I feel pretty dumb after reading this dudes bio. Yeh, i graduated summa cum laude but i fix teeth for a living. This guy went to MIT.

Mike

I don't think anyone is questioning his credibility.

Here is what Cirrus says about SF50 training requirements:

Training

It is expected that the pilot will be Instrument qualified with at least a couple hundred hours in a Cirrus SR22 or other modern hi performance single. Currency with the Cirrus Perspective system and flying an SR22T in the Flight Levels is ideal.

An FAA type rating will be required because the SF50 is powered by a jet engine. The type rating is conducted by an examiner after completing all training requirements. The checkride has commonalities to an instrument check ride, but standards and tolerances are slightly higher. Depending on total time and experience, some mentor time may be required by the insurance companies.

Makes the type rating sound pretty easy.

Sadly, I don't qualify, lacking 200 hours in a Cirrus or "modern" single. Oh well.

Mike C.

So Mike. Is the future of flying with robots?

Type rating rides are a check ride, but not impossible. If you can't pass the type ride (which is to ATP PTS, even if not getting your ATP) you really don't have any business being turned loose in the jet yet.

I've passed a couple, can't be that hard!

No one who has worked any time with robots wants to be in a plane they are piloting.

Mike C.

Mike C.

I think I see part of an issue. For me and many pilots I have discussed the Cirrus chute with there is a fundamental premise. For some types of flying, e.g. night or low IMC, we want an option in case of a mechanical failure in an engine. The purpose of the option is to get me and any passengers safely down to the ground.

The airplane is insured, so if it is wrecked

Therefore from a mission and risk perspective, when flying over 99% of this country a Cirrus is given the same risk management by pilots as those flying twins. You and a few others keep comparing the Cirrus to other single engine aircraft, this is a bad comparison from a risk perspective.

I will fly a Cirrus or a my Aerostar at night, in IMC, over mountains. I will not fly a TTx in those conditions, in fact I want to be able to see the valley floor from a few thousand feet in the day to fly a TTx. Why? So I have an option about where to crash. In the Cirrus, I set down rather gently, in the Aerostar I just fly to VMC (I hope, IMC if I must) airport on a single engine.

I believe it was you who stated there were also pressurization issues, with a single turbine when you lose the turbine you lose pressurization. With the SR22, Cirrus has already shown how an automated hypoxia system works. I would expect Cirrus to do the same thing with the SF50. These are the kinds of answers to many of the new additional risks introduced by the jet that I expect Cirrus to utilize.

I also do not expect the plane to make sense compared to many other legacy aircraft. But if you are looking at new planes, you have a very limited selection. A Baron $1.6 Million, a Meridian at roughly $1.8 Million, A TBM at $3.7 Million.... At the roughly $2 Million price range for new aircraft, the available aircraft selection is already a series compromises. Therefore, Cirrus just has to be OK on the operational numbers and reasonable close in terms of utility to the few choices in the same price range. Is it the best choice, I doubt it; is it the most efficient, I doubt it; does it make economical sense compared to a used Mustang, hell no. Will it sell? Very likely.

Tim

No one who has worked any time with robots wants to be in a plane they are piloting.

Mike C.

You do realize there is nothing "gentle" when the Cirrus contacts the ground under parachute, right? It is designed to be "survivable", not "comfortable". We're talking spinal injuries, etc. And that's if it hits and stays upright, if it's on a steep slope the initial contact may not kill you but the tumbling afterward might. Or in a stiff wind, same thing.

It's not something to be taken lightly. I would not use the word "gentle" when describing the process.

Earlier in this thread, it was put forth that the chute obviated the need for a second engine. That is, in fact, how this thread got tangled in the chute question.

I very much disagree. I think a second engine is very much more useful than a chute, particularly on a jet where the penalties for having a second engine are virtually nil and the benefits huge.

An analogy would be a turbocharged piston single whose altitude is limited to 6,000 ft. That makes as much sense as a jet limited to FL250.


Exactly, the chute is added capability. It doesn't make the Cirrus safer, it makes the Cirrus more useful, because the pilot takes more risk knowing he has it.

Only problem is, people overrated the chute benefit, so they made the airplane a bit too "useful" and ended up not being saved by the chute.


Only if the FAA concurs. The regs are the regs. As it is now, I expect the SF50 will get FL250 ceiling. They may be able to finagle up to FL280. Above that is extremely doubtful.


It would have made more sense as a twin. Larger market, more reliable systems, longer range, lower cost to operate, more safety.

I'll wait for the SF100 twin jet, if Cirrus manages to get that far.

Mike C.

You do realize there is nothing "gentle" when the Cirrus contacts the ground under parachute, right? It is designed to be "survivable", not "comfortable". We're talking spinal injuries, etc. And that's if it hits and stays upright, if it's on a steep slope the initial contact may not kill you but the tumbling afterward might. Or in a stiff wind, same thing.

It's not something to be taken lightly. I would not use the word "gentle" when describing the process.

Or worse, you "land" in water.

That has the effect of negating almost all of the landing gear energy absorption as the gear legs will just punch through the water and not crumple.

Speaking of which, will activating the SF50 chute automatically extend the landing gear?

It seems to me it would have to otherwise the "landing" under chute will be brutal as you pancake directly on the airframe belly. Not only does this lead to spinal injuries, I think it would increase the chance of busting open the wings carrying one ton of jet fuel.

Then the question becomes under what circumstances would you deploy the chute but the gear won't come down? Does the gear run on engine driven hydraulics? Then engine flame out might mean no gear unless the pilot pumps it down manually. Or an electrical problem prevents electrically driven gear from falling. Some sort of free fall or blow down gear system would be best if gear down is part of the chute concept.

If the chute deployment checklist requires the pilot to extend the gear manually (either by normal or emergency means), that is probably not something a passenger is going to do.

Mike C.

You do realize there is nothing "gentle" when the Cirrus contacts the ground under parachute, right? It is designed to be "survivable", not "comfortable". We're talking spinal injuries, etc. And that's if it hits and stays upright, if it's on a steep slope the initial contact may not kill you but the tumbling afterward might. Or in a stiff wind, same thing.

It's not something to be taken lightly. I would not use the word "gentle" when describing the process.

Equivalent to falling to the ground from 13 ft high.

Doesn't sound so nice now, does it?

There have been back injuries from CAPS deployment.


Wrong direction. Sliding along the ground is not hitting a brick wall.

Mike C.

Why do people assume you are going to land in a field of daisy's on a sunny day?

Good chance it will be night time maybe stormy. Landing zone could be on top of a high rise, side of a mountain, into a river or lake, on top of a tree, high tension power lines, or simply in the middle nowhere!