This is not a big deal......

Flying out of Atlanta, you're never getting to 41K unless your destination is west of Mississippi. You're not "topping weather" when you're descending into a socked in airport. The benefit you quote would be so ridiculously rare that I would never consider a "pro" much less a "HUGE" pro..

My last 2 coast to coast trips, anything I diverted around, everyone was diverting around. And, my divert added a few minutes to my flight. Not like I had to fly 100 miles out of the way. It's been a non factor so far.

It's like this: you want a Harley, with that special thunka-thunka, or a Honda with that ping-ping? TP's are antiquated compared to that Whoosh sound of a jet.

I've got a partner flying a PC12 and the last time I asked their pilot it was about $600/hr not including the cost of capital.

Aircraft loans are about 4.25% now, give or take a hundred basis points. That makes the cost of capital $283 an hour for 300 hours a year. If the operating expenses can be held to $500 an hour I see where they might be getting close on $800/hr. I do not believe, however, that the opex will only be $500 an hour.

I've got a partner flying a PC12 and the last time I asked their pilot it was about $600/hr not including the cost of capital.

Aircraft loans are about 4.25% now, give or take a hundred basis points. That makes the cost of capital $283 an hour for 300 hours a year. If the operating expenses can be held to $500 an hour I see where they might be getting close on $800/hr. I do not believe, however, that the opex will only be $500 an hour.

Let's see, the SF50 is:

V-Tail
Expensive(ish)
Easy to fly
Totally cool
Technologically advanced

Everything a BE35 was in its day.

Humm, do I smell another forked-tail doctor killer?

Saw one of these at the AOPA show in Chino on Saturday. Wow.

I really hope they do well, but in general, you just don't fly a turbine at low power settings. Long range cruise sounds great and may be useful at times, but that would be the exception. The largest reason given by our P&W guy for early overhaul, is running power settings too low and getting sulphur deposits on the turbine blades (the burn isn't hot enough to eliminate trace amounts in the fuel). My point is, if you want to stretch range on occasion to avoid a stop, fine, but don't plan on consistent long range fuel trips if you want to maintain engine health. Maybe the Williams is a bit different, but that applies to all the experience with P&Ws.
And we all know, you don't buy a turbine to go slow

+1

Sure you do, a lot of people buy straight wing Citations....

And King Airs...

Take it easy!

Anyone know what the max speed is for parachute deployment on the jet?

IIRC about 190 to 200 knots. What the systems is designed to do when you pull the chute, is for the plane to pitch up in attitude to slow. The chute has a slider on it which keeps it from fully deploying until the air resistance at a level which allows full deployment.

I'm sure there are folks that can provide a more technically instructive explanation than that, but it's essentially what occurs.

Off topic but I find it incomprehensible that more manufacturers are not clamoring for BRS STCs on their aircraft. If for nothing else it makes the SE piston at least seem safe for night, mountain and overwater ops, plus you don't have that second engine waiting quietly to kill you. How many Cirri are sold on the parachute alone? Given how far in front of the TTx the G5 seems to be, I would say a lot.

I have a 182 and every few months I re-debate the chute option for it. For now, the answer is not to fly at night, but if I had even a bit more UL I would have one back there in a heartbeat. I really think a very small percentage of fatalities would be unequivically avoidable in the presence of a parachute, but the test pilots sure seem to like them and the idea of having a real shot at survival WITHOUT having to execute a flawless forced landing, at night in the mountains, sure makes me wish I had one.

Oh boy....