Exactly my point. Have to define the terms. I am sure the SF50 can climb at 3000 fpm, but only under certain conditions.

63 gph seems low for a jet engine at FL280 doing 300 kts, not saying it cant be done but I wont believe it until I see it.

I don't know the thrust power of the engine or its performance but it might be right. Depending on the conditions, that's about the FF I see per side on climb out at that altitude but we would need to have more specifics.

They released that number several years ago. Here's an efficiency comparison put together by Eclipse Aerospace from released data. It includes that same 63 gph figure for flight at FL 280:



63 gph is obviously nowhere near as efficient as what the higher flying jet can achieve.

Ken

My guess is there are few people willing to pay 2+ million for a small jet that care about that fuel burn difference. Both are not bad for things that burn jet A.

I sat in the eclipse then sat in the cirrus. Zero comparison. The cirrus is an order of magnitude more comfortable.

One avitions (eclipse) booth was DEAD. Cirrus was a mob scene.

Despite the naysayers, it appears cirrus made a cool jet that checks the boxes of what a lot of pilots want.

I LOVE turboprops, but I have to say, that vision jet looked like the future, inside and out.

Yup

63 gallons per hour is $195 per hour in JetA at $3 a gallon and I'm often a lot less than $3 a gallon. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Cirrus Vision is a jet with the performance of a single engine turboprop. Great for ramp appeal. Apparently well done for passenger appeal. Easy to fly like a SETP.

But from a price / performance standpoint I don't think it's breaking new ground. It's just an SETP with better marketing,

The "better marketing" quip was what was often repeated about the SR22 in its earlier years. Now that they've sold many thousands of them and their owners love them, that theory was waned away...

What does this mean? "just"

That is interesting Anthony. If there are many that think like you, sounds like the SF50 is a success. I still feel that the price of a plane and DOC's sit in 2 different buckets. Maybe some look at the all in costs, but I don't think all do, I certainly don't. I think of what it costs to put it in my hangar (acquisition). Once that decision is accepted and that money is spent, then I really am reminded every day what it costs to actually fly it (DOC's). DOC's can make the difference between a flight making sense, and not. Maybe that extra $200 hamburger, that extra Angelflight, that trip to take the wife on a getaway, at some level no longer makes sense. If you guys think everyone flying a 2 mil plane has money falling out of their pockets....

To the wife, "But this one has a safety parachute."
Wife, "Really? OK let's get that one then."

If the guy flying a 2 mil plane thinks he's frugal....

The efficiency is probably more about load/range than $.

The Eclipse doesn't use 40% less fuel at 300 KTAS. It uses ~28% less fuel than the Cirrus. I'd have assumed the Eclipse guys were better at math than this...

45 gallons/hour is about 72% of 63 gallons/hour (so, a 28% savings). In order to use 40% less fuel, the Eclipse would have to burn less than 38 gallons/hour.

i hope they mass produce these things to where they depreciate similar to the SR22

a well equipped 5 year old one can be had for half that of a new one due to all the write-off potential, i love that

That is pretty much what my Mits burns for both engines at FL280 and same speed. Remember for turbines the amount of power (or thrust) is pretty much proportional to the amount of fuel burned.

So the SF50, at ~6000 lbs gross (IIRC), burns roughly the same as my Mits, at ~10000 lbs gross, same speed and altitude more or less.

I would say incremental improvements in turbojet efficiency plus being a smaller and lighter aircraft put it at about what you could get out of a 40 year old twin turboprop. Seems in the ballpark for reasonableness.