That's about as likely as a bus full of nuns going to Hooters.
- Ghost Busters

First, fuel flow is not SETP. It is even higher than my twin turboprop that goes much faster, farther, carrying much more.

Second, FAA noticed it was not an SETP. Type rating and yearly check required for the pilot, to airline standards.

Third, since it is a jet, now requires inspection program, not annual. SETP only requires annual (quirk of the rules, but it is what it is).

What you basically said is that Cirrus is delivering SETP performance but crippled it with high fuel flow, extra maintenance costs, and extra training burdens for no benefit other than you can be a "jet pilot".

Mike C.

Eclipse EA500.

SF50 300 knots, 69 GPH, FL280, is 0.65 nm/lb specific range in cruise.

EA500 360 knots, 54 GPH, FL410, is 0.99 nm/lb specific range in cruise.

The EA500 burns 53% less fuel per mile. EA500 is the same weight and about the same thrust as the SF50. And this assumes the numbers Cirrus has given out prove out (and there is some doubt about that).

In the EA500, you get the benefit of flying higher which enables faster AND less fuel flow.

The EA500 also climbs MUCH faster, too, and has longer range.

There seems to be this deep seated belief a twin must burn more fuel.

Not true for a jet.

How many times do I have to say it?

Mike C.

No

The SF50 will burn more fuel than TBM, PC-12, and many TPE331 twins for the same speed and altitude. And those aircraft are MUCH heavier.

My airplane burns 65 GPH at FL280, for TWO engines and nearly double the weight.


Cirrus says 69 GPH at FL280, 300 KTAS.


TBM goes faster, further, carries more.

PC-12 goes much further and carries MUCH more.

They do not burn more fuel than the SF50.

The closest SETP to SF50 is the Meridian. It burns a LOT less than the SF50.


No. At FL280, the engine is temp limited. It is not derated very much at all.

At 1900 lbf, the FJ33-5A is working hard. This is at the upper end of the FJ33 thrust range.

For reference, an FJ44-1A is also 1900 lbf, the bottom of the FJ44 thrust range, and runs on about 84 GPH at FL280 per the Citation CJ manual. One wonders how the FJ33-5A can be that much more efficient than the FJ44-1A. In other words, maybe the 69 GPH number from Cirrus is a bit optimistic.

Mike C.

The SF50 will burn more fuel than TBM, PC-12, and many TPE331 twins for the same speed and altitude. And those aircraft are MUCH heavier.

My airplane burns 65 GPH at FL280, for TWO engines and nearly double the weight.


Cirrus says 69 GPH at FL280, 300 KTAS.


TBM goes faster, further, carries more.

PC-12 goes much further and carries MUCH more.

They do not burn more fuel than the SF50.

The closest SETP to SF50 is the Meridian. It burns a LOT less than the SF50.


No. At FL280, the engine is temp limited. It is not derated very much at all.

At 1900 lbf, the FJ33-5A is working hard. This is at the upper end of the FJ33 thrust range.

For reference, an FJ44-1A is also 1900 lbf, the bottom of the FJ44 thrust range, and runs on about 84 GPH at FL280 per the Citation CJ manual. One wonders how the FJ33-5A can be that much more efficient than the FJ44-1A. In other words, maybe the 69 GPH number from Cirrus is a bit optimistic.

Mike C.

Cirrus says 69 GPH, FL280, 300 KTAS. 4.35 nm/gal.

I think the 300 KTAS is probably achievable, but I have my doubts about the 69 GPH. Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being in the mid 70s. The same thrust size engine in FJ44 is in the 80s at FL280.


Using your 6.6 nm/gal number, the EA500 goes 52% further on a gallon of fuel in cruise.

Mike C.

Such is the hazard of picking numbers off a web site without knowing what assumptions they made.

It matters a lot at what altitude the fuel flow and speed are taken. That's the point.

Mike C.

You said it was less.

"So this great big jump you keep harping on, is actually less in the SF50 then in the other competing choices."

