so happy to see this airplane finally making its way into the world...I've been following its development, ups and downs, "will it happen or won't it" for years now...once the certs land and these things start showing up on tarmacs, it'll be a new day for general aviation
I saw this fly in Duluth in 2009. It's a well designed plane. Just like Cirrus it has a large cabin and, of course, I love the chute that comes with it.
I would to own this aircraf could fly to see family at the drop of a dime or getaway weekends... I've been following Cirrus Aircraft since I told a friend, I wouldn't try to fly a plane until it had a parachute. The next day I was in a book store and low and behold Popular Mechanics had an image of a Cirrus Plane floating to earth by parachute......Destiny was speaking.
oh man can't wait till mine is ready...! oops that's right, I don't have a deposit down on a Vision. reason being, I couldn't afford a $20,000 dollar airplane never mind one that tentatively costs $2 Million.
Again, you cannot compare the two. One is a NEW personal jet with state of the art panel and a parachute...the fuel burn is not known yet but must be lower than any other twin jet. A used SF50 does not exist yet, but when it does it will be just as cheaper than a used TBM because the TBM already starts out double the cost of the SF50.
For sure If you can afford the SF50 and the associated maintenance,fuel and hanger fees you can also afford the TBM etc, These aircraft are not for the budget conscious like somebody who has worked their entire life to purchase a new 172 skyhawk, these are for extremely wealthy individuals, The parachute on the cirrus hasn't done much for its safety record, so its also a mute point, the panels are nice though. No doubt its a nice aircraft,
The SF50 has no record of chute pulls yet...the first production unit has not been delivered. You cannot compare a USED aircraft to a NEW aircraft...esp one that has state of the art touch-screen avionics and is an all carbon-fiber airframe versus the old style aluminum rivets and bends. The cost to run a TBM is well known, the cost to run an SF50 is unknown. No one has even knows the fuel burn rates or the cost to get an annual.
I've heard a 747 has even more range and room than the TBM, can you tell us whether or not this is true Mr. Jollytater? I'm thinking it might be nice to be able to carry a few hundred passengers on occasion.
What kind of pilot license is required to fly the Vision SF50? Ofcourse, one needs a mandatory flight training for this specific airplane, by Cirrus. But may I presume that a PPL is satisfactory enough?
PPL plus instrument rating if you want to fly above 18000ft in the USA to make the FAA happy. Pretty sure Cirrus will demand you have an instrument rating before you can start the type rating course.
Slower than a turboprop twin and burns more fuel doing so. I wish them well because we need innovation in GA, but the specs don't add up on this one. Still, I hope they sell millions. I'll be saving money and time in turboprop twin.
***** Any Garrett powered turboprop. A Turbo Commander will do 58gal/hr going 300kts. Or a MU-2. Most PT6's as well, although their fuel burn is a little higher. That's a lot less than the Cirrus Jet, both per nm and per passenger.
What is the fuel burn of the SF50? Oh that's right they are not published yet. And remember, none of the turboprops has a parachute....but then, most old timers don't care about the chute...they prefer hitting cars on a freeway when they get into trouble.
Cirrus built this as a step up aircraft for their SR22 customers. It's basically an SR22 with more speed that can fly higher and farther. TBM and PC-12 are overkill for that market. Two people, most likely flying less than 500nm. That's the SF50 market. MU2 is better bang for the buck but you need to be a proficient twin pilot to fly it safely. SR22 to SF50 transition should be a smooth one. Almost same avionics. Systems are simple so the pilot can concentrate on navigating and communicating while the aircraft pretty much flies itself.
Your assumption are off. The SF50 is a cross country flyer as is the SR22T the plane most who have the money will step up from to the SF50. The SR22T can do 2000nm in a day. The SF50 can cross the country in a day. The single engine component of the SF50 is enabled because the engine is new, small and far more efficient than twin jets. And having one jet engine is half the maintenance cost of a twin. The avionics in the SF50 are the Garmin G3000 touch screens far more advanced than anything in a twin turboprop or in most small business class jets. The avionics enables single pilot ops. There are 600 SF50 back ordered a full five year backlog. No other small jet or turboprop comes anywhere near those numbers.
I want to love this thing but it really doesn't make all that much sense to me. If I could afford a $2M jet, I could probably afford the much faster and higher flying Eclipse 550 for $3M.
this is exactly what we need, a bunch of cirrus "pilots" that cant fly their pistons getting typed and flying this thing. but it has caps so all is well, right? and not to mention its ugly as sin. it looks like a toy but that's perfect because that's what all of the people flying these will consider them to be toys. not a complex aircraft that requires just a little bit of respect. I think ill stick with the mustang.
Awwwww, is widdle Jimmy butt-hurt he can't have a beautiful personal jet like this? Or are you just pissed that when things go wrong, as they inevitably do when talking about flying, more people both in the aircraft and on the ground, are going to survive the point at which plane meets ground? Like people dying when their aircraft loses power Jimmy?
![VICTOR Denmark Open 2024 | An Se Young (KOR) [1] vs. Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] | SF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y3QEyCih85s/mqdefault.jpg)
so happy to see this airplane finally making its way into the world...I've been following its development, ups and downs, "will it happen or won't it" for years now...once the certs land and these things start showing up on tarmacs, it'll be a new day for general aviation
I saw this fly in Duluth in 2009. It's a well designed plane. Just like Cirrus it has a large cabin and, of course, I love the chute that comes with it.
In Duluth the other day I watched two VisionJets test-fly. They're a sight to behold. It's a great personal transport.
