You're wrong.

That's you twisting words.

They never claimed in all conditions.

All Cirrus did was change how the engine operates under certain conditions. Which is fine as far as it goes. Honda just did the essentially same thing with the Elite S, but I don't think they are getting bashed on it.

Of course, Tamarack got hit pretty hard for their winglet claims so it's not just Cirrus!

Anyway, I'd rather talk to pilots, in cliques or otherwise, than just about anybody else lol

Besides ... MY PLANE IS BETTER THAN YOURS ANYWAY! *laughing* Different people have different views, don't take posts on any forum so seriously !!

Off to Oshkosh today! Maybe I will pick up some outrageous marketing materials and post about those! Somehow I expect some of the vendors at OSH will make 1 or 2 claims that are a bit over the top ... lol

Cheers!

The change improves runway performance between 4 and 20 percent, according to Matt Bergwall, director of the Vision Jet product line.

That implies a minimum improvement of 4% is achieved across the possible conditions.

If the minimum improvement is 0%, why mention a 4% lower bound at some unstated arbitrary condition?

Mike C.

The change improves runway performance between 4 and 20 percent, according to Matt Bergwall, director of the Vision Jet product line.

That implies a minimum improvement of 4% is achieved across the possible conditions.

If the minimum improvement is 0%, why mention a 4% lower bound at some unstated arbitrary condition?

Mike C.

Takeoff distances are from brake release at max thrust, which means spool time is not a factor.

First four steps are to assure takeoff thrust is reached before brake release.

See the note about rolling takeoffs increasing distances.

Mike C.

Takeoff distances are from brake release at max thrust, which means spool time is not a factor.

First four steps are to assure takeoff thrust is reached before brake release.

See the note about rolling takeoffs increasing distances.

Mike C.

The change improves runway performance between 4 and 20 percent, according to Matt Bergwall, director of the Vision Jet product line.

That implies a minimum improvement of 4% is achieved across the possible conditions.

If the minimum improvement is 0%, why mention a 4% lower bound at some unstated arbitrary condition?

Mike C.

The VJ needs to go higher and faster.

I wonder if they put a much more powerful engine in it that could achieve FL410, would the fuel savings from flying higher offset the extra fuel comsumption of the larger engine? I'm thinking probably not.

Some people are putting too much faith in the VJ's single engine+parachute approach. I recently saw a track of a VJ going from Spain to the UK over the Bay of Biscay and at one point it was 200nm from land, clearly out of gliding range. No way I'm parachuting a plane without a line cutter into the notoriously windy Bay of Biscay.

The change improves runway performance between 4 and 20 percent, according to Matt Bergwall, director of the Vision Jet product line.

That implies a minimum improvement of 4% is achieved across the possible conditions.

If the minimum improvement is 0%, why mention a 4% lower bound at some unstated arbitrary condition?

Mike C.

Up to 20% better is in the press release, not 4% - 20%.

I find it humorous that most of the criticism about this aircraft have been or are being improved and addressed.

It flies too low. Now it goes to FL310
It's too loud. Improved insulation = much quieter.
It's range is too short. Lighter weight, holds more fuel or passengers and now flies farther.
It's too slow. I feel that way about my SR22. I feel the same way when flying the EMB145 from Vegas to home at 440kts.

It can't get worse, so there is only one direction to go.


Still too low.

Eclipse 500 has less thrust, same weight, and flies at FL410 and 370 knots. The SEJ is just horribly inefficient.

If the SR series flew at 130 knots and not over 6000 ft, nobody would be singing it praises, yet the SF50 is praised for what is relatively the same performance.

Mike C.

So nowhere on the chart is there a 2% improvement? Seems odd to have such a step function in what is a naturally analog situation.

It just seems strange to claim 4 to 20% improvement, but yet have no higher max thrust.

One wonders why this improvement took 4 years if the engine is basically the same since the beginning.

Mike C.

Except the thrust lever is just the FADEC suggestion box. It's possible that max static thrust is something well below 100% and the schedule from whatever that is to rolling max has changed.

The SF50 already has more thrust than the Eclipse 500 with the same weight which suggests it can aerodynamically reach FL410 already.

If the SF50 can't make it to FL410 aerodynamically, then it exposes how inefficient the design is and the engine isn't the problem.

Even if it needed a bigger engine, I expect the SF50 would save fuel flying higher. There is a pretty big change in fuel efficiency between FL310 and FL410 for jets.

Mike C.