Apparently you need to learn to type faster.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the FJ33-5A isn't actually fully developed yet, not yet certified. Only the -4 variant is certified presently.

I'm certain Williams is investing quite a lot into making the FJ33 work, especially since 1900 lbf is well over the -4 output presently. Notably, the FJ44 starts at 1900 lbf, so the little engine is being pushed pretty hard to make it do what the bigger one does.


No other jet engine maker wants to be on a single. PWC forbids it for the PW600 series. There really are no other players. Williams will be on SF50, no matter what.


Yes, but the PW600 family includes the PW615F (Mustang, over 1100 engines) and PW617F (Phenom 100, over 500 engines). When looking at the whole family, PWC made its dev money back on the PW600 series, having sold well over 2000 engines in total.


I think Williams was the only choice given it was an SEJ. PWC did not want to play.

The FJ33 existed prior to the SF50, though not the -5 variant. The list of planes to which it was supposed to be used on reads like a list of aircraft startup failures.

Adam A700
ATG Javelin
Cirrus Vision SF50
Diamond D-Jet
Epic Elite
Flaris LAR01
Spectrum S-33 Independence
Sport Jet II

Mike C.

GE Honda is known to have had discussions with Cirrus, and have publically said they are interested in making a single engine version of the HF120. Your "nobody but Williams is interested..." is per usual a very broad statement without much supporting evidence.

I find it also interesting that Mike C. speaks for PWC.

Tim

My airplane has a single PWC engine. So does the Caravan, Kodiak, TBM and Pilatus.

Not a jet.

Mike C.

Bingo.

Also, wouldn't building a plane to fly at RVSM altitudes vs anything FL280 or lower cost quite a bit more to build per unit? You need a lot more structure to go as high as most jets which would add weight and cost, wouldn't it?

And selling it for the same price as the SF50!

Most owners got theirs for around $1.4M.

That killed Eclipse. The faster they made them, the more money they lost.

Almost all of the SF50 depositors are at the $1.4M price point, too, at least into the high 300s delivery position as advertised on controller.com.

Remains to be seen if Cirrus can survive that. There is likely zero profit, perhaps a loss, on each SF-50 at that price, hence the price today of over $2M.

Cirrus can build a twin cheaper than Eclipse can build a twin. Cirrus at least knows airframe manufacturing, and Eclipse didn't have a clue about that. Also, vendors will extend better terms to an established player than a startup. Cirrus can probably buy PW610Fs for much less than Eclipse paid. The engine vendors make so much money on the engine programs and maintenance after the sale that they can sell engines at cost to OEMs. That's long term revenue that is far more stable than new aircraft sales.

Mike C.

Not a jet.

Mike C.

Potential for aditional problems maybe? Like prop overspeed? Or does that not happen on TPs? No idea, just guessing

They never got built.

The economy tanked. Lot's of companies went under. You can't blame this on the design. Their 2 engine design went under also.

From what I have read and discussed with a few engineers (a couple of them actual rocket scientist and engine designers) here are the major differences between a turbofan and a turboprop.

• Altitude the hot section is optimized to attain. Due to material science, the higher the altitude (lower air pressure and especially lower temp), the higher the compression can be attained and greater power/efficiency can be attained.
• How much margin the hot section has for maximum power at lower altitudes (the higher the margin, the lower the general efficiency)
• Location of the gearing. On the outside of the fan or in the center.
• Shroud for the fan
• A turbofan almost always has the hot section exhausting with the flow of the thrust creating additional power
• A turbofan almost always is only axial compression in series, while most turboprops are a mix of axial and centrifugal. (I may have these two methods reversed)
• Turboprops will sometimes do flow redirection (e.g. S curve on the garret engines) which almost unheard of in Turbofans.

For example: http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industrie ... jet-engine
http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industrie ... rop-engine

Use the exact same hot section. The difference is the shroud, location of the prop/fan drive....

Note: I did not say jet, no one makes jet engines anymore. Pure jet engines are just too inefficient.

Tim

My bad, I was talking about the EA500s and failed to notice you were discussing the EA400, the aborted single engine demo aircraft.

My point was that EA500s were sold at the same price point initially as the SF50 is, around $1.4M.

Mike C.

My bad, I was talking about the EA500s and failed to notice you were discussing the EA400, the aborted single engine demo aircraft.

My point was that EA500s were sold at the same price point initially as the SF50 is, around $1.4M.

Mike C.