Pretty good. The twin probably still wins due to the aerodynamic inefficiencies of the single engine placement, but the SF50 would be FAR more efficient.

The SF50 would need higher pressurization (8 PSI), so they can't just "do it" even if the regs allow. Would take a redesign of the cabin structure plus other things.


The FAA regulations say NO. The pressurization system has to be redundant to go above FL250. Cirrus is obviously banking on some sort of ELOS to get from FL250 to FL280. It is possible they will be limited to FL250 in the end.

Mike C.

I'm an interloper in this thread, and probably can't really add much that hasn't already been said, but if I'm Cirrus........

They look at their customer demographics and may have determined that a significant percentage of their current customers are pretty affluent. They also determined that their current customers were private pilots with an instrument rating. We all know the desire to migrate up in performance and capability. Cirrus had nothing to offer their client base that was ready for more. If they developed a "me too" airplane such as a SETP or a twin VLJ ala mustang, they would risk customer migration, and would be putting them into a category with price competition. Certainly a "me too" airplane would attract customers from other brands, but I don't think they want to compete with the other manufacturers. This allows them to stay firmly planted on the "single" side of the single vs twin debate, where they have done a really good job of establishing themselves and making a market.

I'm still old school and prefer two over one. Undoubtably a position that has been forged over years of V1 cuts and emergency descents. Am I emotionally attached to the twin side of the debate? Yup. But that's just me, a product of my aviation experience pathway. Had Cirrus been around when I bought my first airplane I may have sampled that kool aid. I understand the appeal. It's just not my beverage of choice.

How high you get isn't the point.

How LONG you stay high is the point.

How high you get isn't the point.

How LONG you stay high is the point.

Because the SF50 is limited to altitudes where it can't be efficient.

There are no benefits to being a single engine jet, only downsides. The concept exists only because people are applying piston think to jet design. They mistakenly think the benefits of being a single that exist for pistons and turboprops carry over to jets. They don't.

Compare an Eclipse 500 versus SF50. The EA500 goes further, faster, higher on less fuel. The EA500 has other problems, but the basic airframe and propulsion concept is not one of them.

Compare engine failure. EA500 is a slight annoyance. SF50 is a hull loss at minimum, or worse if the chute doesn't work.

If Cirrus builds roughly the same airplane, but puts two PW610s on it, and a conventional tail, that would be a winner. What they are building is a lame airplane from the start, crippled by misapplied piston think.

There is a reason Cirrus is the only SEJ vendor still around.

Mike C.

How high you get isn't the point.

How LONG you stay high is the point.

MC is not like Mr. Spock. He does get emotional. He is zealot like in his battle against this. He goes on to the CIRRUS site to badger the company when he has NO desire to ever own one or any interest except that of being the antagonist.

I'll point out an inconsistency if I see it, but I've ceased arguing.

He is extremely smart, and his engineering is sound - that I'll agree. But Mr. Spock would go fly his plane to get where he needed to go in the best way by the best choice.

I suspect that meeting and conversing in person would be a much different and more pleasant experience.

Mike keeps doing TEB-PDK.

I keep saying PDK-TEB. Ciholas doing it backwards intentionally. Coming from the north you reach PDK before ATL so they keep you higher. Coming from the South ATL comes first and they drop you low.

Check PDK-TEB.

Jason,
Going to MMU CDW TEB from all points south all jets do the Jaike3 STAR which has a minimum of 250Kts . In the Eclipse you are doing Vmo 285 Kts and they fit you in. In a Mustang with a Vmo of 250 I don't think so.

Typical flight http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N212EA/history/20151108/1700Z/KVRB/KCDW/tracklog

Passing below 30K' and still descending with an hour left in the flight.

Passing below 23k' with 30 minutes left in the flight.

VRB-TEB is also a much longer flight. If you did VRB to PDK you'd see the same thing. Turbines will be at 13K' with 30 minutes left in the flight.

MC is not like Mr. Spock. He does get emotional. He is zealot like in his battle against this. He goes on to the CIRRUS site to badger the company when he has NO desire to ever own one or any interest except that of being the antagonist.

I'll point out an inconsistency if I see it, but I've ceased arguing.

He is extremely smart, and his engineering is sound - that I'll agree. But Mr. Spock would go fly his plane to get where he needed to go in the best way by the best choice.

I’ll never chose to own a single engine anything in aviation, so what Cirrus does or doesn’t do is far from important to me. My only interest is in the relative merits of the arguments advanced. In fact, both sides can be right. Shucked of accusations of personal bias, what people are arguing here is value. The pro-SF50 forces think there’s good value in the package, either thinking its performance numbers are ok, or defending its less than stellar jet performance with its newness, jet engine, chute, spiffy interior, etc.
The anti-SF50 peeps say no, it fails the value test. Performance is lackluster, safety compromised by lack of redundancy, the chute is likely to have marginal utility given jet engine reliability, the simplistic appeal to what it allegedly takes to pilot the aircraft is not what owners will find when they go through the demanding 61.58 training process required each year, newness and spiffy interior don’t move the value needle to positive territory.
Both sides can be right. Cirrus can sell a jillion of them to people of the pro-SF50 mind bent, and the anti forces can still be right. Lots of buyers could be ok with the performance, but it still be true that the SF50 delivers much less performance at a much greater price than available aircraft in the used marketplace. The anti forces will look down their nose on the ramp at an SF50 that underperforms their aircraft for four times the cost. The pro forces will smell the new leather in their SF50 and think how antiquated the KA200 or MU2 seems parked next to them. To each his own. Both can be right for their own reasons.

Safest turbo-prop is single without a chute.

1. No where has Mike posted any proof of this. Second, I know based on TP overhauls, one engine is much cheaper then two. Why would a jet be any different?
2. One time design challenge; not an on going cost.
3. Again based on the assumption of being able to go high enough. And as I posted, and Jason and many others. This is not viable in many parts of the country. Specifically, the parts of the country with the most money and GA traffic.

Tim

Hmm, looks like you have a point. Some of these are worse than others.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/TMC822/history/20151223/2115Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EJA920/history/20151222/2130Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/TMC460/history/20151221/2201Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EJA387/history/20151221/1430Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EJA930/history/20151220/1400Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N910DP/history/20151218/1600Z/KPDK/KTEB/tracklog

That said, there are a whole lot of places people go in jets that aren't that route... And I'm having a hard time remembering why flying a route that holds you low a lot supports the idea of a low and slow jet that's not very efficient in all cases... Sounds like you have the ideal airplane for that route.