BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 05:50

Username Protected wrote:

You don’t seem to be helping the VJ case. The Citation is easier. You have to turn on fuel?

You think a parachute is helping in a mid air collision?

The idea that a parachute can solve any problems is part of the problem.

Mike

Well, I’m certainly not trying to argue that the VJ is the ultimate plane. Remember, I sold mine; partially because I wanted more range/load capability, and partially because of what I consider monopolistic business practices.

As it relates to the start sequence, “turning on fuel” is akin to moving the throttle out of idle cutoff in a FADEC equipped CJ. You are simply doing it with a knob, vs the throttle lever. The engine start is equivalently easy on both planes. Of course, you only need to do it once on the VJ! My FADEC equipped 960 is a tad more complex, and a non-FADEC turbine takes a bit more effort/diligence.

I certainly don’t want to start the chute argument. I’m of the opinion that it has saved lives, most often attributable to boneheaded pilot errors. There was a midair in Denver between a Metroliner and an SR22. The SR22 pilot wandered into the parallel runway approach path, and struck the Metroliner. The Cirrus took out a huge section of the Metroliner fuselage, but amazingly, the Metroliner was able to land. The Cirrus pilot pulled the chute. Everybody survived without injury. There was another midair between an SR and a helicopter in a traffic pattern collision at a controlled field. The SR pilot pulled, and survived. The helicopter occupants perished. So yes, I think it is possible (but not probable) that a chute could be helpful in a midair.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 07:00

Username Protected wrote:

All I can tell you is that it is a darn easy plane to fly. Yes, there is a learning curve for somebody stepping up from an SR, and that encompasses the vast majority of Vision Jet pilots. However, as turbine aircraft go, that plane is as easy to learn as they come.

Pressurization? Turn on the bleed air. It does the rest. Forget to turn on the bleed air? It’s gonna scream atcha. Have a pressurization issue and forget the proper steps …. it’s going to bring you home all by itself.

Yaw damper? You don’t do anything. It turns on at 200 ft, and off again at 200 ft before you land. Yes, if it has a malfunction you need to turn it off, but that applies to every plane with a yaw damper.

Engine management? Turn on the battery, turn on the fuel, and hit the start button. FADEC gets it started. If there is an issue, it aborts the start for you. From there, the power lever goes forward for faster, and backwards for slower. If you prefer, the auto throttles can help. Auto throttle failure? Disconnect it.

In over your head, midair collision, or control surface failure? Pull the damn chute. Heart attack with passengers? Have them hit the red button.

Having owned several piston singles, 2 piston twins, 1 turbine twin, the SF50, and now my 960, I can tell you that I found the Vision Jet to be the easiest transition. There are a lot of things I didn’t like, most of which are related to Cirrus business practices, but I sure can’t pick on the simplicity and comfort, which is relatively unmatched in its class.

Is it the best answer for everybody? Of course not. If somebody has Mike C’s technical knowledge, and willingness to spend a fair amount of time learning and managing his airframe, there is probably a better way to quickly get from A to C. But most people have neither the time, motivation, or skill set to make that happen, and many are willing to pay a premium just to get from A to B. As much as I like flying, I’d much rather be golfing than sourcing a backup set of tires for my plane.

There is an ass for every seat, and let’s face it, Cirrus has sold a lot of seats.

You don’t seem to be helping the VJ case. The Citation is easier. You have to turn on fuel?

You think a parachute is helping in a mid air collision?

The idea that a parachute can solve any problems is part of the problem.

Mike

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 09:44

Username Protected wrote:

Why is using the non flushing potty's in light jets and turboprops so bad? What's the danger, reason not to use them? And, why are externally serviced better?

We are on a pilot forum. Guess who has to deal with servicing them?

If you were on the “spouses and guests” forum, I suspect they would get much less complaints.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 10:57

Username Protected wrote:

If somebody has Mike C’s technical knowledge, and willingness to spend a fair amount of time learning and managing his airframe, there is probably a better way to quickly get from A to C. But most people have neither the time, motivation, or skill set to make that happen

That's simply wrong. The Citation doesn't require this deep technical knowledge you claim they need. A ton of pilots fly them without advanced technical backgrounds.

A side by side comparison of procedures will show that the complexity of flying the Citation and the SF50 are relatively similar under normal circumstances. For example, start is push button, throttles over gate at 8%. Fuel is already on, generators automatically start, bleed air already on, etc. Very easy.

Things diverge when you start to assess the emergency and abnormal conditions. The Citation has intrinsically simple systems that do not have complex automation involved that can fail. This is evident when you read the AFM.

Citation V emergency and abnormal checklist take 47 pages in the AFM.

