BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2014, 22:41

Username Protected wrote:

I've never seen a retract without some kind of emergency extension.

Me neither, but that doesn't assure you can get the gear down. If you can't get it down by any means, what do you think the AFM will advise? Belly it in or chute? Not an easy question.

Quote:

It only matters if extending beyond Vle can result in a gear failure and loss of that energy absorption that chute is depending upon.

I am pretty sure that Vchute will be lower than Vle. In any case, if you want the chute, gear speed will be the last thing you are worried about.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2014, 22:51

Username Protected wrote:

Its interesting to hear from an engineer. I suspect Cirrus has one under employ though.

Yes, he said the SF50 will be limited to low altitudes due to FAA regulations.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2014, 22:54

Username Protected wrote:

I've never seen a retract without some kind of emergency extension. Either a gas system, a hand pump or a hand crank. I can't think of a reason why they'd leave that out.

Mooney's with manual gear.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2014, 22:54

You think the gear legs are going to punch through the fuel bladders. Do you imagine Cirrus engineers are totally stupid, or ignored?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2014, 23:27

Username Protected wrote:

You think the gear legs are going to punch through the fuel bladders.

I'd be surprised if there are bladders. Surely it is a "wet" wing design being composite.

The question is if punching the gear through the wing damages the structure enough to cause a fuel leak.

It is very difficult to design the structure to ASSURE that doesn't happen. The gear leg has to attach to a major structural member and that can transfer damage quite far away from the gear leg. Peeling off the top wing skin is also a possibility.

Quote:

Do you imagine Cirrus engineers are totally stupid, or ignored?

I imagine they can't account for everything.

Gear legs punching through wings is an extremely rare event for normal jets. It could be much more common in the SF50 with the chute.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 00:55

Username Protected wrote:

Its interesting to hear from an engineer. I suspect Cirrus has one under employ though. It seems you assume you are the only one.

It does not take an engineer to understand this! It's pretty clear.

Either you believe cirrus is going to go into the history books and create the first efficient single engine low altitude jet with a chute for under 2 million or you don't.

History and experience says no way!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 01:04

Username Protected wrote:

Its interesting to hear from an engineer. I suspect Cirrus has one under employ though. It seems you assume you are the only one.

It does not take an engineer to understand this! It's pretty clear.

Either you believe cirrus is going to go into the history books and create the first efficient single engine low altitude jet with a chute for under 2 million or you don't.

History and experience says no way!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 01:11

Quote:

I disagree. Cirrus has the potential to prove that you can build an acceptable single engine jet with acceptable performance and costs. I have yet to see claims by Cirrus that it is more efficient.

They just have to be able to sell it, building it is easy by comparison.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 02:16

Username Protected wrote:

They just have to be able to sell it, building it is easy by comparison.

I think that is backwards.

Have they "sold" it? Yes, ~500 depositors who put in $100K each.

Have they "built" it? No, particularly the part about getting it certified.

Have they turned a "profit"? No, obviously, and even if they build it, they may lose money on each one and go bankrupt, the Eclipse "plan". This is particularly painful at the beginning with so many depositors locked in at the early pricing.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 02:25

Username Protected wrote:

I have yet to see claims by Cirrus that it is more efficient.

As far as I can tell, they have not lied about the performance, at least not more than usual for any other manufacturer.

TF50 would be so much better and easier. Sigh.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 10:39

Username Protected wrote:

Its interesting to hear from an engineer. I suspect Cirrus has one under employ though. It seems you assume you are the only one.

It does not take an engineer to understand this! It's pretty clear.

Either you believe cirrus is going to go into the history books and create the first efficient single engine low altitude jet with a chute for under 2 million or you don't.

History and experience says no way!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 10:55

There are some solid arguments mixed in with many old, tired arguments and the message is getting muddled.

Old, tired arguments:

Chute
Plastic
Spin Certification
Injuries under canopy vs. traditional crash landing
Comparing legacy planes to new offerings

There is plenty of data at this point for the above arguments to be sidelined. The question at this point for me:

Will the SF50 perform within 95% of their projections?
Will the early jets suffer tremendous teething pains, threatening the production schedule?
Will the jet systems have robust design and reliability allowing limited scheduled downtime?
Will the fleet grow enough to justify a competitive support network with fair pricing?

If Cirrus can mitigate these issues, you can forget about light piston twin production. This plane will become the "go-to" second aircraft for many owners as well as the personal scooter of choice for the professional/entrepreneur crowd who can write the check.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 11:04

Username Protected wrote:

If Cirrus can mitigate these issues, you can forget about light piston twin production. This plane will become the "go-to" second aircraft for many owners as well as the personal scooter of choice for the professional/entrepreneur crowd who can write the check.

Jesse,

The Baron can still carry more, not sure that is enough to save it.
I think it is more likely to steal from the Meridian, JetProp and the TBM markets. Closer in terms of mission...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 11:13

Username Protected wrote:

The Baron can still carry more, not sure that is enough to save it.
I think it is more likely to steal from the Meridian, JetProp and the TBM markets. Closer in terms of mission...

Tim

Even if the SF50 doesn't do what I hope it does as an airplane, it will certainly create downward price pressure on used Meridians/TBMs. Either of those outcomes would be acceptable to me when it's time to buy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2014, 11:39

Username Protected wrote:

Jesse,

The Baron can still carry more, not sure that is enough to save it.
I think it is more likely to steal from the Meridian, JetProp and the TBM markets. Closer in terms of mission...

Tim

The Baron and TBM aren't even comparable. The Baron is half the cost of the SF50 and while the TBM is so much more capable than the Cirrus it's also 1.5 times as expensive.

The Meridian seems to be similar in price and likely share use profiles.

Cirrus SF50