As well as the Piper M350 and Beech G36. The Cessnas are Anti ice not FIKI. The TTx was FIKI but is no longer available new. Speaking for piston singles.
Cirrus success
- Thread starter MountainDude
- Start date
pfarber
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 662
- Display Name
Display name:
pfarber
The tech in the SF50 is 100% dual use. Single engine turbine and autoland system from garmin makes a very COTS drone platform. China can copy by not innovate. They don't have the knowledgeable to to even make the turbines for their own homegrown airliner the C919.
The CH-3 looks like a CF50, does it not???
pfarber
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 662
- Display Name
Display name:
pfarber
The SF50 is an entry level jet. The Embraer Phenom 100 EV is about double the price but also outperforms by a factor of 2. Trading the second engine for a 'cute kills performance, range, payload etc.
I envy anyone that can afford that level of flying... but compared to others the SF50 is more like a Yugo.. its cheap, its ugly, but it runs.
This is old news (and incorrect ). Part of the reason leap was chosen was for international acceptance/service/etc of the c919 plane. They have a j1000 engine that has recently been put in to the c919 which is their own. Part of the reason for that is also politics - namely that the USA may threaten the delivery of the leap engines (joint venture between GE and Safran). The j1000 also has to be their own intellectual property so as to avoid patent lawsuits for operators of the plane.
I’ve taken the c919 before between Beijing and Shanghai (only once). It’s a solid plane - no worse or better than say the airbus 319. But it’s definitely going to be a player in the market - Boeing which already has issues - will and definitely should be worried.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
- Messages
- 2,021
- Location
- Chicago suburbs
- Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
[DELETED POST: realized I was responding to a message from 4 pages ago and the topic has changed lol]
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform
Final Approach
Yeah, but it was going to be juicy and good, wasn’t it?
This was like walking past the magazine rack (is that still a thing), seeing a crazy headline on the cover of National Enquirer (is that still a thing), looking away for a second because your kid grabbed that candy bar you told him not to, and then looking back but someone grabbed the last copy. Dang it!
Its not so much the actual aircraft is the issue, its the CAAC system behind it that has held them back on an international level. And while they have made many advances since the Y-12 was certified by the FAA/EASA years ago, I think you’ll find the C919 will be more a regional player in their established market areas vs a direct competitor to Airbus or Boeing for the foreseeable future.
oh, im absolutely certain it will stay regional due to politics until it cant be held back. But also keep in mind - china is potentially at any given time, the largest consumer of airplanes (boeing or airbus) are the Chinese and then extending to the Asian airlines. . This particular model is competing with the smaller 73x series, and the A319/320 - but they have a wider dual aisle cabin coming along that will be to address larger capacities.
But they will obviously go after other asian airlines outside of China specific ones, and I imagine their financial diplomacy to go after a lot of Africa and elsewhere. I think the orderbook for the Comac plane is 800+ at the moment. thats significant - regardless of who it is.
Besides, I think its great that we bring another competitor besides boeing and airbus in to the space. Embraer and what not are not exactly pushing the two of them anyhow.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
It also eliminates the need for those pesky engine-out performance limitations.
comparing apples to oranges. the Vision Jet isnt a cabin class jet. All the others are. its like comparing a Cirrus to say a Cessna 421. The biggest competitor to the Vision Jet is going to be the SETP crowd - M600/m700 and TBMs.
Gordon Freeman
Pre-Flight
The SF50 has a 2-3 yr waitlist. They're selling faster than they make them. Cirrus just completed building a whole new paint facility just to accommodate all the orders.
As for its looks, I think it's a pretty wicked looking V-tail jet. Disagree all you want, but they're doing something right, and their customers are writing checks faster than Cirrus can cash them.
Yup - you are making my point. People wait two to three years to get an SF50. Many of them could afford a Phenom 100 if they really wanted one (and could probably get one sooner), but they have been part of the Cirrus family and been enjoying the “Cirrus Life” for years, and they don’t want to leave that environment. They are taken by the hand there, with training and maintenance/ownership support which is consistent from the SR20 all the way to the jet. It creates a sense of belonging, comfort and familiarity. So for most of those lucky ones who can afford to upgrade from an SR22 to a jet, the question isn’t about the best jet but how to maximize their Cirrus experience.
- Martin
Lindberg
Final Approach
Over 24 years of marriage, my ex never got in a plane with me. But she'd said we could take family trips if I bought a plane with a parachute. Sample size of one. I know pilots here and IRL who specifically love Cirrus for the chutes.
