A mid-air collision away from an airport traffic pattern???

You're much more likely to be hit by lightning. You're more likely to win the Power Ball lottery.

It's not even worth worrying about.

There is no proof that it does

Mike,

Your logic applies to a second engine. It applies to STOL modifications on aircraft. It applies to full span flaps which increase the airplane utility and short field performance.

No matter the device, if it expands the utility of the plane it can affect the pilots thinking. Every single pilot makes a risk assessment consciously or subconsciously. For most pilots, the chute is the equivalent of a second engine. You disagree, fine we get that. But unless you have the ability to perform a Vulcan mind meld on almost every pilot in the country who files/desires a Cirrus, you are not going top change any minds by repeating your assertions and accusations over and over.

Tim (in a very sarcastic, annoyed tone)

When I owned and flew 2 SR22's for over 10 years I never realized that I was such an idiot for buying one, nor that I was in such danger. But I've now been fortunate to read the real story of the incredible marketing scheme that Cirrus has used to put pilots in jeopardy and I'm almost embarrassed to admit I bought two of those death traps.

And now they expect rational pilots to pay $2 MM for a sort-of jet and fly regularly in the flight levels.

Thank god that a real pilot, one that flies a twin engine turboprop, and one of the most difficult planes in the world to manage, an MU2, came to our rescue.
You must have been researching this information for years! I hope you will make sure to contact Cirrus before it's too late!

Something that hasn't come into the mix in this thread is the pilot who dons a chute before an aerobatic flight. If any pilot in any airplane did the same with the ability to exit his airplane, to what gravity or degree would he consider this as an option for a common flight? Do I take or leave the chute because it's severe clear or I only use it when I fly over the mountains. I'm pushing for 100 pages and am enjoying the debate. It is also interesting to see the objective and subjective responses.

Snooze....

Wake me up when something new is said or it's over.

You can't have it both ways Sam! It's Mike against all comers for ever. Nothing new, no one's mind changed but it's like Hotel California. You can enter but you can't leave!

Just keep him in this thread! I can't keep up with BT as it is...

For those who can barely afford the SF50, high operating costs will be a factor.

Mike C.

I just stop by this one every few days to see if it's finally died or been shut down. It's all I have time for and really a waste of time - but its like one of those old tricks that keeps pulling new victims in so checking in is mildly entertaining.

I'm not the issue, never was, talking about me is avoidance of my argument.


Yes, which is what threatens the success of the SF50.

Pilots are not expecting to pay CJ2 prices for turboprop speeds and altitudes. It will make the SF50 an expensive toy instead of a viable personal transportation machine.

Pilots, at least some of them, are not expecting to put in the serious amount of training, both initially and recurring, that it takes to fly a jet. The number of engines makes little difference here because it is a jet.

Making the SF50 a twin solves the economics, but nothing can remove the training requirement. That is what it takes to fly a jet.

The dream is a low cost, "simple as a piston" to fly jet. Being a single jet ruins the low cost part, being a jet ruins the simple part. That's just the way it is.

Mike C.

Absolutely.

Every piece of equipment on the airplane is part of the risk assessment for any given mission.


Absolutely. And this is how it should be.


Actually, I don't. I think the "chute = second engine" effect on pilot's thinking pretty much nails it.

The problem is that second engine seems to be reasonably judged by the pilot and I don't think the chute is.


"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

No offense, but changing your mind wasn't my goal.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why so many Cirrus pilots get into fatal situations of which only some are managed to be saved by the chute. If you think the chute makes the plane safer, then why isn't the Cirrus safer?

You can disparage my character some more to avoid that above question if you like.

Mike C.

I have disagreed with Mike on other topics but on this one I completely agree.

He does not need my support or others, he is making you guys look uninformed and closed minded.

Others who agree are just letting Mike carry the water on this one. He is doing a great job. Rest assured he is not alone in his opinions.

Mike,

You completely missed my point...oh well.

Steve,

I'm sure you are right that there are many who agree with Mike. I agree with him on many of the points he has made. But nothing is 100% bad and that is the message that Mike has laboriously made about the SF50 in over 300 posts. When you are 100% negative about anything people quit listening. That is too bad because a many of the points he has raised are valid.

Aloha!

Time will tell!

I don't see anything positive in the SF50 either. What's wrong with having an opinion.