BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 04:00

Might want to read the regs a little closer. ATC can not waive the speed of 200kts below a class b.
Within 4nm of the class c airport below 2500' yes. But alas RUNTS is outside the class c 4 mile, and most likely the route in which they were asking you to exceed 200 was below class b.

91.117

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

Refer to (c)
Does not say unless otherwise authorized.......

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 06:31

Username Protected wrote:

This one?

Keep going

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 06:34

Username Protected wrote:

Exactly.

No numbers, no way to win that bet. There is no date at which Cirrus is deemed to have failed. There is no way to know exactly how many are already ordered and when that order period is over. There is no definition of what "pivotal" means. It is all vague and subjective.

Now if he said Cirrus will deliver to customers X SF50s by Y date, then we got a bet that can be tested. At worst, we will know by Y date if the bet is won or lost. But I think he is allergic to numbers as they don't leave room to argue out of it.

Mike C.

Bro. You are backpedaling. I'll say it for the 3rd time.

I bet you TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS that IF the SF50 makes it to market it will be the best selling VLJ since the term VLJ came into existence.

If you don't like this bet and you're so confident in your position, why don't you counter my offer instead of avoiding it?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 09:31

You guys need a moderator: back the bet up to something simple: it does or does not get certified. I'll even get in on this one if we keep if nickel stakes. (Remember we have at least two that say it will not get certified)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 10:14

,I can do that easily in the TBM when im asked to.

Username Protected wrote:

The combination of being a jet and flying it like a prop......230 to the marker is going to cause a lot more problems. Can we say over run?
They were asking for 230 to make more room. The sequencing was otherwise figured out a long time before.

BTW, RUNTS is under the 3600' ring of the class B. 200kias max.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 10:21

Username Protected wrote:

You guys need a moderator: back the bet up to something simple: it does or does not get certified. I'll even get in on this one if we keep if nickel stakes. (Remember we have at least two that say it will not get certified)

"Doe or does not" get certified is beside the point. Neither of us has any control over certification.

Chihola thinks SF50 is doomed to failure. His reasons are "JET101".

I just want Chihola to put his money where his mouth is. You can counter my bet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 10:42

Username Protected wrote:

You guys need a moderator: back the bet up to something simple: it does or does not get certified. I'll even get in on this one if we keep if nickel stakes. (Remember we have at least two that say it will not get certified)

"Doe or does not" get certified is beside the point. Neither of us has any control over certification.

Chihola thinks SF50 is doomed to failure. His reasons are "JET101".

I just want Chihola to put his money where his mouth is. You can counter my bet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 10:44

Username Protected wrote:

I'd love to see a world where people are flying jets all over the place. But it ain't going to happen with present legal and FAA.

Why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:00

Username Protected wrote:

I'd love to see a world where people are flying jets all over the place. But it ain't going to happen with present legal and FAA.

Why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:02

Ill bet a tank of gas it gets certified by Jan 1 2018.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:03

Username Protected wrote:

Certification costs and liability costs driving operations and acquisitions costs to the point where the cost of entry and operations places the required income bracket too high for many.

Your point is moot. Not everyone can afford a Ferrari either and it has nothing to do with the FAA or certification costs.

It's hardly worth debating.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:05

Username Protected wrote:

I'd love to see a world where people are flying jets all over the place. But it ain't going to happen with present legal and FAA.

Why?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:08

Username Protected wrote:

Economics 101

Why wouldn't you buy one? Economics/mission

There's no fricking reason for that plane or any plane to be that expensive. Except costs to certify and liabilities. Of course other factors apply. At a commercial level people get greedy and make crap. Now you're starting to see the real problem.

You're too far "out there" for me Sam. In your world EXPENSIVE = GREEDY.

I don't believe in the word "greed". You're creating your own road block in life.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:10

A three bedroom two bath 2000 sq ft apartment in my neighborhood just sold for 7 m. It isnt even a comp. Another apartment a block away sold for 55 m, within days.
Townhouses in Manhattan valued at five million in 2007 are worth 15. In brooklyn they are going for 4-5 m and there are thousands. The money in this city is unreal. Ive lived here my whole life and Ive never seen so many with so much money.
2 million for a car like jet? Why not?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Dec 2014, 11:18

Username Protected wrote:

A three bedroom two bath 2000 sq ft apartment in my neighborhood just sold for 7 m. It isnt even a comp. Another apartment a block away sold for 55 m, within days.
Townhouses in Manhattan valued at five million in 2007 are worth 15. In brooklyn they are going for 4-5 m and there are thousands.

Those people are just greedy. If they weren't greedy they'd sell their homes at a price everyone could afford.

Cirrus SF50