29 Mar 2024, 09:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 03:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +2330 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I feel like all of the SF50 problems boil down to lack of redundancy ... and lack of efficiency (due to being held down to FL280).... But I imagine if they could squeak a few more thousand in certified altitude... they'd have a home run, neh? I haven't done the math but I expect it would take more than a few thousand. As a single, the SF50 is required by FARs to have a lower stalling speed than a twin, hence more wing, so the most efficient IAS for the airframe is lower than a twin. Jet engines are most efficient at max power setting which, at low altitudes, pushes the airframe way faster than its most efficient IAS. So the key to efficiency for a jet is to climb high enough that the thrust from the most efficient power setting pushes the plane not too much faster than the efficient IAS for the airframe. A bigger wing moves that best altitude higher.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 14:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 3003 Post Likes: +5595 Location: Portland, OR
Aircraft: Prusinski'ing
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I feel like all of the SF50 problems boil down to lack of redundancy ... and lack of efficiency (due to being held down to FL280).... But I imagine if they could squeak a few more thousand in certified altitude... they'd have a home run, neh? I haven't done the math but I expect it would take more than a few thousand. As a single, the SF50 is required by FARs to have a lower stalling speed than a twin, hence more wing, so the most efficient IAS for the airframe is lower than a twin. Jet engines are most efficient at max power setting which, at low altitudes, pushes the airframe way faster than its most efficient IAS. So the key to efficiency for a jet is to climb high enough that the thrust from the most efficient power setting pushes the plane not too much faster than the efficient IAS for the airframe. A bigger wing moves that best altitude higher.
Thanks. I didn't think of the stall speed requirement and it's knock-on effects.
See, I learned something in here. Only took 318 pages.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 14:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A wise man once said don't buy the A model of anything!
This may have been true in cars, but we had few opportunities...
It is a regular and avoidable mistake in aviation!
Let those "early adopters" be the Guinea pigs, but I'm betting the B model is going to be a much better airplane that flies higher, farther and has more aesthetic appeal, with another foot or so from it's tip to it's tail. I have been advised not to buy the first 100 sn of a new type. It can take that long to figure out the problems and slip stream into the assembly line.
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 19:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/11/08 Posts: 2070 Post Likes: +685 Location: Gaithersburg , MD (KGAI)
Aircraft: 1980 Baron 55
|
|
[url][/url] Attachment: Cirrus.jpg Cirrus Jet on the ramp at Frederick, Maryland airport on Friday.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 19:52 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6059 Post Likes: +702 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
I wonder how much ramp fees Signature is charging on that clown jet.
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 19:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
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: Mike, if the folks in recent n loving 'Yurp can see there way to allowing a PC12 to carry pax for hire, I don't see why the 'Murcans could not increase the permitted altitude of the SF50 after it has been flying a while...
At least it seems that way to me....
Maybe require the pilot wear an O2 mask? RVSM airspace will require back up systems. I'd have to review requirements again but if you're trying to stay below a weight limit, higher pressure differential, RVSM, quick don mask with bigger oxy system and some other issues may be difficult to address.
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 22 Apr 2017, 20:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/01/10 Posts: 3435 Post Likes: +2389 Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just thinking outta the box... what would Cirrus need to prove to the FAA that a single jet + chute is an ELOS to a twin jet, and allow it up to, say, FL310 or so? Maybe a certain number of saves or hours of operation? I feel like all of the SF50 problems boil down to lack of redundancy (thus, "unsafe in a failure" -- possibly mitigated by the chute or maybe clever autopilot auto-descent in depressurization cases?) and lack of efficiency (due to being held down to FL280) There is no certification cure for pregnant guppy looks. But I imagine if they could squeak a few more thousand in certified altitude... they'd have a home run, neh? Not a jet pilot. Assume the above is pure rubbish and jeer at me accordingly. Satisfying the FAA, especially with a new category, is without a doubt challenging. The check boxes for a turbine are extensive. Creating adequate safeguards and redundancies required for turbines get tough when you're only starting out with one engine. Things like pressurization, electrical, and hydraulics all start to die with total power loss. Convincing the FAA of adequate redundancy could prove to be more challenging than adding a second engine.
_________________ Previous A36TN owner
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 23 Apr 2017, 09:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16179 Post Likes: +8782 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: PC12 and TBM are RVSM. I believe RVSM is mostly about a assured performance of the autopilot system.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 23 Apr 2017, 11:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17514 Post Likes: +21048 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Well, it also requires checking one altimeter against the other and a back up to be sure altitude is confirmed and to be able to fly accurately if one fails. My point was, staying at FL280 and below eliminates more complexity and systems. RVSM is just one. To Jason's point, yep, them foreigners beat us to the punch with those; they weren't initially certified by FAA domestically were they? Gross weight on those is much higher. Aren't they trying to stay around 6,000 pounds max gross and keep it affordable? Between high, fast and cheap, you usually get to pick two
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 23 Apr 2017, 15:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Satisfying the FAA, especially with a new category, is without a doubt challenging. The check boxes for a turbine are extensive. Creating adequate safeguards and redundancies required for turbines get tough when you're only starting out with one engine. Things like pressurization, electrical, and hydraulics all start to die with total power loss. Convincing the FAA of adequate redundancy could prove to be more challenging than adding a second engine.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|