You're the guy providing no evidence to contradict my statement.

I've provided a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, which I did provide.

Mike C.

no doubt you are. You have been convinced of many things on this topic from the outset.

No answer....CHECKMATE.

The reality is I could care less about forcing you into being wrong. I’d much rather you assimilate into the culture of BT and learn to enjoy the relationships that happen here in real life.

As it stands, “I’d guess” :) there is not much of that going on for you.

Best,

Because "full up" certification fight test with documentation and FAA supervision costs time and money.

The chute was flight-tested, we saw the video. Who cares if it was in conforming aircraft or not?

agreed. With my engineering hat on, I can see all sorts of reasons to keep that testing in-house. Foremost of which is to allow sound engineering judgement about which prototype airframes to use, ie non-conforming by with relevant features includes, such that it is more economical and less program-disruptive to destroy those airframes after the test doing invasive examinations of the structure.

In my day job we do destructive testing regularly. We don't use later version test units that could be sold - we mostly update older prototypes and use those.

Sorry, but you claim my statement is false and yet you offer no evidence.

Serial number of airframe on which it was tested, please.

All you've done is claim something without evidence. You should be able to prove your point.

My conclusion is that a fully conforming flight test was not done based on the fact Cirrus asked not to do it, and asking not to do it cost them time and money. I can't prove the absence of something but I can reasonably conclude it doesn't exist.

If you got any real evidence, present it and stop making this a stupid school yard argument.

Mike C.

Sorry, but you claim my statement is false and yet you offer no evidence.

Saw my old college chum's shiny, new Eclipse 550 this weekend.

They're really nice-looking from a distance, but up close?

Hubba!

Do you have anything to say about the SF50?

Like, say, something to backup your statements about the chute being flight tested on a type conforming example?

Please, educate us.

Mike C.

The Cirrus request was not about releasing data, it was about doing the test at all. The data the FAA gets is proprietary so it wouldn't be released publicly anyway.

If the FAA found out Cirrus did the test anyway, the FAA WILL want to see the data.

This is one reason I am pretty sure Cirrus did not do the chute flight test, it would have been all downside risk. The best they could hope for is it matches their analysis and doesn't fail or have issues. If anything happens like that, then the certification program would be set back while that is resolved. So it makes NO SENSE to beg off the test, then perform the test, and then the FAA gets the data any way. There is no way the test could have been done without FAA awareness, either.

Note that the request to not do the chute flight test came VERY late in the certification process. The FAA SC was granted July 2016 and the TC was awarded only 3 months later in October. If Cirrus had planned to not do the test from the beginning, they would have asked for the SC much earlier. This suggests the desire to not fully flight test was a last minute thing. There's more to that story than will ever be told, I'm sure.

Mike C.

Ummm. Does anyone here actually care about this issue?

Cirrus doesn't care about it. SF50 buyers don't either. And, other than its argument "value" on BT, nobody here cares either.

Well, it is about the airplane and the current issue of testing the chute. The timing does tells us something about the process.


You seem to speak for a lot of people. I wonder if they all gave you permission to do so.

Mike C.

What are you talking about? Cirrus obviously flight-tested the chute, we all saw the video.

Serial #0003

The Cirrus request was not about releasing data, it was about doing the test at all. The data the FAA gets is proprietary so it wouldn't be released publicly anyway.

If the FAA found out Cirrus did the test anyway, the FAA WILL want to see the data.

This is one reason I am pretty sure Cirrus did not do the chute flight test, it would have been all downside risk. The best they could hope for is it matches their analysis and doesn't fail or have issues. If anything happens like that, then the certification program would be set back while that is resolved. So it makes NO SENSE to beg off the test, then perform the test, and then the FAA gets the data any way. There is no way the test could have been done without FAA awareness, either.

Note that the request to not do the chute flight test came VERY late in the certification process. The FAA SC was granted July 2016 and the TC was awarded only 3 months later in October. If Cirrus had planned to not do the test from the beginning, they would have asked for the SC much earlier. This suggests the desire to not fully flight test was a last minute thing. There's more to that story than will ever be told, I'm sure.

Mike C.