Turboprop is not a jet. Flying a twin turboprop is very much different than a single.

For a jet, not so much. You lack all of the negatives of having a prop, for example having Vmc, identifying which engine failed, feathering the right prop.

So the Europe difference doesn't tell us anything about a twin versus single jet.


A twin jet is easier than a single turboprop and way easier than a twin turboprop. These potential pilots of limited ability should seek a twin jet or stay out of turbines altogether.


A TBM would be harder to fly than a twin SF50.


Very little of this is related to engines.

Most of it is configurations, avionics, systems, procedures. Being a twin jet puts no additional burden on the pilot for all of that.


I am saying this target audience is corrupted by piston think, or perhaps prop think.


Then they have no business flying a jet regardless of engine count. The price of admission is regular and intense training to maintain currency.


New complex aircraft require a commitment to training.

If the buyers of the SF50 are thinking they can be lesser pilots and get away with, then that's a recipe for disaster.

Cirrus has already tested the "fly our high performance simple airplane with a chute to protect you" tactic. Result? More intense training 10 years into a bad accident record.

Mike C.

Mike,

My point was in reply to your prior comment "A type rating is a type rating. The pilots will have to perform to standard. Single or twin, FL280 or FL410, 300 or 400 knots, really doesn't make that much difference" - I only mentioned European type ratings as an illustration of a regime in which TRs extend to simpler aircraft including light turboprops. My point is that whilst type ratings are all to the same test standards, the difficulty a typical private pilot will have in meeting those standards varies considerably across single-pilot turbine types. People who can comfortably meet type rating standards in a Meridian may struggle in a CJ2 or a Premier 1. If the Europe example isn't helpful, ignore it.


It's that there are many factors (some subtle and diffuse) that determine the "ease" of a type other than its jet vs TP, single vs twin configuration. There are also many factors that affect an individual pilot's comfort level. Aircraft and pilots aren't as binary as you suggest.

In reply to that you said

I agree, and I would add performance to that list.

But going back to your prior quote "A twin jet is easier than a single turboprop and way easier than a twin turboprop.", I'd say that's false, especially in regard to the twin jet vs single turboprop.

But, I am not going to reply point-by-point. We are arguing at cross-purposes.

I think your main point is that if the SF50 was a twin jet design that flew higher, it would be a better airplane and no more demanding to fly.

My main point is different. It is that if and when the SF50 launches, its design will have an appeal because it is likely to fit favourably amongst the existing (new and used) light turbine aircraft in terms of accessibility of training and proficiency for its target market. This factor will overcome some of its performance and fuel efficiency deficiencies, so I think it will be more of a success than you think.

"What they could have designed instead of the SF50" is an engineering question I won't debate because I am not qualified. One observation however, is that I found your arguments about why a single jet engine solution was likely to be as expensive as a twin jet alternative unconvincing. The thesis has been tested to a degree in turboprops and I don't see single PT6 applications exhibiting overhaul and liability penalties to the extent you suggest. I think they will have kept the price and maintenance cost down by choosing a single jet and parachute design.


Again, cross-purposes. If I want to argue that a single engine SF50 is easier to fly than a hypothetical twin engine TF52 or whatever, that's what I will type in a post. But I haven't typed that.
My point is on the overall market outlook for the SF50; that it will be more accessible for a private pilot to achieve and maintain appropriate proficiency than in existing new and used twin jets.

Don't get me wrong, that "accessibility" carries a risk. We know that often when a new design has made a certain mission profile or capability available with greater "accessibility" and/or capability appeal, it has a higher accident rate for a period. A lot of intrinsically safe designs suffered from this (Bonanza, C337, PA46, R22, SR20/22). I suspect that Cirrus are more than aware of this, and that the initial and recurrent training regime will be very carefully crafted to this end. The fact it needs a Type Rating is probably a good thing.

You are being very "binary" about this, almost absurdly so. Of course any aircraft needs a commitment to training. But a simpler aircraft needs less commitment. My rather benign C90 needs less commitment than your MU2 I suspect, and certainly less than a Premier 1. So if I choose a C90 over a Premier 1 for that reason, am I a lesser-pilot-recipe-for-disaster? Or am I responsibly choosing a type that suits me?

Which of your views does this point advance? The Cirrus has been a massive market success!
No-one has said the SF50 will be the safest turbine out there. We have mainly been debating the market outlook for the SF50 and design choices. The SF50 won't achieve the excellent safety record of, say, the Eclipse or Mustang. Of course not. I suspect it will bring pilots into the turbine market that otherwise would have stayed out of it and that will carry the same risks the SR series did. I think Cirrus will have learned a huge amount and will make a huge effort to mitigate that risk.

