banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 16:38 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 09:18 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
As I mentioned before, in case of airframe failure, the plane is not going to be in a smooth dive, it will be tumbling and it’s speed will be quite low.

Like the 414 in Yorba Linda? Nope, came down at super high speed, so fast it shed both engines.

From breakup to ground was way less than 30 seconds. Chute would have never deployed had it been equipped as the SF50 is.

Most in flight breakups end up with a plane becoming a lawn dart and reaching excessive speeds.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 09:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 727
Post Likes: +340
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
Hello all,

Joel here. I am type-rated in the Vision Jet and have flown the aircraft for the past year and a half with approx. 325 hours in the aircraft. Hopefully I can provide some clarity on some of the questions and common misconceptions.



2) Regarding Mike C's comment about CAPS:

The 30 second timer does not have to expire for the deployment to happen. It's simply a window. 135 IAS / 145 TAS is the maximum deployment speed. If the aircraft is already at/OR BELOW that speed, the deployment happens immediately. The logic is designed to measure speed trends every few seconds. For example, in the event of a mid-air collision where a component of the airframe is damaged, the logic first measures present speed, if less than/or equal to 135 IAS or 145 TAS, the deployment happens immediately regardless of a timer. If greater than 135 IAS or 145 TAS, the auto pilot makes an attempt to slow the aircraft by first leveling the wings then pitching up. However, it is measuring trends every few seconds. If the aircraft is trending in the wrong direction, going faster rather than slower, it does not wait for 30 seconds to expire, but deploys immediately. The system is designed to give you the best possible outcome. Again, to re-emphasize, assuming you are "low-and-slow" the deployment happens immediately. If you pull the handle at 300 knots, yes, it could take up to 30 seconds to pitch up and slow the aircraft down.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 10:46 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6844
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
Like the 414 in Yorba Linda? Nope, came down at super high speed, so fast it shed both engines.

From breakup to ground was way less than 30 seconds. Chute would have never deployed had it been equipped as the SF50 is.

Most in flight breakups end up with a plane becoming a lawn dart and reaching excessive speeds.

Do you have the actual descent rate data for Yorba Linda accident? I am particularly interested in the descent rate after it shed the engines.

Here is an accident where we have the data.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... /83886/pdf

The NTSB Performance Study indicates that based on radar returns between 1233:40 and 1234:00, the bank angle increased from 50 degrees to approximately 100 degrees, while the radar data indicates that for the approximate same time frames, the airplane descended from FL249 to FL226. The right descending turn continued and between 1233:59, and 1234:12, the airplane descended from 22,600 to 16,700, and a change to a southerly heading was noted. The NTSB Performance Study indicates that the maximum positive load factor of 4.6 occurred at 1234:08, while the NTSB Electronic Device Factual Report indicates that the maximum recorded airspeed value of 338 knots recorded by the EIS occurred at 1234:14. The next recoded airspeed value 1 second later was noted to be zero. Simultaneous to the zero airspeed a near level altitude of 15,292 feet was noted.
Between 1234:22, and 1234:40, the radar data indicated a change in direction to a northeast occurred and the airplane descended from 13,300 to 9,900 feet. The airplane continued generally in a northeasterly direction and between 1234:40 and 1235:40 (last secondary radar return), the airplane descended from 9,900 to 800 feet.


The airplane gets in a spiral and reaches 338 kts before the break-up. After the break-up, it descends at 9,100 fpm, or 103 mph - well within the chute envelope. That's how a typical airframe failure works.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 13:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/09/18
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +456
Location: Tucson, AZ
Aircraft: 1980 TR182
I’d say we start a new thread named “Mike and Yuri Disagree — About Everything”.

_________________
Stan Kartchner
Tucson, AZ (KRYN]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 16:23 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 11/22/08
Posts: 2914
Post Likes: +921
Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory
Location: Dayton, OH
Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
Username Protected wrote:
Like the 414 in Yorba Linda? Nope, came down at super high speed, so fast it shed both engines.

From breakup to ground was way less than 30 seconds. Chute would have never deployed had it been equipped as the SF50 is.

Most in flight breakups end up with a plane becoming a lawn dart and reaching excessive speeds.

Do you have the actual descent rate data for Yorba Linda accident? I am particularly interested in the descent rate after it shed the engines.

