29 Mar 2024, 10:35 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17514 Post Likes: +21048 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I can name only a few light/midsize turbines that I've flown that have enough gas/payload. LR-45, King Air 350, Cheyenne III, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. Well said Doug! That's certainly a concern in the light jet category. Then there is the power issue Is there ever enough of that?
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +2330 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Looks like they were climbing 1,200 FPM up to FL310 If not software, maybe they went to the 787 system using an electric pump instead of bleed air for pressurization, then the battery provides the redundancy. No bleed would also improve the engine performance and climb up high. However it's done, a higher max alt should help with the range, any estimates from you jet guys how much?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:41 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6052 Post Likes: +12360 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Well said Doug! That's certainly a concern in the light jet category. Then there is the power issue Is there ever enough of that? I have flown over 200 different types of aircraft including the F-16 and F-18 and the only one I have flown that I thought had "enough" power was the F-2G Corsair with 4360 cubic inches and 3000+ horsepower. It had enough... I never once used all of it.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09 Posts: 5232 Post Likes: +4132 Company: Looking Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Baron/Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Well said Doug! That's certainly a concern in the light jet category. Then there is the power issue Is there ever enough of that? I have flown over 200 different types of aircraft including the F-16 and F-18 and the only one I have flown that I thought had "enough" power was the F-2G Corsair with 4360 cubic inches and 3000+ horsepower. It had enough... I never once used all of it.
C'mon, Doug, goose that baby from idle to WOT from a standstill........
_________________ I don't have a problem with anger, I have a problem with idiots.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 15:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3435 Post Likes: +2389 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have flown over 200 different types of aircraft including the F-16 and F-18 and the only one I have flown that I thought had "enough" power was the F-2G Corsair with 4360 cubic inches and 3000+ horsepower. It had enough... I never once used all of it. ...which is a testimonial to the statement, "Too much horsepower is almost enough."
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 16:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3435 Post Likes: +2389 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: ...just wish it had a couple hundred more NMs. This has been said about nearly EVERY light jet ever built. And lots of not so light ones too. My hangar neighbor owns the Millennium Phenom, He wants more gas. The Mustang needs more gas. The straight CJ needs more gas. The Premier needs more gas. The Eclipse needs more gas. That is the norm in the class. But very often the -B model comes out with more gas. And the pilots/owners still want more.... And then they complain about the full fuel payload... From my viewpoint, I tend to disagree. I believe there's somewhat of a correlation between speed and range. Thus, endurance is the factor often not discussed. When I go on a max range flight (figuring FL410 and zero wind/temp factor), I'll go 300nm in the first hour, 330nm/hr in hours 2 and 3, and 300nm in hour 4. I have no desire to go more than 4 hours, which is 1200+nm. Some will say that's a short-legged airplane, and perhaps it is to them. However, I wouldn't have any interest in an airplane with greater range unless it was a whole bunch faster. The true question becomes, "How far will it go in 4 hours?" If you want something that goes further, do yourself a favor and get something that goes faster.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 17:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09 Posts: 4573 Post Likes: +3298
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
You obviously don’t have significant operational benifits to having a long range aircraft. For those who do, 4-5-6 or however many hours the leg may be becomes a less important factor than having the absolute range available. Comfort should match the endurance.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 30432 Post Likes: +10542 Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You obviously don’t have significant operational benifits to having a long range aircraft. For those who do, 4-5-6 or however many hours the leg may be becomes a less important factor than having the absolute range available. Comfort should match the endurance. I'm thinking that most airplanes that can carry a good load much further than it can go in 4 hours comes with a bathroom and a flight crew.
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3435 Post Likes: +2389 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I heard a 10% increase in range equals 30% more airports to choose from. But when weather is bad, destinations require true alternates, headwinds factor in, the range of an aircraft can be seriously compromised. So a 1200 nm aircraft with big headwinds that need a true alternate can quickly become 700 nm aircraft. For 300kt block speed, it would take a 150kt headwind component to knock the range down to 700nm. That's a big wind. Not as likely at FL400. It's all relative. Every flight has different numbers.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2870 Post Likes: +3578 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I heard a 10% increase in range equals 30% more airports to choose from. But when weather is bad, destinations require true alternates, headwinds factor in, the range of an aircraft can be seriously compromised. So a 1200 nm aircraft with big headwinds that need a true alternate can quickly become 700 nm aircraft. For 300kt block speed, it would take a 150kt headwind component to knock the range down to 700nm. That's a big wind. Not as likely at FL400. It's all relative. Every flight has different numbers.
How about if you need a true alternate with widespread LIFR?
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3435 Post Likes: +2389 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about if you need a true alternate with widespread LIFR? Then do some flight planning.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09 Posts: 4573 Post Likes: +3298
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You obviously don’t have significant operational benifits to having a long range aircraft. For those who do, 4-5-6 or however many hours the leg may be becomes a less important factor than having the absolute range available. Comfort should match the endurance. I'm thinking that most airplanes that can carry a good load much further than it can go in 4 hours comes with a bathroom and a flight crew.
Many yes, but not all. The people who have the need for longer range find the ships that fulfill it. Your situation is prevelant in that most peoples sphere of use of private aircraft is the immediate vicinity as defined by their aircrafts normal range circle.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2870 Post Likes: +3578 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Just not that uncommon around here. Westbound I have found that you can really eat into reserves. I had one 600 nm flight to Seattle where most of the NW was below alternate minimums. My legal alternate was in Northern CA and I went into Seattle at mins. Had to do a fuel stop in Boise, which also required shooting the ILS to mins to tanker fuel into Seattle in case I had to really go missed. up to 100 knots on the nose at FL 260, lower was a no-go due to icing. That was in a Meridian. Range is King though. Makes flight planning easy and stress free. Where do you want an alternate, anywhere that it is CAVU. Coming back from Anchorage a few weeks ago (almost 1900 nm), the whole middle section where one would usually do a fuel stop was IFR and LIFR with icing, pretty roughly between the red lines. I filed Boise which was VFR and my final destination Ogden UT as an alternate ended up going the whole way landing with over an hour worth of fuel. Made what could be a very long trip, not so long. Certainly beat the time it would take commercial. I have definitely been taking trips in the M600 that I would rarely do in the Meridian. Fuel stops aren't the end of the world, but do add to fatigue, weather exposure and total trip time. I think the number 1 reason that people will move out of the SF50 will be its range and payload limitations which are almost identical to the Meridian, and is probably the number one reason that people move out of a Meridian. Once you taste Jet-A the missions start becoming longer and more frequent. Attachment: 1.jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
|
|
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
|
|
|
|