So what point are you making - do you think the SF50 will succeed and have a high accident rate (in an analogy to the SR series) OR do you think the SF50 will fail because people aren't attracted to it because they don't "buy" the proposition the way you don't?

On a side note, I assume Mitsubishi never marketed the MU2 as a dangerous airplane? Yet, for a period, it had a poor accident record. Of course, the airplane was intrinsically safe, but the capability it brought at low price point attracted a higher risk mission profile that operators didn't train for adequately. There's some analogy with the SR22 there!

I am very late to this party and have no patience to read through 79 pages of it, so I will just voice my opinion on two totally separate topics being discussed.

1. SF50 will be by far cheapest new jet you can buy. If it gets certified, it will sell well based on that fact alone. End of story.

2. Chute adds much bigger safety benefit than 2nd engine. 2nd engine only helps in the instance of engine failure. Chute performs as well or better in that eventuality, but it is also a life saver in cases where second engine provides no benefit, e.g. fuel exhaustion/contamination, control surface failure, pilot incapacitation, mid-air, etc.

That's all, folks.

Hardly the end of story. Being the cheapest is no guarantee of success.

That second engine is no small thing when your only engine quits 400 miles offshore with 15ft seas. Parachute or not you still have to survive until S&R can find you.
I do like the idea of the parachute for pilot incapacitation but not so much for mid-Air's at FL260 and 250kts, probably not going to survive those.

Hardly the end of story. Being the cheapest is no guarantee of success.

That second engine is no small thing when your only engine quits 400 miles offshore with 15ft seas. Parachute or not you still have to survive until S&R can find you.
I do like the idea of the parachute for pilot incapacitation but not so much for mid-Air's at FL260 and 250kts, probably not going to survive those.

Frick Mon! You can't get away that easy! We need triple digits!

In all fairness, we are not talking ETOPS here. 400 miles offshore? 50 miles between FLL and Grand Bahama is more likely, and it's no problem. Exit the plane. Inflate the raft. Get in. Wait.

And what's the problem with mid-air at FL260?

When's the last time there was a midair in the flight levels? Near an airport? Sure but in the flight levels? Pretty dumb reason to buy a plane with a chute.

When's the last time there was a midair in the flight levels? Near an airport? Sure but in the flight levels? Pretty dumb reason to buy a plane with a chute.

For those who can barely afford the SF50, high operating costs will be a factor.


Not true.

Provides additional pressurization source. Provides redundant electrical power. Provides redundant bleed air for boots.

For example, a generator failure in an SF50 is an immediate diversion and landing running on limited battery power, might have to manually lower gear, too. Hope you are near an airport when this happens. A generator failure in a twin is a minor nuisance.


No it doesn't.

The second engine allows you to fly to a safe landing with no damage to the airplane nor any injuries to the passengers. Remember this IS NOT A PISTON TWIN. How often do I have to say it before people stop applying piston think to jets?

Engine fails at 100 AGL? Good luck with the chute on that one.


There are some situations where the chute helps.

A chute comforts a pilot to push his fuel limits, so it isn't clear the chute prevents or causes that accident.

In the entire history of the SR20/22 series, there has NEVER been a passenger initiated chute pull. The chance a much smaller SF50 fleet has one is virtually nil.

An airplane can lose any one control surface and still fly.

Mid air is possible, but requires some very specific circumstances: you survive the initial impact, the chute system wasn't damaged, the plane has not exceed Vne, the plane is not wildly out of control that it would foul the chute lines. The recent Sr22 versus R44 mid air is one case where this all did work out.

Unfortunately, the chute engenders riskier behavior by pilots that cancels or exceeds the benefits it provides.

Mike C.

There have been multiple mid airs in flight levels. Marcus mentioned one. DHL plane and Russian airliner in Germany is another one that comes to mind. But it's besides the point. No one argues that possibility of midair in flight levels is what the chute is for. There was a comment that chute won't help in collision at flght levels, and I am asking why so?

There is much speculation in these 79 pages, but on this one I just have to call BS...

There is no proof that it does, but even if it did - it does not matter. I don't care what other people may or may not do with the cute, I only care what it could do for me. I am a conservative pilot and I know that through careful planning I can eliminate most of the safety risks that can be controlled - i.e icing, thunderstorms, CFIT risk, etc. Chute happens to address many risks which cannot be controlled (engine failures, midair, incapacitation). That's the beauty of it.

There are approx 35,000 departures every day in the US that get up to the flight levels in cruise. When's the last time we had a midair here?

Crash in flight levels. Just barely in the FL, by just feet. Hawker 800 vs glider. Hawker all kinds of Fd up. Made it to Reno on remaining engine, gear up. Glider pilot saved by parachute. Not his second engine, fool didn't even have one engine!