BeechTalk - BT - The Cirrus SF50 VisionJet "Fast Track to Production"

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Sep 2014, 16:51

Username Protected wrote:

Oh boy....

:popcorn:

At least we're in Brand-X talk so some of the Beech fanboys won't have too much of a reason to complain.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 07:52

Username Protected wrote:

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.

How long did it take for Cirrus to get certified with the chute? 10 years? It could be that only newly certified aircraft will start seeing this tech. I just don't think Bonanza's and 182's and other aircraft that have been around for years will ever see a chute.

Aviation takes year. Cirrus is like Apple. They think "different".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 08:26

You CAN get a chute on a C-182:
http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 10:44

Username Protected wrote:

You CAN get a chute on a C-182:
http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx

That doesn't look like it's from the manufacturer. Look at the time and money BRS spent to do that. Cirris designed the plane to have that system from the beginning because one of the founders had been in a mid air and was insistent during the design process. Retrofitting existing would be difficult for existing manufacturers. The previous poster asked why manufacturer's weren't doing this.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 11:48

Username Protected wrote:

You CAN get a chute on a C-182:
http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx

That doesn't look like it's from the manufacturer. Look at the time and money BRS spent to do that. Cirris designed the plane to have that system from the beginning because one of the founders had been in a mid air and was insistent during the design process. Retrofitting existing would be difficult for existing manufacturers. The previous poster asked why manufacturer's weren't doing this.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 12:51

Username Protected wrote:

With Cessna, you can get a chute on the 150, 162, 172, and 182. The Cessna web site touts this: http://www.cessna.com/en/citation-servi ... -parachute

For such a revelation there sure doesn't seem to be much info or pics of this supposed product. Anyone ever seen one on a 172?

Sorta seems like one of those things where they anticipated the product so they put it on their website then it didn't materialize and they forgot to take it down.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 12:53

I saw a chute-equipped 182 a couple years back..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 12:57

Username Protected wrote:

Anyone ever seen one on a 172?

No, not up close.

However, the interweb suggests it is so:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 13:22

A prediction from a 26 year old aerospace engineer recently:

As flying becomes "easier" due to improved avionics in light airplanes, flying commercial remains a hassle for business travelers, getting out of major cities on weekends to "play" via driving is difficult, and more young people take over or start businesses, we will see increasing demand for airplanes like Cirrus that is easy to fly and has an "out" in the form of a parachute. In effect, future aviators will mostly use an airplane to get around as opposed to just flying around to have fun.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 13:35

I almost bought a 182 with a chute. However it cost the same if not more than a SR 22. The chute also takes up baggage space. The baggage space on a post 1997 182 is a great asset. Cirrus makes more sense in many respects.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 14:07

Username Protected wrote:

A prediction from a 26 year old aerospace engineer recently:

As flying becomes "easier" due to improved avionics in light airplanes, flying commercial remains a hassle for business travelers, getting out of major cities on weekends to "play" via driving is difficult, and more young people take over or start businesses, we will see increasing demand for airplanes like Cirrus that is easy to fly and has an "out" in the form of a parachute. In effect, future aviators will mostly use an airplane to get around as opposed to just flying around to have fun.

I am 34 and that has been my feeling owning an airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2014, 14:53

Username Protected wrote:

I saw a chute-equipped 182 a couple years back..

I've seen it on the C182 or C172. It takes a LOT of luggage space.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Sep 2014, 06:42

Username Protected wrote:

A prediction from a 26 year old aerospace engineer recently:

As flying becomes "easier" due to improved avionics in light airplanes, flying commercial remains a hassle for business travelers, getting out of major cities on weekends to "play" via driving is difficult, and more young people take over or start businesses, we will see increasing demand for airplanes like Cirrus that is easy to fly and has an "out" in the form of a parachute. In effect, future aviators will mostly use an airplane to get around as opposed to just flying around to have fun.

I am 34 and that has been my feeling owning an airplane.