BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:23

Honda would avoided a lot of grief had they not hogged the GPU that day :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:26

Username Protected wrote:

Maybe someone isn't a fan of the SF50 but wants to see the path to a twin engine version. Assuming that's in the pipeline (not a hard assumption), as a company I'd be interested in keeping anyone active who was in the market for a jet.

Chip-

New single pilot, twin jets on the market/coming to market:

Mustang
CJ M2
CJ3+
CJ4
Phenom 100
Phenom 300
HondaJet
Eclipse
PC24

How many more do we need? Something's gotta give. There aren't enough buyers for all of these. If I were Cirrus I'd stick to the single jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:31

Username Protected wrote:

You weren't around for the %#$@ storm I caused with HondaJet when I took the pic used as my avatar.

Good job! Take a few more, maybe without that dude blocking the shot. :-)

Quote:

I wouldn't expect them to offer you a free ride anytime soon though.

Well, that's no different than anybody else, including long time depositors. Nobody outside Cirrus has ever flown, or even flown in, an SF50 (with the possible exception of a few FAA folks).

Cirrus has not done anything suggesting they dislike me in any way.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:38

Username Protected wrote:

How many more do we need?

At least ONE viable personal jet.

None on your list really do it. Even the EA550 is not cutting it, made in handfuls/year, not Garmin, etc.

A twin version of the SF50 would create a new market.

The TF60 would do FL410, 1600 nm, 350 knots, etc. All that comes just from using two engines. There's no penalty for having two, no benefit for having one, when it comes to a jet. That's the main point.

The SF50 is crippled because it is a jet forced to operate in a region where jets are not efficient.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:47

Username Protected wrote:

At least ONE viable personal jet.

What is a "personal jet"?

Anything "single pilot" IMO is a "personal jet".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 13:54

Username Protected wrote:

At least ONE viable personal jet.

What is a "personal jet"?

Anything "single pilot" IMO is a "personal jet".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 14:05

There can be only one eventually. Sybertjet Sj30i. That's the only SP twin jet that can actually fly from NY to LA direct. For some mysterious reason, everyone else thinks a measly 5hr plane ride is beyond the capabilities of bladders, pilot skills, and planes apparently… :stir:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 14:16

Username Protected wrote:

The SF50 is crippled because it is a jet forced to operate in a region where jets are not efficient.
Mike C.

Forced - by whose hand. Better wording would be restricted or bounded "at this time"

All of us know that the biggest naysayers often turn out to be the best flag wavers in the end.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 14:23

Username Protected wrote:

There can be only one eventually. Sybertjet Sj30i. That's the only SP twin jet that can actually fly from NY to LA direct. For some mysterious reason, everyone else thinks a measly 5hr plane ride is beyond the capabilities of bladders, pilot skills, and planes apparently… :stir:

On paper this looks like a great plane, except for the small cabin size. Morgan Freeman has spoke very highly of his, even after the tire blow out and runway excursion. They have had a rough go of it financially, and the company has changed hands several times, but the Swearingen bloodline is very evident when you look at the overall design. I like it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 14:32

Username Protected wrote:

There can be only one eventually. Sybertjet Sj30i. That's the only SP twin jet that can actually fly from NY to LA direct. For some mysterious reason, everyone else thinks a measly 5hr plane ride is beyond the capabilities of bladders, pilot skills, and planes apparently… :stir:

On paper this looks like a great plane, except for the small cabin size. Morgan Freeman has spoke very highly of his, even after the tire blow out and runway excursion. They have had a rough go of it financially, and the company has changed hands several times, but the Swearingen bloodline is very evident when you look at the overall design. I like it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 14:48

Username Protected wrote:

How many more do we need?

At least ONE viable personal jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 16:25

Username Protected wrote:

I consider my Mustang a very viable personal jet for me. There's ONE for you.

+1

Mustang is on my list on the previous page.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 17:22

Username Protected wrote:

I consider my Mustang a very viable personal jet for me. There's ONE for you.

+1

Mustang is on my list on the previous page.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 17:53

Username Protected wrote:

There can be only one eventually. Sybertjet Sj30i. That's the only SP twin jet that can actually fly from NY to LA direct. For some mysterious reason, everyone else thinks a measly 5hr plane ride is beyond the capabilities of bladders, pilot skills, and planes apparently… :stir:

That's a pretty slick looking airplane......has some Falcon 10 look to it, IMO, albeit, an "updated" Falcon 10...... :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2016, 18:11

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus released a new flight profile, starting at airport elevation of 2000 ft, ISA+10, cruising at 17,000 ft, starting weight 5000 lbs (~1000 lbs under gross).

Ground takeoff roll is listed as 2408 ft. I thought that was very poor to be rolling on the ground for almost half a mile to get to liftoff.

The balanced field length for a Citation SII is 2660 ft under the same conditions (using same % of gross weight, which is 12,500 lbs), and this is accelerate to V1, engine fail, and stop, not just to liftoff.

Time to climb from 2000 ft to 17,000 ft is listed as 11 minutes, or an average of 1,360 FPM. Note that this is at 1000 lbs UNDER GROSS! That is very underwhelming. To put it in perspective, the SR22 climb rate is about the same (albeit at 0 MSL and ISA).

Cruise figures at 17,000 ft are:

MCT 283 KTAS, 84 GPH, 3.37 nm/gal

LRC 217 KTAS, 54 GPH, 4.02 nm/gal.

Obviously 17,000 ft is a bad altitude for a jet and those figures demonstrate that clearly.

Total landing distance (ground roll?) with max flaps is listed as 2658 ft. Not clear what the landing weight is, perhaps still the 5000 lbs.

The numbers are so bad, I wonder if the person making this document made errors. Is the climb rate at ISA+10 and 1000 lbs under gross REALLY that bad?

Mike C.

Mike, the fuel burn seems similar to a TBM 850 in high speed cruise (http://www.caijets.com/tbm/cost.htm).
What is not impressive is the climb rate. I would expect at least 2,500-3,000 FPM in a personal jet. Even to climb through weather (up to FL280!) it seems its underpowered. The TBM seems to be +35% more climb rate.
:cheers:

TBM drivers: What is the typical fuel burn at FL 17 K?

Cirrus SF50