The first Bo partnership I tried to buy into (8 years ago) was 4 of those "geezers" with an S-35 that flew less than 50 hours per year. I had about 250 hours (50 retract) and an IFR. One of them actually said "I can't have this guy in our partnership, what if he crashes the plane into a schoolbus?"

One of those "exceptional pilots" put that S-35 on its belly less than a year later.

Two Beech partnerships, a solo purchase and 800 Beech flight hours later, I still haven't hit any schoolbusses.

You are correct. 33% was pulled out my behind, it's 17%, but only if include the US hull loses compared against the world wide production.

I'm a potential buyer for this jet.

I fly 1-3 people most often, and it will accomodate a family for those few trips. My 421 got over, around, or under any weather I needed. This will fly as high and go much faster. It won't go under, but neither will its turboprop competitors . The airplane should be simple to operate and highly reliable.

If you use a plane for regular business transport (250+ hours annually), it has to be ready to go every time. One missed meeting could ruin your annual cost/NM.

The chute allows any of my passengers to escape if anything were to happen to me while flying.

It fits in my hangar.

I can buy $3/gas, and have fuel anywhere in the world.

I understand this plane. I also love the MU2, but it obviously has its drawbacks.

If I could make my Baron go 300kts, it would be just right. Throwing in pressure, turbine smooth and quiet, reliability, cool factor, and a chute gets you to the SF50.

Makes sense to me.

If so, then that's a hit in efficiency to redirect the jet wash, yet another compromise to find a place to a single jet on an airplane.


When is the last time a jet flown by a single pilot crashed because of this?

I honestly can't recall a single case. Anyone?

Then there is the issue of the deployment envelope. The SR series has a ridiculously narrow deployment envelope, so much so that if you can get inside the envelope, it almost proves the airplane is under control and you don't need the chute.

While the SR series has had successful deployments outside that envelope, there have been a number that have failed. On a fast 6000 lb jet, the deployment envelope will be even more of a requirement.

So we have an extremely rare event, pilot incapacitation, and then the non pilot passenger has to take the action to deploy the chute, and then it has to happen well before the situation is obviously out of control.

The chance of this happening is nil.

Indeed, there is ONLY ONE INSTANCE of CAPS deployment by a passenger in SR series (Indianapolis, IN), and that was verbally commanded by the PILOT (who, alas, was the one fatality).

That's right, in the entire history of all the SR series airplanes, no passenger has EVER activated the chute on their own volition. The SF50 fleet will never have anywhere remotely the number of hours the SR series has had, and it will have a far more reliable engine, so the statistical chance the chute in an SF50 is deployed by a passenger within the useful envelope is basically zero for all SF50 for all time.

By the time a passenger in an SF50 realizes things are really bad, the chute won't work any more, going too fast or too low. If you disagree, then why does a PILOT, who KNOWS what is going on, fail to activate the chute in 2/3rds of the fatal situations he encounters. WHY WOULD A NON PILOT PASSENGER DO BETTER?

Mike C.

This entire debate reminds of one from few years back when twin jets first started crossing the Atlantic. There was all the doom and gloom predictions too. Now I'm waiting for 787s to start raining from the sky due static electricity and a lack of vacuum powered gyro in the cockpit.

+1

No new planes have vacuum pumps. Why single out the SF50?

If someone doesn't believe in your religion, must be something wrong with them.

All I do is observe the data and form my own opinions. I then express why I think they way I do. You are free to reject it, but saying there is something wrong with me for having them is strange.


Yes, it happens. Even more scary, there are folks flying MU2s illegally who didn't get the required training. I know specifically of one case a few years ago. If they crash, it will be one more knock against the MU2. Sigh.


Absolutely. It is testable, present pilots with scenarios and ask them to make go/no go decisions, or continue/stop decisions. The level of equipment in your airplane, including the chute, affects that decision, and this is often subconscious.

You can deny this effect is real, but that's just self delusion. And then you have to explain the underlying mechanism for Corvalis pilots finding themselves in only ONE THIRD the fatal situations as SR pilots. Why would that be for otherwise extremely similar airplanes?


Vast majority of GA accidents are preventable. Read the Nall report.


2008 during my initial training course in the MU2. I've had about 170 engine "failures" in an MU2, 30 in the real airplane, 6 actual shutdowns, 1 to a full stop landing, and the rest in a sim. I average about 1 engine "failure" for every 5 flight hours. I train every 6 months alternating sim and actual airplane, and rotating amongst instructors. There is no piece of safety equipment more valuable than a well trained pilot.


Truth doesn't care who speaks it, so your focus on me personally and not my argument is misguided.


Yes, but does it have sky appeal?


You don't appear to know much about the MU2 SFAR. It is basically a type rating in effect but not in name and requires yearly competence checks. The SFAR has, perhaps surprisingly, attracted new pilots to the MU2, and they are the right kind of pilots, those who embrace training to a high standard.

Mike C.

Bleed air to run the boots, you have it in your PC12.



+1

No new planes have vacuum pumps. Why single out the SF50?

Ode of the MU-2 pilots:

Silver wings upon their chest
These are men… America's best

Flying high at three one oh, there isn't much that they don't know
If you just ask, they'll tell you so

If they're lost, it could only be
Some impossible a-nom-aly

Fly a plastic jet if you dare
Just be sure to pack extra under ware

We've heard it said and we know it true
Aviation peaked back in eighty two.

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.

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.

Alex, that's good stuff. Good stuff.

Perfectly said. They're finishing up the TAT conversion for the Baron's. That airplane will haul the mail......

Wow!

Take it easy on Mike and listen. He is a big boy and can more than take care of himself. But debate the facts not the people.

Someone needs to put up some facts to dispute what his fact show.

The chute is for marketing and non aviation peoples feel good.

Humans accept a certain level of risk in their life and will adjust their behavior to that comfortable risk level.

Not you, maybe not us but overall the numbers bear that out. With all safety devices risk is adjusted. Again overall not pointing to you or this forum members.

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.