29 Mar 2024, 11:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 May 2017, 23:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: We're comparing the SR22 to the SF50...at similar landing speeds. Prop lift is irrelevant when landing. Prop drag is very relevant.
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 May 2017, 23:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That doesn't make runway overruns more prevalent in the SF50 than the SR22...I'm guessing that what matters to Cirrus. We don't know yet, do we? At this time I can only relate the experience of other light turbojets flown by GA pilots. So far Cirrus has not released the SF50 to normal GA usage. Have any customers been typed in the SF50 and flying it SP?
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 May 2017, 23:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2395 Post Likes: +1858 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: We're comparing the SR22 to the SF50...at similar landing speeds. Prop lift is irrelevant when landing. Prop drag is very relevant. Good thing it requires a type rating!
_________________ Jack Stull
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 26 May 2017, 23:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2395 Post Likes: +1858 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That doesn't make runway overruns more prevalent in the SF50 than the SR22...I'm guessing that what matters to Cirrus. We don't know yet, do we? At this time I can only relate the experience of other light turbojets flown by GA pilots. So far Cirrus has not released the SF50 to normal GA usage. Have any customers been typed in the SF50 and flying it SP? You're quick...I deleted that post due to lack of facts.
_________________ Jack Stull
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 May 2017, 00:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13101 Post Likes: +6969
|
|
Think about how much drag a windmilling prop generates when OEI in a 421 (similar weight). Having two when landing makes a big difference.
At Simcom we would practice a double flameout scenario from 25,000' simulating running out of fuel or iced intakes. After feathering both props, its unbelievable how well the plane will glad and how much runway you can float if you are hot.
Even with one feathered you use substantially more. I landed both the PBaron and the 421 OEI and the lack of drag was impressive.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 May 2017, 00:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/13/11 Posts: 127 Post Likes: +49
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just trying to learn - how are the SF50's aerodynamics that of a jet rather than, say, a 58 baron?
Do you understand the difference in the aerodynamics of a Cirrus vs. a Baron vs. a Turbojet? Having props or not having props make a big difference in both the thrust and drag at various times in the flight profile. A Barons props on the wings and the immediate prop wash over the wings give the prop twin responsiveness to power changes that a turbojet does not have. Both in adding power and reducing power. As I said earlier you have more tools to manage landing and stopping a prop plane then a light turbojet.
No, not really. That's why I was asking (not being sarcastic). I haven't flown a jet (pretty sure this a fanjet rather than a turbojet, but ), have deadsticked a piston single, and played with a twin with an engine at idle, "zero thrust" and feathered. So I have some feel for the differences there. These aren't geared large diameter props like a 421 or a turbine, but I'll totally agree they produce drag and can also create lift.
When I say "aerodynamic differences" I didn't actually mean the thrust or drag from the engine (prop or jet). I meant the wing and it's flying characteristics. I mistakenly thought you were referring to "jet aerodynamics" as the stuff pertaining to going really fast at high altitude with a big spread between ias and tas, swept wings, aggressive increases in drag on the backside of the power curve and high aoa, heavy wing loadings, etc.
If you're saying the plane's hard to slow down, I get it. There's not prop disc and there's some residual thrust. Harder than a piston, got it. I would think it's noticeable and requires an adjustment in technique, similar to getting out of a Husky on floats and into a Cirrus.
Regarding runway overruns - I would imagine VLJ's overshoot because of a combination of higher landing speeds relative to what the pilot's used to and a preference for new pilots to come in fast rather than slow. If you're used to landing at 55kts and you're a bit long, you'd have an intuition for how long you can be and still be OK. If you step up to a faster plane and land at 90 or 100kts, that intuition will be very wrong and humans are bad at intuiting the amount of extra energy to dissipate /runway length needed with even a small increase in speed. The SF50 stalls 6kts faster than an SR22, it's Vref is 10kts faster. It won't be as big an adjustment. Of course, we'll have to see how many get bent (some certainly will).
