Since you asked ...

I don't see where pressurization is an issue with the chute. A pressurized aircraft is a fuselage with few leaks except at the outflow valves.

There are other issues with the SF50 and the chute that I want to see how they handle.

The SF50 will have retractable gear. When you pull the chute will the gear automatically extend? What is the emergency gear extension method in the SF50?

How will the chute deployment interact with the tail mounted air intake of the SF50? Will the chute be mounted forward of the tail like on the Cirrus? If the turbojet engine was running I would think the cute would be sucked into the engine. Will pulling the chute shutdown the engine? Turbine engines don't spool down immediately so how will they prevent the chute being sucked into the turbojet air inlet?

What will be the speed and altitude envelope for the SF50 chute deployment?

I am looking forward to seeing the videos of the SF50 chute flight tests.

Allen,

Good questions.
For some reason, I thought I read/heard the gear is held up via pressure a system and is a gravity deployment, with a drag lock.
But consider that complete hearsay.

As for the rest, I have no idea. But think of a parachute to bring down 6K pounds. That is a big chute.

Tim

Whether this little jet becomes a success, or not, I have a lot of respect for the way they manage their business. The Cirrus ownership group is in the game for the long haul:

Cirrus is investing $15MM at KTYS for their #2 corporate location in the U.S (non-manufacturing...delivery, repairs, training, etc.). One of my wife's friends is in the second month of a one-year training program in Duluth. She lives in a company-paid hotel room and receives a generous per diem seven days per week. They are flying her home for Christmas tomorrow, and every sixty days hence. That is a significant investment in just one employee's training (of many).

The chute is attached to a rocket.

The chute is attached to a rocket.

I do not believe Cirrus has publicly published details on deployment limits. Will be interested to see. Do know the parachute has been moved to the nose, assume that was at least in part to move it away from the engine. Cirrus said earlier in the year they were shooting for full scale parachute deployment tests by year end. The have one of their prototype jets setup to be able to deploy the chute, then cut the chute free during the descent, and then start flying again. Not sure if that has happened yet, but doubt it.

I don't know but I doubt they'd be this far along and have something as basic as that not already covered.

Chute in the nose is interesting and resolves some issues.

Full scale parachute deployment tests by year end 2015 or 2016?

Waiting for the video of the chute test.

Allen,

The chute is mounted in the nose of the aircraft on the SF50, not in the rear of the fuselage as in the SR series aircraft.

The last parachute testing note I could find on the Vision Update site was in November where it had passed the "ultimate parachute load test for 6,000 lbs.". There are no photos on the site of an airframe test only weight loads. I am not sure what the requirement for fuselage testing is but will ask when I speak to the engineers on the 7th.

According to the most recent post in their forum the landing gear is designed to be up during impact and that there will be a "simple solution to assure gear is up at impact" but I could find nothing further on that.

I see that Mike C is on their forum challenging them to release data that they are apparently not ready to release... I wonder if they let him on there as a potential customer or agitator?

Gear up during impact. Interesting.

I wonder what the G forces will be and the risk of back injuries. Also the issue of ensuring that passengers stay properly belted in while it floats under the chute to that hard landing.

I am glad to hear Mike C. is occupied elsewhere. I have no dog in this hunt. I prefer the two engine approach.

Gear up during impact. Interesting.

I wonder what the G forces will be and the risk of back injuries. Also the issue of ensuring that passengers stay properly belted in while it floats under the chute to that hard landing.

I am glad to hear Mike C. is occupied elsewhere. I have no dog in this hunt. I prefer the two engine approach.

I wonder what the repack cost is going to be on that monster chute. It would be better if they sold the chute as an option.

an optional 200lb nose weight is tricky

Of course the chute and SE jet engine is the entire point of the plane.

In the FWIW department, out of 57 successful pulls, only three landed on the gear.

Water, trees, marshes, lots of stuff.