BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 23:41

Username Protected wrote:

Notable for the safety. You don't want it to be news.

Mike C.

I probably regret this, but does the line of safety not conveniently fall just below whatever we fly? Twin guys love to talk about how dangerous singles are, TP guys consider pistons a day VFR wide open spaces only aircraft, jet guys think TP's are flying in the worst weather on the planet by choice, big jet guys think…

Seems that we're really just rationalizing our purchases more than any real concerns about safety.

OK, I already regret it and I haven't even hit submit, oh well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 23:52

Username Protected wrote:

I just wish turbines weren't so inefficient low. No such thing as a $100 burger in a turbine. I like to just go fly too much for a turbine to make sense.

LSA + turbine = solution.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 23:54

Username Protected wrote:

Notable for the safety. You don't want it to be news.

Mike C.

I probably regret this, but does the line of safety not conveniently fall just below whatever we fly? Twin guys love to talk about how dangerous singles are, TP guys consider pistons a day VFR wide open spaces only aircraft, jet guys think TP's are flying in the worst weather on the planet by choice, big jet guys think…

Seems that we're really just rationalizing our purchases more than any real concerns about safety.

OK, I already regret it and I haven't even hit submit, oh well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2015, 23:58

Username Protected wrote:

Pretty much. But it is also why I know a few Cirrus pilots who went from Twins down to a Cirrus. Same line of thinking, lower the cost and get a simpler airplane that meets the mission, but not lower the safety perception. (I will be one of these guys)

Tim

Zactly. Give me a 300 kt. single with a chute, simple ops, decent load and seats....

Hey, wait a minute.....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 00:04

Username Protected wrote:

Pretty much. But it is also why I know a few Cirrus pilots who went from Twins down to a Cirrus. Same line of thinking, lower the cost and get a simpler airplane that meets the mission, but not lower the safety perception. (I will be one of these guys)

Tim

When we talk about LOP vs. ROP the argument is the juice (to go a little faster) isn't worth the squeeze (cost of fuel). I think the same logic applies to personal aircraft choices and why Cirrus is dominating the market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 07:07

Username Protected wrote:

Notable for the safety. You don't want it to be news.

Mike C.

I probably regret this, but does the line of safety not conveniently fall just below whatever we fly? Twin guys love to talk about how dangerous singles are, TP guys consider pistons a day VFR wide open spaces only aircraft, jet guys think TP's are flying in the worst weather on the planet by choice, big jet guys think…

Seems that we're really just rationalizing our purchases more than any real concerns about safety.

OK, I already regret it and I haven't even hit submit, oh well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 09:18

Username Protected wrote:

Notable for the safety. You don't want it to be news.

Mike C.

I probably regret this, but does the line of safety not conveniently fall just below whatever we fly? Twin guys love to talk about how dangerous singles are, TP guys consider pistons a day VFR wide open spaces only aircraft, jet guys think TP's are flying in the worst weather on the planet by choice, big jet guys think…

Seems that we're really just rationalizing our purchases more than any real concerns about safety.

OK, I already regret it and I haven't even hit submit, oh well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 10:19

Username Protected wrote:

I feel like the argument for single engine ops being safer because a twin is more of a handful on one engine if a faulty one because the extra danger of single engine ops on a twin can be trained out of a pilot, as demonstrated in my opinion by the improvement in safety after the SFAR in the MU2.

Not unless it's "for real". If you haven't REALLY lost one in IMC and made it out alive you have not been initiated.

"Training in the airplane" is only 25% of the equation. Some folks crack under pressure. That's another 25%. Situational awareness is another 25%. Some folks have it, some don't. Then there's "Luck" which accounts for the last 25%.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 10:33

Username Protected wrote:

+1 for submitting it anyhow. Beechtalk isn't a popularity contest and you raise a valid point in my opinion.

In the same vein, I'll just throw in my .02- turbines are more reliable than Pistons as demonstrated by longer mean time between failure and so long as the design of the twin allows for true redundancy of systems and single engine performance that allows escape from danger, you really shouldn't need a ven diagram to see what's safer. It's true, people in aircraft that allow them to operate equipment that fails less, has more redundancy, and allows for operations in less dangerous WX feel safer as they get more of those things. That doesn't make the other options unsafe, but it does make them less safe.

