BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 02:04

Username Protected wrote:

In "Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011"

Rude not to include a link, here it is:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 202011.pdf

Quote:

The majority of 38% of the fatal accidents that were due to an airworthiness malfuncitions were due to a loss of an engine and hitting the ground as a result.

You paraphrased the report. The actual statement in it was:

"38% of all fatal accidents involved at least one airworthiness related causal factor, of which “Engine failure/malfunction or loss of thrust” was the most common."

It said "most common" which isn't the same as "majority", nor did it say "hit the ground", those are embellishments you added.

It should also be noted the report covered turboprops. The above statement does not separate jets from turboprops. It also covered places with known safety deficiencies, such as Africa and Russia.

You still haven't produced an example of a twin business jet having a problem with control when an engine fails. If they are as common as you state, should be easy. So find one.

Some data from the report you referenced:

Engine failure, loss of thrust was cited as the primary casual factor in only 5 fatal accidents, 2% of the total fatal accidents considered. Unfortunately, they don't break down what those 5 accidents are. I would not be surprised if all 5 of them are NOT multi engine jets.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 09:09

Username Protected wrote:

I think the SF50 will have high turnover in the used market which will kill new sales in the future.

Mike C.

People have predicted the demise of the SR line, or the Bonanza line and many others.
So far, the SR line is doing just fine as each generation of the plane gets better. While Bonanza, Cessna and Mooney seem to be still selling the same plane from 50 years ago with just new avionics and leather.

So I kinda doubt that SF-50 G2 will sell poorly and people will suddenly have a wake-up that they bought the slowest, cheapest and worst jet ever with the original SF-50.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 09:33

Username Protected wrote:

I think the SF50 will have high turnover in the used market which will kill new sales in the future.

Mike C.

People have predicted the demise of the SR line, or the Bonanza line and many others.
So far, the SR line is doing just fine as each generation of the plane gets better. While Bonanza, Cessna and Mooney seem to be still selling the same plane from 50 years ago with just new avionics and leather.

So I kinda doubt that SF-50 G2 will sell poorly and people will suddenly have a wake-up that they bought the slowest, cheapest and worst jet ever with the original SF-50.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 09:41

Username Protected wrote:

The number one reason that people trade out of a Meridian, is not that it does not do every single thing that they think it would do, because it does. They taste that capability, and then they realize the world is a lot smaller than they thought. Weather is much less of a concern than they thought. Flying is a lot less fatiguing than they thought. Then they want to share that with more people (passengers), they want to go farther, they sometimes want to go faster, but I would say that is usually a minor consideration (see the success of the equally slow PC12/King Air aircraft). It becomes about range, and payload, so they step up.

Charles,

The same could be said for the C172, to a C182 to the 206...
Or the SR20 then the SR22....
Or the Mooney line...

Basically every plane meets a mission. When you upgrade to that plane, if you have cash you often find your mission will expand. And then you upgrade planes again.

How is that different then any other plane?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 09:50

Username Protected wrote:

When is the last time you heard of a twin business jet experiencing Vmc upset?

Would be kind of hard, as so many do not have a Vmc published from what I am told. The wing stalls first. Perhaps still an "upset" but noting to do with being OEI save for the distraction value.

For one model a manufacturers rep told me they had to kick out the thrust line by 2 degrees for each engine. Because they wanted the ball to come out of center; as a visual cue for the pilot.

Citation drivers, what is your Vmc and stall speeds? Clint?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 10:31

Username Protected wrote:

Citation drivers, what is your Vmc and stall speeds? Clint?

Numbers for M2, the smallest Citation in current production:

Vmca - flaps 0 - 86 KIAS
Vmca - flaps 15 - 77 KIAS
Vmcg - 89 KIAS

Stall speeds:

flap 0 - 77 to 98 KCAS
flap 15 - 72 to 92 KCAS
flap 35 - 68 to 86 KCAS

Lowest speeds at a weight of 6500 lbs (probably can't be achieved).

Highest speeds at max weight of 10,700 lbs.

Vmca - Vmc in the air
Vmcg - Vmc on the ground (using ONLY flight controls, no brakes)

In a typical takeoff scenario, Vmca is below stall speed and below V1/Vr. It is, however, possible for Vmca to be higher than stall depending on weight.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 10:39

Username Protected wrote:

The number one reason that people trade out of a Meridian, is not that it does not do every single thing that they think it would do, because it does. They taste that capability, and then they realize the world is a lot smaller than they thought. Weather is much less of a concern than they thought. Flying is a lot less fatiguing than they thought. Then they want to share that with more people (passengers), they want to go farther, they sometimes want to go faster, but I would say that is usually a minor consideration (see the success of the equally slow PC12/King Air aircraft). It becomes about range, and payload, so they step up.

Charles,

The same could be said for the C172, to a C182 to the 206...
Or the SR20 then the SR22....
Or the Mooney line...

Basically every plane meets a mission. When you upgrade to that plane, if you have cash you often find your mission will expand. And then you upgrade planes again.

How is that different then any other plane?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 10:48

Username Protected wrote:

Citation drivers, what is your Vmc and stall speeds? Clint?

Numbers for M2, the "smallest Citation in current production:

Vmca - flaps 0 - 86 KIAS
Vmca - flaps 15 - 77 KIAS
Vmcg - 89 KIAS

Stall speeds:

flap 0 - 77 to 98 KCAS
flap 15 - 72 to 92 KCAS
flap 35 - 68 to 86 KCAS

Lowest speeds at a weight of 6500 lbs (probably can't be achieved).

