I'd love to see you try, but from a VERY safe distance. On second thought, just send me the video, if the camera survives the shrapnel.

Just for grins, assume prop blade is only 1 lb, has CG at 1 ft radius, turns 25,000 RPM.

Centripetal force is 210,000 lbs per blade, > 100 tons. Good luck on designing that hub.

Takeoff thrust would be anemic, too.

Mike C.

You mean like retractable landing gear? Pressurization controls?

Those are the things that are new.

The second power lever? Easy.


That's piston think. You think a twin means this:


But a twin jet means this:


Literally only ONE extra power lever. That's no more levers than an SR22!

You can just move both levers together and you can fly a twin jet. Really.

The "twin jet is too complex" argument is simply wrong. Engine management in a twin jet is easier than the SR22.

Mike C.

Really?

They wash out Cirrus buyers if they can't meet the ATP PTS standards? Fly an ILS to ATP tolerances? Hold heading and altitude to ATP tolerances?

I call shenanigans on this one.

Mike C.

Are you applauding the Moller SkyCar?

Mike C.

It is a type rating.

Cirrus is not setting the type course curriculum. The FSB will. It will be the hardest damn course they can make it. Much harder than your private, and your instrument.

SF50 pilots will have to do it every year, too.

Mike C.

Can you say "safety factor"? Your 2 sq inches of material means you are right at the breaking point in normal service. Hmm.

You will need 4 square inches of material. Now the weight goes up. Now the forces go up. Now the size goes up. Now the weight goes up. And on and on...

It is a runaway situation. You simply CAN'T make a practical prop work at 25,000 RPM. It is hard enough for a fan wheel with very lightweight rigid blades.

Even tiny model airplane props don't go that fast.

Mike C.

You got it backwards. This is what a piston twin look like:



And this is a twin jet.



It's not that twin jet is too complex. It's too intimidating for a single engine piston pilot. Even if that intimidation is misplaced.

No, that is a glass airplane and a steam airplane. Engine count had little to do with how those two looked.


Are you telling me someone who can commit to spending $2M on a personal toy that is going to require 2 weeks of training to ATP standards, and a checkride, is going to be intimidated by a second power lever?

Did I hear that right?

I think you have a lower opinion of SF50 position holders than I do!

Mike C.

[scene opens in TF60 cockpit]

Announcer: Joe pilot doesn't actually believe he can fly a twin jet. So we brought in Chuck Yeager to explain how.

Chuck: You just move both power levers together.

Joe: Oh, that's it?

Chuck: Yes.

Screen text: It doesn't take a genius to fly a twin jet.

(apologies to TurboTax ads)

Mike C.

You betcha they will. Not by second power lever, by 375 kts and FL410 and all the other aspects of flying a high performance jet. Why do you think the stated goal for SF50 was to build "slowest, lowest jet" on the market? Is that because they wanted to build a plane that sucks, or because they determined that this is what their customer wants?

Sometimes I think Ciholas is a spam robot invented by the moderators to draw traffic to their website.

I would qualify that as a personal insult, despite the smilies.

"Play the BALL, not the player"

That said, why all the [personal] aggressiveness towards one of the few contributors that actually stands back and takes a objective and critical view on the subject at hand ?

Mike C is clearly "playing the ball", whilst many others drop the ball and load on the personal & sometimes insulting remarks.

break - break


BTW, I think the proposed SF50 promises to be a POS too, but hey, Cirrus told as that 10 years ago:

"The slowest, lowest and cheapest jet available"

Objective and critical view of MU-2! Hardly.

Like I said: play the ball, not the player ...

Like I said: play the ball, not the player ...