Yup. I think the sF50 is going to pull buyers away from all other manufacturers.

Those that don't mind short range, gas guzzling, ceiling limited, low useful load, low redundancy, high operating cost aircraft.

The SF50 has the benefit right now that the true reality of its operation is not visible. Not a single customer has even flown in one.

What people see: 7 seats, big cabin, jet engine. Reality is that it is a one person airplane with full fuel, or fill the seats and you go only about 300 nm.

The range/payload profile is going to be very disappointing for something that cost $2.5M.

Mike C.

Those that don't mind short range, gas guzzling, ceiling limited, low useful load, low redundancy, high operating cost aircraft.

The SF50 has the benefit right now that the true reality of its operation is not visible. Not a single customer has even flown in one.

What people see: 7 seats, big cabin, jet engine. Reality is that it is a one person airplane with full fuel, or fill the seats and you go only about 300 nm.

The range/payload profile is going to be very disappointing for something that cost $2.5M.

Mike C.

I sat in the mockup, and if it is representative, it is not a big cabin and 7 seats is only viable if 3 of them are exceptionally small children. It is pretty comfortable for the pilot/copilot seats. But not the back.

I sat in the mockup, and if it is representative, it is not a big cabin and 7 seats is only viable if 3 of them are exceptionally small children. It is pretty comfortable for the pilot/copilot seats. But not the back.

I had a look at the brochure above.
The range-payload says "NBAA IFR" which is useful. If that's with a 100nm alternate, one might expect to make that sort of range, especially since it has the option to slow down and extend range meaningfully as a back-up.
The payload I guess will be reduced from 400lbs to nearer 200lbs with typical desirable options. But even taking 200lbs off, that range payload chart seems useful. With max payload (say 1000lbs net) it looks like a 500nm range. That's not 7 adult men, but this ain't the plane for that. Few new airplanes under $5m are, perhaps only the PC12 !

Of course it's compromised in fuel efficiency and range-payload. But if they can make the numbers in the brochure, it will be good enough.

As another example, take any of the light jets like the Mustang or Phenom100 or Citation M2. They have a notional full-fuel payload of around 800lbs before options and without a pilot. NBAA range is about 1100nm for the Mustang and Phenom, more for the M2. But
- to get max range, they need unrestricted climb to 390-410. I'd guess the 280 limit means the range is more achievable in the SF50
- in Part 135 service, they need two pilots, say 400lbs. In this scenario, the useful (pre-options) range-payload of an owner-flown SF50 ain't so different from a Part 135 operated Phenom 100 or Mustang (Phenoms with 300lbs of options aren't uncommon, so they become zero pax with full fuel in Part 135)

Don't get me wrong. The SF50 is the last turbine airplane I'd personally want (I do like the design though!) for all the reasons you mention. But I think there's a market that will want it - if the brochure numbers are realistic.

The stall speed suggests a Vref of ~85kts, hence the short runway numbers. In Europe, a lot of general aviation airports are around 3000ft and good for pistons or turboprops, but unsuitable for jets. The jet alternative can be larger airports with $1000 landing fees. It looks as if the SF50 may be able to use the former, which will be a significant plus in our market at least. I realise the US is different!