If what I said was all lies, it wouldn't irritate you so much.

Mike C.

You haven't look around very much.



Mike C.

Mike you're interesting to read but I think you miss the point.

It doesn't really matter that a twin engine jet is or would be better than a single engine jet.

The question is; Is the SF50 better than a single engine piston?

It climbs way faster, cruises far higher9and it's pressurized), flies much faster (It's a JET) than any single engine piston. The fact that it may not be as good as a multi engine jet is immaterial.

The target purchaser is a guy who has experienced what the airlines has to offer, has been shown that learning to fly Cirrus is not rocket surgery and is looking for a step up. He/She has experienced Cirrus customer service (well described in another thread as industry leading) and is Cirrus's to lose.

This individual is comfortable in the IFR environment, had been trained the Cirrus Way and not only hasn't flown a multi-engine airplane, he/she doesn't care to learn how. This individual has purchased one or two airplanes since they learned to fly. They were both brand new and under warrantee. This guy/girl is not interested in buying a piece of "aviation history" that has been out of production for twenty years.

Mitsubishi may offer excellent support (to well informed owner/operaters) but they don't offer the kind of support and aggressive marketing to newbies that Cirrus seems to provide.

Is the SF50 vastly superior to the SR22? Yes. The bar has been cleared.

My guess is that if the airplane makes it to certification without undue delay (and a vast price bump), it will be successful. The fact that it's not the superior technical solution to light jet transportation will have little bearing on this quiestion.

IMO.

This is piston think, piston twins are these dangerous tricky beasts, and they don't want to touch them. Cirrus is both guilty of having this themselves and counting on their customers having it, too.

Any pilot who can't get, or is resistant to trying to get, a multi rating is not a good candidate to fly in the flight levels at 300 knots managing all the systems of the SF50.

That individual is going to be in for a rude awakening when they go for a type rating, when they see an AFM with 200 pages of emergency procedures, when they have to demonstrate flying an ILS to ATP standards, maintain precise speeds and configurations, and so forth.

Being a jet pilot requires performing and acting like a professional regardless of how many engines the plane has. The Cirrus pilots you describe don't make the grade.

If I wanted to design an incredibly dangerous experiment, I would take a bunch of fixed gear piston single pilots, afraid to get a multi rating, and push them into complex single engine jets with intricate computer controlled systems and failures, send them through icing year round, push them into the thin air of the flight levels, imbue them with a sense of invincibility both by providing them a chute and by the go anywhere, any weather, any time marketing of Cirrus, and turn them loose to go fly.

How could it be more dangerous than that?

I guess Cirrus could add a wet bar reachable from the pilot's seat...

Mike C.

I see you seized on only one of my points and rode it long (and hard)

It was a minor point (from my perspective) but let me expand on it, as it's the only thing I said you addressed.

When I said this individual had no desire to learn to fly a multi-engine airplane I did not mean they were afraid of leaning to fly one. My point was that many of these people have gotten into a Cirrus because of the transportation solution, not because they built model airplanes in their youth and have a romantic relationship with flying.

They want an increase in capablilty in the shortest amount of time and bypassing the need to add a multi engine rating SEEMS to satisfy that need.

Perception is reality and the fact that learning to fly a jet and think at 300KIAS Vs. 180KIAS will probably take more time than spending ten hours in a Seminole is irrelevant.



As I said earlier it's more of an attitude adjustment than it is a skill issue. If one recognizes (or is taught) that a jet demands more precision and is willing to put in the practice it's not an issue.

I don't think a large AFM or tightly proscribed procedures are going to strike fear into their hearts.



Based on what? The fact that I said they don't have a deep personal relationship with aviation.

If I thought like you I certainly wouldn't let an egg headed engineer within a mile of an MU-2.

Most of these individuals are successful, self starting individuals. I really don't think they are going to have a difficult time transitioning to jets and this is an area where I have some experience. I used to do this in 20 series LearJets (and not in a sim). It takes time, the right attitude from the student and an instructor who knows what he/she is doing. It does not require some form of alchemy.

Cirrus has apparently learned the lesson that training is the most important component of safety and unless they suddenly forget that lesson when they start delivering SF50s, I don't see a problem.




I don't want to repeat myself so I will confine myself to these comments.

Someone new to aviation, who came into it for the transportation advantages, not because they wanted to be a fighter pilot, is going to be uninterested in an airframe that's been out of production for twenty years.

If they are impressed with Cirrus - Did you not see the post where a current Cirrus owner related his story of what happened when Cirrus discovered there was a slight blemish on said customer's Cirrus? - They are gong to be more inclined to buy a new, warranted product than they are to emulate Captain Yesteryear and buy an airframe that both hasn't been built in decades and doesn't offer any depreciation advantages.

Jon, Mike C.,

I would also add, go read some of the threads where BT members report what the training is like. It is very intense, and also very humbling.

Here is an example by a BTer who took delivery of a new plane, flies a lot and has been flying for a very long time.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84395&hilit=cirrus+training&start=15

Tim

You haven't look around very much.



Mike C.

That would be fun on floats with a built in bass boat launch.

