Tim
An Eclipse is actually bigger inside than a TBM higher and wider.

I don’t fit in a Meridian or Honda Jet but am very comfortable in my Eclipse

True enough. TBM has maximum cabin width of 47.64 inches and height of 48 inches. Eclipse has maximum cabin width of 56" and height of 50".

Ken

The Eclipse has a constantly changing cross section, the TBM has a uniform cross section for part of its length. Thus the Eclipse measurements represent one specific fuselage station but everywhere else is less, so its effective and/or perceived interior size is less than those numbers.

Mike C.

I have yet to confirm if I can share details publicly, but I can say that Cirrus had an EXTENSIVE testing program on the chute and rocket involving several airframes.

Mike, why would you post what you did regarding a lack of testing and owners being the test dummies?

————————

I also had a first hand account from a long-time friend/Pilot/jet and piston mechanic who flew the jet. His impression is you could teach a new student in the jet more easily than a piston single. He flew it from taxi to shutdown, and they explored all edges of the envelope. He was blown away.

I’ll wait to share those details until I fly it myself.

——————

There was lots of buyer interest in Scottsdale including a guy wanting to dump his Honda jet for a Cirrus due to lack of utility in the Honda. You can pull out seats in the SF50 in seconds. Apparently the Honda seats don’t come out. This Honda info is second-hand fyi. Can anyone confirm?

Because Cirrus begged the FAA to excuse them from testing the system for certification.

The FAA agreed.

I believe the first customer chute pull in an SF50 will be the first time it has been done in a fully type conforming example.


That was not a type rating course.

"Easy" to fly is not the same as "easy" to achieve qualifications to fly.

Mike C.

This is what you said. So when you makes these posts sound like facts, I’m wondering where your info is coming from. Do you have any? Are you assuming based on media reports?


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.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ery-system

"The FAA believes that test or analysis supported by test will provide an acceptable level of safety to demonstrate that the system will perform its intended function; therefore, no in-flight deployment on a test airplane will be required."

If Cirrus had done a full up in flight test, why spend the time and effort for getting this special condition to excuse them?

Cirrus was allowed to show compliance by "testing and analysis".

Mike C.

So lets not state assumptions as facts. Its easy to do. See my post above.

BT used to have a serious contingent of “fact checkers” (actually insiders), so this forum developed a reputation as a reliable source of info. Lets preserve that, even though we seem to have run off many experts with “typical” forum nonsense.

Please list serial numbers of those airframes.

You need to hear your own sermon on facts and start providing some.

If such a test was done, where's the video? Cirrus wasn't bashful about showing it for the SR series.

BTW "extensive testing program" does not necessarily mean "full up test in flight with type conforming example".

What I have as fact is that Cirrus undertook a special condition submission which took a long time and which excused them from a in flight test. You don't do that, and then ALSO run the test. Duh.

Mike C.

1) FAA says jump, you say how high. Repeat until FAA happy
2) Reasonable Internal testing that makes your engineers happy

Two VERY different things for a testing program. No sane mfr wouldn't try to get out of 1 and still do 2.

Not necessarily a full type conforming in flight test.

Cirrus was specifically asking to use testing and analysis to AVOID the in flight all up test.

I remain convinced the first customer pull will be the first type conforming in flight activation.

Mike C.

The Cirrus SC was specifically Cirrus asking not to jump and to substitute analysis of how high they could jump if they wanted to.

Mike C.

You don’t know what you don’t know in this case Mike.

I’m not the guy representing false statements as facts.

You can get wordy, and argue, but the facts remain. Your tactics are transparent. My question is what is the point? Why make assumptions (which turn out to be incorrect) and state them as fact?

Why not just say “maybe” “in my opinion” “my assumption” “I’m guessing here” “it seems to me”?


Will you answer this with a Yes or No response?

Do you know for a FACT that fully-loaded airframeS have not touched down under canopy?

It's on Youtube. Have you looked?

Ken