For the first time Jason, I'm with you. We're an easy 20K steal. I'm evening willing to send an escrow check to Larry O, Jesse J or Don L, I trust them, they got baron's!!

Take an SR piston pilot (the explicit target customer for the SF50) and put them in a jet sim.

It will become obvious they are not used to thinking at the speed of the airplane.

On departure, you can be in the soup seconds after liftoff, climbing 2500 FPM, 180 knots over the ground, on a complex departure procedure, getting headings, altitudes, and frequency changes in quick succession. The first five minutes things happen quick. Pilots used to SR speeds won't be able to handle it out of the box.

In cruise, very slight pitch changes result in high climb or descent rates. Pilots will have to get used to the pitch sensitivity.

On approach, similar demands brought on by speed. If you are flying into busy airports, then you get a lot of speed requirements. For example: "maintain 230 to the marker", an actual instruction I got at KMDW. No SR pilot has ever done that and ATC will expect jet like performance from a jet.

The "throttle back and go slow" technique in unrealistic when departing a metro area. ATC can't have a slow jet clogging their screens. If the SF50 pilots get that rep, they get shunted off to piston routes which burns even MORE fuel down low.

Now if SF50 pilots only fly on clear sunny Sunday afternoons to go get $2000 hamburgers, then yes, speed doesn't matter.

Mike C.

A vague assertion is not bet.

Define it precisely, use numbers and dates.

Mike C.

I went from a baron to an eclipse. No big deal. Actually the eclipse is way easier to pilot than the baron. The speed issue is no big deal after a few hours. The sr22 to cirrus jet wont be a big deal.

Take an SR piston pilot (the explicit target customer for the SF50) and put them in a jet sim.

It will become obvious they are not used to thinking at the speed of the airplane.

On departure, you can be in the soup seconds after liftoff, climbing 2500 FPM, 180 knots over the ground, on a complex departure procedure, getting headings, altitudes, and frequency changes in quick succession. The first five minutes things happen quick. Pilots used to SR speeds won't be able to handle it out of the box.

In cruise, very slight pitch changes result in high climb or descent rates. Pilots will have to get used to the pitch sensitivity.

On approach, similar demands brought on by speed. If you are flying into busy airports, then you get a lot of speed requirements. For example: "maintain 230 to the marker", an actual instruction I got at KMDW. No SR pilot has ever done that and ATC will expect jet like performance from a jet.

The "throttle back and go slow" technique in unrealistic when departing a metro area. ATC can't have a slow jet clogging their screens. If the SF50 pilots get that rep, they get shunted off to piston routes which burns even MORE fuel down low.

Now if SF50 pilots only fly on clear sunny Sunday afternoons to go get $2000 hamburgers, then yes, speed doesn't matter.

Mike C.

Yes, it is.


Most certainly.

Note that having two levers changes almost nothing. You could tape them together on a twin jet and have a "single" lever if you want. The "single" lever of the SF50 makes nothing easier over a twin.


That's my basic point. If you can handle a 300 knot single jet, you can handle a 300 knot twin jet.

Mike C.

Yes, it is.


Most certainly.

Note that having two levers changes almost nothing. You could tape them together on a twin jet and have a "single" lever if you want. The "single" lever of the SF50 makes nothing easier over a twin.


That's my basic point. If you can handle a 300 knot single jet, you can handle a 300 knot twin jet.

Mike C.

A vague assertion is not bet.

Define it precisely, use numbers and dates.

Mike C.

They sell all that are already ordered and it becomes a pivotal part of the company.

Hell, according to Ciholas it won't even make it to market.

It doesn't matter if the jet does 300 or 500 knots. No one is doing that in the terminal. It's just an ego stroke. look at me, I can fly a 300kt airplane due to my superior knowledge and piloting. The commuters used to take 250 hr pilots and put them right seat in 1900s all the time. Took all of about 15 hrs to get them up to speed.

The jet is going to be easier 1 or 2 engines. Easy, lever makes the money go thru the engines faster when you push, slightly less money when you pull on them. If you don't want to do 230 to the marker in MDW tell them no. Even Southwest won't do that to the marker. Pretty tough to do in a jet anyways. You'll never get it slowed.

Simple enough.

Essentially everything wrong with the SF50 stems from that one thing. Making it a single is like Cirrus originally making the SR series be a biplane. It's just wrong for the purpose.


For the single and twin, you can plan for the point in the takeoff where you can still land back on the runway if an engine quits. So that is the same.

The difference comes when an engine quits past the point you can land back on the runway.

For the twin, the only question is if the single engine climb gradient is good enough to clear the obstacles. This comes into play only in a VERY FEW mountainous airports (say KEGE). Even if you can't make the gradient on the ODP, and you are IMC, an airplane equipped with synthetic vision or terrain mapping will provide guidance where to fly to avoid hitting the rocks.

For the single, the engine failure plan is vastly more complicated and varied once past the point you can land back on the runway. Often there are no good answers for how to put down a 6000 pound airplane, going 70 knots, with one ton of fuel on board. You are too low for a chute to work in that initial climb segment. This kind of danger comes into play at MOST airports. If it occurs in low IMC, the risk is increased significantly.

Note that the Eclipse 550 has a single engine service ceiling of FL350, HIGHER than the SF50 can fly with one engine! And it has a OEI climb rate of 989 FPM. Losing an engine in a twin jet IS NOT LIKE A PISTON TWIN.


See above.

Every possible emergency in the single jet is easier to handle in the twin jet. Every one.

Mike C.

You always have that option. Then you get a 20 minute detour while they find a big enough hole to fit you in while SW lands a bunch of 737s. That will cost you 40 gallons of fuel down low in a jet. That potentially causes a divert.

The combination of being a jet and not acting like one will cost you a lot.


I bet a light jet can do it, particularly if it has high gear speed.

I don't know if SW does 230 to the marker routinely, but they were doing it that day, I was put between two SW 737s so everybody had the same speed restriction to keep spacing.

By comparison, KORD only asked for 170 to the marker the two times I have landed there. KMDW is one tight airport.

Mike C.

The combination of being a jet and flying it like a prop......230 to the marker is going to cause a lot more problems. Can we say over run?
They were asking for 230 to make more room. The sequencing was otherwise figured out a long time before.

BTW, RUNTS is under the 3600' ring of the class B. 200kias max.

This one?

Flight idle, gear out at Vle, flaps out on schedule, you are crossing the threshold at normal speeds.


"Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC".

Mike C.