28 Jan 2026, 16:41 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 17 May 2016, 19:59 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 21167
Post Likes: +26655
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So how is the Eclipse not a "personal jet"? By being essentially out of production, having weird avionics, having support problems. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 20:04 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So how is the Eclipse not a "personal jet"? By being essentially out of production, having weird avionics, having support problems. Mike C.
The Eclipse is the twin SF50 you want.
How much more does it cost to operate a CJ4 compared to an Eclipse?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 20:11 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3503
Post Likes: +2477
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A CJ4 is definitely not a "personal jet".
Mike C. I know of several CJ4 owner/operators that would adamantly disagree with that. The CJ4 might be the ultimate SP personal jet.
_________________
Previous A36TN owner
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 20:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I know of several CJ4 owner/operators that would adamantly disagree with that. The CJ4 might be the ultimate SP personal jet. I disagree with it too. Anything single pilot is a "personal jet". I think all SP jets cost about the same to run. Eclipse vs. CJ4 are extreme opposites but I bet they're still a few hundred $$ apart..... Not thousands of $$ apart. TBM vs. Pilatus vs. Meridien...... They all cost the same to run. A couple hundred $$ difference is no difference because it can't be measured.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 20:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6065
Post Likes: +719
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
Define personal jet. Trump as a personal 757 jet, the prince of Saudi flys a personal A380. Its all relative. Username Protected wrote: A CJ4 is definitely not a "personal jet".
Mike C. I know of several CJ4 owner/operators that would adamantly disagree with that. The CJ4 might be the ultimate SP personal jet.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 20:23 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2695
Post Likes: +2279
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I looked up the TBM850 AFM.
At FL180, max cruise is 294 KTAS, 70.5 GPH, 4.17 nm/gal.
At FL180, long range cruise is 201 KTAS, 42.8 nm/gal, 4.70 nm/gal.
Both are quite a bit better than the SF50:
MCT 283 KTAS, 84 GPH, 3.37 nm/gal
LRC 217 KTAS, 54 GPH, 4.02 nm/gal.
The TBM850 in high speed cruise is faster and gets better mileage than the the SF50 in LRC. We see these numbers differently, I see a wash. I'd choose between those two aircraft based on other factors (roominess, how they felt, fit/finish, chute, etc). Oh, and price.
_________________
Jack
N441M N107XX
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 564
Post Likes: +271
Aircraft: eclipse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So how is the Eclipse not a "personal jet"? By being essentially out of production, having weird avionics, having support problems. Mike C.
They made 3 in the first quarter of this year, the avionics are specifically geared to single pilot and support has been great for years,
By the way there are now more Eclipses flying in the USA than Mits
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:21 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8738
Post Likes: +9478
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I looked up the TBM850 AFM.
At FL180, max cruise is 294 KTAS, 70.5 GPH, 4.17 nm/gal.
At FL180, long range cruise is 201 KTAS, 42.8 nm/gal, 4.70 nm/gal.
Both are quite a bit better than the SF50:
MCT 283 KTAS, 84 GPH, 3.37 nm/gal
LRC 217 KTAS, 54 GPH, 4.02 nm/gal.
The TBM850 in high speed cruise is faster and gets better mileage than the the SF50 in LRC. We see these numbers differently, I see a wash. I'd choose between those two aircraft based on other factors (roominess, how they felt, fit/finish, chute, etc). Oh, and price.
Cheapest is hardly ever best.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 17161
Post Likes: +29248
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I find it almost funny that anyone who buys the planes mentioned on the past 3 or 4 pages really cares about nm per gallon. It's like buying a 60 ft sport fishing boat and worrying about the price of bait....
You guys crack me up sometimes.
Peace,
Don<>< It's not so much the cost of the fuel as how far can go before stopping, or how much fuel weight you need to carry. Better mileage=less fuel weight=faster climb and higher cruise.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:51 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8239
Post Likes: +7973
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Answered many times.
TBM and PC12 got certified long ago, prior to amendment 49 of part 23, under rules that allowed higher service ceilings without redundant pressurization. Then the rules changed in amendment 49, lowered that ceiling to Fl250. That left the TBM and PC12 grandfathered, but new designs can't get the same thing.
From AC 23-17C:
Amendment 23-49 and Subsequent
This amendment changed the 33,000 feet in § 23.841(a) to 25,000 feet based on European Joint Aviation Requirements Proposals.
So what you are saying then is there are no real technical reasons why you couldn't fly above 25,000 ft without that second source, it's just rules. Funny thing about rules - they can be changed. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:51 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 22017
Post Likes: +22812
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. If I were developing a new design, I'd be very interested in the opinions of someone who could use, and afford, my airplane but didn't want it. If there is something in my design that is turning off potential customers I'd be foolish to ignore those talking about it. Maybe those opinions are based on incorrect assumptions and I know my product will persuade them, but if not then I'd better take their input seriously.
_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 17 May 2016, 21:54 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/28/12
Posts: 867
Post Likes: +559
Company: CiES Inc
Location: Bend OR
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
The SF50 will not go to the high flight levels even if the rules change (which they won't regardless). The ceiling affects MANY things intrinsic to the design. It would have to be a redesign to go up there.
Mike C.
1. Well the rules are changing, there is a critical missing component in the new regs - it isn't what is there but what is missing now. 2. I have spent my career working under the FAA boot heel - All my designs have been safe, and 50% to 60% of them controversial & new. Some of these have fallen into special conditions, issue papers and ELOS, the FAA has formalized ways of bending. I have not been stopped on what needed to be accomplished. No good engineer ever is. 2. Understood on only designing to FL 280, I understand the quagmire of regulations that imposed that limit - but where has that been stated that was the design goal? Yes I remember the slowest lowest jet Alan K mentioned 7 years ago - Lots of water under the Duluth Lift Bridge since then. 3. Most of us in the business are familiar with the operational efficiencies of Jets & turbines This really falls under how do you eat an elephant - You are now flying an aircraft that was once vilified - It took a little time to realize its potential. It took time to mandate pilot training. Maybe that lesson wasn't lost on us all.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
a Having flown a CJ 4 several times, I think it's combination of single pilot, simple operate systems, great climb, good Cruise speed and good short field preformance make it THE ultimate single pilot personal jet. 
