BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 17:31

Username Protected wrote:

At FL250 in cruise, the SF50 is burning 65 GPH (Cirrus published number).

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 17:37

Username Protected wrote:

At FL250 in cruise, the SF50 is burning 65 GPH (Cirrus published number).

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 17:58

Username Protected wrote:

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

That's about what a PC12 burns in cruise at FL250. 370-390PPH

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 20:18

Username Protected wrote:

I burn about 460-480 pph at 400-410 doing 325 on an Isa/Isa +2 day.

Yeah. That's really good.

But who knows if that 65 gph is correct for the SF50? I would think it'll be lower. We shall see when it comes out.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 20:28

I am going to inflate my financials a bit and get a demo flight in a SF50. :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 20:40

Username Protected wrote:

I am going to inflate my financials a bit and get a demo flight in a SF50. :thumbup:

Do IT!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 22:07

I followed the Visionaire Vantage pretty close and I would think if a SEJ would have a good shot at making it would be the one that Scaled Composits designed and flew over 500 hours. They tried to make a comeback, and there is still a faint heartbeat but I think the program is sadly over. I look forward to meeting up with Mike C. one day and checking out his Mits.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 22:44

Username Protected wrote:

I find this very telling....BT is being watched!! Smart company that Cirrus.

Well, no, I sent him email asking about the plane, so this wasn't stimulated by BT.

He later provided this delivery schedule and cost figures:

2015Q4: delivery 1-5
2016H1: delivery 6-40
2016H2: delivery 41-95
2017H1: delivery 96-157
2017H2: delivery 158-220
2018: delivery 221-345
2019: delivery 346-470
2020: delivery 471+

Purchase price is $1.96M (2012 dollars, add CPI for real price). Non refundable deposit is $100K. Progress payments are 10% 12 months prior, another 10% 6 months prior, balance on delivery.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2014, 23:46

Username Protected wrote:

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

Cirrus published this chart:

300 KTAS at 62.8 GPH.

I was off by 2.2 GPH from what they published. Remains to be seen if the plane will actually require 65 GPH to hit 300 KTAS. Preliminary numbers tend to be optimistic.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 00:17

Where did you find that? It's a nice chart.. but I'm really doubting my Google-fu because I never found it before.

If that's really what it is... 50 gph for 268 knots.. might as well fly a Pilatus.

Username Protected wrote:

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

Cirrus published this chart:

300 KTAS at 62.8 GPH.

I was off by 2.2 GPH from what they published. Remains to be seen if the plane will actually require 65 GPH to hit 300 KTAS. Preliminary numbers tend to be optimistic.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 00:28

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus published this chart:

Is that steep a speed/efficiency curve typical for a jet? My impression was that you generally gained little by reducing speed. 210/33gph is relatively attractive for the 1/3 of missions where you have a tailwind. That's comparable to a P-Baron or 340, isn't it?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 00:36

Username Protected wrote:

Where did they publish that? I've looked high and low for published numbers and found zilch.

Cirrus published this chart:

300 KTAS at 62.8 GPH.

I was off by 2.2 GPH from what they published. Remains to be seen if the plane will actually require 65 GPH to hit 300 KTAS. Preliminary numbers tend to be optimistic.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 00:48

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus published this chart:

Is that steep a speed/efficiency curve typical for a jet? My impression was that you generally gained little by reducing speed. 210/33gph is relatively attractive for the 1/3 of missions where you have a tailwind. That's comparable to a P-Baron or 340, isn't it?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 01:03

Username Protected wrote:

Where did you find that? It's a nice chart.. but I'm really doubting my Google-fu because I never found it before.

Not widely distributed:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 3b3c6d414d

Quote:

If that's really what it is... 50 gph for 268 knots.. might as well fly a Pilatus.

And then you can wear more than your Fruit of the Looms to stay under gross.

My airplane does 290 KTAS at 65 GPH, which is an economy cruise setting, and I can carry 1200 pounds cabin load with full fuel. Gives a feel for just how much penalty there is to be a jet limited to the 20s.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2014, 01:10

Username Protected wrote:

Is that steep a speed/efficiency curve typical for a jet?

Pushing through thick air, yes. The SF50 at 300 knots is very far from its min drag speed (guessing about 120 knots indicated) so power requirements rise steeply as speed increases.

Up high, it will be operating at a lot lower indicated airspeed and closer to its min drag speed. Power requirements to go faster are less and the curve will be somewhat flatter.

Thin air is low drag.

Mike C.

Cirrus SF50