Piston single fixed gear to type rated jet IS a bigger jump than piston single retract to turboprop. The rules say so, the field says so. Prop or no prop is a big change in the way a plane flies.


Doesn't slow down, doesn't stop on contaminated runways, depends critically on brakes, participates in turbojet SIDs/ STARs, doesn't change power setting rapidly, has residual thrust (instead of drag) at idle, trims differently, etc.

You can't be "just a jet". Being a jet is different. Not necessarily harder in all aspects, but not necessarily easier, either.

Being a competent SR22 pilot does not necessarily mean you have what it takes to fly an SF50. There will be some wash out in the training program and low time SF50s will show up on controller.com.

Mike C.

Tim,

You've said twice that Cirrus SR-20/22 training is taught to ATP standards. Can you show where that is? I find it VERY hard to believe given the fact most people who fly Cirruses (Cirri?) are private pilots and would presumably be trained to PP SEL standards...

Just curious as I can't find reference to this anywhere.

thanks,
Dave

David,

I won't speak for Tim, but I have accomplished the Advanced Transition Training Course at Cirrus Aircraft in November 2013. The training consisted of about 40 hours of pre arrival online class training and study on systems, etc. The training at Cirrus was about 45 hours total not counting nighttime study. Of that time I had about 5 hours in the sim, a couple of hours of procedure trainer time, 11 hours of flight time in the airplane and the balance ground school and pre and post flight briefing.

In reviewing the Commercial Pilot PTS (I am a Commercial SE Pilot with IFR rating) and the ATP PTS I can tell you that the course completion requirements in Flight Training Manual were either at the CP or ATP level. As I am sure you know, the ATP PTS is a combination of flying, maneuvers, systems and other knowledge testing combined with an Instrument Rating check ride. Some of the maneuvers, for example steep turns, have performance requirements similar to the Private Pilot PTS (45 degrees) and there are actually some requirements which are more stringent in the CP PTS (landing within distance limitations for example).

I was required to demonstrate satisfactory performance in all of the maneuvers and flying tasks, listed in the ATP PTS (per my review this evening) at the ATP level, or CP level, whichever was more stringent. In addition I was required to perform all of the Instrument Approaches and IR flying requirements listed in the ATP PTS to those standards. That, of course, included failures of all kinds while flying including simulated engine failures, etc. In addition, of course, I was required to demonstrate proper CAPS techniques in flight up to the actual pull, and through the pull and recovery in the sim.

I was not required to perform a "check ride" with a DPE during my training. So, I cannot state that the training is analogous to what a jet aircraft type rating requires. However, I did do a final flight where we did all of those tasks in one flight with satisfactory completion required for full sign off.

Was it an ATP level check ride? I don't claim that. In some instances the flying requirements were slightly more demanding. I don't see where it is analogous to a 13 day Flight Safety initial jet training course as: it was 40 per cent as long (although taken with the online pre work perhaps it was closer than that - I haven't been to Flight Safety yet so I can't positively, personally, state that), the maneuvers where flown in an airplane in actual IMC conditions much of the time not in a simulator so the Cirrus training is clearly easier, there was no final check ride with a DPE, only an instructor.

I do know it was very thorough, exhausting and damned tough.

Not every Cirrus owner, or pilot, takes this course - at Cirrus or through a CSIP. There are other, scaled down versions available. This is just what I took.

Was it analogous to a jet training course to ATP standards? Beats me. You decide.

That's like asking college graduates if they dropped out of high school. You are already dealing with a highly self selected list.


Full forward is the highest prop drag. You are used to it being how the plane flies.

If you could feather the SR22 prop, you would be amazed and what a difference that makes. You don't realize the drag it is creating for you.

Not only will the jet not have the drag, it will have residual thrust. And as you nose over, the thrust will increase slightly, not drag increase like a prop.


FAA says type rating required, train and checkride to ATP standards.

Mike C.

