You're twisting my words around a little bit.

The Eclipse WOULD do longer range, you just have to watch fuel and winds a little more, and you might get screwed if you got held down low, meaning 900 miles was a "comfortable" all-conditions max for owner guidance on trip planning where we wouldn't need to worry about a fuel stop. Counter-example, today KDEN-KSAV at 1230NM would be an easy 3:20 run at max cruise with the 44kt tailwind present today.

I was bragging about low fuel burn at 410 with the throttles pulled back, so yeah it was going pretty slow. Push the throttles up and you'd see something more like 340-350ktas.

It's no P180, but those were conservative numbers, it would do everything the book said it would do if asked.

As a meridian owner, I could handle those speeds at 280 pph! FF that low makes me happy at FL220, love to be up high going faster on that....

You're twisting my words around a little bit.

The Eclipse WOULD do longer range, you just have to watch fuel and winds a little more, and you might get screwed if you got held down low, meaning 900 miles was a "comfortable" all-conditions max for owner guidance on trip planning where we wouldn't need to worry about a fuel stop. Counter-example, today KDEN-KSAV at 1230NM would be an easy 3:20 run at max cruise with the 44kt tailwind present today.

I was bragging about low fuel burn at 410 with the throttles pulled back, so yeah it was going pretty slow. Push the throttles up and you'd see something more like 340-350ktas.

It's no P180, but those were conservative numbers, it would do everything the book said it would do if asked.

It will be better performance in headwinds, topping weather into the low 30s, and if you want to do with with less fuel and with redundant thrust. If you get above about FL370, routing improves due to less airliners. Things are pretty buys in the FL290-FL360 range.

The point is that the Eclipse is superior on just about every axis, faster higher, safer, less fuel, and that all comes from having two engines instead of one. The assumed penalties of a twin, inherited mostly from piston experience, do not apply to jets. There is nothing better about being a single jet over a twin.

Mike C.

The market is smart. Interesting to look at the numbers, in the owner flown category. The SF50 and SETP's are definitely where the market is going.

In order of sales the last 4 quarters. (Combining Q3/4 2022, and Q1/2 2023). The single turbines are leading the pack. And the safety of those single turbines are exceptional. Much below the GA average rate of fatal accidents. So the safety factor doesn't hold much weight. Better high/hot/short contaminated performance for the turboprops. More advanced avionics for the M600/TBM/SF50 with full envelope protection, autoland, GWX8000 3D volumetric radar, automatic remote trend monitoring, remote database updates, ability to check the status of your airplanes systems, such as battery health, fuel onboard, etc, from an app on your phone at home. The operating costs are less, the ease of flying is greater with fewer complex systems, and outside of the SF50, no need for type ratings. Easier to insure, especially for older less experienced pilots. A lot of reasons that go into the single turbines dominating the owner flown market.

Vision SF50 104
TBM 910/960 72
Piper M500/600 52
Cessna M2 28
Honda Jet 17
Epic 16
Phenom 100 7

And out of the soup. Seemed I was always a few thousand from being in the sunshine in the Meridian.

And out of the soup. Seemed I was always a few thousand from being in the sunshine in the Meridian.

There is nothing better about being a single jet over a twin.

Mike C.

No worries, I just didn't want anyone to take my conservative numbers as absolute fact, wasn't trying to short-change the book range. It always did what the book said it would do, but from a planning perspective you did have to be a bit more cautious about maxing it out on range than some other airplanes, so for advising the boss it was best to say 900mi under most all conditions so he wouldn't be surprised by the need for a fuel stop one day. From memory, 3:30 for a safe max endurance sounds about right. I was trying to find my books earlier today but couldn't dig them out, I think max still-air range with min IFR reserves was a shade over 1,000nm for most cruise conditions.

For example on a routing between two uncontrolled airports in empty airspace on a good weather day, planning a near max-range flight was a pretty safe bet. But it was closer to a 2:45-3:00 plane between two large hubs with departure and arrival procedures on a busy IFR day due to the rate that it would suck through contingency fuel if you were held down low or got stuck in a departure lineup. Reminded me of stories I have heard of early learjets in that regard, it really would burn almost as much fuel on ground at idle as it would in cruise (just way, way less overall than those early planes!).

The SF50 has one Williams engine, the Eclipse has two Pratt engines.


Does it? You have two identical engines with each having one generator and each being a bleed air source.

The single has to add redundancy in the form of additional systems. For example, two generators on one engine. And it can't duplicate the bleed air source, at least not easily.

Look at all the extra doodads the SF50 has for ruddervator mixers, and the complex yaw dampers/active stabilization it has because of the stupid V tail configuration to make room for the single engine. None of that on an Eclipse.

The pylon mounted engines are safer because if they have a fault, it is isolated form the main airframe. Engines have even fallen off and the plane survives. An engine integrated into the fuselage doesn't have that advantage and creates more noise for passengers.

The SF50 is quite a complex plane, much of it driven from the compromises that had to be made to make it a single.


The Eclipse sold for less than an SF50 when adjusted for inflation.


Not really, the single needs extra fuel which is extra weight. I bet the Eclipse full fuel payload is higher than the SF50. If so, where is this extra weight you speak of?


Your "piston think" is showing. The Eclipse carries LESS fuel than the SF50 for the SAME range. The twin burns LESS. That is totally backwards from piston twins, but true.


None of those features have ever been initiated by a passenger in the entire history of Cirrus.

Parachute doesn't protect you from critical scenarios like engine failure soon after takeoff.

Mike C.

Why do you think this airplane is upside down?
viewtopic.php?p=2358429#p2358429

YES, there's no differential thrust flow over wings in a pusher, BUT that is not the only reason why Vmc roll-over happens!

The owner removed the nose switch which prevents in flight deployment of TRs and they deployed one TR. My plane has a TR ground switch. Not an engine failure in flight.

None of this thread is about TRs, neither the Eclipse, the SF50, nor any proposed Cirrus twin jet would have have TRs.

The engine failure on takeoff rollover accident that plagues piston twins just doesn't happen on twin jets.

Mike C.

Just a fwiw, saw a vid that said SOP for a chute pull with an engine out, after lift off, starts at 600ft

Also mentioned a 4 yr waiting list.

These people are gonna be pissed when they learn the plane will never be certified.

What is the procedure below that altitude?

What do they teach for that in training?

Mike C.