The SF50 doesn't need to be better than a CJ2+, it needs to be better than a Meridian. That is where the Cirrus customers with money leak to and Cirrus wants to capture that upgrade market.

I would venture a guess that most twin crashes, just like the preponderance of all crashes, have nothing to do with the number of engines on the ship. I think we're going back and forth about the minority of accidents. Still, that's relevant, because I'm under the impression that most pilots worth their weight don't do stupid pilot tricks (CFIT, run out of gas, skimps on MX, etc...dumb crap that didn't need to happen and/or was self inflicted) and I'm guessing that most people who spend as much time thinking about flying as active Beechtalkers are among the crowd who only get hurt when things out if their control go wrong.

Of that minority, the way I see it is that you can pick your poison. Because we're talking high performance turbines here, I'll use your Pilatus and my MU2 to illustrate.

Poison for twins- Vmc roll.

If you watch your airspeed, you can't Vmc roll. I know Mike C doesn't operate his MU2 this way, but I don't leave the ground until 125KIAS in the MU2; Vtire for the MU2 is 139KIAS, Vxse is 125KIAS, Vmc(flaps 20) is 93KIAS. At 125KIAS, you yank back on the stick and the plane is gone, gone, gone, I mean you suck the gear up a fraction of a second after you break ground because you're at >100'. The gear takes time to come up, but I'm good once it is. I've got about 10 seconds of potential issue here; at gross, I don't know if the thing climbs on one while the gear is in transit. I hope I never find out. Point is, the thing flies so well on one that it's amazing. Three seconds of aileron trim, five shots of rudder, and the airplane feels just like it did on two. Hell, the autopilot is certified to fly an ILS on one even if I couldn't do it. People died in the Mits in large part because the thing was flown by check haulers through everything, no matter what. In smaller part, the training wasn't there; if you clean up the flaps and bank into the engine with the stick, you're screwed, but that doesn't happen anymore because of training.

Single poison- dead stick to crash

If you don't have the altitude you need to find a good spot to land, are over inhospitable terrain, lose any of a number of components that aren't redundant because there's only one motor (electric, pressure, de-ice/ant-ice, etc...), you're boned.

I think we're off the original topic and just doing the single vs. twins safety debate again, lol. If you ever want to go up and shut some motors down, let me know. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, and you'll change your tune for sure.

Debating twin versus single with someone who has no twin experience is pointless. Flying a twin requires a higher level of proficiency, it's no secret. If you aren't comfortable with the risks, don't reap the rewards, simple as that.

Definite thread drift for sure.

Funny, none of those say "pro pilot".

As to ex military, well, here is his obit:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/newsob ... =173532562

Born on April 29, 1948, in Pasadena, California, Dr. Rosenberg grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and completed his undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley. He went on to receive his MD from the University of California Medical School, Davis, in 1975 and an MPH degree in Epidemiology and Biostatistics from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1978. He served as Chief, Reproductive Health Activity at the Centers for Disease Control; Director, Reproductive Epidemiology Division at Family Health International; and Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the American Social Health Association.

Dr. Rosenberg founded Health Decisions, Inc., a Clinical Research Organization, in 1989...

Not a lot of time in his life story to be a military pilot and one would think that would be mentioned.

This is the same guy who totaled a TBM at the same airport by stalling it and losing control. That's two nice airplanes destroyed for anyone keeping count.

Your effort to make this pilot sound impressive has failed. Move on.

Mike C.

Disagree.

Truth doesn't care who speaks it, even from the inexperienced.


In a jet, it mostly doesn't. The things that bite people in piston or turboprop twins don't exist in jets. No Vmc roll over. No prop to feather. No feathering the wrong engine. No barely able to fly performance. If you can keep the ball centered with rudder, you can fly a twin jet on one engine. If you can't keep the ball centered, you're not a pilot, even with only one engine.


Not really, the heart of the matter is the fact that twin jet is easy, twin piston is not, and the false transfer of that understanding to the SF-50.

Mike C.

Twin piston is easy if you've got the training and the right one. I'll put my A* 700 against a Cheyenne 1 or 1a single engine any day of the week. It's a matter of HP and airframe.

All pistons are not created equal.

I'll put words in mikes mouth, but it seems he was comparing propeller twins to jets mostly. Prop management is the tricky part and what makes jet flying so easy

True story - I took an eclipse demo ride in the backseat. Demo pilot slowly pulled throttle to idle on one engine. Neither I or right seater noticed!

Mike, my comments are based on past experiences here on BT as regards the single vs twin debate. I'll leave it at that.

My comments were also pointed towards piston twins. V1 cuts in jets are not necessarily a big deal, but they can be with the right ingredients. You can put yourself in a position where climbing at V2 doesn't get the climb rate that you need and you will be feeling just about the same as a piston twin. Performance is performance, you have it or you don't. Put a jet into it's last 25% of useful load and most of the time you will see dismal climb gradients.

CJ, Phenoms, Gulfstreams, etc.. None of them depart Aspen and meet the climb gradients single engine and heavy.

There is a lot less to do in a jet, more to think about. In the piston it's the opposite, you have much more to do (physically) and less to think about.

What do you think is the least proficient maneuver and most likely to kill someone in a jet? Abnormal ops, not normal.

Predominately the same reasons as singles, stupid or inadequate pilots.


Then your sim instructor isn't doing you any favors.

Next sim session, ILS 21L KPDK, autopilot offline, primary PFD blank (or AI dead if steam), on backup instruments, raw data ILS, ceilings 300 ft, 1 mile viz, low fuel, alternate below mins, and no nose gear light at the marker.

It is supposed to be HARD in the sim and EASY in real life, not the other way around.

Mike C.

It may not even meet that standard.

It is about twice the fuel for any given mission.

The Meridian can fly at least 2,000 ft higher.

Payload with full fuel will probably be similar if not less for the SF50.

If they only get FL250, then things get even worse for the SF50 with lower speed, more fuel, less range, less ceiling.

It says something that the smallest, slowest SETP out there is as good as the SF50.


Piper delivered only about 30 Meridians for all of 2014.

If 10 of them are SR owners upgrading, I would be surprised.

If that's the SF50 market, Cirrus is doomed.

Mike C.

Cirrus pilots leak a lot of places and have a lot of used SETP options. An "accessible" jet could pull many more sales than meridian numbers suggest.

It may not even meet that standard.

This is the sort of demo that cures piston think.

Go to 3:14 to see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdzCVgPdPg

Okay, now do THAT in a piston twin.

Get it now?

Mike C.

Disagree.

Truth doesn't care who speaks it, even from the inexperienced.


Mike C.

This is the sort of demo that cures piston think.

Go to 3:14 to see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdzCVgPdPg

Okay, now do THAT in a piston twin.

Get it now?

Mike C.