APG is like $1200 or something a year. Not to sound flippant, but that is about 2-3 hours of fuel for flying - before programs. If you frequent airports that you can make use of it - you use it. If not, then you don't. I want to know my VSpeeds and alternate procedures. I know plenty of guys that don't. I fly in the mountains. Part of the cost of flying a jet. Kind of reminds me about all the TBM guys talking about how you can't do takeoffs in a light jet because of single engine performance issues - let's talk after we each lose one.... :-) (calm down Marc)

I didn't hear that from Cirrus directly, but from two independent sources. Heck, even if it is 75% that is still crazy high.

Glad to see you back Tim - your absence was noted!

-jason

I spend way too much time on airplane forums and have made my way through COPA, MMOPA, CPA, CPS, and TTCF to name a few. COPA is a different planet. The Cirrus demographic is _different_

Different mindset, different values, different budget (order of magnitude), different outlook on the world. The guys who make Cirrus successful blast into there with no GA experience, drop $500K and the depreciation on a new SR22 is inconsequential because they're on to a turbine in a few years. That's not all of them - but among people who buy NEW ... the only ones mfr's care about - its a lot. Whether the SF50 succeeds or fails will be based on what those minds think.

The bad experience the SR20/22 had with chute emboldened pilots is about to recur.

A second engine is performance. A chute is lack of performance.

The total system weight on the SF50 for the chute will probably approach 300 pounds. The weight of the actual chute itself is the minor part, most of the system weight is in the structural design of the chute anchor to the plane itself. You have to decelerate 6000 pounds from, say, 180 knots, no small feat!

Are pilots going to pull the chute for a generator failure? Bleed air problem? Loss of instrument air?

There is a lot more to a second engine than having a second source of propulsion.

Mike C.

Cross section is the air you have to move out of the way, wetted area is air you have to slip by, so cross section is the primary factor here.


The more throttle, the more down force needed on the tail for two reasons, the canted pitch angle of the engine, and the reduced AOA of the main wing for the higher speed. That's trim drag.


Yes, they do, especially for a plane with a high speed range. You can't generate a pure tail down force as engine power goes up, instead each tail surface has to generate a mix of down force and lateral forces, both left and right of equal amount. The extra lateral forces cancel each other, but create extra induced drag none the less. So for any given down force on the tail, you have to generate about 30% more force on the tail surface than you really need, and that's more drag.


No, that's not true. The engines are carefully spaced to minimize drag. It is far more drag for the nacelle to "melt" into the fuselage like the pod on top of the Cirrus. I know this is counter intuitive, but it is so. It has a lot to do with the engine being in relatively undisturbed air.

Look at every twin jet which is highly optimized for drag, for example EA500. Engine on pylons. If that was worse, you'd think everyone would put engines in fuselage hugging nacelles, but they don't.


Without chute and with two engines, pilots get better trained, take fewer risks, and that is the REAL safety benefit. That would affect MY insurance as an owner of such a type, so I care how safely others operate the plane.

Mike C.

What if a chute means you kid flies at a 50% higher risk of crashing and then has a 10% better chance of surviving a crash?

Those are roughly the SR20/22 numbers, IMO.

What caused the "chute" problem was Cirrus telling pilots they would be invincible with it. There is nothing more dangerous in aviation than feeling safe.

The number one safety device on any airplane is the pilot. The chute subconsciously messes with their minds. Recent training and educational efforts are beginning to negate the "chute effect", but it has taken over a decade to correct the marketing message.

Another Cirrus example, the infamous known icing brag video Cirrus put out. Flying his kids in an experimental airplane, at night, into the mountains, in icing, on a tight schedule? Sent shivers down my spine. And then he boasts about it to sell airplanes.

Mike C.

I spend way too much time on airplane forums and have made my way through COPA, MMOPA, CPA, CPS, and TTCF to name a few. COPA is a different planet. The Cirrus demographic is _different_

Different mindset, different values, different budget (order of magnitude), different outlook on the world. The guys who make Cirrus successful blast into there with no GA experience, drop $500K and the depreciation on a new SR22 is inconsequential because they're on to a turbine in a few years. That's not all of them - but among people who buy NEW ... the only ones mfr's care about - its a lot. Whether the SF50 succeeds or fails will be based on what those minds think.

What if a chute means you kid flies at a 50% higher risk of crashing and then has a 10% better chance of surviving a crash?

Those are roughly the SR20/22 numbers, IMO.

What caused the "chute" problem was Cirrus telling pilots they would be invincible with it. There is nothing more dangerous in aviation than feeling safe.

The number one safety device on any airplane is the pilot. The chute subconsciously messes with their minds. Recent training and educational efforts are beginning to negate the "chute effect", but it has taken over a decade to correct the marketing message.

Another Cirrus example, the infamous known icing brag video Cirrus put out. Flying his kids in an experimental airplane, at night, into the mountains, in icing, on a tight schedule? Sent shivers down my spine. And then he boasts about it to sell airplanes.

Mike C.

Why? I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about owners.

I'm talking about the type of people who buy new Cirruses, not the people who crash them. To the extent that there is hot money in piston GA, Cirrus gets the lions share of it. They guys who can look at a plane and say "yeah, I want one, where's my Amex?" disproportionately buy Cirrus. And those people's opinions will determine whether the SF50 is a success. The CSOB crowd (which I love and hope I would still love if I won the lottery) hangs out here not there. Our opinions don't shape the new sales market.

