In unpresurized aircraft, I prefer to stay under 10K and rarely go to 12K, in pressurized, I just set the cruise altitude and did not pay attention... to the "cabin altitude". I just knew what to look for when i had cabin altitude holding issues.

Tim

In unpresurized aircraft, I prefer to stay under 10K and rarely go to 12K, in pressurized, I just set the cruise altitude and did not pay attention... to the "cabin altitude". I just knew what to look for when i had cabin altitude holding issues.

Tim

Saw this... http://www.mide.com/pages/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator

Maybe helpful? If you do the bottom one first, find out what the psi is at X altitude. Then plug that in that psi PLUS your cabin diff PSI into the top one, then that is what your cabin alt will be???

Seems to work right. I put 28,000 in the bottom one and it gave me 4.78psi at28k. If the pressure differential is 5.5psi, then add that to 4.78, to get 10.28psi.

Plug 10.28psi into the top one and it gives you the altitude for 10.28psi, which is 9500 feet. Seems right...

CB

Here's an easier one I just whipped up: http://www.avionictools.com Select "Cabin Alt"

Here's an easier one I just whipped up: http://www.avionictools.com Select "Cabin Alt"

Here's an easier one I just whipped up: http://www.avionictools.com Select "Cabin Alt"

So...the SF50 did not show in Bismarck today. Some kind of torn engine gasket in Denver that there wasn't a part readily available for. Didn't get to see it.

But the Cirrus rep gave a little PPT. Very impressive. They specifically looked at the NEW airplane market between high end singles and bizjets. Their chart didnt show anything in that range. That is why they marketed to it.

Also, they said they tracked all trackable Meridians, Pilati and TBMs for 1 year on Flightaware. They said their data rarely showed the planes going over 280 and most trips were shown as 400 miles. Also a segment they were targeting.

Clearly the SF50 will not go 1300nm with a full cabin. But it seems (I was far back in crowd) that you can clearly fill the seats, and go 400 miles with reserves, with a full cabin. That is what they were targeting.

FWIW

I have heard people talk about getting a plane that does 80% or 90% of what you need and hire the rest. Probably OK for a flight department, but I think as an owner pilot, plopping down 7 figures, not being able to easily do 10% or 20% of your trips can get a little frustrating. My Meridian would do 95% of what I needed it to do, which wasn't bad, but you seem to remember that 5%. So I upgraded to an M600. Unless I change my normal missions, that is now a 99+% match. I can live with that

....and very few trips for the majority of pilots are anywhere near 1200 nm. So, for most of us, an SF50 would handle the 200 mile and 600 mile trips wonderfully.

That's a very good point Charles. I don't have $2-3M to spend (yet) but if I did and HAD to have new, I'd have a difficult time deciding between the SF50 and M600. The M600 range is just incredible. I don't many trips that would take advantage of that range capability but it would be a very attractive feature.

I just wish that Piper had included a nose baggage compartment on the M600. I seriously doubt all of our crap on our weeklong family trips would fit in an M600.

When I lived in TN, there was a Beech Premier which flew every week from TN, Atlanta, then to Jacksonville FL and back. Owner had homes in three locations, and just bounced between them, never going farther, taking family and friends. He would have been a perfect target customer. Never flying more then an hour....

I would think Cirrus knows what they targeted rather well. The question is if this is a big enough market....

Further, when you think about those 5% of trips you cannot do in the SF50, do you really want a plane you cannot stand up in?

Tim

Unfortunately, I make enough longer flights with more folks for this not to be of much use. I could use the SF50 for short trips, but to me, a jet is about taking lots of folks a long distance and going high. 400 miles would be pretty much up, then down if leaving from busy airspace like I'm in. I usually climb up in several steps and am brought down pretty low well out of the area because I have faster traffic arriving into the Class B area I'm under. Oh well. We all really need more than one plane to meet our missions

Dave...it was interesting to listen to the Cirrus guy last night. He said they weren't designing a "jet", but a step up, high performance plane from SR22. He said (paraphrasing from memory) that designing a SE jet was easier than a SETP. If it would have been the other way around, I bet they would have had a SETP.

To me, Tim said it well above. They designed it to fill a hole in the market. Is there enough buyers? We shall see!

The other Klapmeier said that a jet starts out with a cost advantage over a TP because it's simpler, no gearbox or prop.

Don, would have been nice to have another cargo hold. Haven't measured it exactly, but pretty sure the PA46 luggage area holds more than my SR2X did, but then again more people, more stuff. The baggage is pretty easy to load, since you can drop the seats. They do make an STC for a luggage rack that takes the place of one center seat, but I travel 6 seats filled a lot, so wouldn't work for me. You can get a surprising amount of stuff in there, but does help to pack wisely. Also found that if you pack in soft luggage, you can really maximize as well. I do have a full size suitcase that I place on the bottom of the luggage bay, it sits lengthwise, then a medium suitcase on that, the rest of our bags tend to be a mix of soft and small bags. Still waiting for Yakima or Thule to get the STC for a roof rack