Except is not really “politics” that holds them back, rather its maintaining international aviation standards that always seems to hold them back. Just has its held Russia back from entering the global market at that level and they had a much more robust aviation sector than China has today. Where politics does enter the aviation equation is at the “sphere of influence” level. So until China can enlarge that sphere, which they are actively trying to do via BRIC, and provided the CAAC ups their international standards game, the only competition they will have is Embraer but in a limited region or area.
the Comac planes (including the new ERJ competitor) will be one of the most scrutinized planes as they wont and cant afford any mishaps with it if they want international credibility. As for the Belt Road diplomacy. . . absolutely... But when their regional jet is priced at 35m and the comparable ERJ is 60m. . . believe you me that it will start making inroads in the next decade. And comparing Russia and China is obviously not the same - Russia is still and even more of an outcast and has never figured out how to be export driven/friendly outside of oil.
As for "CAAC ups their international standards game" - you mean like how our Boeing is setting and maintaining these "standards". . .
And it fits in a "normal" sized hangar. Wingspan 38' 7" Length 30' 10". I have no desire for a jet, but if I did that would absolutely factor in to the equation.
The type rating is at a Cirrus Factory Center and is included with the purchase of a new Jet (I think this is still the case). It's a personal jet for those who can afford it and desire to fly a jet.
I don't know the Jet market but I don't think there is any other jet even close to the SF50. Everyone talks about the spec sheet. From what I read online it is not the top of the spec sheet performance, but it's good enough for a lot of people and apparently not an insurmountable leap from the SR22.
Note: "normal" size hangar is open for interpretation. It will fit in a hangar with a 40' door. It's tight but doable. I know there are many hangars with smaller doors. My point is you don't need a corporate hangar in general.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,765
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
I wonder how many of those orders are from Verijet and other charter providers.
ETA: appears at least 23 in service and another 100 or so on order just by Verijet.
Gordon Freeman
Pre-Flight
Phenom 100 is about $2m more than SF50 and requires multi-engine rating (and most likely, plenty of MEL time before insurance will even consider you). Not the same league.
Rockymountain
Pre-takeoff checklist
The SF50 has a really nice cabin, is easy to fly coming from a SEP, has the parachute all compelling. But I agree with Martin, the Cirrus experience and "Cirrus life" is an attractive culture. There are safer, faster, higher, larger, more efficient, longer range options, but can't argue with their success.
Steamflyer
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2022
- Messages
- 540
- Display Name
Display name:
Steamflyer
Cirrus won because they attacked three things: they made a very efficient cross-country cruiser for people who need or want to go places; they made a cabin that coddles and comforts the pilot and the sometimes pax (so many planes are flown one-up); and they gave it a parachute for when the engine quits or the pilot gets in over their head.
They are easy to fly, have a support and according to this forum a social community, and are reasonably easy to sell. When it comes time for maintenance, the airframe is plastic, the avionics are integrated, and the engine is tried and true. Plus even an old one is fairly new. So open the AMM, inspect, repair (not that much usually), and replace as needed.
It's a package, not a mishmash.
They are easy to fly, have a support and according to this forum a social community, and are reasonably easy to sell. When it comes time for maintenance, the airframe is plastic, the avionics are integrated, and the engine is tried and true. Plus even an old one is fairly new. So open the AMM, inspect, repair (not that much usually), and replace as needed.
It's a package, not a mishmash.
Most scrutinized? In what manner and by who that is different than the current system?
Ha. I can tell you with certainty that Boeing, even with their issues, is still a few levels above the CAAC or FATA when it comes to standards. Rewarding people not to follow those standards is one thing. Having a national aviation regulatory authority pay only lip service to those same standards is a completely different issue.
In my opinion it's just one thing. They made it seem like a modern car inside. Modern plastic that looks slick impresses most people and they feel more comfortable flying in it. The chute and the BS throttle mixture crap is admittedly part of the illusion of "modernity". New Cessna's and Pipers look pretty much exactly like ones built in 1970, just with modern avionics. People say it laughingly, but it's the cup holders. Seriously. Touches like that paint the illusion of a fancy new thing, even though it's not really much different under the paint.
Throw on top of that a slick ad campaign and extend the illusion of white glove treatment and you get their sales. Cessna and Piper have not tried to make you feel special for decades. On the contrary, they make you feel like they'd rather you didn't buy from them.
Cirrus really didn't have to try that hard. But at least they did try and it worked for them, at least compared to the others.
Throw on top of that a slick ad campaign and extend the illusion of white glove treatment and you get their sales. Cessna and Piper have not tried to make you feel special for decades. On the contrary, they make you feel like they'd rather you didn't buy from them.
Cirrus really didn't have to try that hard. But at least they did try and it worked for them, at least compared to the others.