Turboprops are not jets. SETPs have certain advantages over TETPs and they fly at similar altitudes.

Yet, they are so expensive, same cost as TETPs.


Actually, I am the one consider those things very explicitly. Regulations, certification is the PRIMARY reason SEJs don't make sense, limited altitude.

I think you have confused the infatuation over a cheap jet as meaning it has to be a single. It doesn't. Eclipse proved that. People want a cheap jet and I don't think it matters how many engines it has.


Great, we've reached the "make up numbers" portion of this thread. Your statement is obviously way false.


One of the reasons I won't be looking to fly with SF50 owners. They are already self selected to be irrational having bought the airplane to massage their "jet ego".

Mike C.

FL280. You need RVSM at FL290 and higher.


Just because you don't know doesn't mean others don't. Dreamer's always hang on to ignorance since that gives them comfort it is still possible.

There is PLENTY of history, science, engineering, regulations, examples to rely on in this case.


Moller said the same thing about flying cars.

The established jet makers, who KNOW, are not trying to build an SEJ.

Think about it.

Mike C.

If true ... ouch. But in that scenario you'd go WOT and make a gas stop.

Mike,

You appear to be a very sharp guy with technical skill. You have rolled in to BT like a tornado. Obviously, you were addicted to some other forum and bailed. Within days of joining you are letting loose of thinly veiled personal slights.

Do us all a favor and learn the lay of the land here friend. We have many very experienced folks, who have BTDT. You will probably like it here on BT, but we don't play the personal attack game. We are a whole lot more than an internet forum. Many of us meet each other in person regularly. Don't bring whatever caused you to leave your last hangout here.

Would love to hear about the MU2. How about an intro post???

Best,

Mikes last hangout is dying. He didn't get kicked out. I'm one of many transplants from the same space.

You tell me, Why don't they build them anymore?

Still not following what "piston think" is. I want to go from point A to B. 20 years ago you'd use a Lear. Now you can use a Pilatus for a fraction of the price and systems and risk. Times change. You don't seem to want to accept it.

If the SF50 does NOT make it to market I will agree with you that the old way cannot change. But I think it will make it to market. "Policy" won't be the barrier. As soon as one rely's on "policy" to save their job, they're about to lose their job. Economics will win.

[quote="Mike Ciholas"]
FL280. You need RVSM at FL290 and higher.
[quote]

IF I were in the lofty position to write type limitations for an aircraft, one that I didn't want to go into RVSM airspace would I:

Make the limitation 280, as in no flight above 280.

or

Make the limitation below FL290

Knowing that SF50 pilots are going to be challenged to top weather, I would do the later so that a pilot could request a block and pick up an extra 999' of altitude ATC permitting without exceeding the service ceiling.

Once again, I am just saying what I would do, maybe you can educate me on what Cirrus will do?

The world is full of people who said it couldn't be done scratching their heads and wondering how it was...

I think JC answered that with a Pilatus. He is our "step-up" poster child. He researched all this hard and no one wanted a "jet" more than JC to avoid the clown plane image.

Would not matter; at least not in the USA. Non-RVSM aircraft must be separated by 2,000' vertically. So an RVSM aircraft at FL300 needs 2,000' separation from a non-RVSM at FL280. In other words, if a SF50 requested a block altitude above FL280, it would almost certainly be denied, because that would put it in conflict with RVSM traffic and/or RVSM airspace.

Why are they waiting for the SF50? They can scratch that itch today with no waiting.

If true I agree it's not a viable airplane. I've just never read this before.

Mike, EA500 is only burning gas with the numbers you say if it's up high. In and out of Atlanta (for example) you're not going to get high. Flying to NYC, Chicago or S. Florida from Atlanta they keep you low.

My decision to buy PC12 was 100% because I fly in and out of Atlanta. Nobody gets direct to FL410. Going to NYC from Atlanta you'll be lucky to get to FL210 and then they drop you to 13K around Washington D.C. My buddy coming back from NYC in an Excel not long ago had to stop for gas in NC because of head winds and ATC keeping him low.

If I was based at a non towered airport in Kansas, I'd have a jet.

Agreed on all counts.

I agree. I'm not sure who "they" is. I don't want an SF50. Never will. I also don't want an SR22 but they sure do sell.

I love the SF50. I love the operating costs that are now on paper. We all need to wait and see what this thing really does once it's out. The whole discussion is "academic". Mike Ciholas seems to think he already knows it can't work and maybe he's right. I just don't think Cirrus is dumb enough to invest this much time and money into something that can't work.

I suppose we will see.

Not implying that.

Other forums are dying.

Beechtalk is thriving largely due to the camaraderie here.

Mike...tell us all about your Mits!