I can fly 750 miles on 33 gallons.

OK, so I can't take 3 others with me.....so that means I have nobody whining about a bathroom stop or saying "Are we there yet?"

Until I landed in the mess I'm in I would have had no idea how lucky you really are

How does the MU2 (must be a Solitare if you can go that fast) do WRT big headwinds? Do you keep it down low burning a lot more fuel than a piston airplane? IOW, where's the "sweet spot" for westward in the winter?

How does the MU2 (must be a Solitare if you can go that fast) do WRT big headwinds? Do you keep it down low burning a lot more fuel than a piston airplane? IOW, where's the "sweet spot" for westward in the winter?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/k80nW6AOhTs[/youtube]

Seems it is for older men who need a jet to attract the ladies, can't go too fast or they can't handle it, can't go too far due to bladder limits, and then its got a chute to compensate for their lack of piloting skills and judgment.

Seems perfectly targeted to "senior" pilots, IMO.

The ladies I know don't want to spend hours in a little jet bucking a headwind. They want to spend more hours at the destination. The jet is only useful because it goes FAST.

Mike C.

Chute save are 100%. The danger is when you don't use them and try to save the plane.

If you're going places where you wouldn't without the chute, you're likely to pull when needed.

And, yes, I'm one of those that feel emboldened. I now fly more at night and more comfortably in IMC. Chute me.

The danger was when they WEREN'T using the chute - not emboldened by it. And really, not danger - just not taking advantage of what they had available to them.

Chute save are 100%. The danger is when you don't use them and try to save the plane.

If you're going places where you wouldn't without the chute, you're likely to pull when needed.

And, yes, I'm one of those that feel emboldened. I now fly more at night and more comfortably in IMC. Chute me.

The danger was when they WEREN'T using the chute - not emboldened by it. And really, not danger - just not taking advantage of what they had available to them.

What? You're saying you wouldn't feel more comfortable flying at night with the chute? Not more comfortable in IMC? The chute that is 50 for 50 in saves over 1k feet below Vne?

So you're just as safe as in any other SE?

Have you seen the stats - the results?

What you said makes no more sense than me saying the same thing about your twin.

What? You're saying you wouldn't feel more comfortable flying at night with the chute that is 50 for 50 in saves over 1k feet below Vne? Not more comfortable in IMC?

So you're just as safe as in any other SE?

Have you seen the stats - the results?

What you said makes no more sense than me saying the same thing about your twin. Actually, LESS sense, since piston twins have worse fatality stats. Well, in generalizations, any way. I would never say that if you are a true trainer in the twin - SIMCOM regularly, etc.

Well this is an argument fraught with ambiguity.

I also choose not to fly SE over large masses of water out of gliding range, unless over the warm waters to the Caribbean, and then would take precautions.

There have been a few mountain pulls; nobody froze to death. Although certainly possible, but it's all in the preparation and/or luck.

Look, there's no way to eliminate all risk. Frankly, I feel much safer in my SR than I would in any piston twin other than Diamond, because a VMC rollover scares the crap out of me. And I don't care whether anyone thinks that's justified or not. I don't think I've got the discipline to drop work and go to SIMCOM every 6 months, which is what I would need to do to feel safe.

But I don't care whether you fly a twin and train once every 5 years. Or someone flies their Bo at night across the mountains, or over Houston in solid IMC, as I use to. It's all calculated risk vs. return. More power to ya.

But ANYbody that looks at the results of Cirrus over the last three years, with training and willingness to use the red handle, HAS to see the incredible benefit. Or they just have a bias they are unwilling to let go of.

I think having the parachute there does make pilots more emboldened. Last summer when I decided to take up skydiving I did some research on it safety. I found that sometimes the spare back up chute fails and the dude still died. Or even better they never cut away and pulled the reserve. So in the interest of safety and to make sure I made better safety decisions about when and where I jump I decided to use a rig without a reserve parachute. Not having a reserve has definitely made me safer. Although come to think of it I still haven't jumped out of the plane.

Well this is an argument fraught with ambiguity.

I also choose not to fly SE over large masses of water out of gliding range, unless over the warm waters to the Caribbean, and then would take precautions.

There have been a few mountain pulls; nobody froze to death. Although certainly possible, but it's all in the preparation and/or luck.

Look, there's no way to eliminate all risk. Frankly, I feel much safer in my SR than I would in any twin other than Diamond, because a VMC rollover scares the crap out of me. And I don't care whether anyone thinks that's justified or not. I don't think I've got the discipline to drop work and go to SIMCOM every 6 months, which is what I would need to do to feel safe.

But I don't care whether you fly a twin and train once every 5 years. Or someone flies their Bo at night across the mountains, or over Houston in solid IMC, as I use to. It's all calculated risk vs. return. More power to ya.

But ANYbody that looks at the results of Cirrus over the last three years, with training and willingness to use the red handle, HAS to see the incredible benefit. Or they just have a bias they are unwilling to let go of.

Someone said the chutes have a 100% success rate. I thought there was a 22 a few years ago that iced up over the sierras up fairly high and it failed. Anybody recall this?

If I recall correctly, the pull occurred somewhere 50knots over vNE