banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 04:02 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 12:25 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
My typical trip is from CDW to VRB and I am curious about how other airplanes would do the mission.

So with Foreflight performance it's a breeze to see how different airplanes perform.

I ranked them by fuel burn in each case

Attachment:
comp.jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 12:30 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Efficiency is an Eclipse strong point.

Got enough data to drop an SF50 in there? Or can it make the flight?

Would you cut the over water corner on the SF50, thus adding to the route length?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 12:37 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5517
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
I wouldn't call only of those entry level ;) :peace:

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 12:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Mike,
All this data was sourced from Foreflight performance.

Surprisingly they don't have the SF50 numbers yet :scratch:

I know the Eclipse numbers are good but I was surprised how it compared against the M600

I have a friend that owned a meridian and he claims he uses less fuel in the Eclipse.

This route puts you as much as 150 miles offshore. I would prefer not to do that in a single.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 13:24 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I have a friend that owned a meridian and he claims he uses less fuel in the Eclipse.

Could be. Winds will make a difference.

Quote:
This route puts you as much as 150 miles offshore. I would prefer not to do that in a single.

Me, too.

MU2 numbers would be 1487 lbs, 3:06, using my economical settings (FL280, 96% RPM), which compares pretty favorably with the TBM and PC-12 despite being a twin.

The Eclipse planform is very good, it is just crippled by the poor decisions made in original design and now the present TC holder. If it had more mundane (less "innovative") systems and Garmin, it would have been sweet.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 20:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/31/13
Posts: 1227
Post Likes: +598
Company: Docking Drawer
Location: KCCR
Aircraft: C425
My -112 powered 425 would do that trip today (5 kt headwind) at FL280 in 3:39 and burn 1568 lbs according to foreflight. You didn't mention how much stuff or how many pax you need to take.

_________________
ATP, CFI-I, MEI
http://www.dockingdrawer.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 21:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
The eclipse is hard to beat if it’s range/payload/etc for your mission.

Stinks the Canada doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen now.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 22:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/27/10
Posts: 1849
Post Likes: +823
Location: KFFZ & KGRR
Aircraft: BE36, CE501
Have you factored in fixed costs for the Eclipse vs the TBM?

_________________
Last 60 mos: CL65 type rating, flew 121, CE680, CE525S, and CE500 type ratings.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:
My -112 powered 425 would do that trip today (5 kt headwind) at FL280 in 3:39 and burn 1568 lbs according to foreflight. You didn't mention how much stuff or how many pax you need to take.


Scott
Typically it’s my wife our dog and me. I have my plane set up with 4 seats and I can carry 615 lbs full fuel

Or I can carry 1185 lbs in the cabin and 1120 lbs of fuel enough to go 600 miles


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:
Have you factored in fixed costs for the Eclipse vs the TBM?


John
As far as I know the fixed costs for the Eclipse are lower and there’s improvements available that are going to reduce the fixed cost even more.


Last edited on 02 Jun 2018, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:24 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:

The Eclipse planform is very good, it is just crippled by the poor decisions made in original design and now the present TC holder. If it had more mundane (less "innovative") systems and Garmin, it would have been sweet.

Mike C.


Mike
I agree on the Garmin’s but I like the way the systems work. It’s my perception that the wire saved with their approach made the airplane possible but WTHDIK


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3575
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Your numbers are off for the M600. Here is from my profile with a 13 knot average headwindf for the M600 and 18 for the jet leaving in a couple of hours. My profile tends to overestimate my fuel burn a little, but still showing way less than your calcs. No way an Eclipse ever beats an M600 in fuel burn on the same city pair. I am showing the Eclipse burning 300-400 more pounds on that city pair. I used my friends profile, which he swears is accurate for his Eclipse.

M600

Attachment:
1.jpg


EA50

Attachment:
2.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

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:44 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/04/14
Posts: 119
Post Likes: +53
Aircraft: Lancair evolution
Username Protected wrote:
My -112 powered 425 would do that trip today (5 kt headwind) at FL280 in 3:39 and burn 1568 lbs according to foreflight. You didn't mention how much stuff or how many pax you need to take.


N11TK evolution experimental 3 hrs 30 minutes 115 gallons carry 4 people and at least 200 lbs in bags
Beat that


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:53 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
N11TK evolution experimental 3 hrs 30 minutes 115 gallons carry 4 people and at least 200 lbs in bags

Doesn't come in my size, but a slick efficient small plane.

If one could fit a TPE331 on it, you'd be down to ~95 gallons and range would go up 20%.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 23:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:
Your numbers are off for the M600. Here is from my profile with a 13 knot average headwindf for the M600 and 18 for the jet leaving in a couple of hours. My profile tends to overestimate my fuel burn a little, but still showing way less than your calcs. No way an Eclipse ever beats an M600 in fuel burn on the same city pair. I am showing the Eclipse burning 300-400 more pounds on that city pair.


Charles
Here’s the screenshots for a flight tomorrow at noon
Attachment:
9F1D8CD7-57BA-4174-96FE-816C7F08E153.jpeg


Attachment:
856EAD30-4AB0-494C-BED8-D01A181FEAC3.jpeg


I know the numbers for the Eclipse are a little conservative but I haven’t a clue how good the M600 numbers are.

And by these numbers you are correct no way an Eclipse burns less but only 3 gallons that surprises me.

Remember that ForeFlight is taking temperature into effect and Flightplan does not.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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

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