BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 11:18

Username Protected wrote:

Stopped by their booth at Oshkosh - walked away very unimpressed.

They went the route of building a POC aircraft, which is of little value towards certification and mainly a marketing tool. They didnt even put the planned engine on the POC but instead used a JT15D. So much of that engineering to this point will be thrown away now. I can't think of a single example of a successful certified aircraft program that started out building a POC, non conforming prototype.

They are privately funded to this point and are now seeking funding for certification. Very small team. I think the fellow I spoke to said there are 16 on the team. The cost is only a guess at this point. "Somewhere around $3M".

The projected stats are interesting but that's where it stops for me. These guys have a LONG way to go. I wish them well but I don't have high hopes for this one.

That engine choice change has me a bit perplexed.......did they let on as to why that happened??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 11:20

The used JT15D in the POC is way cheaper than a new engine. They bought the pair from a Beechjet being retired.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 11:26

Username Protected wrote:

I can't think of a single example of a successful certified aircraft program that started out building a POC, non conforming prototype.

The Cirrus SF50 comes to mind.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 12:10

Username Protected wrote:

I can't think of a single example of a successful certified aircraft program that started out building a POC, non conforming prototype.

The Cirrus SF50 comes to mind.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 12:38

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus did not build non-conformal POC prototypes when they developed the SF50. They built the first models as conformal articles to be used for certification testing.

Your memory is faulty, Don. The first prototype Cirrus jet flew in 2008; the first conforming prototype flew in 2014. Read the article below from the rollout.
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/ ... iling-soon
"The first production-conforming version of the much-anticipated Cirrus Jet is slated to roll out by the end of this year...Since the first Cirrus Jet prototype was unveiled in 2008, the program has completed more than 600 flight hours. Cirrus is currently building the newest prototype — the first of three production-conforming airplanes slated for testing"

Some would point out that Boeing built a bunch of non-conforming prototypes for the eventually successful 787 program, but that wasn't their intent.

For that matter, the famous "Dash 80" was a non-conforming prototype for what eventually became the KC-135 and 707 programs.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 12:45

Username Protected wrote:

Your memory is faulty, Don. The first prototype Cirrus jet flew in 2008; the first conforming prototype flew in 2014. Read the article below from the rollout.
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/ ... iling-soon
"The first production-conforming version of the much-anticipated Cirrus Jet is slated to roll out by the end of this year...Since the first Cirrus Jet prototype was unveiled in 2008, the program has completed more than 600 flight hours. Cirrus is currently building the newest prototype — the first of three production-conforming airplanes slated for testing"

Some would point out that Boeing built a bunch of non-conforming prototypes for the eventually successful 787 program, but that wasn't their intent.

For that matter, the famous "Dash 80" was a non-conforming prototype for what eventually became the KC-135 and 707 programs.

OK you've got me there Dave. My apologies.

I don't know if it was their intent to go this route from the beginning. In '08 is when they ran into funding difficulties and the development on the jet essentially stopped. Cirrus may have chosen to finish the first article as non-conforming due to lack of funding.

In any event, I hope Stratos can pull it off. I just strongly disagree with the route they're going about it thus far,

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 14:04

I'm sure several people asked themselves: What if you took Cirrus SF50, cut the wing (stall speed up to 71 knots from 67), installed a bigger engine, and deleted the parachute, what then? Well, now we know: then you could cruise at 400 knots instead of just 300!

Also! The higher speed is accomplished with the same S/Y-intake that D-jet had. So much for the supposed aerodynamic inefficiency of it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 14:14

Username Protected wrote:

That engine choice change has me a bit perplexed.......did they let on as to why that happened??

Their PM Hadlich said it was selected because it was cheap on the surplus market. They want to use P&W 535E in a certified airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2017, 23:49

Username Protected wrote:

I hope Stratos can pull it off. I just strongly disagree with the route they're going about it thus far

I doubt they have any choice. It's akin to "strongly disagreeing" with getting through med school with scholarships and loans, since that has a high failure rate, and the more successful students just have their parents write tuition checks from petty cash. I'm sure everyone would prefer to do it the sure-fire way but not everyone has that option. It's hard to "strongly disagree" with the route taken when it's the only route available to them.

It seems to me that it's not non-conforming prototypes (NCPs) that bother you; besides Cirrus, Cessna had NCPs for each iteration of the Citation series (remember the FanJet 500?), as did Honda for its jet. I think what bothers you is projects that fail, taking down investors' money and NCPs are just the symptom you've seen of operations looking for investors. But you can't have "innovation and new ideas" without risk. Without investors accepting some of that risk, new ideas will be limited to only those with very deep pockets and innovation would be a lot slower.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jul 2017, 00:15

And then Epic says they will be certified at FL340, go figure.

Username Protected wrote:

I still wonder how they are going to get certified above Fl280. As the million page Cirrus thread pointed out, the current rega make that tough to do on one engine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jul 2017, 00:40

Username Protected wrote:

And then Epic says they will be certified at FL340, go figure.

Epic is in Bend, OR and Stratos is in Redmond, just a few miles up the road, so maybe it's a Central Oregon thing. They are quite proud of their microbrews, and now recreational pot too.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jul 2017, 08:53

Username Protected wrote:

And then Epic says they will be certified at FL340, go figure.

Epic is in Bend, OR and Stratos is in Redmond, just a few miles up the road, so maybe it's a Central Oregon thing. They are quite proud of their microbrews, and now recreational pot too.

Stratos 714 compleats first flight