Meh. So it flies a little lower and as a consequence burns a little more gas on those few trips where you could have been able to go higher. No one cares.

Mike has one good argument and it is that there is very little penalty in terms or single engine flying characteristics on a twin jet compared to a twin piston or TP. Consequently, it may make sence, everything else being equal, to put two small engines on a jet instead of one big one.

However, "everything else" is not equal, and build and maintenance costs on a twin jet are very likely to outweigh any fuel savings that could be realized from flying high.

Question:

Do I want a single engine with a chute, or do I rather take a twin instead. Why should I go to 18000ft with a single engine Cirrus and tubes in my nose when I can do that in a pressurized twin. I had that discussion today with my IR instructor, an airline captain flying Boeing 737.

Example, for the 7-800k+ Dollar I have to fork over for a brand new Cirrus I can get a good, reliable, not-very-new-but-new-enough twin that takes me farther, in better comfort, quicker and with more safety margin than any chute can ever offer. Instead of buying a new Cirrus I would currently always go for a well maintained Baron in the similar price range.

Why should I take a single engine jet with a chute when I can get a twin jet with roughly similar specs.

Marketing aside - every decent firm uses marketing as best as it can and should do so - - what are the 5 key facts / arguments pro SF50 which out rule any other VLJ ?

Erik, I hate to break the news to you brother, but the market has already spoken. Only proving that markets don't always conform to our personal views of efficiency and rationality.

Here goes. No particular order. None of this new. There is nothing new to say.

1. It's new, not used
2. It's cool - if you deny this on a Beech board, you're a hypocrite. That SF v tail is your own freaking personal F16. I'd be sleeping in my hangar if I owned one.
3. Turn key training and support, by company setting the bar on both
4. Chute
5. Loyalty to a brand that's going to be around a while
6. It's cool. Strap a HRM and watch SF video and then HondaJet video. Which HR rises more?

Erik, I hate to break the news to you brother, but the market has already spoken. Only proving that markets don't always conform to our personal views of efficiency and rationality.

Here goes. No particular order. None of this new. There is nothing new to say.

1. It's new, not used
2. It's cool - if you deny this on a Beech board, you're a hypocrite. That SF v tail is your own freaking personal F16. I'd be sleeping in my hangar if I owned one.
3. Turn key training and support, by company setting the bar on both
4. Chute
5. Loyalty to a brand that's going to be around a while
6. It's cool. Strap a HRM and watch SF video and then HondaJet video. Which HR rises more?

"Sporty". What does that mean and how do you know.

The demo video that was posted made its performance look pretty anemic.

I was referencing SR22 in comparison to twins.

Tim

Having oxygen masks is a last ditch safety system for the improbable failures. They should not be the first and only treatment to a pressurization problem.

There are health effects from the change in pressure beyond the oxygen for breathing.

For example:

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilot ... ia/dcs.pdf

Given the above, the FAA wants the cabin to not exceed 15,000 ft for any probable failure to avoid the health issues. An engine failure is a probable failure.


Engines are shut down on airliners almost every day.

By comparison, high altitude decompression happens very rarely. The oxygen masks are there for those improbable failures. Not every passengers puts it on correctly, activates it correctly, and not every oxygen generator operates correctly, so it isn't a fool proof system.

At high altitude, you are in a space ship. It is best if you don't lose pressurization on probable failures even if you have oxygen masks at the ready.

Mike C.

Will you have to be type rated?

Like all planes it really comes down to the mission and ease of performing it. Two people, a bag or two, going 4-600 miles; weathers not crap, wife doesn't like bad weather anyway, even if it's only on approach; probably a easy plane to fly, get into any runway; heck, I've almost talked myself into one. And who knows, I might buy one for the simplicity. Shooooosh and I'm in the islands.

You definitely shouldn't.

Yes you'll need a type rating and an annual 61:58 check ride. If it weren't for that maybe there'd be 1000 deposit holders...

I was referencing SR22 in comparison to twins.

Tim

You dont want that chute to pop open at 300 kts. Not sure what would happen but it wont be nice.





Expecting type certificate submittal by end of Q2, THEN the FAA does its thing. Only after the TC is awarded will deliveries start.

When first delivery? "I don't know". By end of year seems optimistic now.

As to CAPS, a number of excuses provided for why it won't be as effective or needed as in SR series.

One of the excuses was the pilots will be better trained.

"It won't be pull early, pull often".

Paul didn't ask the hard question of "chute by wire" and what happens if that fails.

The reality of putting a chute on a 300 knot 6000 lbs airplane are now made manifest. Cirrus doesn't even want to test it for real. The envelope in which the chute saves you seems far more narrow than in the SR series, so narrow, the autopilot is asked to put you in that region before you can use it.

If I was an SF50 depositor, that interview would cause me concern. The delivery time and the chute capability are less than I was promised.

Is CAPS really all it should be on the SF50?

Mike C.

People like the chute because it coverts fatal situations to survivable ones. Nobody cares about the chute per se.

If the SF50 has a fancy enough autopilot that the "I got disoriented in the clouds and had to pull the chute" situations don't happen, that's still a win.

25000ft and 300kts this thing will be an airborne road block for previously the slowest jet in the world the citation 500. A flying plastic manhole cover. Buying this thing will get you a F on the Iowa intellegence test!

And which jet do you own? Its a lot faster than the plane I fly. Its also about the speed of Pilatus and TBM which fly at the same altitudes. Are they manhole covers?