SF50 emergency and abnormal checklists take 161 pages in the AFM. Over 3 times as much material, approximately 3 times as many procedures.

Where is this simplicity you speak of? The extra ground school time to simply touch each one is significant, and I'm sure some of them are best learned by sim exposure, too.

The major complexity of the SF50 is what is not in the checklist, like how to not crash if your engine fails at 200 ft AGL. The checklist says optimistically "land straight ahead". That is a very complex instruction!

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 15:21

Username Protected wrote:

If somebody has Mike C’s technical knowledge, and willingness to spend a fair amount of time learning and managing his airframe, there is probably a better way to quickly get from A to C. But most people have neither the time, motivation, or skill set to make that happen

That's simply wrong. The Citation doesn't require this deep technical knowledge you claim they need. A ton of pilots fly them without advanced technical backgrounds.

A side by side comparison of procedures will show that the complexity of flying the Citation and the SF50 are relatively similar under normal circumstances. For example, start is push button, throttles over gate at 8%. Fuel is already on, generators automatically start, bleed air already on, etc. Very easy.

Things diverge when you start to assess the emergency and abnormal conditions. The Citation has intrinsically simple systems that do not have complex automation involved that can fail. This is evident when you read the AFM.

Citation V emergency and abnormal checklist take 47 pages in the AFM.

SF50 emergency and abnormal checklists take 161 pages in the AFM. Over 3 times as much material, approximately 3 times as many procedures.

Where is this simplicity you speak of? The extra ground school time to simply touch each one is significant, and I'm sure some of them are best learned by sim exposure, too.

The major complexity of the SF50 is what is not in the checklist, like how to not crash if your engine fails at 200 ft AGL. The checklist says optimistically "land straight ahead". That is a very complex instruction!

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 16:12

Did you know a snapping turtle won’t release its bite unless lightning strikes.

Amazing anybody even goes in that pond.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 17:01

Username Protected wrote:

A side by side comparison of procedures will show that the complexity of flying the Citation and the SF50 are relatively similar under normal circumstances.
Mike C.

I'll concede that I have never flown a Citation, so I can't comment on the specifics. That said, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that you are overstating the complexity of the SF50 systems. I don't think counting pages is the best way to understand the differences.

Maybe we need to ask CitationMax. That guy has owned an SF50, and M2, and a CJ3+. Maybe we can get him to log in and offer his perspective, from somebody who has owned and flown both.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 18:43

Username Protected wrote:

If somebody has Mike C’s technical knowledge, and willingness to spend a fair amount of time learning and managing his airframe, there is probably a better way to quickly get from A to C. But most people have neither the time, motivation, or skill set to make that happen

That's simply wrong. The Citation doesn't require this deep technical knowledge you claim they need. A ton of pilots fly them without advanced technical backgrounds.

A side by side comparison of procedures will show that the complexity of flying the Citation and the SF50 are relatively similar under normal circumstances. For example, start is push button, throttles over gate at 8%. Fuel is already on, generators automatically start, bleed air already on, etc. Very easy.

Things diverge when you start to assess the emergency and abnormal conditions. The Citation has intrinsically simple systems that do not have complex automation involved that can fail. This is evident when you read the AFM.

Citation V emergency and abnormal checklist take 47 pages in the AFM.

SF50 emergency and abnormal checklists take 161 pages in the AFM. Over 3 times as much material, approximately 3 times as many procedures.

Where is this simplicity you speak of? The extra ground school time to simply touch each one is significant, and I'm sure some of them are best learned by sim exposure, too.

The major complexity of the SF50 is what is not in the checklist, like how to not crash if your engine fails at 200 ft AGL. The checklist says optimistically "land straight ahead". That is a very complex instruction!

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 19:06

I would tend to think a fair number of new SF50 owners are getting their first type-rating of any kind and perhaps, first introduction to turbine power and pressurization at the same time.

I have a grand 1.9 hours of SF50 left seat time with an instructor. Didn't have any trouble flying it or understanding it, raising the emergency checklist on the screen and it didn't strike me as a difficult to understand plane.

Flying a piston twin, which I did for ten years, seems a lot more difficult.

I can understand frustrations with Cirrus biz practices. There's a two edge sword there. They do tend to support the older aircraft well enough to ensure a healthy market of used airplanes and owners who want to upgrade their few-years-old aircraft to a newer model Cirrus. On the other hand, pricing seems high and some other stuff I didn't like about a brand-new airplane delivery I didn't like.

I wish Cessna/Textron had done better with the Columbia aircraft line.

Mike's a smart guy, a savvy and technical aircraft owner. He's the right guy for the jet he got, and he's going to get a lot of value out of it as an active and technically proficient owner.

