I was just reading about the MU-2 that was lost with the Senator's son in OK. I don't know the specifics, but on paper certainly a pilot with some experience. Witness described a stall spin trying to land on one. My point in bringing this up is that a chute would have made this survivable without any great skill. Landing on one even in powerful TP isn't a sure thing.

Concur.

Solving those issues costs as much or more than putting a second engine on the airframe.


We should keep a running total of the SEJ projects:

Gulfstream Peregrine.

Eclipse EA400.

Piper PiperJet.

Diamond DiamondJet.

CenturyJet.

Stratus 714.

Visionaire Vantage.

Flaris LAR-01.

Excel-Jet Sport-Jet.

Comp Air Jet.

Cirrus SF50.

Any more?

Number of certified SEJs: Zero.


Cirrus is following a well known and worn path to failure. I don't know why they should be applauded for that. There's nothing they are doing that several other companies haven't already failed at.

Mike C.

I find this very telling....BT is being watched!! Smart company that Cirrus.

How many of these made it beyond "shiny, computer generate brochure" stage? If your analogy is correct then the single engine King Air on the cover of FlyingMag a couple years ago was a "failed project of Beech".

I find this very telling....BT is being watched!! Smart company that Cirrus.

Concur.

Solving those issues costs as much or more than putting a second engine on the airframe.


We should keep a running total of the SEJ projects:

Gulfstream Peregrine.

Eclipse EA400.

Piper PiperJet.

Diamond DiamondJet.

CenturyJet.

Stratus 714.

Visionaire Vantage.

Flaris LAR-01.

Excel-Jet Sport-Jet.

Comp Air Jet.

Cirrus SF50.

Any more?

Number of certified SEJs: Zero.

Cirrus is following a well known and worn path to failure. I don't know why they should be applauded for that. There's nothing they are doing that several other companies haven't already failed at.

Mike C.

One thing is for sure....if I decide on an MU2, Mike will be my first call.

Mike,

I don't even know what to say to you. I really don't at this point. 70knots into pines is better than 16knots (CAPS speed at 8000ft) into energy absorbing landing gear and energy absorbing seats. Yes, a glide would be much better. A much better way to making a mortician a rich, maybe? Don't forget that with SVT, even in IMC, you can take your time in picking your spot for CAPS deployment as well. No need to slam into the side of the Tetons.

It won't happen.
It's impossible.
Even if it did happen, it will be terrible.
And no one will buy it.
The company is doomed.
They clearly have wasted ten years, and have no idea what they are doing.

Holy crap Tod. You forgot to mention that asinine chute idea.

Maybe this is all a ruse and Mike is really doing an in-depth marketing study for Cirrus to find out the most plausible arguments and how to counter them!

Candidly, typical entry level rote engineer talk "It can't be done, why waste your time." Then you get a visionary to do it and look at it differently then the talk goes to all the compromises you had to make and if 'they (the engineer)' had made the trade-offs, it would have been done long before. I don't care if you are making airplanes or widgets, or designing IT systems - same old story.

I've hung around the aviation space enough to hear everyone complain about the FAA. Candidly, half the time, the FAA isn't the problem, it is the aerospace engineer applying his logic to what they think the the regulations are and not looking for a novel way to solve a problem.

All the same, its why you love to get 'know it all' engineers into a deposition. Anyone remember, "you can't handle the truth."

:-)

-jason

This is true in every industry. I hear it all the time. Takes the right person to see things through and make it happen. The engineers in my life do tend to be the most negative and the first to say "can't be done".

The Engineers in my life are not negative unless you don't agree they are right.

There are times I sit back and watch two engineers argue, and just smile. It is RARE when two agree on a process or interpretation.

With that said, they are also the most resourceful and smartest of the people I hang around/work with.

That was an experienced (overall) pilot fresh from initial SFAR training in the airplane (so inexperienced in the MU2, but in theory sharper and far fresher on the procedures than the average MU2 pilot across the fleet).

No way you're going to pull the chute initially in that accident sequence. You have an apparent single engine failure in a twin turbine that's perfectly capable of landing on one AND you just spent more than a week learning and practicing exactly how to do that.

Once it's clear that the airplane is departing, maybe you pull then, but I think there's a bias to think that you can still save the airplane (that SR pilots also originally had before the Cirrus training emphasized the "pull early; pull often").

The takeaway from the tulsa accident is, even if insurance doesn't require it

1) simulator training is valuable
2) consider flying with a mentor for awhile