"A lot of air" and "way less drag" is not engineering. If you want to talk in engineering terms, dig out charts that show actual prop drag on a specific plane as a function of speed, and compare it to the drag of the airframe itself.

Very nice, good to hear things from a guy who actually owns one. Do you know by any chance what airport this was filmed at? The owner said two interesting things that are relevant to current discussion.

1. He would consider that runway a bit too short for a take-off with full load on a hot day;
2. He landed there without using brakes.

Which is very typical. In most cases, your choice of the runway will be dictated by where you can takeoff from, not by where you can land.

You can put some effort into your own education.

But I'll give you this one chart:

http://12charlie.com/Chapter_12/Chap12Page005.htm

If you have a constant speed prop, and RPM decreases as you throttle back, you are at the fine pitch stop which is on the left edge of that chart. High drag.

So a Bonanza with an idling engine produces considerable drag while a jet at idle produces measurable thrust. The difference between those conditions is very significant. If you land a jet and expect it to slow down, without brakes, like a Bonanza, you will be very surprised.

Mike C.

Paid deposit in 2006, got jet end of 2017.

4 weeks of training over 2.5 months.

Fixed base simulator is operational in Duluth, type training is in airplane.

Check ride to ATP standards.

Circle to land VOR approach hardest task in check ride.

50-60 hours to become comfortable.

25 hours mentoring, over 8 days.

Avionics hardest, systems next, adapting to speed also a challenge.

FL270/280 is where you fly, 305-310 knots.

Claims 305 knots true is 160-165 knots indicated at FL280 (truth is ~200 KIAS).

Said zero fuel weight limits him to 1165 lbs in cabin, which indicates an empty weight of 3735 lbs (brochure number is 3572 lbs, 163 lbs heavier than brochure).

Says that leaves 176 gallons at ZFW, which is enough for a 2 hour flight and a "small" reserve, "30 minutes". That felt skimpy to me.

Full fuel, limited to 450 lbs. I couldn't make that math work: 6040 lbs ramp - 3735 lbs empty - 296 gallons * 6.7 lbs/gal is 322 lbs.

1800 ft (light) to 3000 ft (heavy) runway length required. Hot and high will take more.

IPC every 6 months, 61.58 every 12 months.

Full motion sim by maybe July in Knoxville?

Glide ratio is 2 miles per 1000 ft (which is 12:1, assuming he meant nautical miles, not great for a jet).

1000 ft min chute altitude.

Pulling chute engages autopilot first, aims for 135-140 KIAS. If too fast, AP idles engine, pulls nose up, pops chute with reaching target speed. After 25 seconds, chute will fire regardless of AP control. 25 seconds seems *way* too long.

Windshield is TKS, must be used as anti ice, otherwise could cause ice chunks into engine.

3 underwriters cover SF50.

Jay was 68th SF50 type rated pilot, 25th "real"customer or pilot (not salesman, DE, FAA, test pilot, etc).

Only one DE check airman right now for SF50 type, Cirrus employee.

First pilot who took the plane home himself.

Serial #29, N712JJ.

Three groups of trainees: Pros being hired to fly them. Owner operators. Third group were green pilots not really ready for SF50.

Main thing to remember: how long the plane takes to get off the ground.

Land and not brake. KFGU is just under 5000 ft.

Offered a lot for his position, was #24.

70-75 GPH.

3 year, 600 hour program, $370/hour. Maintenance, training, warranty. Not clear it included engine, but I suspect it does.

Figure $800/hour DOC, figure double that for all in. Expects it to charter for $2K/hour.

Mike C.

Paid deposit in 2006, got jet end of 2017.

4 weeks of training over 2.5 months.

Fixed base simulator is operational in Duluth, type training is in airplane.

Check ride to ATP standards.

Circle to land VOR approach hardest task in check ride.

50-60 hours to become comfortable.

25 hours mentoring, over 8 days.

Avionics hardest, systems next, adapting to speed also a challenge.

FL270/280 is where you fly, 305-310 knots.

Claims 305 knots true is 160-165 knots indicated at FL280 (truth is ~200 KIAS).

Said zero fuel weight limits him to 1165 lbs in cabin, which indicates an empty weight of 3735 lbs (brochure number is 3572 lbs, 163 lbs heavier than brochure).

Says that leaves 176 gallons at ZFW, which is enough for a 2 hour flight and a "small" reserve, "30 minutes". That felt skimpy to me.

