... and turboprop price. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

... and turboprop price. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

I think that it is pretty common for someone to buy a turbine with a mission in mind defining that mission with "piston think". Not meant to be derogatory, "piston think" is not a disease, but only an innocent paradigm built upon the inherent limitations of piston aircraft. When you get into a turbine, suddenly you are going faster, climbing effortlessly, descending with impunity. Pressurization, increased speed, and decreased vibration lead to less fatigue, and suddenly longer day trips are not so daunting. Weather is almost never an issue, as you climb up through or descend down through it or fly over the top of it. This leads to "turbine mission creep"

Not sure if everyone gets it, but I suspect it is more common than not. While the SF50 seems like a fine plane, I would not count on the SF50 being your designation plane. That is not a bad thing. That sweet kerosene elixir has been known to really expand ones mission. It does look good in red though.

Just curious - What or where are the short fields?

There are short runways all over.

But perhaps the biggest issue is when a normal length runway becomes wet, icy, or snowy. Jets depend on ground friction to stop, unlike turboprops, so there are huge adders to runway length requirements when the runway is not dry.

An SF50 has already run off a runway. This is the nature of jets.

Mike C.

There are short runways all over.

But perhaps the biggest issue is when a normal length runway becomes wet, icy, or snowy. Jets depend on ground friction to stop, unlike turboprops, so there are huge adders to runway length requirements when the runway is not dry.

An SF50 has already run off a runway. This is the nature of jets.

Mike C.

Foul ball.

According to the pilot, the plane had a single-wheel brake failure. It exited the side of the dry runway as a result.

Jets do suffer from overrun events, but this is not an example of that.

Ken

It isn't comforting that the plane developed a brake failure so early in its service life. This is reminiscent of Embraer's troubles with brakes. Is there not an emergency braking system like most jets?

The end of the 3,117 ft runway is abeam the wind sock in this photo, and the antenna mast on the left is abeam 2,875 ft down the runway, so they ended up about 3,050 ft down the runway or very nearly to the end. Pretty clear that if they stayed on the runway, they go off the end. They lacked half of their braking, and probably couldn't use all of that one brake in any case and keep it straight.

Given the exit was way down the runway, they didn't apply heavy braking right after touchdown, but as the got near the end, that was the only option. I suspect hitting snow banks is to be preferred over going through the runway end lights.


A TBM or PC12 doesn't end up in the snow with a brake failure. Brakes are critical on jets, not so much on turboprops.

Mike C.

All single pilot jets rely on brakes only to stop. Hardly an SF50 issue.

Then no jet will work for you. Hardly an SF50 issue.

Left turn at the end of the runway, speed permitting.

Passed 50 on the registration list.....

The market has spoken on the SR and SF lines. Dislike them all you want, most people shopping for a NEW aircraft are considering Cirrus, and Cirrus is pretty dang good at closing the deal.



Good morning guys....

Peace,
Don

One thing that is a little atypical for a plane of this caliber is that the nose gear is free castering. I have had a couple of brake failures in piston and turbine PA46's. Usually after "preventive" maintenance. Weird thing about air in the system of that aircraft, is you don't realize it until after a couple of brake cycles and cabin pressurization cycles as the master cylinders are in the cabin and there is a lot of brake line. With a steerable nose wheel, you can brake with the good brake which turns you in that direction, and steer with the nose wheel the other direction and maintain center-line. There are a lot of corners cut on the SF50 compared to comparable turbine aircraft. Great for simplicity and price, but have led and will lead to some interesting failure modes.

One thing that is a little atypical for a plane of this caliber is that the nose gear is free castering. I have had a couple of brake failures in piston and turbine PA46's. Usually after "preventive" maintenance. Weird thing about air in the system of that aircraft, is you don't realize it until after a couple of brake cycles and cabin pressurization cycles as the master cylinders are in the cabin and there is a lot of brake line. With a steerable nose wheel, you can brake with the good brake which turns you in that direction, and steer with the nose wheel the other direction and maintain center-line. There are a lot of corners cut on the SF50 compared to comparable turbine aircraft. Great for simplicity and price, but have led and will lead to some interesting failure modes.

I didn't think that was true for the SF50, the nose wheel was steerable.

"Once you get rolling, forward taxi visibility is terrific. You steer the jet with its steerable nosewheel, but if you’re coming from an SR22 and are used to using differential braking, well, that will actually help matters considerably."

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... vision-jet

Mike C.