Lol

Dis you have a look at the caravan with executive interior?


No way.

You guys knocking the SF50 or any airplane on looks don't know what you're talking about. The PC12 is the ugliest airplane ever built and it outsells all of them. The uglier the airplane, the more utility it has. I don't know what it is about aeronautical engineering but that seems to be the case. [/quote]

Pc-12 is a suburban, cool and useful. The Eclipse is the ferrari. Most of the time i prefer the ferrari. If i need the suv i will take it or borrow one. But, why would you ever take the suv if you could take the ferrari? Eclipse handles like a little fighter jet, most of the time it works out.

I think the cirrus jet will rock.

I wonder how they will do FL340 on a single engine. I which them good luck.





I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.

Because the Eclipse won't get you there faster than a PC12.

I've seen at least 4 MU-2's on the Epps Ramp at PDK over the last year. Don't you have to taxi by Epps on the way out from your hangar?

Also, you will see my B55 parked across from your hangar on occasion.

Confucius say "Some men look without seeing"

Single engine jets don't make sense.

The only people interested in them are piston pilots using "piston think". Piston think teaches pilots that a twin is twice the engines of about the same size for no meaningful increase in speed or utility, so the single is far more economical.

This is simply not true for a jet. The SF50 has an engine more than twice as big as the ones on an Eclipse and due to the FL250 limitation, it burns MORE per hour than BOTH the engines on the Eclipse, and goes SLOWER doing it.

Further more, due to liability, the cost of the single engine on the SF50 will run about the same as BOTH engines on the Eclipse. The airframe AND engine manufacturer has to price in the economic cost of the airframe being a single. If the engine quits, FAR more likely to be an accident that will cost money to defend and settle. In contrast, an engine failure in a twin jet is REVENUE to fix it after a safe and easy OEI landing.

When you get to a jet, two engines are just as cheap as one when you consider ALL of the SYSTEM cost involved. When you have two, you have redundancy in the most natural way. And this isn't just propulsion, it is also in electricity, bleed air, pressurization. In fact, this is why SEJs are limited to FL250, you need two sources of pressurization to go higher (older SETPs are grandfathered in, it would be difficult to get them above FL250 today).

Also, the aerodynamics of an SEJ are terrible. There is no good place to put the engine. SF50 on top forces pitch moments, turbulent intake air, and requires split tail with the commensurate trim drag that causes. Eclipse 400 same issues. Piper Jet similar problems with now complex fin structure. Diamond with lots of intake losses in S ducts, plus water ingestion risk from nose wheel when it hits standing water on the runway. In contrast, the pylon mounted twin jet engines are no problem at all.

Further, there is no major engine out concern for the pilot in a twin jet. The asymmetric thrust is minimal, there is no prop to worry about, and there is no engine to mistakenly feather. So all of the nasty issues that plague piston twins simply don't exist in jets. The only thing you have to do when an engine quits on a twin jet is fly with a touch of rudder. Easy.

Then there is the training barrier. An airframe maker wants well trained pilots as that is the single biggest factor in the type safety record. If you make it easier for WEAKER pilots to fly it, you will get WEAKER pilots, and get more accidents which have nothing to do with how many engines the plane has. Any pilot who WON'T or CAN'T get a multi rating is one who shouldn't be flying a jet. It is the cheapest and easiest rating of all to get and if that's a barrier, imagine the other corners that will be cut.

Not a single established jet maker even considered making an SEJ. Why? It wasn't for product line protection, it was because they KNEW it wasn't a good idea because they KNOW the regulatory, technical, and economic rules. The only people who thought differently are piston aircraft makers applying "piston think" to themselves.

Every SEJ project to date except the SF50 has been canceled. Eclipse 400, Stratus, Diamond, Piper, and a dozen lesser ones. If the SF50 ever gets to actual deliveries, then the emperor will be shown to have no clothes, and the gig will be up. SEJs are a market fad that is almost over.

The SEJ is not a new idea, either. The Gulfstream Peregrine made a go of it in the 1980s and died due to lackluster sales and certification complexities of having just one engine. Guess it took 20 years for people to forget that.

Mike C.

Pretty much sums it up. And for the same money I can buy (we actually did) a 10 year old KA350 that easily clears Salt River Range when departing KJAC Rwy 19 with full fuel and 8 aboard with a coffee maker and a proper pisser when an engine decides to take a break. Single engine jet never entered our picture. PC12 did, but at the price delta, the only advantage I saw to running a PC12 was the ability to use the pisser with the headset on when flying single pilot. It's a long way back in a KA350. But 1.5 million buys a lot of fuel and gatorade bottles.

The MU2 has no design flaw. It was a victim of its own capabilities and economic circumstances that exposed it to more risk than other types.

The Cirrus has no design flaw. It is a victim of attracting pilots who feel overly comforted by having a chute so they stray into dangerous circumstances.

The safety record of a particular type is almost always defined by the pilot and the mission, and the machine has very little influence.

I assure you that a poor pilot specifically choosing a "safe" airplane to compensate for their weakness is a more dangerous situation than a good pilot choosing a supposedly "dangerous" airplane.

Mike C.

Yep.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses in their flying ability. I'm in serious need of learning how to read skew-t charts and better understand ice right now for instance. If you have those skills right now, you're a better pilot than me in that regard. There's no shame in that. I'm fixing it. If I ball it up right now before I learn more about ice prediction, it's not a design flaw in the airplane, it's because I just wasn't good enough. It's not a personal attack, it's just a fact. If a family member of mine sues someone because I kill myself of my own volition, I'll haunt them until the day they die.

Learn how to fly an Aerostar properly and you'll be amazed at how docile it is, one motor or two. Learn how to fly a Mits and the same applies. No design flaw in either. Ted Smith designed fantastic airplanes. Same with Ed Swearingen and whatever guy made the Mits. None of these guys can help it if the pilot didn't take the time to learn how to fly their creations properly.

I agree. That's what everyone in the thread pretty much agrees on...... Starting on page 2. I don't think you read the thread. Why are you quoting me?

You can't compare a KA350 to a Cirrus Jet. Apples and Oranges.

Cirrus Jet will have a fraction of the operating expenses of a KA350. 2 different missions.

That said, If you're comparing, I'd get a big 2 pilot jet over a KA350 like an Excel or G200.

Hi Mike.

Welcome to Beechtalk.

I'll just point out that there have been many many many single-engine jets produced over the past few decades, including aircraft made by Grumman, Boeing, Beechcraft, Focke-Wulf, McDonnell Douglas, North American, Dassault, Lockheed Martin, Saab, Gulfstream, and many more. Their engineers clearly don't share your summary judgment concerning SEJs.

By the way, the current popularity and market for the SF50 also would suggest feelings contrary to yours.

I'm not agreeing with any of this post. You don't know what it's going to cost to work on an SF50. It's not out yet.

You don't know what the fuel burn on an SF50 is going to be. It's not out yet.

What's "piston think"? There are piston singles and piston twins.

Times change. The whole concept of multiple engines came from WW2. When you're getting shot at I see how you'd want more than 1 engine. But if what you say is true, Cirrus, Pilatus, TBM wouldn't be putting other manufacturers out of business.

Cirrus jet is going to put pressure on all manufacturers. How many orders do they have right now?

Why does one need a multi rating to fly a SE jet?

Why would you bring up Piperjet or any other manufacturer with "vaporware"? I'd love to place a bet with you on the future of SF50.