Mike,
Where did you see these numbers? I can't seem to find this "release" from Cirrus.

On the cirrusdesign.com web site, they list the takeoff roll as 1697 feet. http://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/vision-sf50/ In the official SF50 brochure, they report 2036 feet. http://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/up ... e-2016.pdf


On the web site and in the brochure linked above, they report "landing groundroll" 1721 feet.

So, where did the new numbers come from?

Arlen,

Mike saw the numbers on the Cirrus Vision "owners" website. This is a website restricted to position holders or "legitimate" prospects for the SF 50 that Cirrus has given access to. I'll let you decide whether Mike is really a legitimate prospect or not (although I can confirm that Cirrus knows quite well that he is not).

Anyway, the numbers Mike posted are one set of the two they released in the most recent post to the blog on the site. Here are the other set:

Flight Profile @ Maximum Weight (max ramp weight 6040 lbs., total usable fuel 296 gallons), ISA, Sea Level, No Wind:

Ground roll take off distance: 2036 feet
MCT @ FL 280: 300 KTAS, 69 GPH, Approx. 1000 NM
Best Economy Cruise @ FL 280 242 KTAS, 47 GPH, Approx. 1200 NM
Descent: Mach .53
Ground Roll Distance 1721 feet

Ahhhh. So Mike C. is an SF-50 position holder!

I agree. And that's not to 17K from 0 MSL, it is 17K from 2K, or only 15K of climb.

Consider the Eclipse is 6000 lbs and 1800 lbs thrust, the SF50 is 6000 lbs and 1900 lbs thrust, how the heck can the Eclipse climb twice as fast or more?

I realize the data was at ISA+10, but it was also at 5000 lbs, or a 1000 lbs less than gross.

Eclipse on ONE engine is almost 1000 FPM ISA/gross/0 MSL.

Something's not right here. The question is if that is the data or the plane. The plane is definitely not optimal for climb, but this is way out of line, so I think the data is flawed in some way.

Either that, or the FJ33 is REALLY sensitive to ISA plus conditions. ISA+10 is not that hot, basically room temp at 0 MSL.

Mike C.

I definitely have positions I hold.

Mike C.

If your positions match your opinions you're definitely not holding anything Cirrus, regardless of model.
What confuses me is your obvious passion for GA.
How can you love GA and despise Cirrus?
I get it in 2004, but not in 2016.

There must be a backstory....

Where did infer that MikeC despises Cirrus? I've seen nothing but analytical, data oriented critiques of their jet design from him.

Where did infer that MikeC despises Cirrus? I've seen nothing but analytical, data oriented critiques of their jet design from him.

Tony,

I am curious how Cirrus knows this and how you know positively that Cirrus knows.

Is it because you presumed my intent and then you told Cirrus about me?

Otherwise, why would Cirrus state their views on my intent to you?

Mike C.

Tony,

I am curious how Cirrus knows this and how you know positively that Cirrus knows.

Is it because you presumed my intent and then you told Cirrus about me?

Otherwise, why would Cirrus state their views on my intent to you?

Mike C.

Cirrus Suppliers read Beechtalk, and I know several Cirrus people who read Beechtalk. It is the most dynamic forum and the most non-inclusive out there, I had assumed otherwise prior to joining. Forums like AOPA are dominated by a few "Bruce" voices that are consistently off base, the Cessna forum is moribund. COPA is not too bad and surprisingly the Cessna 177 group is very active.

Assuming Cirrus is not actively thinking about the new aircraft performance envelope and marketing of same would be extremely shortsighted and frankly foolish.

Assuming the enemy is delusional, or less intelligent is really not an effective strategy.

I know people who I have brought over to Cirrus - wish their former company had as much passion and direction.

Sales @ other manufacturers actively moan openly, when the news carries a chute pull, as chute pulls equate to sales or in their case lost sales.

Brings a new meaning to - "Save" - Doesn't it

I have no problem with that.

My question is how Tony knows what Cirrus thinks of me. I can't imagine they go around telling people those things no matter what they have decided internally.

Arlen, if I told you what Cirrus thinks of you, you would be curious how I came to know that, too.

Cirrus has treated me professionally and courteously, so I see no evidence to support Tony's claim. I certainly hope Tony has not done anything to change that.

Mike C.

I was only referring to the notion that you might be a legitimate prospect to buy an SF50. I know nothing about what Cirrus thinks of anyone personally, but if they read this thread (which I've heard from various sources) they know you don't intend on buying a Cirrus jet SF50.

I have no problem with that.

My question is how Tony knows what Cirrus thinks of me. I can't imagine they go around telling people those things no matter what they have decided internally.

Arlen, if I told you what Cirrus thinks of you, you would be curious how I came to know that, too.

Cirrus has treated me professionally and courteously, so I see no evidence to support Tony's claim. I certainly hope Tony has not done anything to change that.

Mike C.

Maybe someone isn't a fan of the SF50 but wants to see the path to a twin engine version. Assuming that's in the pipeline (not a hard assumption), as a company I'd be interested in keeping anyone active who was in the market for a jet.

Chip-