Full fuel, limited to 450 lbs. I couldn't make that math work: 6040 lbs ramp - 3735 lbs empty - 296 gallons * 6.7 lbs/gal is 322 lbs.

1800 ft (light) to 3000 ft (heavy) runway length required. Hot and high will take more.

IPC every 6 months, 61.58 every 12 months.

Full motion sim by maybe July in Knoxville?

Glide ratio is 2 miles per 1000 ft (which is 12:1, assuming he meant nautical miles, not great for a jet).

1000 ft min chute altitude.

Pulling chute engages autopilot first, aims for 135-140 KIAS. If too fast, AP idles engine, pulls nose up, pops chute with reaching target speed. After 25 seconds, chute will fire regardless of AP control. 25 seconds seems *way* too long.

Windshield is TKS, must be used as anti ice, otherwise could cause ice chunks into engine.

3 underwriters cover SF50.

Jay was 68th SF50 type rated pilot, 25th "real"customer or pilot (not salesman, DE, FAA, test pilot, etc).

Only one DE check airman right now for SF50 type, Cirrus employee.

First pilot who took the plane home himself.

Serial #29, N712JJ.

Three groups of trainees: Pros being hired to fly them. Owner operators. Third group were green pilots not really ready for SF50.

Main thing to remember: how long the plane takes to get off the ground.

Land and not brake. KFGU is just under 5000 ft.

Offered a lot for his position, was #24.

70-75 GPH.

3 year, 600 hour program, $370/hour. Maintenance, training, warranty. Not clear it included engine, but I suspect it does.

Figure $800/hour DOC, figure double that for all in. Expects it to charter for $2K/hour.

Mike C.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N83 ... N/tracklog

Gives a good look at performance. With current winds can get an idea of TAS.

Paid deposit in 2006, got jet end of 2017.

4 weeks of training over 2.5 months.

Fixed base simulator is operational in Duluth, type training is in airplane.

Check ride to ATP standards.

Circle to land VOR approach hardest task in check ride.

50-60 hours to become comfortable.

25 hours mentoring, over 8 days.

Avionics hardest, systems next, adapting to speed also a challenge.

FL270/280 is where you fly, 305-310 knots.

Claims 305 knots true is 160-165 knots indicated at FL280 (truth is ~200 KIAS).

Said zero fuel weight limits him to 1165 lbs in cabin, which indicates an empty weight of 3735 lbs (brochure number is 3572 lbs, 163 lbs heavier than brochure).

Says that leaves 176 gallons at ZFW, which is enough for a 2 hour flight and a "small" reserve, "30 minutes". That felt skimpy to me.

Full fuel, limited to 450 lbs. I couldn't make that math work: 6040 lbs ramp - 3735 lbs empty - 296 gallons * 6.7 lbs/gal is 322 lbs.

1800 ft (light) to 3000 ft (heavy) runway length required. Hot and high will take more.

IPC every 6 months, 61.58 every 12 months.

Full motion sim by maybe July in Knoxville?

Glide ratio is 2 miles per 1000 ft (which is 12:1, assuming he meant nautical miles, not great for a jet).

1000 ft min chute altitude.

Pulling chute engages autopilot first, aims for 135-140 KIAS. If too fast, AP idles engine, pulls nose up, pops chute with reaching target speed. After 25 seconds, chute will fire regardless of AP control. 25 seconds seems *way* too long.

Windshield is TKS, must be used as anti ice, otherwise could cause ice chunks into engine.

3 underwriters cover SF50.

Jay was 68th SF50 type rated pilot, 25th "real"customer or pilot (not salesman, DE, FAA, test pilot, etc).

Only one DE check airman right now for SF50 type, Cirrus employee.

First pilot who took the plane home himself.

Serial #29, N712JJ.

Three groups of trainees: Pros being hired to fly them. Owner operators. Third group were green pilots not really ready for SF50.

Main thing to remember: how long the plane takes to get off the ground.

Land and not brake. KFGU is just under 5000 ft.

Offered a lot for his position, was #24.

70-75 GPH.

3 year, 600 hour program, $370/hour. Maintenance, training, warranty. Not clear it included engine, but I suspect it does.

Figure $800/hour DOC, figure double that for all in. Expects it to charter for $2K/hour.

Mike C.

Interesting tidbit in the FSB report--the SF50 does not comply with FAR 135.163(f) regarding required equipment for IFR passenger-carrying operations under Part 135. Accordingly, the FSB concluded that the SF50 cannot legally be used to carry passengers when operated IFR under Part 135, which of course means it is unsuitable for charter operations.

