BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 12:25

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 12:30

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 12:37

I wouldn't call only of those entry level

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 12:39

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 13:24

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 20:35

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 21:41

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 22:24

Have you factored in fixed costs for the Eclipse vs the TBM?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:14

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:19

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:24

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:38

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:44

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:53

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2018, 23:55

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.

Entry level turbines