Which, oddly enough, is on point with the topic of this thread...

Mike C.

Which, oddly enough, is on point with the topic of this thread...

Mike C.

I get your point. Thus jet is fir personal-family adventure. Not the same as a biz jet audience.

Which, oddly enough, is on point with the topic of this thread...

Mike C.

The engine out procedure in an MU2 is very similar to jets. Wings level, ball centered, leave flaps alone, feather prop, climb Vxse, at safe altitude, accelerate, clean up flaps. Feathering the prop is the only real difference.

The two main differences to piston and other turboprop twins is the lack of bringing up flaps and flying wings level. Other than that, not too dissimilar.


The MU2 SFAR requires 100 hours multi time to ACT as PIC. Those 100 hours could be in MU2s if you aren't acting as PIC (have an instructor or mentor or hired pilot to be PIC). This requirement has incorrectly been interpreted to require 100 hours ME time BEFORE you can fly an MU2, which is not the case, it is only before you can BE PIC.

In my case, I had 10 hours in a Seminole to get ME rating, and then all my multi time is in MU2s. I did this prior to SFAR officially coming into force, by I was about 100 hours ME time when I flew as PIC in the MU2 for the first time.

Mike C.

Not your typical Bonanza.

I assumed a more common version, like a G35, gross 2775 lbs, stall speed 48 knots.

Data from here:

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info ... e110.shtml

The SF50 has a listed stall speed of 67 knots, but this is at max LANDING weight of 5,550 lbs and with FULL flaps. Assuming you have the time to put down the flaps, upping the weight to 6000 lbs raises the stall speed to 70 knots. If you leave the flaps at takeoff setting, then the stall speed is even higher.

Impact energy is proportional to weight * velocity ^ 2. The SF50 is 2.16 times heavier than the G35, and it stalls 1.46 times as fast. Do the math, this works out to 4.6 times as much energy. If you don't get the flaps down, then the ratio goes even higher.

Thus the SF50 has about 5 times the impact energy, and carries 4 times as much fuel, of a Bonanza if it has an engine failure in takeoff and has to put down off the end of the runway.

The extra speed greatly increases the odds of hitting something as you cover so much more ground in the same time.

The odds of surviving the Bonanza takeoff crash are pretty good. The odds of surviving the SF50 takeoff crash are FAR less. I would not take the risk or subject my passengers to it.

PS: Winds make the impact energy ratio even larger. At 15 knots down the runway, the SF50 has 6.4 times the impact energy of the G35.

Mike C.

I am so tired of hearing how a MU-2 is similar to a jet!!

It's not!!!.

Unless you can find me a jet that has so little power it can't climb with the gear in transit on one engine, or it needs to use vxse for a climb speed because it's so lacking in performance, or one that has electric gear that induces so much drag in transit and is slow to retract it has you hanging your ass hanging out on every takeoff, or if you can find me a jet that does not have ailerons at all, not a combination of ailerons and spoilers but no ailerons at all, let me know.

Then try and find me a jet with all these qualities wrapped up together in one airframe. Maybe then you could compare a MU-2 procedures to a jets.

The MU-2 is different. It's not bad but it is different.

You can operate a MU-2 safely but you need to be committed to spending money and time on recurrent training. More so than other turbo props or SP jets.

Anyone who would consider an MU2 wouldn't consider a Vision Jet and vice versa. That's ok. This is a new plane and never really been anything like it. Let's see how it does, this is good thread, keep it civil.

I didn't.

MGTOW on 35s range from 2,550 lbs to 3,400 lbs. The median weight (half of all 35s are lighter, half are heavier by numbers made) is 2,775 lbs. This turns out to be the G35, so I used its stall speed as the example.

I chose the 35 because it is the quintessential "Bonanza".


I did. I assumed that pilots in both the 35 and the SF50 had time to select full flaps prior to impact. That resulted in stall speeds of 48 and 70 knots respectively.

The results are inescapable. An off airport landing in an SF50 is substantially more impact energy and substantially more fuel than a Bonanza facing the same situation.

Mike C.

Read a little slower and you will see I said the engine out procedure is similar. That is, in how you treat the flaps most specifically.

I didn't say the MU2 performed similarly to jets with an engine out. It does not, of course.


FIFY.

MU2 recurrent training is no more onerous than other other type school despite the SFAR requirements. Most turboprop insurance requires annual type school.

It is beneficial if prospective MU2 owners think you have to be well trained and skilled to fly one and the pilots of lesser capability fly something else.

Mike C.

I didn't.

Ashley Mullen initiated the most recent MU2 thread mention:

"I can't help but point out that your own MU2 is roughly twice the weight of an SF50, and stalls even faster than it."

My only comment was the MU2 is twin so it can fly away from an engine failure. Simple, straightforward answer.

But then your bombed the thread with these comments:

"Then how come the MU2 has such a horrible safety rating?"

"Now, there just aren't many flying anymore."

"There are about 5 left...... flying anyways."

"Nobody is flying MU2's."

Etc...

None of which have to do with the actual subject, of course, and are designed specifically to elicit the responses you got.

If Ashley had said King Air instead of MU2, my answer would have been the same and the thread would have suffered less damage.

Mike C.

If we are stretching things to make our point....

Wouldn't the impact energy under the chute canopy in the Cirrus surely be less than the Bonanza? I anticipate your rebuttal will be the dreaded low altitude no time to pull the chute mantra....but that scenario throws your math all askew in either airplane.

I'd also point out that the Cirrus will be arriving at the destination airport in 1/2 the time our esteemed BT brother will be in his Bonanza, in pressurized, air conditioned comfort. The Cirrus pilot should be be refreshed and hopefully avoid such pitfalls as fuel exhaustion and low level uncontrolled pirouettes into the ground - oh wait the Cirrus has a computer to keep him from pulling such crazy moves...

It's a new day.

Peace,
Don

I wonder why Cirrus didn't explore the single engine turboprop development as their "step up" airplane. Or maybe I'm wrong, wasn't that the Kestrel?

I think I will get a good chuckle when we find out someday - that there was a Anti-SF50 SuperPAC.

Mike C - I guess I have a single question. Why do your comments about the SF50 come across as hate? You've never flown one. Assuming you've never touched one? Yet - you spend darn good brain cycles coming up with all this propaganda. Why? What is the agenda? I dare you - say something nice about the SF50. One thing. : )

Did you get the memo that it has a chute?