Probably 0% of controllers fly a MU-2, they don't know what you can or cannot do other than generally. Pilots are required to know the rules that apply to them and when a controller tells you to do something you can't or isn't legal you are required to say unable. That is drilled into pilots from day 1 of flight instruction.
Likewise the vast majority of pilots aren't controllers and would not be expected to know the various rules and regs controllers have to abide by. Both parties saying unable happens everyday.



Compared to the other posts you've made in this thread this one shows a stunning lack of knowledge.

You are unbelievable. You run from my bet which is totally legitimate. You also refuse to counter my bet.

I don't know when this thing will be certified. Your bet up there is a "cop out".

DayJet déjà vu.

Now the question will be how many of the supposed 500 SF50 sales are AirShares. I wouldn't expect that many, maybe in the 20-30 range.

Mike C.

Controllers at KMDW are familiar with them, they fly cargo in and out there often. That's probably why they asked for the speed. Those freight dogs like to go fast, even when they eject a turbine wheel or two (another story, someday...).


Thanks for complimenting my other posts!

Mike C.

FIFY!

Your bet is as legitimate as "I bet humans will colonize the moon".

Maybe you will have more success with that one. Might need to find people who are less sharp than those around here.

Mike C.

JC,

Mike did provide the basis for a bet. Not terms you are willing to accept though, largely due to the certification time variable. So give a counter?
May I suggest something like certified by end of 2017 and 100 in customer hands within 24 months of certification?

Tim

Perfect!

Mike C.

Mike C.

I am one of the twin or chute guys you referenced. For a lot of risks, I view the chute as operational as safe or safer then a twin. There are trade offs with both, but both provide an option for specific risks that I like to mitigate.

I do a lot of flying at night; in fact if you exclude training time, almost 75% of my flying is at night and it is generally over mountains or a city (mostly east coast). As such, if there are fog conditions (common where I lived in TN or now in NH) or low layers of stratus (where I lived in the mid atlantic) flying at night leaves you very limited options in the case of an engine failure in a traditional singe engine airplane. The chute or a second engine provide an almost equal level of risk mitigation in these situations.

How is a Cirrus less capable then a Baron or a Twin Comanche for these flights?

When you consider icing situations, this is a completely different analysis. For icing you often want climb power, and nothing does like brute force. And here is where two engines may be a better choice, but it does come down to climb rate, ability to cary ice, ability to shed/prevent ice. And this is very airplane specific, but as a general rule. Twin engine aircraft are generally more capable here, this is largely due the excess horse power combined with being larger more capable aircraft. Therefore within its limitations when dealing with icing conditions, which will help you get on the ground safely in case of mechanical failure? I would actually say the Cirrus, reason is a twin has lost on average 80% of its performance and that is not enough to deal with many icing situations.

Next analysis would be with thunderstorms. Here, the twin will win. If you are 40 miles downwind of a thunderstorm running parallel to the front in the 12K level and lose an engine. The twin will likely have a better choice of outcome to turn away from the storm and get down safely, while the Cirrus may get beat around as it settles to the ground by gusting wind.

Win some lose some. Instead of generic assertions that Cirrus pilots are courting extra danger for a plane which cannot meet the mission, you may want to analyze the mission and the risks which are being mitigated.

Tim

How can a chute provide thrust to another airport??

It provides a safe landing. That is the goal, to get down in one piece safely.

Tim

Not sure that chuting into fog at night over a city is really a safe landing. I also think bones are somewhat frequently broken. Its surely better than nothing but for a safe landing after a motor craps out at night a twin would surely be my choice.

You suggested a chute would provide a equal level of Risk mitigation. Are you changing that statement.

I dont believe landing under a chute is safe. Maybe safer than crashing, but i will take a on airport landing anytime.

You are unbelievable. You run from my bet which is totally legitimate. You also refuse to counter my bet.

I don't know when this thing will be certified. Your bet up there is a "cop out".

Safe yes, you can almost always walk away. Bones heal, and that is very rare in the NTSB reports I have read (I read a lot of them when shopping for planes).

All things considered, I do prefer a twin. But when I look at the goal of getting to the ground safely with at most minor injuries, both provide that solution.

Tim