You won't find "ground roll" in many AFMs. The FAA requires distances to some point in the air.
....
lots of great info
....
Mike C.

It does seem more pessimized than one would expect. I knew it would be bad but I didn't think it would be this bad.

I think this is a combination of a number of things all added up. Canted thrust angle, deflector plate, low pressure at intake from cabin shape, small tires, large cross section, draggy tail, etc. Pylon mounted engines, like those on twins, don't have most of these issues.

The Eclipse 500 starts with slightly less thrust, loses half of it on the runway, and still beats the SF50 to 50 ft AGL in 700 ft less distance. I find that amazing.

Thrust to weight ratios:
SF50: 1846 lbf, 6000 lbs, 30.77%
EA500: 1800 lbf, 6000 lbs, 30.00%
SII: 5000 lbf, 15,100 lbs, 33.11%

Another aspect of this is that it will take a VERY long runway if you accelerate to Vr, abort, and stop. On many runways, you will reach a point fairly early in the takeoff roll where you can no longer stop before running off the end. At a certain point, you are committed to fly. Obviously if the engine quits, you aren't flying, but there are many reasons to abort that are not propulsion related (avionics flag out, caution pops up, controls locked/jammed, door pops open, smoke in cockpit, passenger causes, etc).

There is no such thing as accel/stop distance for a single, though you can develop a number by adding the ground roll figures for takeoff and landing together.

Mike C.

Why does the SII slightly beat the SF50 sea level TO distance but the SF50 is notably shorter at 6,000?

My assumption is the much higher wing loading for the SII makes the engine out climb take longer at 6000 ft elevation. Low wing loading helps a lot with low power climbs, particularly since lower speed improves angle of climb, which is the key parameter here.

Give the SII both engines, no contest.

Mike C.

I don't think the Eclipse field lengths you are quoting are actually OEI and would be to 50 ft. It was certified to part 23 as of 2002, not the current amendment you're citing. That just came out earlier this year. Even SF50 is a certified to an older version of part 23.

Byron

That's exactly right. Both the SF50 and the Eclipse cite all-engine operative takeoff distances to 50 feet.

Ken

Interesting. I didn't consider the takeoff distance in the EA500 book would be all engines.

Yet, the EA500 still significantly outperforms the SF50 on less thrust for the same weight.


EA500 was certified under Part 23 amendment 55. I think that means the rule they worked with was FAR 23.53(b) from amendment 50, from 1996:

For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, the distance required to takeoff and climb to a height of 50 feet above the takeoff surface must be determined for each weight, altitude, and temperature within the operational limits established for takeoff with--
(1) Takeoff power on each engine;
(2) Wing flaps in the takeoff position(s); and
(3) Landing gear extended.

Definitely says all engines to 50 ft.

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I'm even more impressed with the SII as its numbers are definitely with an engine failure at V1.

Mike C.

OMG the seventh seal has been opened. Ken is putting down the Eclipse and Mike is defending it.

One presume the Eclipse AFM also provides the engine failure takeoff distances, and the accel/stop distances.

Can you provide the following numbers (all assumed to be ISA, zero wind, max weights):

0 MSL, all engines to 50 ft
0 MSL, engine failure to 50 ft (or is it 35 ft in this case?)
0 MSL, accel/stop distance

0 MSL, landing from 50 ft

6000 MSL, all engines to 50 ft
6000 MSL, engine failure to 50 ft (or is it 35 ft in this case?)
6000 MSL, accel/stop distance

6000 MSL, landing from 50 ft

The numbers I had for the EA500 came from a web page which isn't very authoritative, AFM numbers would be better.

Mike C.

In terms of the basic aircraft "architecture", twin engines on pylons on the tail, low wing with wing mounted gear, tail having vertical and horizontal surfaces, FL410 ceiling, Eclipse got it right.

Eclipse failed when they contaminated the aircraft design process with "high tech think" and fundamentally poor management, including a delusional price that put them in bankruptcy.

I think they are now somewhat screwing up with the Canada. They should have simply Garminized the EA550 as a first step, not decided to basically redesign the whole damn thing with new engines, fuselage, wing, etc. They have made the project too big for their resources when it should have been just an avionics change. Once that was successful, THEN make a larger one.

Mike C.

I agree. However, Alan Klapmeier a long time ago commented on Eclipse and the original Kestrel that the planes were designed around the FAA standard adult. As such, the planes were too small, and could never sell. This belief is why Cirrus has a larger cockpit for shoulders than many other designs, with the side yoke out of the way for your gut...

With all that stated, I still think Eclipse would have been better served by offering a Garmin upgrade to the existing fleet, dumping the proprietary crap, and then doing incremental improvements to the plane.

Tim

Not so much putting it down as just correcting an error that's been stated here multiple times.

Having the required runway length listed as an all-engine distance to 50 feet is actually operationally useful in that it permits a legal departure under some conditions that would otherwise not be legal were the Part 25 standard applied.

Ken

I believe they are actually contemplating offering a Garmin panel installation to existing aircraft.

But you're incorrect in the characterization of the IS&S panel architecture as "crap"--for many reasons, that's a false conclusion. You might be interested to take a look at the aircraft platforms that the IS&S "crap" supports, including Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Citation (AdViz), Lockheed Martin, Pilatus etc etc. Their panels are actually good, rock-solid, commercial-grade equipment that have been totally fault-free for me in almost 10-years of use.

The Eclipse 700 is not about changing the panel; it's about improving capability, especially range and hot/high performance, to attract a wider audience. Given that goal, merely changing the panel would not have accomplished what they wanted to do.

Ken

Legal and prudent are definitely two different things.

Using the all engine takeoff distance leaves you vulnerable to an engine failure within a certain period of time. Once you can no longer stop on the runway is the start of that time, when you reach 50 ft is the stop of that time. As the runway gets longer than the book number, this time shrinks until it reaches zero when you can stop or fly at V1.

The time of exposure to engine failure is *WAY* less than the SF50. One may say the EA500 has twice the potential for engine failure, but the period of time in which that causes you a serious problem is a tiny percentage.

Mike C.

Have another bankruptcy?

I'm not seeing the financial strength necessary to push Canada through certification.

It was a big enough project to Garminize the plane. That was a decent first step.

If they are offering a Garmin upgrade for the existing fleet, that will siphon away customers from the Canada. A Garmin panel cures the major market deficiency of the airplane.

The announcement of the Canada has already killed any sales of the EA550. Osborne effect.

Once again, bad business decisions ruin what could be a nice airplane.

Mike C.