Tom is a member. Perhaps he will post some additional details.

Nice write up!

The most interesting aspect to me, was how the predicted performance, range and other metrics came very close to the final product. That says many of those who have delivery positions likely had sales data which was close to the final performance.

Tim

The plane would probably go further and faster if it wasn't for all the restrictors they built in to make it match the marketing data

Thanks Tom great article!

The plane would probably go further and faster if it wasn't for all the restrictors they built in to make it match the marketing data

Awesome Tom.

I have not been able to get this little plane out of my head since I sat in it a couple of months ago. Unfortunately I have had a glass ceiling when it comes to business jets. I see what they cost on a daily basis and I see the potential of my business. It's just not a likely option for me.

But this little jet has changed that. I believe I can put it in my 10 year plan. And if I can do that, these little jets are going to be filling up ramps all over the country. Great for aviation!

AG

I just read the article. While the piloting and aesthetic aspects of the plane are fantastic, what struck me was the long awaited performance data.

The argument going back and forth seems to be around what niche this plane is meant to fill. It's clearly not intended to replace the typical jet, so what is it? It's the next step up from a SR, but to a full jet? That seems like a big step, but looking at this, it's really not.

Enough has been said about the flying qualities and features that make it an easy transition for SR pilots, but what about range and fuel burn? Tom's experience shows an expected burn in gallons of 80 for the first hour and then maybe 68 average for each hour after that. The plane has a Useful Load of 2499 lbs. I did the math for when I win the scratch off lottery (If I won the powerball I'd be buying a BIG jet!):

I'm shopping right now for a 30 or 40 year old piston twin. My mission requirements are 700 NM non stop, with 1 hour reserve, carrying at least 700 lbs, preferably 750. If we look at a Baron 55 as an example:
700nm/175ktas=4hrs+1hr=5hrs*24gph*6lb.gal=720 lbs. (120 gal). 720+750payload =1470 lbs. The fuel at $5/gallon costs $600.

According to Tom's article, the SF50 looks like this:

700NM/300ktas=2.3hrs+1=3.3hrs. 80+68+68+22.8=238.8gal*6.7lb/gal=1600 lbs.
Total useful load=2499-1600=900, so I can carry 150 lbs more, or I can carry the same load and add another 22 gallons (0.3 hrs/90NM) of fuel. The cost of the fuel over the 700NM leg is 170.8*3.5=$597.8. so for about the same price I can fly the jet and get there in pressurized style and comfort 1+42 quicker. I can also go 825 miles further on the remaining fuel available vs the B55 at 131NM.

Now I have no idea how the maintenance costs are going to work out; what the care and feeding of the jet is compared to a piston twin. Certainly insurance and currency will be substantially higher, but if you could choose between, say a 421 and a SF50, would the fixed and maintenance costs combined be so different? Would the SF50 actually come out ahead? Certainly the direct operating cost is lower.

This starts to look like a no-brainer for those who had been looking at pressurized twins and even starts to compete with some SETPs (TBM700).

I think they have a winner on their hands.

I think it is in a unique class in that it is so easy to fly, and so luxurious, but the performance is a huge compromise. It seems to be a direct competitor for the Meridian, in price, payload and range. But takes a hit in efficiency, burning 50% more fuel for an average trip over the Meridian. It does get there a little faster, but since both are really 3 hour and change aircraft, that extra speed is not significant. It does not have the range and payload combinations of the M600 or the TBM, but they are also more expensive. We don't have retail numbers on the SF50, but with normal options like TAWs, Radar, TCAS and 3rd AHRS and ADC which are pretty much standard on the M600 and TBM, it going to be at least 2.6 mil once the positions are filled, so the M600 is 0.5 mil more and the TBM 1.5 mil more. They are both more capable aircraft, but don't have the Cirrus sleek factor. Seems like Cirrus has a nice niche. If I were coming up from a small piston, would seem like a nice step up currently served by the SETP's. Knowing what I have learned flying 2000 hours in the flight levels and in most weather conditions, I would take the SETP, but I am not their market

I think that is some very outcome-oriented figuring you are doing.

Cirrus doesn't claim the SF50 has real long legs.

In the recent video, they say it's an 800-pounds-for-800 miles plane, or a 600-pounds-for-1000 miles plane, and they call it "regional" -- not long-haul or intercontinental.

It's a niche plane, and I don't think it really has any real competitor at this time.

300kt aircraft does not average 300kt for the entire distance. Figure about 260 kt average with climb speed, descent speed, and 250 kt below 10,000' speed limit.

2.7 hrs instead of 2.3 hrs. 80+68+48 = 195 trip fuel + 9 taxi fuel + 80 1 hour reserve fuel (use first hour fuel burn - assume you did a go around and are flying at low altitude with increased fuel burn) = 284 gallons = 1903 lbs

You have a 596 lbs cabin load for the trip.

I hope all your trips like that are with a tailwind.

Where is Mike C. when we need him? I don't believe I am doing his work.

Allen,
They don't claim it's real fast or that it has long legs.

It's not a Citation. It's a few million $$ less expensive.

300kt aircraft does not average 300kt for the entire distance. Figure about 260 kt average with climb speed, descent speed, and 250 kt below 10,000' speed limit.

2.7 hrs instead of 2.3 hrs. 80+68+48 = 195 trip fuel + 9 taxi fuel + 80 1 hour reserve fuel (use first hour fuel burn - assume you did a go around and are flying at low altitude with increased fuel burn) = 284 gallons = 1903 lbs

You have a 596 lbs cabin load for the trip.

I hope all your trips like that are with a tailwind.

Where is Mike C. when we need him? I don't believe I am doing his work.

Allen and Steve,

I wonder why you feel you must "do work" here on this thread. Are you trying to protect us? I don't get it.