Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Sinistar, Jan 20, 2020.
Where are these countless crashes you speak of?
They are nice if you have a Kodiak mission. Carrying lots of stuff often to short crappy runways. Otherwise, they are slooooow, at least for a turbine, and burn fuel about as fast as you can empty 5 gallon cans of Jet-A into the tanks. ;-)
Never had the mission. But I still like them for some reason. I got a ride in the pattern with one once. Very fun plane. So I just think it is some emotional attachment; not logical.
Is that what Bryan did at the end of his video, when he tossed aside the rejection letter from Cirrus?
My question too.
Sounds more like you have an issue with people who have more money than you...
Every rich CEO:
I think that sort of cartoonish stereotyping of those rare individuals fortunate enough to have acquired the skill sets required to run a major corporation is, frankly, childish and not worthy of a forum such as this.
I think it’s more fair to picture them thusly...
I was thinking about this discussion..relative to how these things are so expensive that the price of a SE cirrus is bumping into jet pricing
and other recent discussions regarding what cessna singles are selling for these days on the used market.
how much did a typical single engine or light twin cost back in the day, relative to an average person's salary.... say in the 1950's, 1960's, early 1970's
...or, another maybe better way of asking....was the price of a typical GA aircraft on par with the cost of say a family car....or was it more like "way more than a really nice house" like it is today?
That price of the Cirrus may be greater than, or equal to, the price of an old Citation, but the operating costs are vastly different.
True story. There are legit, flyable jets you can buy for under $100K
Average income: $4,454
Ford car: $1748-$3151
And to add to this..
Average cost of college: $690, plus $50 for books https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-history/tuition/tuition-1950-1959
Our society and economics are properly F$%&'ed!
I came of age in the 1960’s.
As a rough rule-of-thumb, prices on things are roughly 10x what they were then.
Planes have gone up more. In the mid 1970’s I lusted after a new C-150 Aerobat,which I think was just over $10,000 - well out of my reach. A new equivalent would certainly be more than 10x that today.
This. For example, the TBMs are actually faster than the SF50 AND they cost way less to operate. They do cost more to buy new, though.
Going down-market in the turbine single world, you have the Meridian/M500/M600. The M500 is directly competitive with the SF50 on price, and though it is somewhat slower, not enough to really matter. So, you can buy for the same price as the SF50 and operate for way less.
To really come up with a good option between the SR22T and the SF50, Cirrus would need to come out with a pressurized, 6-seat, 400-500 shp SETP that cruises at around 260 knots and has the new autoland function as well as all of the other safety/automation things Cirrus is known for, and sell it in the $1.6 million range. I have no doubt they could do it, the question is whether the market is big enough to support the R&D that would go into it.
Absolutely. That's one thing I noticed right away when I started flying the TBM. The cruise portion of the flight is dreadfully boring most of the time. You're usually above a layer or three and even if you aren't you can't see much of anything on the ground. It beats flying the airlines but it has really made me appreciate my Mooney that much more. I doubt I will ever buy anything that isn't normally aspirated.
That said, if I win the lottery I'm still going to have a jet for travel... But I'll also have a giant hangar full of toys that are more fun. And probably an Aerobatic Bonanza or SF260 for down-low travel and fun.
I had to look this one up. At first I mistakenly thought you were making a joke, about the Cirrus SF50 jet.
It's a 1960s vintage Italian piston single, aerobatic, mainly sold for training military pilots.
That's the one. Good for cross countries AND for alleviating boredom on said cross countries by turning it upside down now and then.
Yeah, they're hen's teeth for sure. IMO, RVs get the same thing accomplished on much less money and more availability.
I tell you what though, ever since I found out about them I've been fascinated by the YAK-18T. That would be one hoot to tote the family in cross-country. Talk about ramp appeal at the FBO. Not quite Beech 18 cachet, but it would certainly be a conversation starter. Slow/draggy as heck, but pretty snappy for a big ol aerobatic airplane.
Looks like the love child of a Globe Swift and a Twin Bonanza!
Damn! I had no idea this existed, and now I want one too..!
Looks like there's one for sale on trade a plane for $84K
The "T" in Yak-18T stands for "Touring". Can't believe someone thought about that beyond the Iron Curtain. The people hardly had any cars. Of course the real use was VIP transport, such as it was.
BTW, one rumor that I heard in relation to TRAC SR20 was that SR18 is not at all abandoned or made obsolete by TRAC. The development continues, and it may yet come online as TRAC SR18. That is going to happen ahead of any twin or turboprop.
Personally I suspect that if Cirrus made a turboprop, it would cannibalize SF50. There was too much seething by rich owner pilots about the lack of performance on the jet. A well-executed turboprop is going to fly faster, farther, with more payload, and land on shorter runways. The only thing SF50 had going for it was its chute. But if Cirrus were to build that turboprop, then it would have a chute too. So, I would rather expect them to gradually increase the performance of the jet instead. Expect SF55. You heard it here first.
Cirrus is positioned as a premium brand so going down market on anything probably want happen. If they do anything I would expect the next step will either be a Turbine engine option on the current SR22 airframe, or a twin engine more capable jet.
Haha, you can blame me for that. I’m surprised that one is still for sale.
Or turbo diesel. Lots of markets outside the US would like that as JetA is far more available in most places, and cheaper too.
Doubt it. Cessna and Piper both have tried the diesel and failed. As long as 100LL is available in the major market nobody is willing to pay more to get less performance and have an unknown engine.
