We have different views of this thread. It is not interesting. It is circular and redundant. Nothing new or insightful has been posted, including by me, in 400 pages. We all come back every day waiting for the breakthrough that never comes. If that's interesting to you, I would suggest you don't fully understand what makes things interesting.

My post pointed out that given that Mike has been the main (not the sole) detractor, against mostly neutral or positive views of the SF, it would have been more accurate to say that someone is being paid to slam the SF. When there's one main voice slamming, and many voices supporting, it's odd to suggest that someone is being paid to support. But that's just my brand of logic.

Huh?
No Mike.
The presumption is that a bunch of people (who can afford it) want a November Echo Whiskey Juliet Echo Tango.
It is and it is the least expensive one available at 1.7 or 2.7 etc.

Your biases are clouding your logic Mike.

So is a Mustang, Eclipse, Phenom 100, etc. The second engine makes it simpler, in fact.

Flying isn't about how easy it is when everything works, it is about how hard it is when something doesn't work.


A "lifestyle" isn't about hard training. Could explain why the accident rate wasn't so good at the start. It improved when, shockingly, the training got more intense.


I prefer training that is philosophically honest about the challenges and difficulties in flying an airplane than one that is trying to maintain a brand image. That's a fundamental conflict of interest.

Mike C.

By bringing up every imaginable fault Mike has probably done more than anyone to improve the perception of the aircraft (in this forum). It is counter intuitive, but if you take one step back from the conversation and see what overall effect of that slamming the SF50 has had I think it would be difficult to argue that it hasn't brought out all the supporting voices who have "destroyed every single opposition". That would not have happened without Mike.

What makes this thread interesting is not the content of the posts, but the consistency of everyone's brand of logic.

From what I have read, Mike, his entire family, and everyone he's ever known or loved could be rescued from Armageddon by a fleet of SF50s and he'd still find endless fault in the airplane. I honestly find that level of consistency admirable.

I also find it admirable that everyone is trying to out-logic him into changing his mind.

If that isn't interesting, I don't know what is. But that is just my brand of logic.

There are some great threads on BT about the Cirrus training. There was one I think from Tony C; he has thousands of hours, went through Bonanza's type club training and still had to spend a lot of time preparing and struggled to pass the Cirrus SR22 factory training.
Cirrus has spent a crap ton of money to make the training very approachable, that does not mean it is easy.

Tim

Opposition in this thread?

or

Opposition in the real world?

There is no opposition in the real world. The SF50 is outselling all other single pilot planes except the PC12.

Engine failures are the most complex emergency in the single.

In the twin, you go over a defined procedure to handle it at any point in the flight. It is reasonably simple. Stop before V1, go after V1, rotate after Vr, fly away at V2. There's really no complexity here, just execute the same procedure.

In the single, it is super complex what to do when an engine fails. It would take thousands of words to describe the decision matrix and actions required based on the circumstances.

The only reason there are no engine cuts practiced below a certain altitude is because there are NO GOOD OPTIONS. You are in a 3 ton airplane with 1 ton of fuel about to hit trees at the end of the runway. What's to practice?

The other complexity of the single is that not only does an engine failure cause loss of thrust, it causes loss of other systems, too, like electrical generation, pressurization, and all the other things that depend on bleed air. You have multiple simultaneous emergencies. Meanwhile in the twin, you lose ONLY a part of your thrust and nothing else.


No, all of them are single engine approaches.


Why do you think that isn't part of the training?

If Cirrus pilots aren't getting engine shutdowns and restarts in their training, it is woefully inadequate.

The Cirrus pilot has to do the restart while he is gliding downward, has lost electrical generation, has lost pressurization, and has a very limited time period in which to get it all done.

Meanwhile the twin pilot can elect not to try a restart, or if they do, they are in level flight, no other emergency going on, and have all the time they need.


You are delusional.

The type rating has everything in it that the twin does outside engine failure. The twin has an engine failure procedure, the single has a complex engine failure decision matrix. I bet the SF50 training for engine out takes LONGER than the twin.

In the end, it took Jay Jolley 4 weeks to be trained for his SF50. Where's the 50% savings you claim? Indeed, I can find pilots who took only 2 weeks to be trained for their twin jets.

Suppose the SF50 instantly exploded if the engine quit. Wow, that would be WAY simpler, we don't have to train for ANY engine out emergencies at all!

It is not a "feature" to have an airplane where you die if the engine quits just after takeoff.

Mike C.

Cirrus said it:

It makes jet performance accessible to pilots and aircraft owners who, up until now, could only dream.

Cirrus has definitely promoted the fact it is a single to customers on the basis that it makes the plane simple enough for pilots who would otherwise not be able to fly a jet.

Mike C.

Cirrus said it:

It makes jet performance accessible to pilots and aircraft owners who, up until now, could only dream.

Cirrus has definitely promoted the fact it is a single to customers on the basis that it makes the plane simple enough for pilots who would otherwise not be able to fly a jet.

Mike C.

Because a piston twin demands precise, quick, and correct action to handle an engine out on a plane that can just barely fly if you are perfect. If you fail, the plane kills you.

This is not true in a jet. There's no engine to feather. There's no large asymmetric thrust to cause a Vmc roll over. There's more than enough power to fly away on one engine. A jet does not have the faults of a piston airplane. That is, in fact, the main point here. The SF50 is sold on the basis of piston beliefs that do not apply.


You are describing the twin jet. It has only ONE decision, stop before V1, go after V1. That's it. There's NEVER a point in the flight path where you crash due to engine failure.

Please write out the SF50 decision tree for an engine failure. It will take you days to capture it all. It almost has to be unique for every airport you fly from since your options are tied to the available off airport landing sites at each airport.


Exactly, they gave the pilots a bigger decision tree and made them think through a bunch of the branches. Being a single wasn't simpler, it was actually more complex.

Meanwhile the twin jet pilot has a simple, repeatable, practiced procedure.

Making SR pilots think about the decision tree also taught them how NOT to be out on one of the branches. So we have fewer pulls, and fewer fatal accidents, ironically from a program that promotes using the chute more.


Good, it shouldn't be easy even if it is infused with brand loyalty marketing subtexts.

Mike C.

You are basing your comments that Cirrus Built the jet for people who can’t fky twins on that statement?

Again that’s your extreme bias clouding rational thought.

Andrew

That’s a personal attack Mike.

Not needed here.

Andrew

You are basing your comments that Cirrus Built the jet for people who can’t fky twins on that statement?

Again that’s your extreme bias clouding rational thought.

Andrew

DULUTH, MN, Jan. 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Cirrus Aircraft, Inc. announced today that the Chinese People's Liberation Army has placed an order for 10,000 "TSF50" jet aircraft, for delivery in 2019 and 2020.

A representative of the PLA said they plan on deploying Cirrus's state of the art Tactical Strike Fighter 50 for low altitude tactical ground troop support, believing it to be a more reliable, economical and efficient platform than their current single engine fighter, the JF-17. Upon securing this order, Cirrus' CEO, Dale Klapmeier commented, "We are very pleased by the confidence the PLA has shown in our product. I mean, seriously, when we first built this thing, we all said it was a crippled jet. We just figured our SR customers were just too dumb not to realize it. With this order, we now have the cash flow required to build a real single pilot jet, which will have 3 engines, al la the venerable Lockheed L1011."

For all I know my training has been fluffy by your standards. I’ve never been to Flight Safety or one of the professional pilot training shops.