So friggin what? I know many a citation pilot that haven't ever flown a multi engine airplane until they train in the citation and take the type ride.

I really fail to see how getting the multi-engine rating has anything to do with flying to ATP standards. I have an ATP for both multi and single engine.

If we want to start a certificate battle, Mike, when did you take your commercial and/or ATP? Couldn't find that in the database. It shows a Michel (I assume that is you) with a private only.

Finally - keep in mind that these newer single pilot airplanes are designed to be flown with a functioning autopilot, making the precision of the previously discussed ILS much easier. I believe you have to handfly 1 or 2 approaches (one with raw data) in the type ride, but you are expected to use the autopilot for everything else and demonstrate mastery of the avionics. You can complain about whether that makes pilots better or worse, but it is the reality that the we live in. I know flying SP in many of these jets is prohibited without a functioning autopilot.

I personally appreciate the older airframes and often look at the MU-2 as a good airplane if flown properly and understood. But, I am in the minority. Many of the newer pilots don't want that and I can't blame them. Full FADEC engine control, jump in and go, manufacturer warranty, new ergonomic interiors all probably have more relevance than a second engine.

Oh, you are saying they aren't PILOTS. Okay, I get that.

Then the solution is easy, buy a jet card or a frax position. End up costing them less per mile in the end than owning an SF50 when all costs are accounted for. And it will be safer.

A person who wants to own an SF50 IS having a romantic relationship with flying, it certainly isn't a practical one.


Jet card or frax. Do it today. No training. No homework. In some ways, even more impressive to others, to have crew, more ego inflating.


If you are saying the entire SF50 business plan is based on a false perception, then I agree with you. Piston think is the basis for that perception. Perception is fixable with insight.


They still have a problem with the SR series.

BTW, I've never suggested SF50 position holders should buy an MU2 instead. I agree it isn't for them. Plus, I wouldn't want them affecting my insurance rates and resell value.

My position is that the SF50 would be better as a twin jet. There is no advantage to the single, other than false perceptions carried over from the piston world.

Mike C.

Exactly. You don't even have to touch a piston twin to get into a multi jet.


Until the autopilot fails.

Flying is easy until something goes wrong. Something will go wrong at some point.

If nothing ever goes wrong, then flying a twin is as easy as flying a single.

If something does go wrong, flying the twin is EASIER than flying the single. There is no emergency in the single that is easier than the twin.


All that I know have this requirement. My airplane does, too, effectively.


So they could have a second engine for the same price, why not do it?

Mike C.

"I spent about 50 hours going through the material to get ready for Transition Training."

"What followed was 5 and a half more days of flying, lots of ground lessons, sim time"

"Beginning the second day I was pretty frustrated with the experience because 1) I was required to do some flying that is pretty basic and 2) because I wasn't IFR proficient when I showed up due to my layoff from flying."

"it took me all week to get where I was half way satisfied with IFR performance. The plane was great but there is a lot to remember how to do."

Based on how long and intense that training was for a fixed gear non pressurized piston single, the type rating class for the SF50 is going to last 4 to 6 weeks for someone similar to Tony. If Tony thinks there is a "lot to do" in an SR, he ain't seen nothing yet.

No offense to Tony, but if it takes you a week to fly IFR half way decent in a very stable and docile piston single, you aren't jet material, at least, not yet.

Mike C.

New is new, but in some ways, old is better.

With new avionics, engines, props, paint, interior, you can have a practically new airplane if you find a good well maintained airframe to build it on.

Being old, you can modify the airplane to suit your tastes instead of being locked into a factory configuration. Many older airplanes have less rules about life limits.

Being old means the type is well understood. If you buy a 421, say, you are unlikely to be surprised at what it does. If you buy an SF50, nobody really knows what the issues are with it yet.

Some folks are trying to market "refurb" aircraft, like the Renaissance Commander or the Platinum MU2:

http://www.air1st.com/platinum-series-mu-2-2.html

You might be able to pick up something like that near $1M. Won't be "new", but it is pretty close, and it easily beats your numbers for load, speed, and range.

An old airplane is a successful airplane.

Mike C.

Mike - why do you assume that all prospective SF50 owners are incompetent fools who can't fly an airplane?

I find it particularly ironic coming from a pilot who made the successful transition from a 210 to an MU2. Why do you think you're so much better of a pilot than these unknown SF50 owners?

Robert

"I spent about 50 hours going through the material to get ready for Transition Training."

"What followed was 5 and a half more days of flying, lots of ground lessons, sim time"

"Beginning the second day I was pretty frustrated with the experience because 1) I was required to do some flying that is pretty basic and 2) because I wasn't IFR proficient when I showed up due to my layoff from flying."

"it took me all week to get where I was half way satisfied with IFR performance. The plane was great but there is a lot to remember how to do."

Based on how long and intense that training was for a fixed gear non pressurized piston single, the type rating class for the SF50 is going to last 4 to 6 weeks for someone similar to Tony. If Tony thinks there is a "lot to do" in an SR, he ain't seen nothing yet.

No offense to Tony, but if it takes you a week to fly IFR half way decent in a very stable and docile piston single, you aren't jet material, at least, not yet.

Mike C.