27 Jan 2026, 19:49 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50  Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 11:09 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12204
Post Likes: +3089
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You guys are savage! It is the internet! What else would you expect? Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 11:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. 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
Here is the rest of my post.
I understand the military has some unique requirements and that Mitsubishi designed that way
Quote: .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.
If I owned a MU-2 I would not say it "flies like a jet" or it ok because it has "jet procedures".
It has all the negatives and none of the positives!
If you need to retract flaps on a schedule and make take-off, landing and non-normal procedures more complicated there should be a payoff.
In a jet that payoff is a slow landing speed and a high cruise speed.
In the MU-2 the payoff is, well I guess the payoff is you can stick it in a small hangar?
If the development of the MU-2 had progressed into a jet the whole design would make more sense.
Yes the SF50 has ailerons.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 12:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13719
Post Likes: +7898
Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is the internet! What else would you expect?
Tim Decorum on BT. Respectful discourse. Open dialogue.
_________________
Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients
My 58TC https://tinyurl.com/mry9f8f6
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 12:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09
Posts: 5193
Post Likes: +3038
Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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 Citations have stick shakers driven off of AOA vane. Can't miss it when stock shaker goes off. Alerts you but does not pitch you down.
_________________
Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7099
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
PC-12 has a pusher
Pusher and shaker  The pc12 does not stall like a 172. Couple of youtube videos on it.
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 13:24 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14458
Post Likes: +9583
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: People that Mike C. has convinced not to buy the Vision Jet.... 0
Actually he made a number of great points. I wasn't in the market but I get asked about such things all the time, and those are all valid points worth mentioning to a potential buyer.
_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 14:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/09/11
Posts: 147
Post Likes: +54
Company: Ozark/TWA/American
Location: St Louis, Mo
Aircraft: Be-58, Car Cub, RV8
|
|
|
How many of the posts have been from someone who has flown the jet? My demo flight was more like a self checkout you would do in test pilot school. Flew the whole flight including two instrument approaches, handled ATC, and did all the nav programing. For an older pilot like myself to climb in a totally new aircraft and be comfortable inside of an hour speaks volumes about the superb integration of propulsion, autopilot , and flight management systems. All the designs compromises have been in the lower, slower, safer direction which will make for an easy transition for SR-22 and other prop pilots. Could see a two engine version coming that would fix some of the higher, faster, farther issues.
_________________
_____________________________
Jim
N777SG BE-58 1H0
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 14:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12204
Post Likes: +3089
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Exactly. This isn't Facebook! Then any thread with the following curse words/phrases you should avoid: - Cirrus
- Chute
- Twin vs Single
They tend to devolve into name calling and unfounded assertions.  I always hope for something better; but it takes a fair number of posts to bury the crud and get the topic back on track. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 14:17 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/18/12
Posts: 9597
Post Likes: +7791
Company: Gallagher Aviation LLC
Location: Cincinnati, OH (I69)
Aircraft: 1960 Bonanza M35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Exactly. This isn't Facebook! Then any thread with the following curse words/phrases you should avoid: - Cirrus
- Chute
- Twin vs Single
They tend to devolve into name calling and unfounded assertions. I always hope for something better; but it takes a fair number of posts to bury the crud and get the topic back on track. Tim
Chute! You're absolutely right!
_________________
Sales: 833-425-5288
gallagheraviationllc@gmail.com
www.gallagheraviationllc.com - Online Store
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 14:23 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 6367
Post Likes: +5746
Company: Middle of the country company
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
PC-12 has a pusher
Pusher and shaker The pc12 does not stall like a 172. Couple of youtube videos on it.
Wow, you aren't a kiddin'!! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRK2aUmWWI
_________________
Three things tell the truth:
Little kids
Drunks
Yoga pants
Actually, four things.....
Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 19 Apr 2017, 14:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/24/10
Posts: 7504
Post Likes: +5210
Location: Concord , CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1967 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How many of the posts have been from someone who has flown the jet? My demo flight was more like a self checkout you would do in test pilot school. Flew the whole flight including two instrument approaches, handled ATC, and did all the nav programing. For an older pilot like myself to climb in a totally new aircraft and be comfortable inside of an hour speaks volumes about the superb integration of propulsion, autopilot , and flight management systems. All the designs compromises have been in the lower, slower, safer direction which will make for an easy transition for SR-22 and other prop pilots. Could see a two engine version coming that would fix some of the higher, faster, farther issues. Jim I believe everything you said. But then you still have an easy to fly Jet with" one" engine that "can't fly high", "carry very much" or "go very far". For My purpose and missions it's completely useless. It might be useful for a few but I need "easy to fly"and a "good useful load" that will go high and far. For 2 million bucks their are better choices.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
