It is not "more complicated" to leave flaps alone when an engine fails. One less step for me in that critical moment than you.

The payoff is full span flaps which allow very slow speed and very high speed.

Another payoff is full roll control all the way into the stall with no worry of aileron induced wing stall.


It was called the Diamond.

Mike C.

A second power lever would not have changed any of that.

Mike C.

Dang.

If that occurs in the pattern, ruins your whole day.

Makes you wonder what the SF50 does...

Mike C.

Unsure about this one....

Wonder if one did an analysis of average annual plane purchases what percentage of transactions would be new and what percentage of transactions would be used.

Would be willing to bet that the total inventory of used aircraft dwarfs the number of new frames entering the market each year.

While I don't have the facts at hand, I would bet that if one were to analyze number of annual transactions (buy/sell) of airplanes in the US, particularly, GA type/BeechTalk type planes, that the pre-owned transactions outnumber the new by a fair margin. So not sure that BeechTalk is that unrepresentative of the market.

A second power lever would not have changed any of that.

Mike C.

Really?

Like what would change exactly?

If all engines are running, then there's no difference, so the only question is how to handle engine failure.

I think the training effort to deal with an engine failure on a twin jet is EASIER than a single. In the twin, you basically just, well, fly. Put a little rudder into it, hit your speed, done. No prop to feather, so huge asymmetric thrust, no loss of systems. YOU JUST FLY.

Now explain how to handle an engine failure in a single. Don't forget that you've also lost pressurization, bleed air, and electrical generation, too, all at the same time. You got to cover off airport landings, discuss glide ratios, when to use chute, etc. You think all that is easier? Why?

Okay, the twin pilot does have to learn engine out go arounds, as easy as they are. The single pilot, well, he doesn't have to learn that because he will never have that option.

Thinking a twin jet is harder to train for is piston think. That's why a single jet mistakenly appeals to piston owners.

Mike C.

Yup, no perfect airplane, fortunately that stall occurs at about 67 knots full gross (never gonna happen) and around 60 knots when at true landing speeds.

WHOOOAAAAA, at that speed that MU2 is upside down !!!!

Given what you noted about SF50 landing speeds (engine out) and the venerable S35, you will find that the PC12 has some serious chops when it comes to landing and crashing (read up on the seats/crash worthiness of the PC12).

HENCE the reason for tools Pilatus gives you

Stick Shaker........hey dumbass, you're a little slow for this angle of attack, lower the nose or hit the gas mon

Stick Pusher........hey dumbass, I already told you that you were a little slow, now I'm gonna have to take over (unless you hit the little red button on the yolk (bad spelling pun intended, wanted DL involved)

So yes, the PC12 wing design has great features in certain areas and bad in others.......

Almost impossible to stall a PC12, and if you do, you're a dumbass.

Does anyone think that when Cirrus designed the SF50 that their goal was to produce an 800NM range aircraft with the seats full? No, it's like Chip said, they wanted something making the SR22 trips, but with pressurization AND it's a jet. Seriously, what percentage of the GA fleet on any given day is flying 800NM legs with 800+ lbs on board? I say less than than 5%.

Think about how bizarre it would have been in the design meetings if someone raised their hand and said, "But, but, this design can't compete with the performance of an MU2." What?? Cirrus doesn't care.

Don't you think Cirrus found that a significant percentage of the buyers of a new SR22 could just as easily have purchased a $2MM jet?

MU2 power off stall speeds range from 64 to 76 knots depending on weight, not all that far from the PC-12. This is due to full span double slotted flaps more typical of a Boeing than a light plane.

With power on, you get so much lift from the engines (44% of the wing area is behind the props), that you can almost hover at high power. It is "blown flaps" to a large extent. Deck angle can get extreme.

I guarantee I can fly the MU2 slower than you can fly the PC-12.


Understood.

It is basically system complexity to compensate for aerodynamic issues introduced by the airfoil choice.

Mike C.

Of course you do, and I agree (in some ways), but the target market doesn't think that way.


The target market thinks piston! It's a step up. There's a huge niche for a 'step up'.

Have you ever flown an MU-2? Published stall speed in typical landing configuration and weight is 68 KCAS. I believe it's actually lower. Once I'd actually practiced slow flight and experienced the beginning of stall mush (at less than 60 KIAS, by the way) I couldn't understand how anyone could inadvertently stall one. Plenty of warning, huge angle of attack, very slow speed. One benefit of the spoilers for roll control is that you have full control authority even as you stall the plane. Recovery is easy.

I haven't stalled that many aircraft types, but the stall behavior of the MU-2 is the most benign of any plane I've flown. Be glad to demonstrate sometime.


Same could be said of many stupid pilot tricks!

I think the published stall speed (not sure at what weight, but full flaps) of the SF50 is 67 KIAS.

Nathan

They won't after they have one.

There will be a lot of "for the money this thing costs to fly, and for being stuck in the 20s in nasty headwinds and weather, I could be flying a twin jet a 100 knots faster, with less fuel flow, in the 40s, and have second engine safety to boot."

If your point is that a Ford Pinto is better than a bicycle, I agree, but Pinto owners very soon want something else.

Mike C.

Interesting, but potentially yes/potentially no, the PC12 has HUGE fowler flaps, 2 angle of attack indicators..........for a single you want high altitude performance and low landing characteristics.......I'm not gonna bash the MU-2 because I like the airplane............SO

let's compare the LONG BODY MU2 to the PC12, not the short body........that thing can't carry what I need, it's too short, and I'm about length

the MU2 has specific design characteristics inherent with engine out.......according to you.....fly it like a jet......

I would say that the design characteristic of the MU2 has some flaws therein too. It requires a SFAR training to fly it.........

That being said, I believe that if you want to fly an airplane like ours (PC12/MU2) well, that the most important thing is awareness and training.

Based on my poor flying skills and the cargo I was carrying I purchased a PC12 for it's safety characteristics.......those range from simplicity, to systems integration, to 'dumbass tools' that tell me when I'm screwing up (which according to my wife is fairly often)........

What you will find, is that the SF50 will be successful for the very same reasons.........not everyone is a perfect pilot..........

and when the day hits, when perfection is required, you will be glad to be in an airplane, when perfection is not required........

LONG LIVE THE CHUTE!!!!!!

Another point of reference. Let's just say Cirrus ran a focus group with the spouses of pilots.

The question would be simple:

Which one of these aircraft do you think is safer just by looking at these pictures? 12-0 SF50 vs. MU2. After the partipants were polled a group of knowledgeable MU2 pilots were allowed to speak to the spouses all day long on the advantages of the MU2 vs. the SF50.

Then, the pictures were shown again and the spouses were asked to vote on what they felt was the safest aircraft. Result? 12-0 SF50 vs. MU2

All I can say is: Point, Set and Match