banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 18:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416 ... 512  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 12:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 17512
Post Likes: +21027
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:38 
Offline



 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6052
Post Likes: +12350
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:54 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 5231
Post Likes: +4130
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........ :bugeye:
_________________
I don't have a problem with anger, I have a problem with idiots.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 15:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3435
Post Likes: +2386
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 16:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3435
Post Likes: +2386
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 17:44 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 17:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1914
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
Where you want to go is always 100nm farther than your plane can go.

IE When you get a plane with more range you draw a bigger circle of places I can go then your are drawn to things just outside the circle...

(I've notices similar things with 3D printers and machine tools, the thing you want to machine, or build is always just slightly larger than your envelope)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:10 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3577
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
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.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:20 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 30426
Post Likes: +10534
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3435
Post Likes: +2386
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:36 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3577
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3435
Post Likes: +2386
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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:47 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 20:55 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3577
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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416 ... 512  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.