BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2020, 20:52

Username Protected wrote:

A 300 knot airplane is fast until you turn it into 150 knot headwind.

Very true. A headwind component that's a significant percentage of TAS will make a long day longer. Furthermore, 300 knots is only fast until you fly a 400 knot airplane. And, if you've flown a 500 knot airplane for long, you're ruined.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2020, 20:54

Username Protected wrote:

I’m not a fan of the plastic jet.To slow too low no go!

A 300 knot airplane is fast until you turn it into 150 knot headwind .

:hide:

I got blasted a long time ago before the plastic jet came out because I said it would be a flying roadblock. and guess what it’s still Is!

How is it any different of a roadblock than a TBM or King Air?

The issue is the FAA's classification of "turbojet" for SIDs and STARs. Just like approaches, there should be speed categories (regardless of what propels the aircraft). Old school rules getting in the way

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2020, 21:00

Username Protected wrote:

How is it any different of a roadblock than a TBM or King Air?

The issue is the FAA's classification of "turbojet" for SIDs and STARs. Just like approaches, there should be speed categories (regardless of what propels the aircraft). Old school rules getting in the way

In reality, I don't think it's any different than a TP from a traffic standpoint, since it cruises at TP altitudes. If it went up in the 30s or 40s, it would be more of a roadblock.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Dec 2020, 23:52

Username Protected wrote:

I’m not a fan of the plastic jet.To slow too low no go!

A 300 knot airplane is fast until you turn it into 150 knot headwind .

:hide:

I got blasted a long time ago before the plastic jet came out because I said it would be a flying roadblock. and guess what it’s still Is!

I don't go if there is a 150kt headwind, but if I had to I would prefer to be in a plane that goes 300 kts to one that goes 150

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Dec 2020, 01:07

Username Protected wrote:

In reality, I don't think it's any different than a TP from a traffic standpoint, since it cruises at TP altitudes.

The FAA handles the SF50 as a turboprop for routing. Altitudes and speeds are comparable.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2021, 04:56

True but the SF50 gets the turbojet routings to and from Denver. I can’t fly them even though I am much faster than Vision jet. It’s annoying bc the jet routings are so much more favorable.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2021, 10:35

IMO the fuel is too tight for the trip that was enquired about. At least I would not want to recommend that to a family member.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2021, 08:13

Username Protected wrote:

The "real jet" mantra reminds me of the stigma of the 337 Skymaster "not a real twin" drumbeat.

I see them both as revolutionary in their niche markets; the safety of Skymaster in the light twin market, and the safety of the entry level single pilot jet market for the Cirrus jet; and in my mind it's a "real jet."

Anything pressurized that cruises at FL310 is exposed to the possibility of a Rapid D from a blown out window, or other, and it wouldn't be fun in a single pilot operation. That's real.

Late to this thread, but wanted to add that ironically (or perhaps fittingly if you're a Vision Jet detractor), the Skymaster, as much as I think it's a cool plane, did not turn out to be all that safe. You have about twice the chance of an engine failure as a single (maybe more as the rear engine sometimes had issues) and an engine failure is not as easy to detect as it is in a conventional twin. And in a lot of Skymaster takeoff scenarios you'll need BOTH engines to successfully continue the takeoff. So in that respect at least, it is a "real twin".

It's a great aircraft though if you want twin reliability (once you're in the air) and good downward visibility.

Cirrus Vision jet request