You aren't spending $2M to go 110 knots in a headwind, either.

Planes that fly in the flight levels HAVE TO GO FAST. Period. If you don't, they can be torture to get anywhere reliably.

Flight planning this slow, fuel thirsty jet is going to be "fun". If you want to make a meeting somewhere, you really have a hard time knowing when you have to leave until you have reliable winds aloft. The winds could easily add a fuel stop on even fairly short flights.

Mike C.

I can run faster in my Aerostar for the same fuel flow, and I can run a lot faster if I want. Plus I can carry a lot more. Like over a 1000lbs useful load with full fuel.

Tim

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.

Um.... not so sure about that. Fixed costs don't matter in the decision to go slower to save fuel, since they are, well, fixed. So the variable costs are all that matter. My airplane's mx costs are around $200/hr, reserves about $100/hr (though engine o/h is so far away it's almost not worth counting in my case), and fuel cost is around $400/hr (though getting lower recently, yay!). So it isn't free to slow down, but there is a tradeoff. Particularly if you save a cycle by avoiding a stop.

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.

Let's flip this, Mike. You are looking at it exactly backwards than most do... now. I'll agree that not all would be fatalities. But you have to agree that all were successful. 50 for 50. 100%. Do you not find that remarkable? Most of us do.

You also have to recognize a stunning safety record over the last three years. And it keeps getting better! It coincides with more pulls. 11 for this year, if I remember correctly. Out of 11, by the way.

Why are you so resistant to the benefit?

To the second quoted paragraph - yes, there was A failed deployment within parameters. Only one, I am 99% sure. There was a second at an estimated 300 KTAS that failed. I'm only guessing that's the other you remember.

And, yes, the one that failed within parameters landed without event. But when he pulled, he was disoriented while in IMC and hard rain. That's not an argument for the ineffectiveness of the chute. It was a time to pull.

Four CAPS deployments occurred successfully at higher speeds, 168, 171, 187 and 190 knots indicated airspeed.

But it's not just within the parameters. No person has died when the CAPS system deployed above 1000 feet above ground and below Vne airspeed of 200 knots indicated.

So, sure, not all of them would have died. But I am stunned anyone would stay on your side of the argument. 50 for 50. 103 people walked away. It's now the safest x-country piston plane in the fleet.

What's the issue?

I don't consider it denigration; just an engineer naysayer mentality. And there's a place for it and a place to move forward anyway. I've never been afraid of failure; only way to learn sometimes when you're going off into virgin territory. but I've damned sure learned to learn from others mistakes. Whew. Perhaps the marketing has been over pitched as in the past, and this did cost people lives. Now that's a different consideration.

I can run faster in my Aerostar for the same fuel flow, and I can run a lot faster if I want. Plus I can carry a lot more. Like over a 1000lbs useful load with full fuel.

Tim

If most accidents are the result of pilot error, why not have a device which helps mitigate? Is the answer to car accidents more training or ABS, seatbelts, and traction control?

I can run faster in my Aerostar for the same fuel flow, and I can run a lot faster if I want. Plus I can carry a lot more. Like over a 1000lbs useful load with full fuel.

Tim

Ladies love a guy with a jet. You don't gotta be 65 to enjoy the benefits either.

Ciholas, why you so defensive about owning a Mits? Nobody is challenging your Mits ownership. I own the ugliest airplane in the world and the Ladies still hop right on. It's so bad I have to hand some of them off to my friends. Not enough hours in the day. If I had a jet it would be downright unmanageable.

You don't have to badmouth every plane more expensive than a Mits.

Todd W., Glenn S,

Yes, I know the Aerostar is not new. Yes, I know it is not a jet. I just thought it a funny point of comparison. (Yes, I would take a SF50 over the Aerostar any day because I only go 350 miles with one or two small passengers now).

Tim

Agree. I was just bantering since this seems to be the new purpose of this thread

Agree. I was just bantering since this seems to be the new purpose of this thread

Beech Bros own the mile high club.....and frankly it ain't the fellas in the jets, it's the v-tail fellas having the best luck....mainly cause of the tail.....

There's a reason that they're in such high demand......the airplane....and of course the pilots......