BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 13:45

Username Protected wrote:

I’ll bite - without

The chute comes with cost/complexity/upkeep/payload tradeoffs I’d rather not make. the tbm/pc12 safety record is superb and something similar is fine by me.

Actually (I haven't looked at it in a while, but we used to operate a TBM so I paid close attention at the time) the PC12 record is superb, and the combined TBM/PC12 record is good.

The TBM by itself is only so-so. This has IMHO nothing to do with the airplane itself, but with the fact that the majority of the PC12 fleet is flown by pro pilots, and the TBM is largely owner-operators.

When we had our TBM, the loss rate per airframe/year was higher for TBMs than for the Cirrus SR2X.

I think the TBM is an amazing aircraft, and can be operated very safely, but statistically it's not as safe as an SR22

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 13:49

Username Protected wrote:

Unlike others here, I expect to fly till I am unable.
As a result of this mentality, I expect the chance that I have an inflight medical event which prevents me from adequately flying the jet is greater than the turbofan experiencing a failure.
Tim

I have a friend 92 still flying and I'm still getting a class II at 71. I think my flying will change but hear what you're saying loud and clear. At some point, I don't see my self single pilot in a jet or any larger turbine. Smaller plane or Co-pilot would seem to make more sense. Also a passenger that is capable of a safe landing is an option. But a chute is certainly a consideration.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 16:49

Username Protected wrote:

With all else being equal, would you rather have (A) a single-engine jet with a parachute OR (B) a single-engine jet without a parachute? Straight-up question: A or B; no deflection or zig-zagging.

Definitely without. I don’t like the idea of my wife hooking up with her personal trainer!

Seriously though, an airframe chute on a turbojet doesn’t make sense to me. It’s nothing more than useless weight and added maintenance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 17:02

Username Protected wrote:

Unlike others here, I expect to fly till I am unable.
As a result of this mentality, I expect the chance that I have an inflight medical event which prevents me from adequately flying the jet is greater than the turbofan experiencing a failure.

Yeah, yeah, I know this has not happened yet (where pilot pulled due to medical incapacitation). However, the baby bombers are just starting to get to the age where the odds are increasing for some type of incapacitating event; and with BasicMed allowing more of them to stay in the air, the odds are increasing the likely occurrence of these types of events.

The reason I would want the the chute, is less concern about me, more about the people on the ground. Ideally, I would want a fairly bright system with auto-descent and land if pilot fails to land. If unable to land, pull the chute and save the people on the ground.

Tim

One point to note is that a pilot on BasicMed won't be legal flying a jet in the flight levels or over 6,000lbs.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2018, 22:16

Username Protected wrote:

One point to note is that a pilot on BasicMed won't be legal flying a jet in the flight levels or over 6,000lbs.

Give it time, by the time I get there I expect the regs to have been relaxed even more.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 00:24

Username Protected wrote:

Did our grandfathers feel the same way about seatbelts in cars....

Do the seatbelts require the driver the slow down to 20 MPH and have the steering wheel straight before they restrain you?

Do the seatbelts require the driver to activate them?

If both of those were true, seatbelts would save almost no one they do today.

If the chute actually covered more than a trifle of the flight envelope, then it would be more of an argument, but the SF-50 chute is so severely limited that if you are in the chute envelope, you actually aren't in much danger.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 00:26

Username Protected wrote:

If the difference in a night dead stick landing success means life or death because of the chute, I'll take the chute

I'll take a second engine.

Then I will get to use the plane again without suffering any personal injuries, either.

And I'll be flying higher, faster, and with less fuel as well.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 00:32

Username Protected wrote:

With all else being equal, would you rather have (A) a single-engine jet with a parachute OR (B) a single-engine jet without a parachute?

Given the limited applicability of the SF-50 chute, I'll take it without. I'd be better off being lighter than carrying around a useless chute.

Or, on second thought, I'll take it with the chute, then sell it to someone who falsely values it, and then buy a twin jet.

Now your turn, 100 person airliner you are about to board, take the one with two jet engines and no chute, or take the one with one jet engine and a chute. Presume the chute is feasible by some means (which is unlikely, but go with it).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 00:48

Username Protected wrote:

Now your turn, 100 person airliner you are about to board, take the one with two jet engines and no chute, or take the one with one jet engine and a chute. Presume the chute is feasible by some means (which is unlikely, but go with it).

From what I've seen, 80% of the 100 people boarding would take the single and chute if it saved them $.50 on their airfare... they'd ditch the second pilot too to save another $.25...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 02:01

Username Protected wrote:

It is too bad we don't have visibility into the OEM costs here, but I believe this isn't true.

That is, buying one FJ33 from Williams is about the same price as buying two PW610F from PWC. Williams has to price in added liability as an engine failure in a single is far more liability than in a twin. Further, it would be using an already developed engine on the shelf instead of a custom unique one with low volume expectations.

The near equal cost is particularly true when you consider the additional costs for being an SEJ including extra development time, the chute, and all the V tail control mechanisms (such as the dual yaw dampers).

In the end, total dollars in and out, Cirrus would be ahead if the SF50 was a twin. They would also sell more of them which amortizes the development costs over more units.

Mike C.

Still waiting on an answer to this mind bender.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 02:27

I doubt the PW610 would be much different than the PW615. The 615 is $100K for HSI. No chance the OH is $150K. A new PW615 is $1M. 610 might be slightly less. I’d bet a FJ33 is around $1M.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 03:01

Conklin and de Decker disagree with Mike's contention that two jets are cheaper than one. This table gives their hourly operating costs for the SF50 and many other turbines. They say the SF50 costs significantly less per hour than any of the twinjets, including the Eclipse with Mike's beloved PW610s. The SF50 also comes in cheaper than most turboprops, including the TBM and Pilatus. Other than the unpressurized Caravan and Kodiak, only the Piper Ms and Extra 500 are cheaper per hour than the SF50.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ting-costs

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 07:32

Username Protected wrote:

Do the seatbelts require the driver to activate them?

Mike C.

Yes. If you don’t secure it, it’s useless....(plane or car)

Peace,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 09:04

Username Protected wrote:

Most people use windows as their operating system too.

I operate my windows everytime I fly. They really come in handy on landing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Dec 2018, 09:30

Username Protected wrote:

I searched for engine costs today, FJ33 and PW610f. Closely held information :eek:

I could find some engine overhaul figures. For a PW610f, approx 150k. For a FJ44, typically 350k. From what I read(speculation) the FJ33 should be similar. I’m guessing Mike C is correct in his assertion, one FJ33 will cost what two PW610f engines cost. Pilots are buying the SF50 and it’s semi-useless parachute. If that helps them sleep better, great. That doesn’t mean it’s a great aircraft. It’s great marketing and learning from previous attempts at VLJ. Most people use windows as their operating system too. Lots of better operating systems out there!

So a manufacturer can purchase two PW610f motors to install on a new airplane for the same price as one FJ33?

I'd love for you to post the price sheet you found that shows this.

Cirrus SF50