BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:29

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus engineers have already spoken. High fuel flow, low speed, low full fuel useful load, short range, limited altitude, lacking redundancy. You don't have to wait for the plane to exist to know all that.

TF50 could be a twin that equals or exceeds an Eclipse in literally every way.

They chose not to, clouded by their piston think and chute religion. Oh well.

Mike C.

Fine. If true, Cirrus won't release it will they?

Your argument is Jet101. You're not the only guy that knows the technicalities. If you are then you're wasting your time here and should go make money there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:35

Username Protected wrote:

Technology advances.

There is nothing on the SF50 that advances anything. Using a single engine is a step back to 1980s where it failed then, too, plus the dozen or so other SEJs that have failed since.

There's no benefit to an SEJ. None.

They might as well be making the SR22 into a biplane to make it slower, heavier, etc.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:39

Username Protected wrote:

Technology advances.

There is nothing on the SF50 that advances anything. Using a single engine is a step back to 1980s where it failed then, too, plus the dozen or so other SEJs that have failed since.

There's no benefit to an SEJ. None.

They might as well be making the SR22 into a biplane to make it slower, heavier, etc.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:42

Username Protected wrote:

You're not the only guy that knows the technicalities.

Who knows best?

The companies who make jets.

Are they making SEJs?

No, not a single jet maker has even talked about doing such a thing.

Why?

There are no benefits to an SEJ over a twin. None.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:45

Username Protected wrote:

Then why is Cirrus doing it?

Same reason the dozen or so other SEJ contenders did it.

Their piston think is being misapplied to jets.

A single jet has to be cheaper, better, simpler, safer than a twin, right?

Wrong.

It is that simple.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:49

Username Protected wrote:

Who knows best?

The companies who make jets.

Are they making SEJs?

No, not a single jet maker has even talked about doing such a thing.

Why?

There are no benefits to an SEJ over a twin. None.

Mike C.

Who is to say they didn't hire engineers from other companies? You act like it's 1 guy in a garage.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:49

Username Protected wrote:

Same reason the dozen or so other SEJ contenders did it.

Their piston think is being misapplied to jets.

A single jet has to be cheaper, better, simpler, safer than a twin, right?

Wrong.

It is that simple.

Mike C.

Sorry. That's a horrible excuse.

You're just "some dude on a forum". If you know all this then so do lot's of people. I don't give a %#$@ about this information and here I am reading it. It's not some big secret

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:50

Username Protected wrote:

You're not the only guy that knows the technicalities.

Who knows best?

The companies who make jets.

Are they making SEJs?

No, not a single jet maker has even talked about doing such a thing.

Why?

There are no benefits to an SEJ over a twin. None.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 15:59

Username Protected wrote:

Who is to say they didn't hire engineers from other companies?

I have a lot of engineering friends who work at aircraft manufacturers.

They don't get to decide what to build.

That is done in the marketing department.

The engineers are tasked with making it work as best they can.

Airplanes would be better if it worked the other way.

Quote:

You act like it's 1 guy in a garage.

The SF50 concept is almost certainly the idea of one guy, Klapmeier.

Quickest way to your next job is to tell him it should have two engines and no chute. You just violated his belief system, one built on piston think.

I was hoping the Chinese would restart the project as a twin but they are just money people who don't know this.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 16:00

Sorry bud. Not buying it.

I have lot's of engineers who work for me. If I left it up to them I'd be broke.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 16:20

Username Protected wrote:

These are the same arguments Beech and everyone made against the SETP.

SETP has well defined benefits. They ARE simpler to fly, they can go as high, they can carry as much, they can go as far, they can go as fast, as twins. In some cases, they can exceed twins.

Jets change the equation. They must go high to be efficient, and flying a twin jet is essentially the same complexity as a single. No prop to feather, no Vmc, etc. Engine fails? Just fly. Not like a piston or turboprop at all.

So for a jet, huge performance penalty to be a single and no penalties to be a twin.

Quote:

Does a single engine airplane owner do accelerate / stop calculations, single engine climb, single engine departure routes....

The fact most single pilots FAIL to plan for engine failure should not be construed that it is "simpler". A properly planned SEJ takeoff SHOULD plan for engine failure. This is VERY HARD TO DO! Instead of a nice book with tabulated data to help you in a twin, you have to consider each airport terrain individually and examine where you can make an off airport landing.

Once an engine fails, the twin is definitely SIMPLER than the single!

Quote:

A single engine jet eliminates a lot of variables, complexity, flight planning;

There's not one lick of extra work to flight plan an Eclipse over an SF50.

I take that back, the SF50 pilot may have to plan extra fuel stops.

Quote:

once proven it may reduce/eliminate a lot of production costs...

And increase liability costs.

Net effect? SEJ is no cheaper to buy, but more expensive to operate. Yuck.

Quote:

At the end of the day KISS sells planes.

Simplest jet is a twin.

Really.

Ask someone who owns one if they wish it had one engine to make their life simpler. The laughter may not stop for a while.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 16:20

Aircraft manufacturers having been making bad airplanes for as long as they have been making good ones.

As I said before history is filled with airplanes that bombed.