Here is an accident where we have the data.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... /83886/pdf

The NTSB Performance Study indicates that based on radar returns between 1233:40 and 1234:00, the bank angle increased from 50 degrees to approximately 100 degrees, while the radar data indicates that for the approximate same time frames, the airplane descended from FL249 to FL226. The right descending turn continued and between 1233:59, and 1234:12, the airplane descended from 22,600 to 16,700, and a change to a southerly heading was noted. The NTSB Performance Study indicates that the maximum positive load factor of 4.6 occurred at 1234:08, while the NTSB Electronic Device Factual Report indicates that the maximum recorded airspeed value of 338 knots recorded by the EIS occurred at 1234:14. The next recoded airspeed value 1 second later was noted to be zero. Simultaneous to the zero airspeed a near level altitude of 15,292 feet was noted.
Between 1234:22, and 1234:40, the radar data indicated a change in direction to a northeast occurred and the airplane descended from 13,300 to 9,900 feet. The airplane continued generally in a northeasterly direction and between 1234:40 and 1235:40 (last secondary radar return), the airplane descended from 9,900 to 800 feet.


The airplane gets in a spiral and reaches 338 kts before the break-up. After the break-up, it descends at 9,100 fpm, or 103 mph - well within the chute envelope. That's how a typical airframe failure works.


Great, I am going to hang on for the ride of a lifetime. Wait for the airplane to break apart at over 300 kts, then wait a little longer for it to slow down so the parachute might bring me softly to earth. Provided of course the chute is still attached to the portion of the plane I am sitting in. Nawwww, I think I will pass on that thrill ride.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 19:14 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Provided of course the chute is still attached to the portion of the plane I am sitting in.

You need more than the chute. You need all the electronics and sensors and power that goes with "chute by wire". Any of that damaged, you may not get the chute even after 30 seconds.

Quote:
Nawwww, I think I will pass on that thrill ride.

Don't worry, the chute on the SF50 will be so rarely used that it won't matter. It will have a negligible impact on safety, perhaps even slightly negative for carrying around its extra weight.

Why?

1. Well trained pilots who have to pass a 61.58 checkride every year.

2. Turbine engine.

You just eliminated the vast majority of the SR accidents with those two changes.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 22:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/17/12
Posts: 170
Post Likes: +117
Location: Des Moines, IA
Aircraft: CE-525
At my last job they looked at the SF50 (ultimately bought after I left). The BRS was sold entirely for pilot incapacitation. I predict they get a STC to remove it before the first repack for the units with auto land.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 22:57 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6844
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
Great, I am going to hang on for the ride of a lifetime. Wait for the airplane to break apart at over 300 kts, then wait a little longer for it to slow down so the parachute might bring me softly to earth. Provided of course the chute is still attached to the portion of the plane I am sitting in. Nawwww, I think I will pass on that thrill ride.


We are talking about chute deployment in case of airframe failure. If the airplane hasn't broken apart yet, it's not an airframe failure.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 23:06 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6844
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
I’d say we start a new thread named “Mike and Yuri Disagree — About Everything”.


Nah, we mostly just disagree about Cirrus. ;)

To be sure, I very much enjoy debating Mike. It's fun to have a smart and determined opponent in a debate.

It's even more fun when they happen to be wrong. :dancing:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 23:15 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
It's even more fun when they happen to be wrong.

No, its not.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 00:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3576
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
From Rich Pickett’s article:

“With an OAT of 28 degrees Celsius, our density altitude was 9,700 feet. With takeoff flaps and full takeoff power (N1 – 98.6, N2 – 96), we began our departure on Runway 26. With a Vr of 85 KIAS, I rotated in 24 seconds using less than 2,700 feet of runway. At approximately 5,500 pounds, we were below the maximum takeoff weight of 6,000.”

That’s really impressive. The article doesn’t mention the winds, but if the winds were calm that is the same ground roll as my Meridian under those conditions. My reluctance to embrace the SF50 for my mission has been hot/high performance and contaminated runways. Looks like Cirrus may have alleviated one of those concerns. I hope the climb performance is also significantly improved for the first 5 minutes after takeoff. I assume it would be. Can’t wait to pour over the updated performance charts.


But you are comparing the SF50 500 lbs below gross weight to the Meridian at GW. The Meridian 500 lbs below gross will use less runway. Still pretty impressive, but something is not passing the sniff test on those numbers. I trust Rich, but having watched a few SF50 takeoff rolls high and hot :scratch:

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 09:19 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 30426
Post Likes: +10534
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
From Rich Pickett’s article:

“With an OAT of 28 degrees Celsius, our density altitude was 9,700 feet. With takeoff flaps and full takeoff power (N1 – 98.6, N2 – 96), we began our departure on Runway 26. With a Vr of 85 KIAS, I rotated in 24 seconds using less than 2,700 feet of runway. At approximately 5,500 pounds, we were below the maximum takeoff weight of 6,000.”