Highest speeds at max weight of 10,700 lbs.

Vmca - Vmc in the air
Vmcg - Vmc on the ground (using ONLY flight controls, no brakes)

In a typical takeoff scenario, Vmca is below stall speed and below V1/Vr. It is, however, possible for Vmca to be higher than stall depending on weight.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 11:01

Username Protected wrote:

Engine out loss of control isn't necessarily, and most cases not a VMC loss of control , but just a failure to maintain directional control and flight path resulting in a crash.

Find an example accident, Paul.

If they are as common as you claim, should be easy.

I tried to find one and failed to do so, and I'm pretty handy at finding such things.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 11:03

Tactical jet military pilots who later get a civilian certificate, used to have a "centerline thrust" limitation on it. Does that still happen ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 14:53

Username Protected wrote:

You must have a thing for weird looking planes.

Says the guy with an MU2!! Pots and kettles black …

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 16:27

The SF 50 will be nice I'm sure. Other than perhaps new and cockpit layout if I were Luc I'd be thinking an A or B model TBM. Has the range, speed and load carrying required for two in their case. If they decide to use 4 or all 6 seats they will be landing every 2.5 hours anyway on a longer trip. Personally around 3 +/- hours is usually plenty in the TBM for me and my "Nancy".

It is a traveling, all weather anytime/place plane (almost) that allows him to scratch the itch but land at the closest/cheapest airport to destination in retirement, his choice. Each and every trip. He may not want to make too many $100./1,000. hamburger runs in it but I can say I made a few. Helps currency when needed and practice in/out of those 2,500-3,000' runways the TBM was made for. Shorter is possible but not recommended for the uninitiated or ill informed.

Luc buy the TBM, paint it red, buy it with a G600/750's combo with new paint and interior and enjoy the ride. ONE really big problem though I've thought of..... What is your knock about bird going to be? I call for a new thread....... :coffee:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 16:30

Username Protected wrote:

The SF 50 will be nice I'm sure. Other than perhaps new and cockpit layout if I were Luc I'd be thinking an A or B model TBM. Has the range, speed and load carrying required for two in their case. If they decide to use 4 or all 6 seats they will be landing every 2.5 hours anyway on a longer trip. Personally around 3 +/- hours is usually plenty in the TBM for me and my "Nancy".

It is a traveling, all weather anytime/place plane (almost) that allows him to scratch the itch but land at the closest/cheapest airport to destination in retirement, his choice. Each and every trip. He may not want to make too many $100./1,000. hamburger runs in it but I can say I made a few. Helps currency when needed and practice in/out of those 2,500-3,000' runways the TBM was made for. Shorter is possible but not recommended for the uninitiated or ill informed.

Luc buy the TBM, paint it red, buy it with a G600/750's combo with new paint and interior and enjoy the ride. ONE really big problem though I've thought of..... What is your knock about bird going to be? I call for a new thread....... :coffee:

Even if you paint it red, a TBM just does not have the funny tail.
Further, for the next five or so years, the SF50 has a great warranty and Cirrus is known for following through on it. While that TBM A or B has a lot of pending new costs and is designed for what is likely a much higher cycle/hour time per year; not a Part 91 plane for the casual pilot/owner.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 17:41

Username Protected wrote:

Even if you paint it red, a TBM just does not have the funny tail.
Further, for the next five or so years, the SF50 has a great warranty and Cirrus is known for following through on it. While that TBM A or B has a lot of pending new costs and is designed for what is likely a much higher cycle/hour time per year; not a Part 91 plane for the casual pilot/owner.

Tim

+1

Yet another reason you cannot compare the New Market to the Used Market. There are too many variables. Easier to keep them separate.

I do however often compare the Used Mini-Jet market to the New Piston Market but only because all the used mini-jets are fairly new and have factory Garmin avionics etc.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 May 2018, 22:28

Username Protected wrote:

I think Mike is correct, but I don't think it is a bad thing. It is a reality though. The closest competitor to the SF50 is the Meridian/M500. You can look at the history of the Meridian/M500 and see the future of the SF50. Both planes do exactly what they say they will do, and will usually be the first pilots experience in the turbine world coming from a piston. Every single pilot stepping up from a piston to a turbine is impressed. Holy cow, the power, the speed, the climb, the lack of vibration, the pressurization.

It really is awesome coming from a piston. It will meet every single mission requirement that they expected their mission to be.

The number one reason that people trade out of a Meridian, is not that it does not do every single thing that they think it would do, because it does. They taste that capability, and then they realize the world is a lot smaller than they thought. Weather is much less of a concern than they thought. Flying is a lot less fatiguing than they thought. Then they want to share that with more people (passengers), they want to go farther, they sometimes want to go faster, but I would say that is usually a minor consideration (see the success of the equally slow PC12/King Air aircraft). It becomes about range, and payload, so they step up.

Now there are plenty that will be satisfied, and there are plenty of Meridian/M500 lifers. As there will be SF50 lifers. Because if their mission does not evolve, it will always do what it promised. The planes that I have seen Meridian drivers change to, are TBM's. a lot of M600's (familiarity), PC12's some Eclipse, several Mustangs, that is a normal thing to do if your first turbine is proudly the lowest, slowest, smallest.... :peace:

You are right, but the question is, who in their right mind would buy M500 at this point when they can have SF-50 for the same price?

Cirrus Jet