So the SF50 saves 10 minutes over an SR for 5 times the cost to fly, plus yearly recurrent training and check rides.

Net result: SR pilot spends less time doing the same missions when training time is included.

The SF50 has never been about being practical, it was about how to jam a jet engine onto an SR and make it fly somehow.

Mike C.

There's a fallacy in assuming average is typical.

For example, a jet is used in training and does 10 landings in 2 hours. It now has to fly 8 legs at 2 hours each to reach the 1 hour average. So that was 2 hours of use in training, and then 16 hours of longish legs. Despite the 1 hour average leg length, that certainly isn't a lot of "1 hour" trips given that 89% of the hours occur on 2 hour legs.

There are times that short flights happen, like for training, or for repo on charter/frax, or maintenance. Then it takes a lot of "real" hours in flight to push the average up leg length up to 1 hour.

For a jet that averages 1 hour per cycle, the majority of time it flies will be spent on legs longer than 1 hour.

Also, 1 hour in a real jet is a long way, typically 100 nm further than the SF50 will go in an hour.

Mike C.

The only problem is the Eclipse company went out of business. Is that really the only example you can come up with?

Name one new twin jet design that is cheaper than an existing twin jet. Why is a PC24 more expensive than a CJ4 and Phenom 300?

The SF50 has almost the exact same range and payload as a Meridian. I think the number one reason that people will trade out of an SF50 is the same as the number one reason people trade out of Meridians. For many it will be a destination aircraft, does everything it is advertised to do and will meet the mission that the person bought it for. But once you have a turbine, you expand your mission because time contracts and weather becomes much less of a issue.

Just looking at Greenbay to Dallas today with some profiles that I have in Flt.plan. 800 nm with typical jet stream winter winds. The Meridian and the SF50 are not making that 800 nm trip, especially with 4 small people onboard, because the SF50 will have to leave fuel behind, the Meridian may also depending on how much those people weigh, and how much baggage they bring. The eclipse, barely makes it, and could not do it if an alternate were required, but the M600 does it with ease even if a true alternate were needed. As would a PC12 or a TBM. A Mustang, I am not sure, have the app on my iPad it would be close but would not work with an alternate required.

That is my prediction. The SF50 pilot tastes the turbine elixir, but will become frustrated with how many fuel stops, or canceled trips for weather they will have not being able to go non-stop even within the "advertised range" of the aircraft and many will step up to something with more range and payload. Not a bad thing. It gets people into the turbine fold, which is a great place to be.

SF50



Eclipse



Meridian



M600

I've tasted the "turbine elixir" too. I need a G650. Oh, wait.

Especially when you figure in the first year costs of giving rides to all your BT buds.

All I would say to that is that given range and payload versus speed, while speed sounds good and looks good on paper, range and payload is King when it comes to completing missions with overall happiness. Speed only makes a small difference, and you lose all the advantage of speed when you have to fuel stop. That is why a PC12 does so well, why the TBM and now the M600 will continue to have a long successful run. When you can throw a dart at a map of the US and say, lets go there today, and lets just do it non-stop, it makes travel so much more enjoyable and less stressful. Especially when the weather is a mess across the country. All those that say fuel stops are no big deal, are probably the same ones that try to book their commercial airline trips with intermediate layovers

Give me the choice between flying first class commercial or trying to wedge myself in a PA46 cockpit (yes, I've tried several times), I'll take the former with a couple mil in the bank. I'd even fly a piston going 150 knots, verse dealing with my head pressed against the ceiling even if it was for a shorter time. IMO Piper made a MAJOR mistake with that cockpit. People who love to compare stats of one aircraft vs. another never consider comfort.

If the SF50 had been Cirrus only product, they would be out of business by now, too. As it was, they nearly died trying to design it and was saved by the Chinese.


You sure the PC-24 is more expensive?

PC-24: $9.1M (2018, based on $8.9M 2017 price and CPI-W)
CJ4: $9.2M (2018)
P300: $9.45M (2018)

These planes have nothing to do with an SF50, regardless.

Mike C.

Especially when you figure in the first year costs of giving rides to all your BT buds.

The one with someone else's name on it.

Why do people make the assumption that two engines is cheaper to manufacture than one?
I can get the R&D aspect of building the plane. But ongoing manufacturing costs I would think play a larger part in the ability to determine price

Tim

People aren’t making that assumption. Actually, only one is making that claim.

People aren’t making that assumption. Actually, only one is making that claim.

Seems obvious that a big turbine costs more to manufacture than a small one. Longer blades, more titanium, etc. You expect a 747 engine to cost the same as a PT6?