BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:32

Username Protected wrote:

Exactly. Not to mention quieter, smoother... and it's a JET. Burn a little more fuel but on the other hand no prop to maintain and overhaul. This isn't a Citation killer, it's a Meridian killer.

And no prop with beta to aid you in stopping on slick surfaces or when a brake fails. The #1 cause of accidents in light jets is runway overruns. Turboprops don't have that high a risk. There are tradeoffs with a turbojet vs. a turboprop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:32

Anyone know if Cirrus is offering a "power by the hour" type engine program?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:33

Username Protected wrote:

and we both missed those nuances.

Cool plane with its (well described) limitations -- we are in agreement, even on the Internet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:39

Username Protected wrote:

And no prop with beta to aid you in stopping on slick surfaces or when a brake fails. The #1 cause of accidents in light jets is runway overruns. Turboprops don't have that high a risk. There are tradeoffs with a turbojet vs. a turboprop.

Yes, but antiskid works pretty well these days, and the SF50 comes in slower than a Phenom or HondaJet or m2.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:45

Username Protected wrote:

Anyone know if Cirrus is offering a "power by the hour" type engine program?

Have not heard of anyone renting Williams engines.

I don't think the economics work well for a low utilization engine - 100 hours/year - versus airline usage of 1000 hours/year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 12:52

Username Protected wrote:

Yes, but antiskid works pretty well these days, and the SF50 comes in slower than a Phenom or HondaJet or m2.

I find nothing that says the SF50 has anti-skid brakes. The EA500 does not.

Depends how long the runway is and how slick. Slow speed doesn't matter when you have no drag alternatives other than brakes to rely on.

And you assume the landing is at ref speed. For many reasons too many turbojets are flown too fast on landings.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:13

Username Protected wrote:

Neither you nor I will ever buy an SF50.

Some lurkers here may. And maybe those lurkers expect some folks with relevant experience to separate the fantasy from the reality of flying a turbojet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:16

Username Protected wrote:

Anyone know if Cirrus is offering a "power by the hour" type engine program?

Have not heard of anyone renting Williams engines.

I don't think the economics work well for a low utilization engine - 100 hours/year - versus airline usage of 1000 hours/year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:20

Username Protected wrote:

Have not heard of anyone renting Williams engines.

I don't think the economics work well for a low utilization engine - 100 hours/year - versus airline usage of 1000 hours/year.

Not renting, but the info was posted earlier in the thread on the available engine programs (there were three levels if I recall correctly). And then there was a whole side discussion about how bad the Williams program is in comparison to another company (I forget who), and how multiple people will never buy a Cirrus, only because of the Williams engine program.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:25

Username Protected wrote:

I find nothing that says the SF50 has anti-skid brakes. The EA500 does not.

Depends how long the runway is and how slick. Slow speed doesn't matter when you have no drag alternatives other than brakes to rely on.

And you assume the landing is at ref speed. For many reasons too many turbojets are flown too fast on landings.

I agree Allen. Most of my light jet experience is in the Honda and it's easy to come in fast because it's a slippery sucker and you don't want to be too slow either, and power application is not instantaneous like it is with a prop. Also the end of the runway comes fast at 113 kts ref speed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:27

Username Protected wrote:

Some lurkers here may. And maybe those lurkers expect some folks with relevant experience to separate the fantasy from the reality of flying a turbojet.

The correction you made, while likely accurate from a real world expierence was not done for the Baron in the example. In both cases, the examples were no wind, fast cruise. I would hope anyone that can read the thread to this point, would know the difference between block speed and cruise speed.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:39

Username Protected wrote:

Also the end of the runway comes fast at 113 kts ref speed.

That is a fast ref speed. CJ2 ref speeds are 100 - 109 kts depending on weight. Usually more towards 100 kts.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:41

Username Protected wrote:

Williams TAP engine programs are for engine maintenance. You buy the engine with the airframe.

Power by the hour programs are where you buy an airframe and rent the engines by the hour. The rental company buys the engine and rents it to you to use on your airframe.

Which program would you like to discuss?

None.

I do not think I would ever buy the SF50. The plane just does not make sense to for the kind of missions I would like to do. If I am gonna waste that kind of coin (assuming I could afford it to start with), I would get a used Cessna Mustang, or a used Phenom 100.... Or more likely an Evo or TBM or M600

Oh, I followed the rental aspect, just pointing out the engine program is available.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2017, 13:45

Username Protected wrote:

I leave to others to correct the Baron side.

The inaccurate assumptions were not simply on block speed versus cruise speed. The turbojet gets more of a penalty on the difference due to the larger difference between climb speed and cruise TAS, and the 250 kt below 10K speed limit.

Taxi fuel, which is more of an issue in a turbojet versus a piston ,was not accounted for. And you don't use your flight level fuel burn for your reserve fuel calculations. It all adds up and makes a material difference in the cabin load available.

Fair enough, but can these small jets really go faster then 250 KIAS under 10K?

Tim