BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:27

So it will be a very expensive airplane to insure and get a reputation as a dangerous airplane.

Although I don't think there will be enough of them sold that it will matter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:28

Username Protected wrote:

So it will be a very expensive airplane to insure and get a reputation as a dangerous airplane.

Although I don't think there will be enough of them sold that it will matter.

Wanna bet?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:32

Username Protected wrote:

Suck to you may not be suck to others. You have to compare to what's available on the market to the "owner operator". None have a chute. To tell people you "have a jet" is a huge deal too.

My friend has a brand new SR22. It's gorgeous. His wife calls it "jiggy jiggy" because that's the sound it makes when you turn it on. He's the guy that's gonna buy a Cirrus jet. If it does 220 on under 50GPH, looks and sounds like a jet and has a parachute it's gonna crush the market.

You don't see all the factors at play here.

I think the insurance companies will see all the factors at play.
Running it out of gas
Over gross and iced up
VFR into ifr
much of which will be due to over reliance on a chute

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:35

Username Protected wrote:

So it will be a very expensive airplane to insure and get a reputation as a dangerous airplane.

Although I don't think there will be enough of them sold that it will matter.

Like an MU-2?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 21:52

Joe that is precisely what I am suggesting.

If you are interested in the whys and why nots to a chute I would suggest you read the thread.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 21:54

Username Protected wrote:

So it will be a very expensive airplane to insure and get a reputation as a dangerous airplane.

Although I don't think there will be enough of them sold that it will matter.

Wanna bet?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 21:55

Username Protected wrote:

So it will be a very expensive airplane to insure and get a reputation as a dangerous airplane.

Although I don't think there will be enough of them sold that it will matter.

Like an MU-2?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 22:53

Username Protected wrote:

Joe that is precisely what I am suggesting.

If you are interested in the whys and why nots to a chute I would suggest you read the thread.

Steve - Are there studies in that show accident trends are worse because of the Chute? I've done my own analysis (could not find it elsewhere) and did not find that type or frequency of issues/accidents to be higher in Cirrus.

You are right, I am a late arrival to this thread, and if these studies have been discussed, I will go back and read them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 22:54

Just a little side bet:

Version 1.1 will be equipped with a drogue chute as well...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 23:25

Username Protected wrote:

Joe that is precisely what I am suggesting.

If you are interested in the whys and why nots to a chute I would suggest you read the thread.

Steve - Are there studies in that show accident trends are worse because of the Chute? I've done my own analysis (could not find it elsewhere) and did not find that type or frequency of issues/accidents to be higher in Cirrus.

You are right, I am a late arrival to this thread, and if these studies have been discussed, I will go back and read them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 23:50

Username Protected wrote:

Just a little side bet:

Version 1.1 will be equipped with a drogue chute as well...

Seriously, it should have one Bill. :thumbup:

I'm curious how the accident statistics will work out. I think fuel starvation will be a big one. Winds, fuel burn, miles, etc. I thought I had a 1000 mile plane?!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 07:12

Username Protected wrote:

No I do not bet.

But I know you do. Early in this thread you made the same claim "wanna bet" when somebiody said yes and asked you to define terms you backed out?

If true, why don't you take the time to quote it? Don't make an accusation without backing it up. It's right here in this thread. Quote it.

Or are you going to back out?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 08:50

Username Protected wrote:

Yes similar to a MU-2, except when the MU-2 had a reputation as a dangerous plane it had extremely low hull values.

I'm silently hoping this happens to the SF50 (the extremely low hull values bit in particular...).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 09:46

This is a great thread with quite a bit of good information. Looking back, Mike C. will be gone from BT if Cirrus delivers a conforming jet by 2018?

Based on recent info, it looks like Cirrus will start deliveries this year, unless they have us all snowed. Don't know whether this jet will make it or not, but they are targeting the piston guys. Whether it's successful in the end, idk, but I think there will be plenty of buyers initially.

Already mentioned, if they are smart, they will dictate a rigorous training program in the AFM just as Eclipse did. If not, I believe they will be crashing often. Energy management will eat the piston pilot alive on short final when he's 20 kts fast. Stabilized approach? What's that...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 09:59

Flying a plane is not that hard. Most sharp people can do it. Dull people don't often write multi-million dollar checks for airplanes. They will be fine.

Cirrus SF50