I totally agree with you regarding speed management. I remember flying the Embraer Phenom 100 for the first time and that was struck me most: A jet is nothing like a single engine turbine. Flying the TBM, you can be at 3.5M from touchdown at 250 KTS and land at 80 KTS (I am not suggesting this being the right way to approach a field) and there is just no way to do this with a Jet. A long stabilised approach is required so in that sense, the TBM is much easier to fly. When looking at single pilot operations and certification, the Phenom 300 would be very nice but I don’t know of one that is operated by a single owner pilot.
There is definitely a learning curve to move up from a single engine piston to a turbine to a jet. Not only from piloting skills but also weather, procedures, etc.
Sitting on a C152 for the first 100 hours is part of that learning process in my view.
Cheers,
David
ortac wrote:
Not sure I really agree with the premise of the original question, as I don’t think “hours” is that relevant. What is important is:1) Reasonable intellect and general flying ability.
2) Willingness to study the systems theory to really know the aircraft.
3) The right attitude, and specifically the willingness to train thoroughly and seek support and advice and prepare properly.Finally, I don’t see the speed as a big factor. It’s not THAT fast, and as Mooney Driver says you can easily slow it down in the terminal area. I think altitude/pressurisation/weather is the bigger challenge.
I wouldn’t disagree. Speed control is less about slowing down from cruise (the classic PA28 to Mooney problem) but more about accuracy of speed control needed on final. Going too slow or too fast can get bad very quickly.
The key for SP jet safety (and they have to date been very safe compared to the rest of GA) is the type rating system with annual recurrent check rides. The robustness of that will be key to long term safety in these aircraft.
You will see them in Europe as N-reg soon I expect.
Not sure I really agree with the premise of the original question, as I don’t think “hours” is that relevant. What is important is:
1) Reasonable intellect and general flying ability.
2) Willingness to study the systems theory to really know the aircraft.
3) The right attitude, and specifically the willingness to train thoroughly and seek support and advice and prepare properly.
There are 1000 hour pilots without any of the above who can barely fly a PA28 safely, and then there are 50 hour pilots who have all of the above and will be super committed to flying the aircraft as professionally as they can.
It’s a bit like saying “how many hours to fly a Pitts S2?” – plenty of 1000 hour pilots who would be useless, and some 50 hour Cub pilots who would take to it easily.
Finally, I don’t see the speed as a big factor. It’s not THAT fast, and as Mooney Driver says you can easily slow it down in the terminal area. I think altitude/pressurisation/weather is the bigger challenge.
Interesting tidbits of informtion I picked up watching a demo video of Cirrus.
Max gear speed is 210kts IAS, Max app flap speed is 190 kts IAS, max full flap speed is 150 kts IAS. Climb out is at 160 kts. Green dot speed was at around 90 kts and he also was in the 90ties coming over the fence. That was with I expect 2 guys on board and he mentions somewhere in the flight that he had 200 USG fuel on board.
I guess that this makes speed control a darn sight easier than maybe thought. The gear can be used as a speed brake pretty much almost all the time as in the flight levels (US) IAS will hardly ever be above gear speed, even at max cruise at FL280. Also the flap max speeds are comfortably high. Vref of 90 kts and abouts is about 10 kts higher than a Seneca II. Cirrus seem to have been trying very hard to make the transition between the SR22 and the Vision as close as it can be so someone who has 500 hours experience on SR22’s of all incarnations should at least feel very much at home in terms of avionics and also look and feel.
Maybe we do not have enough information to judge how much experience and training this jet really needs, it appears that avoinic wise it’s quite close to the SR22 but with more sophisticated G3000 rather than the normal 1000. How it does really behave in the normal GA environment none of us knows, but from what I saw on that video, it is definitly a tamer beast than maybe expected. So Adam might not be that far off after all, I really wonder how people who have the experience to judge that will compare it to a “conventional” jet.
I expect in the US problems will be less than in Europe, as the average US GA airport is a lot larger than ours. It may well be challenging operating this jet into the usual GA hubs with 600 – 800 m concrete though. I reckon it also will take quite a while before we see the first one operate in Europe, as it is not yet EASA certified.
I had over 5,000 hours when I got my first right hand seat job flying a jet, and this followed quite a lot of time in one of the fastest turbo props in the sky. I prepared carefully the night before, got to the plane early and was as ready as I would ever be….or so I thought. By the time the Captain had landed and was taxiing us on to the ramp at our destination my brain was still lurking somewhere over an adjacent country. I’ll never forget that flight – or the sense of complete inadequacy that I felt after it.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Let’s just agree to disagree. You think a Cirrus Jet is harder than anything else except a twin engine jet. I don’t. Nothing said here is going to change those views.
No, I think it is probably a little more challenging than a SETP. Easier than a twin TP in the sense you don’t have assymetrics (of course you don’t have a second engine either which does have downsides). But I do think it would be quite a step up from a Cirrus Piston.
Let’s just agree to disagree. You think a Cirrus Jet is harder than anything else except a twin engine jet. I don’t. Nothing said here is going to change those views.
AdamFrisch wrote:
The TBM is 25 years old in systems.
It has a single turbine engine with a single lever power control, Garmin G3000, boots and pressurisation. What is the difference?
That’s true… I have known a number of these pilots (mostly they sat RHS in TBMs and one was a permanent piece of furniture in a CJ) but all are really busy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Someone who can dash out 2 millions for a jet like this should be able to afford a co-pilot until he is really ready.
Yes. But that might become a problem, if they turn out these airplanes at the numbers they claim. Hundreds per year… If the insurer insits on 100 hours supervision for each owner/pilot, where are all those safety pilots coming from? Experienced jet pilots, current on the latest generation glass cockpit with teaching skills and flexible enough to adapt to aircraft owner timescales all over a country or continent. People like that exist in small numbers, but they fly Globals, Gulfstreams and executive A319s for 1500 Euros a day plus expenses. They will not even touch a plastic single, whatever it is powered by…
