BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 17:36

Agreed Craig, no argument from me. It's that extra 20 kts you have at 500' because you don't fly the numbers. What to do? Trust me, it will be a common mistake. Go around? Think not, runways plenty long enough. Usually is, sometimes not, breeds complacency, it bites sometimes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 17:41

Amen Steve. Plenty of dopes with buku cash will buy a jet and run it off the end of the runway because they don't fly the numbers, no doubt. Also, plenty of folks with ratings shouldn't be allowed in a cub. It's not the airplane though, it's the dumbass behind the stick, lol.

Although this particular airplane is freakin' laaaaaaaaame.

Maybe they'll put a chute on the back, too, so that when the lame pilots who fly it come in overspeed they can deploy the chute like a top fuel dragster, lol.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 18:15

Username Protected wrote:

Here comes an opinion that's bound to be unpopular with the jet guys...

It's just a freakin' airplane. Piston, turbines, props, TRs, really, who cares. Big, small, doesn't matter. Fly the numbers, you get the result. Is training needed? Sure. You're nuts if you don't take a check ride in any airplane you don't know, and high performance aircraft that have more systems will naturally require more training that takes more time. But can we not make this something it isn't?

It's just a freakin' airplane. Throttles forward, ground gets smaller, noise gets bigger. Throttles backward, opposite happens. Plenty of young punks with a couple hundred hours in pistons learned to be aces in the service shortly thereafter in trickier birds than a damned Citation or a Lear.

Basically Sanderson with a POH

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 19:16

Username Protected wrote:

I learned to fly a jet in 10 hours of training back in 1997 in the Iskra. It's all about speed management. If you nail the numbers it is easier to fly than any turboprop or piston. If you can't manage speed you do not belong in a jet. The easiest plane to fly I ever owned was the Iskra.

Designed by farmers for farmers

These combloc jet trainers were designed to take someone from zero to flying a mig in 6 months.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 20:09

Deserves its own thread, but....

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Polish-VLJ-Now-In-Final-Testing-223997-1.html

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 20:28

Username Protected wrote:

I learned to fly a jet in 10 hours of training back in 1997 in the Iskra. It's all about speed management. If you nail the numbers it is easier to fly than any turboprop or piston. If you can't manage speed you do not belong in a jet. The easiest plane to fly I ever owned was the Iskra.

Designed by farmers for farmers

These combloc jet trainers were designed to take someone from zero to flying a mig in 6 months.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 20:34

Username Protected wrote:

I learned to fly a jet in 10 hours of training back in 1997 in the ... can't manage speed you do not belong in a jet. The easiest planeto fly I ever owned was the Iskra. Designed by farmers ..

is the easiest plane to keep stable in the clouds. The ...

... or buy a finished helicycle? Bought it finished and taught myself to fly it. One of the easiest flying machines out there. No throttle to control and all the extra power you want. ...

... MU2 simply requires some training that is airplane specific. Other than that, it is easier to fly due to it's capability when wounded vs the 421. Next ... say that a PC-12 is a very good choice and is the easiest plane to fly of anything mentioned here so far. ...

Enjoy your new plane. The bonanza has to be one of the easiest high performance singles to fly. Such a great flying machine.

The King Air is probably one of the easiest planes to fly in my opinion. I have a harder ...

.

Todd, what plane do you consider hard to fly?

(I did a search for your posts and +easiest +plane +fly)

:duck:

edit: I just want to know what plane I should not even try.... :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 20:58

I found that the old Apaches were a little hard to fly on one engine since they are so underpowered and any airplane with old artificial horizons are hard to read in flight making the plane hard to fly. Other than that, I guess they are all pretty easy to fly. The Bonanzas, Barons, King Airs all just seem to feel "right." They all fly just about the same. The T-Tail Lances also required a little different touch making them hard to fly until you were experienced a bit. I really have never struggled with the stick and rudder stuff, but I do struggle with the ATC stuff now and then.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 22:37

Username Protected wrote:

This is on page 10 and on page 12 you said you did not accept the bet.

Give it a rest.

Jason will never accept a bet with precise criteria, actual hard numbers, all his bets are where he can win by redefining the terms, such as "successful", or he leaves out specifics such as what time frame is involved. As an added bonus, he will claim the other party backed out when he fails to provide specifics.

Cirrus has published a delivery schedule. Someone who bets they will make that schedule is being taken advantage of, so we shouldn't do it regardless. That's just not playing fair.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 22:40

Username Protected wrote:

It's that extra 20 kts you have at 500' because you don't fly the numbers. What to do? Trust me, it will be a common mistake. Go around? Think not, runways plenty long enough. Usually is, sometimes not, breeds complacency, it bites sometimes.

Runway overrun is a classic jet mistake. Speed is critical and new jet pilots are used to having props to slow them down (and beta if turboprop). And then the runway is wet or slick for some other reason.

There will be an SF50 runway overrun. You can bank on it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Apr 2015, 22:43

Oh god, this thread/topic again. Shoot me now.

:deadhorse:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 May 2015, 00:22

Username Protected wrote:

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...

Fly a Cirrus SR22 twenty knots fast on landing and you will float 1500 ft down the runway. Since the target market is Cirrus Piston owners according to many people in this thread, I think these people already know it.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 May 2015, 00:32

Username Protected wrote:

It's that extra 20 kts you have at 500' because you don't fly the numbers. What to do? Trust me, it will be a common mistake. Go around? Think not, runways plenty long enough. Usually is, sometimes not, breeds complacency, it bites sometimes.

Runway overrun is a classic jet mistake. Speed is critical and new jet pilots are used to having props to slow them down (and beta if turboprop). And then the runway is wet or slick for some other reason.

There will be an SF50 runway overrun. You can bank on it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 May 2015, 00:41

Tim, 20 kts may be 1500' in an SR22(show me), but it's quite a bit more in a straight wing jet, depending on the ref speeds. Are you saying it would be the same as the SR22? What's the ref speeds in the SF50?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 May 2015, 05:33

Username Protected wrote:

Tim, 20 kts may be 1500' in an SR22(show me), but it's quite a bit more in a straight wing jet, depending on the ref speeds. Are you saying it would be the same as the SR22? What's the ref speeds in the SF50?

I am saying that the SR20/SR22 are very unforgiving when it comes to runway overuns if you come in too fast. The plane is low on drag, has little in the way of draggy items to put out (no gear, no prop in fine pitch). The end result, if you come in fast in a Cirrus, you float a very long way.

Therefore, when I was flying an SR20, and among all the SR22 pilots/owners and that I have flown with, being within a couple knots of Vref is critical. This will help when making the jump to the SF50.

No idea on the SF50 ref speeds, except what has been posted in the press that it is supposed to be close to the SR22.

Lastly, in terms of showing you. Go fly one, I no longer own a Cirrus, I sold it a few years ago. Otherwise, I would be happy to take you up and watch you float down the runway unable to slow down.

Tim

Cirrus SF50