I feel like the argument for single engine ops being safer because a twin is more of a handful on one engine if a faulty one because the extra danger of single engine ops on a twin can be trained out of a pilot, as demonstrated in my opinion by the improvement in safety after the SFAR in the MU2.

That said, I don't think the argument for or against a single engine jet here is a safety argument; the fact is, there are many engineering penalties from doing a SE jet on top of the FAA restriction of having to stay at FL250 or less. I don't know if it will sell or not, and I don't care. People buy all kinds of things that make no sense to me. In my mind, even if it sells more than any other airplane EVER it's still not a good engineering solution to air travel.

I fly a piston single from Dallas to my place in northern NM all year round and have done so for years. There are a handful of days in a year that I don't fly. In practice this hasn't been a big deal at all to wait a day, half a day, or a few hours when required.

Those handful of days are when you NEED a commercial all weather aircraft, CJ, Kingair, MU-2, etc. with all of the power, redundancy, rate of climb, etc. Many here are looking at the Cirrus Jet as though it were a commercial aircraft made to replace some of the former list, because after all it is a Jet. I don't think about it like that. If I had one I would still not fly on those handful of days. It would however make the marginal days much more comfortable than any piston and you have the speed. The SF50 at $2M doesn't have to equal the capability of a KA200, it just has to offer more than a $1.4M Baron or PA46 line and on paper it certainly does that.

I think we're putting the bar inappropriately too high on this one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:05

Username Protected wrote:

I feel like the argument for single engine ops being safer because a twin is more of a handful on one engine if a faulty one because the extra danger of single engine ops on a twin can be trained out of a pilot, as demonstrated in my opinion by the improvement in safety after the SFAR in the MU2.

When is the last time you heard of a Vmc rollover in a jet?

There is no "twin danger" in a jet.

The SF-50 needs to be a twin NOT because of engine failure. That is a minor consideration. It needs to be a twin jet to make it PERFORM better at LOWER cost.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:13

Username Protected wrote:

If you haven't REALLY lost one in IMC and made it out alive you have not been initiated.

High fidelity simulators count.

If you haven't trained in a sim, you are significantly less likely to handle an engine out, be it single or twin, because no in aircraft training can safely take you through it. Once you do it multiple times, you become proficient and gain confidence, the antidote to screwing up.

One reason jets are safer is that generally there is a high fidelity sim for every jet type.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:21

Username Protected wrote:

There is no "twin danger" in a jet.

Mike C.

Ever tried a V1 cut in a Lear?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:24

Username Protected wrote:

Many here are looking at the Cirrus Jet as though it were a commercial aircraft made to replace some of the former list, because after all it is a Jet.

That is how it is marketed.

"the Vision is designed to be simple to fly and easy to operate in formerly challenging environments"

That is how the pilot will view it. A go any time, go any place airplane.

Few jet pilots are going to explain why they can't go on a ski trip due to some clouds. You spent $2.3M and STILL can't go? Really?

Witness Klapmeier's infamous icing video for the SR series. Night, IMC, icing, mountains, rushing to get in ahead of storm. He's proud of that.

Quote:

I don't think about it like that.

I think you are in the minority, or are engaging in a bit of self delusion.

People don't buy a jet to make piston no go decisions.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:30

Just for clarification the SF50 is certified to FL280, NOT FL250.

And regardless of how inefficient it may be, the end results are FL280, 300 kts, 60 GPH, 1000 nm.
And a really nice cockpit and cabin with G3000 avionics for $2 million NEW.

Guys buying these would otherwise be looking at turboprops, but now can get a jet with the same performance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2015, 11:32

Username Protected wrote:

Ever tried a V1 cut in a Lear?

Once past V1, the twin can fly away.

The single? Only option is crash. Too low for chute or glide, too far down runway to stop.

How is the single safer?

People have been imaginatively crashing Lears for a long time, but I don't personally know of a V1 engine failure that ended up badly. References?

Mike C.

Cirrus SF50