Thank you for engaging with me, by the way.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 May 2017, 09:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/01/08 Posts: 2627 Post Likes: +645
|
|
Quote: No, not really. That's why I was asking (not being sarcastic). I haven't flown a jet (pretty sure this a fanjet rather than a turbojet, but ), have deadsticked a piston single, and played with a twin with an engine at idle, "zero thrust" and feathered. So I have some feel for the differences there. These aren't geared large diameter props like a 421 or a turbine, but I'll totally agree they produce drag and can also create lift. When I say "aerodynamic differences" I didn't actually mean the thrust or drag from the engine (prop or jet). I meant the wing and it's flying characteristics. I mistakenly thought you were referring to "jet aerodynamics" as the stuff pertaining to going really fast at high altitude with a big spread between ias and tas, swept wings, aggressive increases in drag on the backside of the power curve and high aoa, heavy wing loadings, etc. If you're saying the plane's hard to slow down, I get it. There's not prop disc and there's some residual thrust. Harder than a piston, got it. I would think it's noticeable and requires an adjustment in technique, similar to getting out of a Husky on floats and into a Cirrus. Regarding runway overruns - I would imagine VLJ's overshoot because of a combination of higher landing speeds relative to what the pilot's used to and a preference for new pilots to come in fast rather than slow. If you're used to landing at 55kts and you're a bit long, you'd have an intuition for how long you can be and still be OK. If you step up to a faster plane and land at 90 or 100kts, that intuition will be very wrong and humans are bad at intuiting the amount of extra energy to dissipate /runway length needed with even a small increase in speed. The SF50 stalls 6kts faster than an SR22, it's Vref is 10kts faster. It won't be as big an adjustment. Of course, we'll have to see how many get bent (some certainly will). Thank you for engaging with me, by the way. https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/lib ... px?id=6577Re: the "turbojet vs turbofan" thing. The FAA refers to all jets as "turbojets" in their terminology. Whether it's a straight pipe Lear 24 or SF50 with a fan. That's why Allen keeps using the turbojet reference.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 May 2017, 11:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/09/11 Posts: 147 Post Likes: +54 Company: Ozark/TWA/American Location: St Louis, Mo
Aircraft: Be-58, Car Cub, RV8
|
|
Don't think the jet was designed to fly like the SR22 except for the approach speed. Has a much better, harmonized feel( Bonanza like). No springs in the flight control system that I could detect. Don't expect overruns to be much of an issue because the jet is considerably easier to fly than SR 22, 85 knot approach speed, Cirrus pilots have been taught the importance of proper approach speed, and the resulting competence from a type rating. My first landing was in a rain shower and 7 or 8 knot tailwind. Was able to turn off midfield with little braking. Only glitch I observed was a less experienced pilot landed on a wet runway and was off centerline enough to put the right main on centerline and the right tired was skidding on the paint then grabbing on the concrete. Again, was turning off midfield. If there ever was a jet that could be operated safely without a type rating, it would be the SF-50.
_________________ _____________________________ Jim N777SG BE-58 1H0
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 27 May 2017, 16:23 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/13/11 Posts: 127 Post Likes: +49
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/lib ... px?id=6577Re: the "turbojet vs turbofan" thing. The FAA refers to all jets as "turbojets" in their terminology. Whether it's a straight pipe Lear 24 or SF50 with a fan. That's why Allen keeps using the turbojet reference. Thanks Scott, that's helpful. I kinda figured there was a reason and I now vaguely remember reading that for one test or another a while back.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 30 May 2017, 09:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 19771 Post Likes: +19437 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In jets, it's more important to get wheels on the ground in the approach threshold to stop on runway; especially, when it's short. We have what is called a "working landing" where one plants wheels on ground by a point even if not as smooth. It will be interesting to see how that's handled. This is important, and is a big difference between jets and pistons. In the case of every production jet that I know of, the fully configured landing attitude is nose high, meaning that if you don't flare at all, you'll land on the mains first. You can't do that in a piston plane or you'll bounce off the nosewheel. If the SF50 is "conventional" in this regard, then planting the plane at a slightly high speed and then using the (hopefully very capable) brakes to stop will go a long way to preventing the "hot float" down the runway, or PIO from forcing it on that gets piston drivers into trouble. Those who've seen the SF50 coming in to land, what's it's landing attitude look like?
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|