#Aviation
Finally cirrus
Can't wait :)
I would to own this aircraf could fly to see family at the drop of a dime or getaway weekends... I've been following Cirrus Aircraft since I told a friend, I wouldn't try to fly a plane until it had a parachute.
The next day I was in a book store and low and behold Popular Mechanics had an image of a Cirrus Plane floating to earth by parachute......Destiny was speaking.
MUY BONITO VIDEO.
commander
commander402 qqp
oh man can't wait till mine is ready...! oops that's right, I don't have a deposit down on a Vision. reason being, I couldn't afford a $20,000 dollar airplane never mind one that tentatively costs $2 Million.
there is no such thing as an airplane for 20 k lol
TBM900 is faster with longer range and more space, but this thing looks pretty cool, i wonder what the cabin noise is like
The TBM900 is also twice the money. How an F35 is 5x faster than a TBM900...does that help?
Again, you cannot compare the two. One is a NEW personal jet with state of the art panel and a parachute...the fuel burn is not known yet but must be lower than any other twin jet. A used SF50 does not exist yet, but when it does it will be just as cheaper than a used TBM because the TBM already starts out double the cost of the SF50.
For sure If you can afford the SF50 and the associated maintenance,fuel and hanger fees you can also afford the TBM etc, These aircraft are not for the budget conscious like somebody who has worked their entire life to purchase a new 172 skyhawk, these are for extremely wealthy individuals, The parachute on the cirrus hasn't done much for its safety record, so its also a mute point, the panels are nice though. No doubt its a nice aircraft,
The SF50 has no record of chute pulls yet...the first production unit has not been delivered. You cannot compare a USED aircraft to a NEW aircraft...esp one that has state of the art touch-screen avionics and is an all carbon-fiber airframe versus the old style aluminum rivets and bends. The cost to run a TBM is well known, the cost to run an SF50 is unknown. No one has even knows the fuel burn rates or the cost to get an annual.
I've heard a 747 has even more range and room than the TBM, can you tell us whether or not this is true Mr. Jollytater? I'm thinking it might be nice to be able to carry a few hundred passengers on occasion.
What kind of pilot license is required to fly the Vision SF50? Ofcourse, one needs a mandatory flight training for this specific airplane, by Cirrus. But may I presume that a PPL is satisfactory enough?
PPL plus instrument rating if you want to fly above 18000ft in the USA to make the FAA happy. Pretty sure Cirrus will demand you have an instrument rating before you can start the type rating course.
ermosa aeronave
Wow
sure gonna have to wait another 7 years lol, dam thing is never gonna be ready by the end of the year
Mhm... sure not like you can’t fly it rn
Yum
at 1:10 whats that plane next to it?
Cirrus SR-22
Slower than a turboprop twin and burns more fuel doing so. I wish them well because we need innovation in GA, but the specs don't add up on this one. Still, I hope they sell millions. I'll be saving money and time in turboprop twin.
***** Any Garrett powered turboprop. A Turbo Commander will do 58gal/hr going 300kts. Or a MU-2. Most PT6's as well, although their fuel burn is a little higher. That's a lot less than the Cirrus Jet, both per nm and per passenger.
+stratobee exactly my thoughts it burns way to much fuel ts ridiculous for such a small and slow jet
What is the fuel burn of the SF50? Oh that's right they are not published yet. And remember, none of the turboprops has a parachute....but then, most old timers don't care about the chute...they prefer hitting cars on a freeway when they get into trouble.
Cirrus built this as a step up aircraft for their SR22 customers. It's basically an SR22 with more speed that can fly higher and farther. TBM and PC-12 are overkill for that market. Two people, most likely flying less than 500nm. That's the SF50 market. MU2 is better bang for the buck but you need to be a proficient twin pilot to fly it safely. SR22 to SF50 transition should be a smooth one. Almost same avionics. Systems are simple so the pilot can concentrate on navigating and communicating while the aircraft pretty much flies itself.
Your assumption are off. The SF50 is a cross country flyer as is the
SR22T the plane most who have the money will step up from to the SF50.
The SR22T can do 2000nm in a day. The SF50 can cross the country in a day.
The single engine component of the SF50 is enabled because the engine is
new, small and far more efficient than twin jets. And having one jet
engine is half the maintenance cost of a twin. The avionics in the SF50
are the Garmin G3000 touch screens far more advanced than anything in a
twin turboprop or in most small business class jets. The avionics
enables single pilot ops.
There are 600 SF50 back ordered a full five year backlog. No other
small jet or turboprop comes anywhere near those numbers.
Is this still alive ?
More than 7 years? Yeah. It sure was. There's a Vision "customer" doing "sales pitches" that says he put down his "deposit" in 2006.
I want to love this thing but it really doesn't make all that much sense to me. If I could afford a $2M jet, I could probably afford the much faster and higher flying Eclipse 550 for $3M.
I am trying to become rich to by this aircraft lol
Hows that rich plan of yours going?
Still learning the difference between "by" and "buy".
this is exactly what we need, a bunch of cirrus "pilots" that cant fly their pistons getting typed and flying this thing. but it has caps so all is well, right? and not to mention its ugly as sin. it looks like a toy but that's perfect because that's what all of the people flying these will consider them to be toys. not a complex aircraft that requires just a little bit of respect. I think ill stick with the mustang.
Awwwww, is widdle Jimmy butt-hurt he can't have a beautiful personal jet like this? Or are you just pissed that when things go wrong, as they inevitably do when talking about flying, more people both in the aircraft and on the ground, are going to survive the point at which plane meets ground? Like people dying when their aircraft loses power Jimmy?
Good God that egg is ugly !
Sorry. Just an ugly airplane.