Part of what works for them is their clean and simple brand identity.. you get a piston, or jet.. the piston line up is more or less the same plane with various degrees of performance. Licensing is always been straightforward too, requiring only basic private pilot license to fly these planes, with a clean training program offered (same for jet, for the type).. how much smaller does your market now get by requiring multi ratings? it's one thing to offer transition training free to the poston or jet, but they're not going to start offerinh multi training
this keeps their identity clean, their marketing and brand images simple, and presumably production costs cleaner and more manageable
Diluting the brand out by selling 5 or 6 twins a year wouldn't make sense, and they're not interested in selling a tiny number of planes to South Africa.. there's plenty of AvGas out there, especially the markets people buy Cirrus in. There is NOT some huge JetA demanding piston market out there
I am a COPA member; and there is a very high participation of SF50 owners on there. I have yet to hear this sentiment I highlighted; even once. Not even close; people who buy the SF50 seem to love it. Cirrus knows their market well.
So far; the only complaint I have seen is Cirrus sales reps have a few times told potential customers the SF50 is not a fit for them yet. It does not fit the potential owners mission.
This seems to suggest that Cirrus is likely screening the potential customers.
I am curious how many planes Piper and Diamond are now selling because of Jet-A instead of losing the sale to Cirrus.
Yeah I'm not aware of seething, nor any substantially superior performing turboprops in it's class.. the Piper offerings are slower, and have the look of a slightly refined Six. The PC12 is larger and in a different class. The TBM.. sure, could be argued is a better performer.. but clearly there's more than just raw objective data that goes into a plane purchase, and the TBM is **double** the price
Cirrus other marketing strategy is building products that their customers can upgrade to as their business grows. All the more reason for the next step to be a larger jet or turboprop.
For note: the G2 sf50 has a 31K ceiling and 305 ktas cruise.. that's not terrible. 150+ deliveries is a solid figure. They seem to know what they're doing when it comes to marketing and selling planes
Actually considering how quickly the G2 came out; I think Cirrus engineers to "good enough". They leave themselves room for improvement and refinement. When you go through the list of G2 improvements, none are truly earth shattering. However, they add up, and they appear to be the kinds of details that take time and R&D to make happen. Much better from a company perspective I think to slip those changes in over time and start making revenue earlier.
That thing looks huge, but it's essentially the same footprint as a Cessna Skyhawk!
As with many of the Yaks (and Russian birds in general) there’s a good bit of hydraulic/pneumatic systems to understand/maintain. Not good or bad, just a bit more mechanical than electrical. They sit a good bit taller than a 172 as well.
Oh indeed. I was just being facetious. I wouldn't want to deal with the niche of a radial as a primary XC bird. Same reason I don't own a taildragger. I prefer the ground handling and support logistics of flat piston commoner airplanes during this particular stage/mission in my life.
Like most new products the opportunities for improvement are greatest earliest in the product life cycle. And Cirrus deserves credit for actively listening to their customers and, with its suppliers such as Garmin, driving improvement.
Although it's got a bunch of other improvements, including autothrottle, I believe the main reason for the G2 version jet is RVSM. Cirrus did not want to incur the additional certification time delay getting the jet to market, so it decided to deliberately forego RVSM capability in the G1 and capped the maximum altitude.
The jet is a nice step up for Cirrus SR-22/22T owners that can afford it. It really hits the mark for owners that want to fly themselves, the same target the Meridian and TBM have.
Piper has not given up on the diesel. It still offers both training and personal Continental CD-155 diesel powered versions of the Archer and, although not available for purchase, it's been playing around with a diesel variant of the Seminole trainer.
Apparently it only sold an average of 2 diesel Archers per year from introduction in 2015 through 2018, but moved 6 of them in 2019. The diesel Archer is done on an FAA STC, but Piper brought that production in house last year. It is now marketing the plane aggressively to airline funded fleet training programs (although I note Lufthansa replaced its aging Bonanzas with Cirrus).
The biggest problem with both the Piper and Diamond diesels is what I have posted about several times before. They are damned expensive engines to keep in the air compared to their avgas equivalents because the accessory life limits and actual operating failure rates are still quite poor. The shop that oversees keeping my Husky airworthy is also the Diamond service center in my region. They maintain several Thielert and Austro powered DA-42s. Although the core engine block and internals seem to be very robust, everything bolted on to it needs to constantly be replaced and their mechanics are finding these automotive accessories just aren't up to aircraft service. Fuel injection pumps, alternators, voltage regulators, vibration dampers, gearboxes, accessory belts, and now even the fuel injection nozzles aren't making service limits on most of the planes.
The Continental CD-155 (essentially a refined Thielert) isn't much different. An excerpt from an article on the Piper diesel from about a year ago:
"...Continental has been able to increase the time between removal of the CD-155 to 2,100 hours. At that point, the engine must be replaced. There are interim maintenance requirements and many items with life limits. These include the gearbox clutch and high-pressure pump every 300 hours, the alternators every 600 hours, friction disk every 900 hours, v-ribbed belt every 1,200 hours, alternator excitation battery every 12 months, and all fuel, oil, and cooling lines every 60 months. The propeller is limited to 2,400 hours or 72 months, and the governor and accumulators to 2,000 hours or 72 months.."
I wonder if the cost of keeping the engines and props going on these diesel airplanes may be more than the savings from the difference in fuel costs?
Maybe, but Piper had a record year for Meridian sales in 2018, also outselling the TBM for the first time since 2007. The more expensive M600 is outselling the M500 by 2:1.
But Cirrus still delivered more jets than Piper or TBM sold turboprops. We'll see how things fare as Cirrus works off the initial new product order backlog in the next few years.
If lack of engine reliability is what justifies the chute, why have it on the jet?