BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:02

Username Protected wrote:

A typical SF50 flight is 600-800 NM, in 2.5 hours, at FL310. Not slow, not low, and not short.

It is for a jet. Those are turboprop numbers, which is how ATC classifies them for handling.

A stated design goal was building the "slowest, lowest" jet. They achieved that.

Is it basically a single engine turboprop with the added negatives of a jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:08

Username Protected wrote:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N19 ... /KEYW/KPDK

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N25 ... /KEGE/KGGG

My MU2 can do both these flights in the same time, carrying more cabin load, and burn far less fuel.

The KEGE to KGGG flight was with 30-40 knot tailwinds, take that into account when looking at the results.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:10

Username Protected wrote:

It is hard to find any jet accident where a chute makes a difference.

I know several fighter pilots who would beg to differ

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:28

Username Protected wrote:

My MU2 can do both these flights in the same time, carrying more cabin load, and burn far less fuel.

What's the URL where I can go order up a new MU2?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:43

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N19 ... /KPDK/KSSI

flying right now... staying at 5k fuel flow must hurt badly

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:54

Username Protected wrote:

My MU2 can do both these flights in the same time, carrying more cabin load, and burn far less fuel.

What's the URL where I can go order up a new MU2?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 16:55

Username Protected wrote:

An original motivation for the CAPS system was midair or inflight airframe failure. The above suggests it will be unlikely to help in those cases since airspeed will not be under control and waiting 30 seconds could easily be far too long with a broken airframe.

Mike C.

Both of which would slow the plane pretty dramatically. Then, chute!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 17:00

Username Protected wrote:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N19VJ/history/20210716/2000Z/KPDK/KSSI

flying right now... staying at 5k fuel flow must hurt badly

That was just going over ATL. I've seen business jets there. Painful fuel burn for them there too.

They are up to 21,000' now, which is still a bit low for a turbine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 17:03

Username Protected wrote:

It's a relatively easy transition from an Sr22. I doubt there are many VJ buyers that aren't sr22 owners.

^ This

From what I've read it handles very much like a SR22, especially the landing. So, it's an easy step-up for the successful business owner who has a SR22 or SR22T and found they or their wife/family doesn't like being on oxygen. Pressurized and flying higher gets over more weather and no cannula or mask.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 17:44

Username Protected wrote:

A typical SF50 flight is 600-800 NM, in 2.5 hours, at FL310. Not slow, not low, and not short.

It is for a jet. Those are turboprop numbers, which is how ATC classifies them for handling.

A stated design goal was building the "slowest, lowest" jet. They achieved that.

Is it basically a single engine turboprop with the added negatives of a jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 18:44

There's a Vision Jet parked at AVL and when I drive past, it sure looks "short coupled" to me. I guess a good autopilot would sort that out.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 18:49

I like the look of the VJ and the inside is very well done. Its very very cool. I guess I am less impressed by looks than performance in an aircraft.

Once you get past taking photos for the first few times you fly in a jet then it only becomes about safety, performance, and comfort. How the plane looks is way way down my list of priorities.

If I am not posting the fight on IG I would much rather have a real jet than a cool looking one.

Really the VJ is a single engine turboprop without the prop.

Mike

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jul 2021, 19:01

It isn't a fair fight to compare the VJ to any other twin engine jets, they're not in the same class. A much more suitable comparison is to a SETP. As such, I can think of many things a SETP does better than the VJ. I can't think of anything the VJ does better than a SETP other than cockpit/cabin access (which is about a wash with a TBM with pilot door), and maybe the chute. But, I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a pilot would be capable of slowing the airplane to chute speed under control but not able to control the aircraft well enough to make a suitable forced landing. The SETP can all perform the impossible turn from 700-1,000' depending on the plane and pilot, the chute needs 400' for deployment. So, is the advantage of the chute only upon takeoff between 400'-700'? I suppose one could be incapacitated to the point they couldn't make a force landing or glide to a field, but not so incapacitated that they can keep the wings level and slow to 135KIAS. It certainly isn't the answer for spatial D type events, or catastrophic failures.

Every time I start thinking the VJ might be something I'd want to own I look at the takeoff performance at 30* and 6,000' elevation and think of the dozens of flights I couldn't make each year.