There is a profession called "engineering" where people use "data" to figure these things out. The fuel flow of the FJ33 is precisely known for any flight condition. Cirrus themselves published the numbers, and those numbers are probably optimistic.



Demonstrably false, of course. Multi engine airplanes were thought of before the Wright Brothers flew and became a reality a few years after they did. Prior to WWII, the primary impetus for multiple engines was commercial transport. Witness the Ford Trimotor and the Douglas DC-3, both of which significantly predate WWII and were developed with no thought of being shot at as the primary reason to have multiple engines.



I think you said the SF50 wasn't out and therefore is so vaporous as to not even be able to know how much fuel it burns.



If Cirrus delivers the fifth SF-50 to a customer (to avoid any shenanigans with fake early deliveries, an industry tradition) by Jan 1st, 2018, 3+ years from now and more than 10 years after the program was started, then I will never post again on this forum. If they fail to, you will never post again on this forum.

Have we got a deal? :-)

If you start arguing that 3 years isn't enough time, then you are basically saying the SF-50 really is vaporware right now.

Mike C.

Name the most successful SEJ developed for civilian personal and business transport. Success in this case is the airplane actually in the possession of the customer and they use it for personal transport.

I can't think of a single one.


An SEJ can make sense in certain applications. Personal transport certified by the FAA isn't one of them.


It has the benefit of not existing in customer hands. People are flying the brochure, not he actual airplane.

The history of aviation is full of such things. Some future historian who runs across a stash of aviation marketing materials (but lacks all evidence of the actual airplanes) would think we had the most wondrous flying machines of all descriptions and capabilities. Alas, ain't so.

Mike C.

Welcome to BeechTalk Mike.

Mike,

I agree with everything you say technically.

The only thing I think you may underestimate is the degree to which boys and their toys will pay for a JET and perhaps for a chute.

The new personal airplane market has very few people who buy on data. It's emotion driven. I think there are a lot of middle aged guys who would LOVE to own a jet. Either for their own enjoyment or the perception of being a jet owner. In that respect, if they can deliver an airplane that will provide regional transportation, even at twice the per nm DOC of logical alternatives - I bet it sells.

There is no airplane in the world easier to sell to a wife than the sf50. Jet chute looks like a car. Relatively cheap. This is a guaranteed smash hit. All the objections in the thread come from pilots who dont get it and likely thought the original cirrus made no sense.

This is also how I see it.

Mike, I've known many engineers (I see you are one), and many of them try to picture everything in life fitting within real data and validated stats. I don't think that is what will drive the SF50 market.

By the way, I wasn't arguing that there is a flying SEJ today in the private pilot market that is wildly successful. That wasn't the statement you made (initially).

Mike,

As for 3 years, I agree that should be plenty of time. I thought first deliveries were coming sometime next year? Of course, I guess they will deliver when they deliver. But for now, If 3 years is the target it is "vaporware" and we can take SF50 off the table in this discussion and focus solely on the marketplace......

If singles are so ridiculous, why are they selling so many? Why is the market for singles so strong and so bad for twins? Even the jets I like Phenom, CJ's etc. absolutely tank in value after purchase.

The economy took it's toll on all manufacturers in the last few years. But it's back now and look who survived and who is thriving......

The SETP market is strong because it's not that big (compared to jets)

Pilates and TBM produce just enough to keep prices high without attracting competition from the few people who could compete.

So it's a trick?

You have to compare SETP to other single pilot jets. Don't compare to the whole jet market. A Boeing and a Pilatus aren't attracting the same buyers.

"Wildly successful"? I'm still looking for anything delivered that is a personal SEJ even if it was a total failure!

We've had 50 YEARS of personal jet travel and not ONE SEJ. That's because even back in 1960, Bill Lear understood that a single jet engine has no benefit over two engines. There is no fuel flow advantage, no systems advantage, no purchase price advantage, and really no maintenance advantage either. The compromises necessary to put one engine on the airframe negate all the perceived benefits. The only folks who think an SEJ works are people applying their piston experience inappropriately to jets. This is happening both to the company and the customer. They both can play that game for a while, but eventually the emperor is naked and the gig is up.

Compare the EA500 and SF50. Both are 6000 lbs airplanes. Both have 1800 lbs thrust. The EA500 does it in two engines on traditional pylons. The SF50 does it in one engine on top fuselage pod and a V tail.

The EA500 goes faster, farther, carries more, and burns less fuel doing it. That is TOTALLY UNLIKE a piston single versus twin!

And that's comparing the ACTUAL EA500 to the PROPOSED SF50, using the brochure numbers. You can bet the ACTUAL SF50 won't be quite as good as the brochure.

The SF50 is projected to have a full fuel payload of 400 lbs. Being composite, historically ends up overweight in production, it wouldn't surprise me if the plane can only carry the pilot when it finally hits the market. The array of seats inside the airplane is dangerous.

If Cirrus took the SF50 and put two PW610Fs on it, simplified the tail, the plane would be much better, IMO.

BTW, there are no volume applications for the FJ33 yet, unlike the PW600 series, so SF50 owners, if that comes to pass, will get the entire burden of supporting an engine series. That means high HSI and OH costs. Whatever Williams publishes today for that is fiction, there isn't enough field experience to know, and they have to get revenue to sustain the series somehow and pay for the liability of a bunch of piston pilots flying a plane with only one engine. I predict a single FJ33 will cost more to maintain than two PW610Fs.


In the context of this issue, it was assumed the issue was for personal transport, that is a jet certified by the FAA and sold to owner operators.

For the absurd literalists among us, I should say "SEJs don't make sense for FAA certified personal transport".

Mike C.

Economics always wins out over policy. Since when do you do what the government tells you and not analyze?

So you accept the bet.

We will know on 1/1/2018.

Mike C.

OK

I'll bow out of this discussion.

Sales? Actually not that good for SEJs.

January 2010, 428 deposits on SF50.

Over the next 5 years, order log grew only to "about 550". About 25 aircraft per year growth. That's pretty bad, especially since a good portion, probably around 50%, of the backlog will vaporize when it comes to delivery time. Some of those who put deposits down are dead now, including some companies ordering quantity.

Actual SEJ deliveries? Zero.

Mike C.