No, Kestrel was the basis for Alan K. to get back into aviation after being kicked out of Cirrus for almost bankrupting the company chasing the SSF50.

Tim

Because there are already a bunch of those.

Wow. A pressurized turbine plane has more kinetic energy than a piston single. Who'd have thought ? Surely no one will want to fly a turbine powered plane after this revelation becomes public

Probably. No one really knows because Cirrus never did a full up system test as they petitioned the FAA to excuse them from that requirement. Part of that argument is that the chute provides no benefit towards any certification requirements.

One issue is that the SR series always had the landing gear to absorb impact since it was fixed gear. The SF50 doesn't, the gear could be retracted at impact. So the impact may be more severe.

The first customer to pull the chute will become a test pilot. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

As you noted, the chute doesn't work for a engine failure at low altitude. A second engine does. In that scenario, the SF50 has substantially more impact energy than a Bonanza.


And the twin jet flyer gets there faster, flies higher out of more weather, just as comfortable, uses less fuel doing so, and can handle an engine failure in all regimes of flight with high safety.


Oh wait, the computer can make mistakes. Bad logic, bad sensors, bad input data, etc.

Read the FSB report, sounds like the computer didn't always agree with the pilots when it comes to stall warning and behaviors.

It still freaks me out the SF50 needed a stick pusher. You usually only see that in swept wing jets with dangerous stall behavior. For example, Beech Premier. The pusher exists only because forcing the nose down against the pilot wishes is LESS dangerous than actually stalling. For a straight wing simple jet, it should not have required one, like Mustang and Eclipse.

Mike C.

Nobody like facts ruining their love affair with the SF50.


It will help sell entry level twin jets after owners fly the SF50 for a few years.

Mike C.

B-52
Mitsubishi MU-300
Beechjet/Hawker 400
F-14

Off the top of my head. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure the SF50 has ailerons.

Nathan

You post "opinion".... not very many "facts".

In my opinion, that isn't a fact.

Mike C.

Mike posts plenty of facts which are legitimate points about ways that the SF50 (a small, owner-flown plane) does not meet the same specs as large business jets and airliners. What he misses is that nobody cares.

Well Played.

Tim

I sure hope they make too many of them and flood the market, because I will want a 10-year-old used one that hopefully will have depreciated considerably.

I saw the jet as Osh last year and it's impressive looking. Making an affordable personal jet seems an elusive achievement. I'm glad Cirrus is taking a crack at it.

PC-12 has a pusher, so does the HondaJet.

You guys are savage!

I have been looking around for FAA A/C guidance on stalls.
I recall that the FAA has changed the requirements, and now requires stall warning on all new certified jets, regardless of stall behavior. I think it was because of the Colgan Air crash going to Buffalo. From what I recall, companies are basically given three choices, stick pusher, stall buffet that shakes the stick, or computer control that prevents stalling. Stall warning sounds and benign stall characteristics were eliminated as options.

Does anyone know what the current FAA thinking is?

Tim