1846 lbf is the thrust listed on the SF50 type certificate data sheet. The FJ33-5A engine rating is the same, 1846 lbf, on its TCDS.

900 lbf is the thrust listed on Eclipse's web site for the EA500. The EA500 TCDS doesn't list an engine thrust rating. The PW610F TCDS says the thrust rating is 950 lbf takeoff, 850 lbf max continuous, MCT. This suggests the takeoff thrust has been derated slightly to 900 lbf in the EA500 and that the climb performance is being achieved with 850 lbf per engine.

Thus the SF50 has 1846 lbf total thrust, the EA500 in climb, MCT, has 1700 lbf total thrust. The EA500 has almost double the climb rate on less thrust. How is that possible?

I bet the EA500 with the GEAR DOWN climbs better than the SF50 GEAR UP.

Mike C

Well, it would because going to two engines causes a cascade of benefits:

Two pylon engines are much less drag than one top mounted one. The engines are spaced away enough to greatly reduce the interference drag (can't do this for top mount, thrust line too high!).

No canted thrust path and pressure on deflector plate.

No trim drag from thrust vector.

With no center engine, get rid of the V tail and go conventional tail.

No V tail trim drag and huge wetted area.

No ventral stability augmentation fins to deal with V tail waggle.

Smaller horizontal tail (pylons help tail volume, they are horizontal area).

Ability to sweep fin moves tail further back, reduced tail wetted area for same tail volume.

I suspect the TF60 (twin version, say) would perform a lot closer to EA500.

Mike C.

Nah, I was thinking the TF60 would stack two engines on the tail to maintain the V-Tail. Cirrus has to do something to have a different twinjet then everyone else.

The TF60 would have the nicest, simplest cockpit of any twinjet.

I will bet the size of the interior does not help the aerodynamic drag either.

The one I buy as my next airplane.

Eclipse had the right planform, standard twin engine biz jet layout, but screwed up the avionics and the production design. Their main failure was over innovating systems when the real innovation was just the airplane itself.

Cirrus has the right avionics and customer focus, but an SEJ is simply flawed from the outset. The SF50 exists solely because of a false application of piston think to jet design among both the customers and the company.

Mike C.

I'd love to see a photoshop of that!

Mike C.

Maybe they can dig up a few engineers from English Electric to help them design it?

The one I buy as my next airplane.

Mike C.

Following the logic of the Mike C. then it was makes no sense to make any aircraft , all aircraft is different with different performance , all depend from your mission .

If your mission is to burn fuel, go low, go slow, worry about engine failure, and not go far, then the SF50 is the right jet for you.

Mike C.

Absolutely.

Perhaps it is better said they all have compromises.

In this case, I feel the inefficiency and risk caused by the single engine requirement far outweigh the supposed benefits.

That does not mean someone else thinks otherwise. My only goal is to make clear the compromise they are accepting so they are doing so informed and willingly.

Mike C.

We are so thankful that you are here to inform all of us ignorant plane buyers.

If your mission is to burn fuel, go low, go slow, worry about engine failure, and not go far, then the SF50 is the right jet for you.

Mike C.

I remember when Icon's booth was of the largest and busiest at Oshkosh. I think Cirrus is counting on "brand loyalty". I'm one to hope for anything good and positive for GA but I'm with Mike C. on this one. If/when the new owner springs for his new purchase, how long will the honeymoon last?

Is that how SF50 owners will justify their lack luster performance? For each performance metric, find some turboprop that is slightly worse than the SF50?

That's lame.


The SF50 is not an SR22 with a jet engine. There is far more complexity to it.

When the SF50 flight manual becomes more widely known, it will become clear just how much complexity there is to deal with. 90% of flying is what you need to know when things go wrong and there's a lot more to go wrong in an SF50 than in an SR22.


The Cirrus marketing team sure did.

Now the plane has to speak for itself against the harsh reality of physics, engineering, and regulations.

Mike C.

SF50 is $2.2MM. If you want a jet with more performance go pay a lot more.

PC12 $5.0MM
TBM $4.5MM
Phenom EV 100 $4.5MM
Citation M2 $4.5MM

A new SR22T costs almost $1MM

It's not rocket science. I'm amazed this thread keeps going.