Mike is being technically precise, but missing the semantics. Part of why he down plays the whole chute aspect, because this does not fit his argument. Mike is stating the pilot told the passenger to pull the handle; therefore the chute pull was not initiated by the passenger. Therefore the passenger pulling the chute for an incapacitated pilot is theoretical and has yet to be proven.

Tim

I have lots of pilot buddies. Most of them are on BT, but I don't think any of them told me they were your buddy.

Maybe being your buddy and being on BT are just incompatible.

Mike C.

To illustrate that perhaps his buddies might not represent a representative cross section of aviation.

Mike C.

Why? What is the point of this post?

Tim

In an MU2, you get smother ride, faster speed, smaller hangar, better roll control at slow speed, lack of inflight breakups, and lack of spar ADs.

Mike C.

Probably too much thread drift, and not knowing the key differences between the two models, why is your customer insistent on a CJ1? What's the feature or characteristic he's enamored with? Just curious.

Being newer is the implication.

Mike C.

To illustrate that perhaps his buddies might not represent a representative cross section of aviation.

Mike C.

What I am getting from this thread is, if you design a "brick" that can fly, use slick marketing and put a parachute on it, people will buy it?

If the SR22 did "not" have a parachute how many would have bought it?

How does the SR22 compare to the competition if you remove the parachute factor?

Is this the future of GA, new planes with substandard performance that are designed to compensate for pilot error or incapacitation so they will sell?

IF THE SF50 DID NOT HAVE A PARACHUTE WOULD THE SALES FUTURE BE DIFFERENT?

The primary argument from the public against GA is "those dangerous little planes".

Cirrus has improved fatal stats dramatically as of late. The fact that BTrs don't believe they need chutes is irrelevant. Whatever Cirrus is doing, they are winning the battle against the #1 problem we face.

This translates to sales.

Do you own a Harley?

Unknown.

I don't think the chute factor is as strong as some make it out to be, but it isn't zero either.


Without the chute, the SR22 is still a decent airplane in terms of capability, performance, utility.

Mike C.

Chute didn't do that. Cirrus had the chute prior to the change in rate.

What did work was pilot training. But that works in ALL planes. In fact, it is the ONLY THING that truly works.


Ah, yes, the "Cirrus as GA savior" angle.

That's just more fodder for the Cirrus religion.

If it wasn't for Cirrus.... aviation would be pretty much the same.

Mike C.

I would like to give my Baron to my son, but his wife is a nervous flyer who is afraid of flying. I will probably scrap the Baron or give it away and buy my son a new SR22 so his wife "feels" safe.

I must admit part of me would feel better having him in a new Cirrus with a parachute than a old Baron with a pair of IO550's.

If I am still flying in my 80's I wonder if my plane will have a parachute?

got it

when discussing an MU2, the fact that design compromises result in it fitting in a smaller hangar is a feature and admirable

OTOH when it is noted that a selling feature of a cirrus jet is that it fits in a small hangar, it's an example of how it's not enough airplane

I'd guess that aspect has more to do with protecting your son's retirement savings than protecting his skin. Still an admirable thing