Ken

Some insurance data points for the thread.....

We have insured 5 SF50's to date with the annual premium range from $18-$19k up to $29k. Experience level of those pilots we have worked with that are transitioning ranged from 245 hrs total time (Private/IFR) up to 3000+ hrs total time (Commercial/IFR) with prior turbo-prop experience.

Mentoring requirements ranged from 0 hrs (just the initial type rating at Cirrus in Knoxville for the higher time guys and those with prior turbine time) up to 50 hrs for the 245 hrs private / IFR candidate. If you ask me I think the 50 hrs mentoring for a 250 hrs total time pilot is a bit light but that is what the underwriting market yielded and what the customer wanted/accepted.

Viable SF50 underwriting carrier market at present is between 3-5 insurers who are 'competitive' in this class. The pilots with the lower experience will see at least 3-4 options for quoting companies and higher time pilots will see up to 5 options (possibly more depending on experience). There are several underwriting companies that are taking a 'wait and see' approach to see how entry into service plays out, losses etc before they jump into the quoting arena.

I would say overall the SF50 has been an excellent product launch for a newly certified aircraft respects the insurance acceptance. Cirrus did an excellent job with underwriter familiarity respects the product by hosting a number of events where the insurance underwriting companies attend technical presentations and training facility walk throughs/program briefings.


With close to 700 proposed deliveries at present the insurance 'market' will continue to improve with more aircraft pumped into the premium pool (subject to minimal losses). Well done Cirrus.

I take it you have never done an air start on a PT6? That is an eye opening experience to prop drag. Or for that matter any windmilling prop on a PT6.

FSB report:

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/sf50_rev%200.pdf

Statement:

The SF50 aircraft evaluated did not demonstrate compliance with § 135.163(f). Therefore, the SF50 is not suitable for Single-Engine Instrument Flight Rules (SEIFR) Passenger-Carrying operations under part 135.

FAR 135.163(f):

(f) For a single-engine aircraft:

(1) Two independent electrical power generating sources each of which is able to supply all probable combinations of continuous inflight electrical loads for required instruments and equipment; or

(2) In addition to the primary electrical power generating source, a standby battery or an alternate source of electric power that is capable of supplying 150% of the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for safe emergency operation of the aircraft for at least one hour;

Pretty sure they meet (1) with two generators on the engine, so I'm guessing it is a problem with (2), having enough battery for 1 hour of 150% essential bus.

I don't have a reference, but my understanding is that subsequent to the FSB report, Cirrus modified the emergency procedures to meet the 1 hour requirement. Say, pull a breaker on essential bus for something not truly essential. At least, this would be what I would expect them to do.

After all, Cirrus was intending the plane to be used by SATSair, the now defunct air taxi company they owned 25% of. They would have certainly worked to resolve the 135.163(f) issue.

If the engine isn't turning, there's no way they stay in the air 1 hour anyway, but that would be true generally of all single engine airplanes, so the rule is a bit odd.

Mike C.

Let's assume $29K is the 250 hour PP. After broker commissions and overhead, the underwriter nets $20K for the risk pool.

Let's say a hull loss is $2M.

To break even, that is one hull loss every year for every ~100 airframes. The insurance rate is roughly 1% of hull value.

As far as I know, so far there has been only one event that would have been a claim, the runway excursion in Greenland, which was clearly not a hull loss.


I concur.

There are many ways an inexperienced pilot can be lead happily to an accident scene in a 300 knot SEJ. The plane has the ability to expose the new pilot to weather, procedures, traffic, airports which require some experience to manage properly.


Source?

Jay said 600, which matches what Cirrus has said, and that's the largest number I've heard.

Mike C.

No, there is definitely a price, something north of $2M, plus training and mentoring time.

Mike C.

I just returned from EBACE and during the show spoke with a friend of mine who is one of their two US Sales Directors for the VisionJet as well as their European Sales Director ....

I believe the actual number mentioned was 660. Regardless of whether it is 600 or 700 makes little difference. Point I was trying to make is that this isn't a 60 order aircraft it is a 600+ order aircraft - which is currently delivering.

Doubt it. I don't think they meet either #1 nor #2, and hence do not meet the regulation. Reports are the the backup alternator is just 72 amps and the backup battery is just 13.6 amp-hours.

Ken