Whaaaaaaat - never been to a funny car drag race???

(welcome back),

Chip-

The initial design was the autopilot would automatically try to salvage the attitude and airspeed first, then the chute is deployed.

The SB disables the automatic autopilot part of the CAPS deployment, so that no longer happens. Now the pilot is asked to put the airplane within the chute envelope before pulling the CAPS.

The heavy implication is that if you are outside the CAPS envelope, you run the risk of the chute malfunctioning.

If the pilot can put the airplane inside the chute envelope, attitude, altitude, and speed, are you truly in danger?

As my list of private jet accidents reveals, jets rarely have fatal accidents when inside the chute envelope. The chute would have helped none of the cases so far this year.

Mike C.

If the engine fails, you have no pressurization or heat.


If you are at FL280, *AND* have the airplane under sufficient control to execute an emergency descent, why would you pull the chute?

From FL280, your glide range is such that you would be able to glide to an airport unless you are way out to sea.

The prerequisites for a chute pull are basically the same as the airplane not being in danger. You have altitude and you have control of attitude and airspeed.

Mike C.

And you have an unsure or not guaranteed safe landing.

Tim

The new Denali (SETP) will be certified to FL310.....

https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali

It is too bad we don't have visibility into the OEM costs here, but I believe this isn't true.

That is, buying one FJ33 from Williams is about the same price as buying two PW610F from PWC. Williams has to price in added liability as an engine failure in a single is far more liability than in a twin. Further, it would be using an already developed engine on the shelf instead of a custom unique one with low volume expectations.

The near equal cost is particularly true when you consider the additional costs for being an SEJ including extra development time, the chute, and all the V tail control mechanisms (such as the dual yaw dampers).

In the end, total dollars in and out, Cirrus would be ahead if the SF50 was a twin. They would also sell more of them which amortizes the development costs over more units.

Mike C.

Mike if I use your scenario I wouldn't buy a CJ either - they crash way more than Cirrus and other jets.

4/2/2018: CJ hits 152 on landing in Marion, IN. Chute useless for that.

4/15/2018: CJ hits mountain in Crozet, VA while scud running in low weather. Chute useless for that. Darwin award entry #1

8/13/2018: CJ hits house in Payson City, UT, suicide with attempted murder. Chute useless for that. That woman really pissed him off - Darwin contestant #2

10/4/2018: Falcon 50 runs off end of runway at Greensboro, SC. Chute useless for that.
Leading candidates for the Darwin award these two "pilots"

11/30/2018: CJ loses control sometime during initial climb, Jeffersonville, IN. Chute useless for that due to high speed of event all the way to the ground. maybe the cirrus computer kicks in and saves the day?

Once again Cirrus isn't trying to enter the twin engine business jet market - there are a lot of players in that space already. Even the "new business jets" look just like the old business jets. As for single engine versus twin - we've beat that to death - what's your risk tolerance? TBM, Pilatus, Piper, Cessna (Denali) finding single engine buyers everyday. Not many engine failures.....

For SF50 Version 1.0 I believe Cirrus has found a new niche.... Wonder what Version 2.0 will entail...

Peace,
Don

A multi engine jet somewhere in the world shuts down an engine nearly every day.

And you never hear about it because having a second engine provides safety.

Nobody else builds a single engine jet for this reason.

If you doubt a second jet engine adds safety, ask yourself if you would board a Boeing or Airbus if it had only one engine.

In the jet world, a second engine increases safety, speed, altitude, range, and efficiency. Cirrus doesn't know that, or at least they didn't when they started the SF-50 project.

Mike C.

There is a doctoral student somewhere that would give a LOT to use this thread as a dissertation basis for something along the lines of belief perseverance, cognitive bias and/or attitude polarization.

Which shows that you still can’t fix stupid. However, how many events became non-events because of a second engine? That’s an important stat that can’t be looked up.

Mike's arguments can all be true and the SF50 can still be viable, appealing and successful. There seems to be some prevailing idea on both sides of this argument that both can't be true or that the sales disprove the engineering or vice versa.

Cirrus set to design a slow jet, that wasn't terribly efficient with limited range that was also easy to fly and relatively cheap. Thus far they have succeeded and it appears the project will be successful.

Which shows that you still can’t fix stupid. However, how many events became non-events because of a second engine? That’s an important stat that can’t be looked up.

423

and counting....ad nauseam

I agree that both sides can be right, but the sf50 is in no way a proven success yet. To know that we would have to know their margins and financials. After all presumably the point of the jet is to make money, right?

Actually, you need to define success first.

Tim