28 Jan 2026, 07:06 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 09:57 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 6367
Post Likes: +5746
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Improper punctuation Now you're just picking nits..........hey, wait a minute, I see what you did there....... 
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 10:18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The MU2 has a second engine to overcome an engine failure on takeoff.
Mike C. Then how come the MU2 has such a horrible safety rating? 700 MU2's built, 350 fatalities in MU2's? I'll never understand why you keep defending it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 10:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/10/12
Posts: 6712
Post Likes: +8239
Company: Minister of Pith
Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The MU2 has a second engine to overcome an engine failure on takeoff.
Mike C. Then how come the MU2 has such a horrible safety rating? 700 MU2's built, 350 fatalities in MU2's? I'll never understand why you keep defending it.
The SFAR requires 100 hours of Multi in order to qualify. I've read here and elsewhere that the MU2 handles differently OEI and reacting as you would in most other twins can bring you to grief.
Why would you want a prospective MU2 pilots to have ingrained responses that have been shown to be potentially fatal?
(note: not a ME pilot --yet)
_________________
"No comment until the time limit is up."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 10:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 17155
Post Likes: +29235
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The MU2 has a second engine to overcome an engine failure on takeoff.
Mike C. Then how come the MU2 has such a horrible safety rating? 700 MU2's built, 350 fatalities in MU2's? I'll never understand why you keep defending it.
maybe the half that are left, are the good half
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 11:20 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/04/08
Posts: 1799
Post Likes: +1404
Location: MYF, San Diego, CA
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Sometimes, they don't, particularly at low altitudes. Sometimes twins lose power from both engines, then they glide like singles with one engine failed, but faster.
Last edited on 18 Apr 2017, 11:35, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 11:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The SFAR requires 100 hours of Multi in order to qualify. I've read here and elsewhere that the MU2 handles differently OEI and reacting as you would in most other twins can bring you to grief.
Why would you want a prospective MU2 pilots to have ingrained responses that have been shown to be potentially fatal?
(note: not a ME pilot --yet) There have been 3 fatal MU2 crashes since implementation of the SFAR in 2008. Now, there just aren't many flying anymore.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 11:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: maybe the half that are left, are the good half There are about 5 left...... flying anyways.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 76
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
|
|
Troll! The MU-2 has been an order of magnitude safer than the PC-12 in the last decade (since the SFAR). Safest owner-flown turboprop, in fact. Take that.  Since there are at least 30 MU-2 owners on Beechtalk, I guess we must all be partners. Nathan
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Troll! The MU-2 has been an order of magnitude safer than the PC-12 in the last decade (since the SFAR). Safest owner-flown turboprop, in fact. Take that. That's no different than saying "In the last decade, the 1979 Ford Pinto is the safest car on the road". Nobody is flying MU2's. Thousands of PC12's are flying.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 76
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Nobody is flying MU2's. Thousands of PC12's are flying. Since they've made fewer than 1,500, I doubt "thousands" are flying. Probably fewer than a 1,000 are flying given how many have crashed or sitting in hangars 'cause they are too darn slow. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:14 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7099
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Since they've made fewer than 1,500, I doubt "thousands" are flying. Probably fewer than a 1,000 are flying given how many have crashed or sitting in hangars 'cause they are too darn slow. I believe it's more than 1500 now, but I could be wrong. Currently on Flightaware, 62 PC12's flying and 1 MU-2.........going to Goose Bay apparently. Both are excellent airplanes with the MU2 winning on speed
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:18 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 76
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
|
|
|
Agreed, both great planes. Obviously, my knocks on the PC-12 are completely tongue in cheek, as factual as Jason's comments.
Horses for courses.
Nathan
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13087
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Agreed, both great planes. Obviously, my knocks on the PC-12 are completely tongue in cheek, as factual as Jason's comments.
Horses for courses.
Nathan Tongue in check comments should be made in green. Don't back pedal now. Besides, bad mouth the SF50 is ok but say anything bad about the MU2 and I'm a troll?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:32 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/12/07
Posts: 8142
Post Likes: +3814
Company: Cutler-Smith, P.C.
Location: Fredericksburg, TX (T82)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Agreed, both great planes. Obviously, my knocks on the PC-12 are completely tongue in cheek, as factual as Jason's comments.
Horses for courses.
Nathan Tongue in check comments should be made in green. Don't back pedal now. Besides, bad mouth the SF50 is ok but say anything bad about the MU2 and I'm a troll?
I say you're a troll, because you fly a nicer plane than I do!
_________________
PP, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, A&P
Texas Construction Law: http://www.TexasConstructionLaw.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026
|
|
|
|
