365 knots). It never makes any sudden moves even when super slow. I do dream of a 560 but it would have been too much airplane for me to start - a straight wing jet is the perfect stepping stone.

Sounds like one of those repercussions of staying out at the local watering hole past midnight, and if an SF50 showed up in my hangar, it would draw the same response of “ what in the hell was I thinking”?

I think this is it exactly.

Know a case in point. Guy started on his PPL. Tooled around for a couple hours in a C172, got into a new SR22. Finished PPL and IR. Flew it around for a while.

Put his money down on SF-50, got one of the early ones. Flew it a round for a while.

Now is looking at CJs and Phenoms. He has the cash/net worth/capital. Wants to own and fly.

I submit for argument, that if it weren’t for the SF-50, he might not be in the same space. He might have thought the jump from SR22 to C560 too great. He might have thought a jump to a turboprop like a C90 didn’t seem worth it. Etc…etc…. I also suggest that it is not marketed as a “jet” in the way old school pilots think of Citations, Lears and Gulfstreams. Cirrus markets it as a jet, yes, but with limitations. Apparently lots of people are OK with the SF-50 limits. And then after they have flown it several hundred hours, it becomes the gateway drug…

In other words, Cirrus made it easy for this guy I know, like Mike suggests. “Oh, you want a better plane than C172? We can help with that. Oh, you want to go 130kts faster? We can help with that.”

Must have been practicing one engine out takeoff, but even then, it should have used a lot less.

On ISA day, max weight, no wind, early model CJ (the least power) takes 3080 ft of runway, to 35 ft AGL, *AFTER* an engine fails at rotation on the runway. You can imagine it will be MUCH better if both engines operate through out the takeoff.

Takeoff ground roll is about 2000 ft, so way less than half the runway. I'm off the ground in 1500 ft typically in my plane.

The Cirrus SF-50 takeoff distance is listed as 2036 ft. That is ground roll only, no clearance height. So it uses about the same runway as the CJ.

The SF-50 engine out performance is, well, not great. The CJ wins that one easily.

Mike C.

Seems like a decade or 2 ago the bashing was about the Slowtations and how they needed rear looking radar to keep the TSTM from overtaking them as well as birdcages on the exhaust to keep birds from overtaking and flying up the jetpipe. Looks like the 500 line and CJs are no longer the horse to take the beating as the Cirrus VisionJet has taken it up.



If the buy in was much lower in the used Bonanza line prices then it would be pretty much ideal for me. I'm just a lowly corporate pilot with no other "side hustle" to be able to afford it. I'm struggling with the current A36 used prices and then having to spend about $50k just to update the panel with modest modern avionics. Hence I'm still airplane-less.

Must have been practicing one engine out takeoff, but even then, it should have used a lot less.

On ISA day, max weight, no wind, early model CJ (the least power) takes 3080 ft of runway, to 35 ft AGL, *AFTER* an engine fails at rotation on the runway. You can imagine it will be MUCH better if both engines operate through out the takeoff.

Takeoff ground roll is about 2000 ft, so way less than half the runway. I'm off the ground in 1500 ft typically in my plane.

The Cirrus SF-50 takeoff distance is listed as 2036 ft. That is ground roll only, no clearance height. So it uses about the same runway as the CJ.

The SF-50 engine out performance is, well, not great. The CJ wins that one easily.

Mike C.

Ah, that makes more sense now.

Yes, the SF-50 is a bit of a runway hog despite having a lot of power for its weight.

Mike C.

It is always entertaining the animus the SF50 seems to bring, especially the "real jet-sters" who have straight-wing Citations, who used to be the lowest on the totem pole of "jets".

That and I REALLY wish Eclipse hadn't sh1t the bed.

Haha - I agree (even though I fly a very slow straight wing Citation) - don’t get the animosity either…