Tony,

Thanks for the info. I was not alluding to the training content being analogous to jet type rating training. I was specifically alluding to the statements made that the Cirrus training requires the pilot to fly the maneuvers to ATP standards (which is what is required for any jet type rating regardless of what rating the pilot holds).

Are you saying that if a person had more than a one dot deviation on an instrument approach during the training with Cirrus, he/she fails and is not not signed off? If you fail to maintain heading +/- 5 degrees or Vref airspeed +/- 5 kts, then you fail/aren't signed off?

I absolutely do not doubt that it is high quality training and that people are not signed off if not competent in the plane. What I find hard to believe is that if a person with a PP SEL rating comes to Cirrus, they fail the training/final check/whatever if they are unable to fly the plane to commercial or ATP standards. If so, kudos to Cirrus for requiring a standard required by no other piston manufacturer.

The only NON-Jet fixed wing aircraft training (obviously all jet type ratings MUST be passed to an ATP standard no matter what rating the pilot holds) I am aware of that requires the pilot to potentially fly to a higher standard than he/she is rated for is the MU-2 SFAR training which (per the FAA ) explicitly states that all the maneuvers MUST be flown to commercial PTS standards regardless of the pilot's rating (meaning even a Private Pilot MUST be able to fly to commercial standards or he/she will fail).

Again, I am absolutely not doubting the quality or thoroughness of the Cirrus training. From what I understand, it is the best there is in the new, manufacturer-provided single engine piston world and was built to that level by Cirrus because of the horrendous insurance claim rates they initially had as a mechanism to get potential buyers lower insurance rates. What I am doubting is a Private Pilot will fail the training/not be signed off if he/she fails to fly all maneuvers to ATP standards. Every reference that I have found to Cirrus Transition Training and Cirrus Advanced Transition Training (including the PDF syllubus on the COPA website) says it is performed to Private Pilot PTS standards (specifically "Upon completion of the course, the pilot will be able to...operate the aircraft according to the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards"). As a matter of fact, the websites say that Cirrus Transition Training is for a VFR pilot (meaning no instrument work at all) and it is only the Advanced Transition Training (which is what you mentioned) that says instrument work is done. That would imply that for transition training, Cirrus only requires a VFR pilot to fly maneuvers to private PTS before sign off. Should the pilot elect (emphasis on the word "elect" meaning this is NOT required) to do the Advanced Transition Training, Cirrus does all of the VFR stuff and then tacks on IFR maneuvers such that the pilot successfully completes an Instrument Proficiency Check to Private Pilot Instrument Rating standards prior to sign off. This is VERY, VERY different than ANY Jet type rating course where, to pass and be signed off (get the type rating) the Pilot MUST complete the required maneuvers to ATP standards, period (and by the way, you have to do that again every 12 months).

Several people have also said this is the same as what is required by insurance company's for pilots flying turbo-props. Not true. There is NO FAA-mandated level of performance to get sign off to fly a turbo-prop. The insurance company merely requires that the pilot complete initial or recurrent training at an approved training program. While many of those programs are very good and detailed, there is NO "minimum standard of performance" that must be met. This is different than the MU-2 training which has an FAA-mandated syllabus which explicitly details (among other things), what maneuvers must be performed, how they will be performed and to what standard...and that failure to meet that standard means a fail and you are not qualified to fly the plane. This is why many people liken the MU-2 SFAR training to a type rating...while the SFAR is only flown to commercial (vice ATP) standards, there is a standard that MUST be met or the pilot can't fly the plane (just like all jets and all other aircraft requiring a type rating). I'm not calling you or Tim liars...what I am saying is that I simply can't believe Cirrus is imposing those standards and refusing to sign off pilots if they fail to fly maneuvers during transition training (advanced or not) to ATP (or even commercial) standards.

Does that make sense?

best,
Dave

All of that ^ is for a single engine fixed gear airplane with a chute. It's unprecedented.

If 10 or 15gph FF difference is a deciding factor in your budget, a 2.8m new jet may not be the right thing for you.

Reminds me of the people bellyaching about the repack cost in a SR22.