Why? I'm not talking about accidents. I'm talking about owners.

I'm talking about the type of people who buy new Cirruses, not the people who crash them. To the extent that there is hot money in piston GA, Cirrus gets the lions share of it. They guys who can look at a plane and say "yeah, I want one, where's my Amex?" disproportionately buy Cirrus. And those people's opinions will determine whether the SF50 is a success. The CSOB crowd (which I love and hope I would still love if I won the lottery) hangs out here not there. Our opinions don't shape the new sales market.

Yes, it will.

The second engine encourages pilots to do things like fly over the oceans, say the Q100 route to short cut from SRQ to ADS as I did in my MU2.

The effect is okay if the second engine adds ACTUAL risk reduction to the flight. In my case, I think it did.


Exactly, good example. There is weather I will handle in my turboprop twin that I'd never dream of doing in a single piston.

Again, the test is if the extra engine provided benefits equal to the perception. If so, then the pilot makes a sane risk assessment.

The chute seems to provide a higher perception of benefit (and you can see that by someof the comments in this thread) than it actually delivers. So pilots make a skewed risk assessment, giving the chute too much credit.


Two thoughts:

First, almost all accidents are preventable way before chute use is required. To paraphrase Borman, a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid use of the chute.

Second, the number of chute pulls has increased pretty significantly over the last few years in reference to your ADM point. Well, the ADM should have happen WELL BEFORE you needed the chute. We still have so many Cirrus pilots finding themselves in what they claim are "fatal situations". Why is that?

Cirrus loves chute pulls. Good PR, dramatic story, hull loss, etc. The owners all pay for that with insurance rates.


Seems like the wrong emphasis to me.


That is all true to an extent.

Private aviation history is full of supposed new safety devices that don't work out in real life. That is because pilots fly to some level of perceived risk. If the safety device makes them feel safer, then they will take on more dangerous missions until they reach their risk threshold.

I've had pilots argue they don't do that. That's hog wash. You can create all sorts of scenarios and test the pilots against them and you find out very quickly this is how they do it. Your example of climbing through icing is a classic.

Mike C.

I'm taking a slightly different tack. I'm not saying most new Cirrus purchasers are new pilots.

I'm saying most new pilots who purchase new planes purchase Cirri. (I'm defining "new" as guys with less than 2 years/200 hours. The guy who gets his pvt/instrument in a rental or his 172 I still call new when he buys a Cirrus)

And if you wanna know if the SF50 will succeed, you look at the guys who buy new. There are a lot of TBM and meridian and PC12 and Phenom owners still running around COPA (or were a year ago). For the most part, guys who buy $2-5mm new turbines didn't step up over decades . I'm sure there is some 60 year old guy who has owned a 172, 182, bonanza, baron, duke, 421, Cheyenne, Citation and now a Phenom 300. But mostly not. Mostly middle aged guys start flying and the subset of them that can afford a jet get there pretty quickly.

Those guys have a different outlook on life. Just read COPA. Not criticizing it. Just saying BT and COPA are not the same, and that all of us saying "SF50 doesn't make sense" is irrelevant because we're not the market.

Question: is a chute reasonable on a jet?

I looked at all the private jet crashes on NTSB so far in 2014 (including the Phenom 100 today, alas).

1/5/2014 CL60 at Aspen, CO

Crashed trying to land with strong tailwind. Chute of no use, no altitude.

1/12/2014 C501 in Germany

Crashed on low approach when it hit a crane. Chute of no use, no altitude.

4/19/2014 HS125 in Mexico

Crashed into buildings on low approach. Chute of no use, no altitude.

5/31/2014 G-IV at Bedford, MA

Crashed after running of end of runway. Chute of no use, no altitude.

6/18/2014 IAI 1124A at Huntsville, AL

Crashed just after liftoff. Chute of no use, no altitude.

8/13/2014 Cessna 560XL in Brazil

Crashed on low approach into houses. Chute of no use, low altitude.

11/9/2014 Lear 35 in Bahamas

Crashed on low approach hitting crane. Chute of no use, low altitude.

12/9/2014 Phenom 100 at Gaithersburg, MD

Crashed low on approach. Chute of no use, low altitude.

Okay, so what I want to know is when, exactly, does the chute matter for jets?

Something else to consider, the jet will be moving a lot faster. The pilot will have far less time to effect a chute pull decision. Complicating that will be the higher hull value of the aircraft adding just that much more reluctance to pull the chute.

Mike C.

I know but it stemmed from the "SF50 has a 25K' service ceiling".

All the "jet think" is fun but mostly irrelevant. Yes, this is a jet, but not one designed to compete with a CJ3 or G-IV or any other jet as we know them. It is a $2M aircraft designed to be single amateur pilot flown and compete with a Meridian/Mirage, Jetprop, Baron, etc. The Pilatus, TBM900, C90, etc are all great, more capable, but twice as much money. Even the Mustang is 50% more. IF Cirrus can be best of breed in the $2M new market and take a lot of people that are looking for aircraft like a used TBM and offer them a new alternative at the same price, winner. When we get out heads out of the clouds and compare aircraft in the same price range it makes a lot of sense.

Yes, because the number one question that always enters my mind when %#$@ hits the fan: how poor am I going to make my insurance company.