That’s really impressive. The article doesn’t mention the winds, but if the winds were calm that is the same ground roll as my Meridian under those conditions. My reluctance to embrace the SF50 for my mission has been hot/high performance and contaminated runways. Looks like Cirrus may have alleviated one of those concerns. I hope the climb performance is also significantly improved for the first 5 minutes after takeoff. I assume it would be. Can’t wait to pour over the updated performance charts.


But you are comparing the SF50 500 lbs below gross weight to the Meridian at GW. The Meridian 500 lbs below gross will use less runway. Still pretty impressive, but something is not passing the sniff test on those numbers. I trust Rich, but having watched a few SF50 takeoff rolls high and hot :scratch:

How does the range of a SF50 at 5500 lbs compare with a Meridian at GW-500 assuming the same payload? IOW if you leave 500lbs of fuel behind what's the range of each airplane?

Alternatively, if the Meridian is fueled for the same range as a SF50 while carrying the same payload as a SF50 loaded to 5500 lbs, can it fly just as far?
_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 18:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/11
Posts: 721
Post Likes: +392
Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
Meridian is a pound a mile give or take so 1140-500 would be 640 miles plus about another 75 miles of glide range assuming no wind.

Chip-


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 19:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3576
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
The standard (advertised) Meridian/M500 has 1700 lbs useful load and can carry 1140 lbs of fuel which means full fuel 560 lbs in the cabin. Real world planes are usually optioned a little heavier. You can put an additional 50 lbs of fuel in there, allowed by ramp weight, for taxi. If one were to accidentally take off 50 lbs over-gross the climb rate would be a scary 1540 fpm instead of 1550 fpm, would not try it. ;-) As Chip says, every lb. of fuel you leave behind decreases cruise range by a little under 1nm at normal cruise.

Some of the SF50’s with TKS for FIKi, all the seats and entertainment cabin in place, have full fuel useful loads in the 300’s, so you will likely leave fuel behind if you are traveling with pax. So unfortunately advertising numbers don’t help in the comparison as much as you would hope for. Plus to get the advertised numbers from These airframes, you need pretty unrestricted climbs and descents, to maximum operating altitude, which rarely happens in the real world. You would actually need to look at the weight and balance of specific planes, on real world trips, to get a real answer.

I think of the Meridian as a no apologies 750 nautical mile plane with IFR reserves traveling at an honest 260 KTAS. Cruise fuel burn is 240 to 260 pounds per hour (36-39 gph) depending on altitude. You can improve range 20% by going to economy cruise, but can lose 60+ knots if you pull the power way back. If you fly up into the RVSM airspace, at economy cruise settings, you can easily get no wind 1000 nautical miles with reserves. Get a tail wind, you can get into 1100 to 1200 nautical miles, But you are up in the air a really long time at those economy cruise settings, Traveling at Malibu Mirage speeds.

750 nautical miles in the Meridian, turns out to be a little over 3 hours, landing with an hours fuel reserve. Which also happens to be many peoples bathroom break time.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Anyone here flying a Vision jet?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 21:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +660
Username Protected wrote:
From Rich Pickett’s article:

“With an OAT of 28 degrees Celsius, our density altitude was 9,700 feet. With takeoff flaps and full takeoff power (N1 – 98.6, N2 – 96), we began our departure on Runway 26. With a Vr of 85 KIAS, I rotated in 24 seconds using less than 2,700 feet of runway. At approximately 5,500 pounds, we were below the maximum takeoff weight of 6,000.”

That’s really impressive. The article doesn’t mention the winds, but if the winds were calm that is the same ground roll as my Meridian under those conditions. My reluctance to embrace the SF50 for my mission has been hot/high performance and contaminated runways. Looks like Cirrus may have alleviated one of those concerns. I hope the climb performance is also significantly improved for the first 5 minutes after takeoff. I assume it would be. Can’t wait to pour over the updated performance charts.


But you are comparing the SF50 500 lbs below gross weight to the Meridian at GW. The Meridian 500 lbs below gross will use less runway. Still pretty impressive, but something is not passing the sniff test on those numbers. I trust Rich, but having watched a few SF50 takeoff rolls high and hot :scratch:


Actually, I was using the same 5,500# takeoff weight. I calculate the Meridian to require 3,000’ ground roll at MTW under those conditions. Of course it isn’t an equivalent comparison because a 5,500# Meridian has more range than the SF50 for a given payload, but it’s close. Again this is all assuming zero wind. If Rich’s takeoff data was based on a 15kt headwind the Meridian would have beat the SF50 ground roll by about 500’.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.Marsh.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.