No chance, chute is there to save lives. It's a proven safety device. How many military jet pilots would we have lost if not for the ejection seat? Those guys are really, really good pilots.

I'll take a chute airplane over a non-chute airplane all other factors being equal. It's a no brainer.

Ok, at this point it is obvious to me that Mike C has formed an opinion based on the data that he has picked to make his case. Further, no other facts or application of the data to another aircraft will affect his opinion.

A few examples:

1. All SR airplanes normally fly in the envelope of the chute. In fact in the SR20 you can only get out of the envelop in a fast descent or down low (about 3K msl) running flat out (I used to fly one). I have yet to see or meet a Cirrus pilot that flies any SR model outside the normal deployment envelop.
2. I think I know which TKS video Mike is referencing. It was actually part of the certification program and was used as marketing material. The test pilot and a few others were discussing how much additional confidence the chute gave them when testing the new TKS system.
3. Mike has no emotions and does not consider the emotional comfort of his passengers is worth anything. I mean emotions are not logical and cannot be supported by facts. Nate, I and others referenced comfort and other factors for passengers and Mike still does not get it.
4. Thrust matters for climb. Does not matter the source, one engine or two engines. It is basic physics. A plane with 1000lbs of extra thrust will climb at a specific rate, one engine, two, three or four. Does not matter. Thrust over drag and weight are all that matter. The number of sources do not.
5. Like most Cirrus pilots, I am willing to fly the Cirrus in conditions where I would not fly a Bonanza or Cessna TTx. Guess what, these are the same places I would fly a twin. Basically Night IMC. Direct over mountains versus following the roads.... A chute and twin both provide options for when the sh** hits the fan (except over water, the chute does not really help).
6. Any hot new thing has a tendency to attract risk takers and stupid behavior. In this case, Cirrus probably had more then its fair share based on reading the NTSB reports. There are a fair number of "he look at me" type notes in the first dozen or so years for the Cirrus.
7. If jet engines were to bullet proof, why does Pratt and others require two? I mean they never fail.... What are they afraid of. (Mike even mentioned in the type cert for the PWC engines, they require multi engine)
8. The chute and all related components weigh about 80 lbs in the SR models. There is very minimal additional structure required, the reason is the chute attaches to existing load points on the airframe. These are the points where the airplane already has the structure to survive the crash impact. Look at the STC for the Cessna 182, http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx 86lbs total. 75 for the Cessna 172.
9. Thrust vectoring can have minimal to almost no effect on the performance and efficiency of a jet engine. There are so many variables in that discussion, it is almost impossible to predict.
10. The sfc numbers for the Williams engine have been posted in this thread, they come dam close to what we get in pistons running ROP. That is impressive, and Cirrus and Williams cannot be accepting much of a penalty to get those numbers.
11. Only of the largest factors for engine positions is the drag induced by intersection of the pylon and the wing/fuselage. Look at Beech Premier, the pylon is in dished out area to reduce the drag. Honda looked to place it on the wing near the back of the effective wing chord to minimize drag... The point is there are more then one way to address the drag issue of engine position. And the number of choices and knowledge of how to accomplish this are still increasing and changing. The reality is we just do not know what the CFD analysis Cirrus completed and if it works.

That should get us started for a few more pages.

Tim

That's a vacuum pump?

Maybe you are different! Maybe you are the person who can resist that temptation.

I believe SV is the most revolutionary thing to come along since GPS. You would think it would enhance safety. Unfortunately for every responsible pilot there is the other guy who feels he can now scud run.

You can buy something better right now today for less money. For example, Cessna Mustang which out performs the SF50 in ALL respects, including cost of operation. I saw at least 3 for sale under $1.9M.

Given a type rating and yearly training, the impact of the extra engine is insignificant to your training budget. If there is no readily available SF50 sim, then the Mustang will be CHEAPER and BETTER for training than the SF50.

The other advantage is that the Mustang is a KNOWN QUANTITY. The SF50 is a PROMISE reeking of uncertainty. Part of this is that you can get the Mustang TODAY and not maybe in 4 years.


In any actual scenario, I doubt it will. By the time the situation is obviously dire enough for a non pilot passenger to pull the chute, it is too late, and the chute is so far outside its envelope it will fail.


Note quite, but certainly $4. Cheapest fuel I know of was $3.40 in the US.

Mike C.

Field of use radically different than private aviation, so very much apples to oranges here.

Not to be picky, but there are no military airplanes equipped with all aircraft chutes, so that doesn't seem applicable even discounting the military thing.

Mike C.

No turbine airplane has a vacuum pump. Even old ones. Vacuum is made with an ejector from bleed air (no moving parts, super reliable). Or the instruments are driven with pressure air instead of vacuum.

Mike C.

Uh, one pound thrust is not equal to one HP. The seeming similarity of the two values has tricked you.

Conversion between the two is complicated, but a general rule of thumb is about 2.5 pounds thrust is 1 HP.

No go back and convert those SFC numbers again. You'll be shocked!

Note that SFC gets a LOT worse at low altitude and part throttle. You only reach the published number at max temp.

Mike C.

Still wrong.

89 fatal MU2 accidents (worldwide), 831 built (all versions), that's 10.7%.

But of those 89, 12 were not "fatal hull losses", so only 9.3% "fatal hull losses". Of those 12, 5 were people walking into props on the ramp, most were loading cargo at night. Still counts against type, alas, another example of the cargo ops history impacting the reputation.

Mike C.

Random distraction:
A great many turbine aircraft have trust lines that induce a pitch down. Look at the MD80.



Of course they space them to minimize drag. But, the fact is that there are still two engines and two nacelles and two pylons sticking out into the airstream. Yes, it's a smooth airstream (look at what nextant did with Lears by making longer pylons), but they still create huge drag.

There's plenty of intake nacelles on airplanes. Look at the Pilatus or a King Air 200. The scoops are quite similar to this. They're also right next to the wing on the King air, or on the bottom of the fuselage on the PC12. The intake on the SF50 is no more of a drag source than the intake on a PC12.

I've got a flow bench and an SLA machine here.. maybe it's time to make some SLA models and rig up the flow bench as a wind tunnel to test this theory.

Not true at all.

I just need the underlying mechanism explained for the following:

1. Why do Corvalis pilots get into one third the fatal situations as Cirrus pilots?

2. Why are there no passenger initiated chute pulls in a Cirrus?

3. Why is there no chute pull for 2/3rds of Cirrus fatal situations?

By stating I am intransigent in my opinion, you are trying to excuse your lack of substantive answers to the above questions. It is a fallacious ad hominem argument.

Mike C.

Engineers don't think in terms of emotions: it's all numbers and other terms of absolute. Their minds can't go anywhere else very easily. I know because I'm married to one.

Overtime she has come around a little, but she does keep me grounded. Were getting a good lesson in polarized thought here though IMHO.

If the thrust line is not the green line then won't you lose efficiency through the inlet duct?

Eww. What an abomination. The only thing worse would be if they made them belt driven!


That's fair. I just didn't imagine someone would do such a horrible thing with bleed air available.


There's no effective difference, you have to show yearly competence to a high standard.


Best training ever for multiengine airplanes.

Mike C.

No, the angled inlet causes loss of ram air pressure recovery as well which reduces engine efficiency. It is like a pitot probe losing good airspeed when at high angles of attack.

The actual air flow around the fuselage is not level by that time, curves with the cabn shape, so it isn't a major effect. The nozzle deflection, on the other hand, has a real impact.

Mike C.