But Mike would probably agree that if he was an entertainment contracts lawyer and his only option was to turn the plane over to the "ShinyJet(tm) FBO and Service Center" and do whatever they say, where every part has to be factory new, and anything that has as much as a smudge of grease on it or a loose screw that needs to be tightened is going to be 100% replaced with a brand new part, no matter how long to get or how much, then that plane would probably be a wallet crusher and a ramp queen.

So there's a right plane for the right person.

Some people will only accept brand new airplanes, some people are better off with new or nearly new. Other folks are very capable of dealing with maintenance decisions and managing an older airplane and getting great value and service out of it.

If someone were looking to buy a brand-new jet with the same capability as Mike's, what would that cost to buy and what hourly-service contracts are involved?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 19:53

Username Protected wrote:

If someone were looking to buy a brand-new jet with the same capability as Mike's, what would that cost to buy and what hourly-service contracts are involved?

There’s really not a direct comparison, the CJ3g2 is probably the closest, but it has considerably longer legs. The CJ3 is now priced up in the $11.6M range.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 09:35

Username Protected wrote:

I was referring to your maintenance and administrative practices. Clearly, you have the ability to understand the systems, and the energy to find efficient ways of managing the maintenance/expense of those systems.

I'm not doing anything different than 95% of Bonanza owners. They don't hand the keys and a blank check to a Textron service center. If they did, they'd be taken to the cleaners.

I'm by far not the only one and it isn't some special talent. Just finding out where to get things done. This mainly comes from knowledge spread from other owners and operators. I do my part to spread what I learn so others can do the same as I.

Quote:

Vision Jet pilots just hand $90K per year over to Cirrus, and let Cirrus do everything for them.

They basically have no choice but to do that. I have a choice. I can do anything from what I presently do to dropping it off at a service center.

Monopolies breed expense, they always do.

Quote:

I'll concede that I have never flown a Citation, so I can't comment on the specifics. That said, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that you are overstating the complexity of the SF50 systems. I don't think counting pages is the best way to understand the differences.

The sheer number of procedures is a reflection of all the things that can go wrong with automated systems.

Every piece of automation has a dark side, what happens when it fails or does the wrong thing.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 10:36

Username Protected wrote:

Citation V emergency and abnormal checklist take 47 pages in the AFM.

SF50 emergency and abnormal checklists take 161 pages in the AFM. Over 3 times as much material, approximately 3 times as many procedures.

Where is this simplicity you speak of? The extra ground school time to simply touch each one is significant, and I'm sure some of them are best learned by sim exposure, too.

The major complexity of the SF50 is what is not in the checklist, like how to not crash if your engine fails at 200 ft AGL. The checklist says optimistically "land straight ahead". That is a very complex instruction!

Mike C.

Could it be the Citation you fly is "older" and the requirements and lawyers have added layers to the Emergancy procedures as well as regulations? Seems so. The Mooney's I flew had very simple emergency sections comapared to both Cirrus' I have owned. I would say the procedures and requirements for the SR20/22's I flew are similar to the Mooney, just the paperwork was different and longer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

Why is using the non flushing potty's in light jets and turboprops so bad? What's the danger, reason not to use them? And, why are externally serviced better?

The potty is typically in the back of the plane so you are carrying some nasty liquid stuff through the cabin, over your carpet and seats. Also with a flushing lav, that blue juice combined with urine will cause corrosion if spilled so you have to be really careful. In my plane it is right across from the cabin door. No privacy for the users but servicing it is simple. It's only been used twice, both times by my own family members when we had crazy headwinds heading West. It's somehow less gross when it's from your wife and kids vs strangers. I also "converted" my flushing lav to dry by sticking a double doodie bag in there and have trained them to sprinkle smelleze after they go so there isn't anything sloshing around. I use a travel john up front.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 14:17

Username Protected wrote:

Engine management? Turn on the battery, turn on the fuel, and hit the start button. FADEC does the rest.

You don’t seem to be helping the VJ case. The Citation is easier. You have to turn on fuel?

Mike

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 18:55

My point was the VJ is not any easier to manage or fly than my citation.

Yes I technically turn on fuel. I hit start then move the throttles.

I guess I just don’t get why people think the VJ is less complex. My Citation is one if the simplest planes I have ever flown.

I had a guy that has a SR22 tell me he is getting a VJ because it’s so simple and easy to fly. I guess someone told him a Citation is really complex. He has 7 kids and a wife. He can afford a CJ but instead will probably buy a VJ because of marketing. LOL

If you can’t easily start a Citation you really should not be a pilot.

Mike

Celebrating the 500th Vision Jet