BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:41

Cirrus must be reading BT. Got my invite to the love fest in Scottsdale. I think I'll even get to sit in the FMHC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:43

You wanted apples to apples both are single engine jets. :eek:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:43

Username Protected wrote:

If you compare the SF50 to other single engine jets like the F16 or the F105 it stills comes out poorly!

In what way? You can only compare XC performance and payload available inside the pressure vessel without afterburner. Maximum performance turn rate/radius, energy addition, available load factor and external payload are irrelevant to this discussion of aircraft whose primary mission is XC.

Quote:

I'm sure the original idea on the cocktail napkin made sense to the designer! :crazy:

Wasn't the Viper designed on a napkin?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:45

Tony

This money shot is just for you!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:46

Username Protected wrote:

Tony

This money shot is just for you!

Nice work! I owe you a beer at OSH. Impressed.

Its still slower than the FMHC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 21:55

Username Protected wrote:

Tony

This money shot is just for you!

I'd take that over any cirrus any day. :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 22:12

Username Protected wrote:

Tony

This money shot is just for you!

I'd take that over any cirrus any day. :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 22:42

This one is not as cool, hence my jailhouse crack dealer approach to pawn it off on Crandall! :rock:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 22:59

Username Protected wrote:

This one is not as cool, hence my jailhouse crack dealer approach to pawn it off on Crandall! :rock:

You're totally right... I'd rather fly my family in that POS that burns 3 times the fuel for about the same speed. I mean, if I was hauling drugs, I'd choose your loadstar... But hauling drugs ain't my thing. YMMV.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Apr 2016, 23:04

Username Protected wrote:

This one is not as cool, hence my jailhouse crack dealer approach to pawn it off on Crandall! :rock:

You're totally right... I'd rather fly my family in that POS that burns 3 times the fuel burn for about the same speed. I mean, if I was hauling drugs, I'd choose your loadmaster... But hauling drugs ain't my thing. YMMV.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2016, 11:19

Dislike of Matt's and my posts. Interesting. Someone needs to put their big boy pants on and lighten up. I took care of Matt's dislike.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2016, 12:05

Username Protected wrote:

This one is not as cool, hence my jailhouse crack dealer approach to pawn it off on Crandall! :rock:

I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2016, 12:45

anybody heard that ?

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/Podcast-Ci ... 135-1.html

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2016, 13:05

Username Protected wrote:

anybody heard that ?

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/Podcast-Ci ... 135-1.html

Type rating + turbine = more safe

CAPS has 88 foot diameter chute
Fewer scenarios where it will be used, e.g., pilot incapacitation and out of fuel.

Plan to deliver 50 planes the first year after TC is in hand, and eventually ramp up to 125 per year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Apr 2016, 13:41

I don't get the perceived consternation about type ratings. The insurance companies will require XYZ training for most any turbine with a prop or not. It's not really any more to do a type rating, just a checkride. Anyone who's going to spend the money to buy one and the time to get trained for one, isn't going to lose any sleep over a checkride at the end.

Cirrus SF50