There's a certain floor level of income, below which you can't afford to operate a single, twin, turboprop or jet, even in maintenance and the airframe were free.

There is also a certain floor for what the materials to build an airframe and engine cost, with reasonable allowances for fabrication, assembly and testing.

The price of engines and airframes are so far above that floor it's ridiculous. And a good chunk of it is liability driven, which drives the cost up, which reduces the units sold, which then drives the price up more.

However, if the product liability didn't drive the cost of airframes, components and maintenance parts to the degree it did, it would have large scales of economy for bringing the price of aviation back to the "only top 1% can afford" level it's at now.

Who makes more money, Ford or Ferrari?

I'm sure Beech and Cessna (well, Textron I guess now) would LOVE to move 10x the product they do now even if the profit per unit cut in half.

Liability set asides put an artificial floor on the cost of components. I used to be an engineer for Pratt & Whitney, and the liability reserve was a double digit percentage of out the door engine costs. And this was for products going to airlines who are highly unlikely to have a fatal accident from an engine failure.

Same applies to the jet. I'm sure a good part of the engine on the SF50's cost is liablity reserve. Williams would be stupid not to do it in today's legal climate, especially where it is truly a single point of failure for the entire aircraft. I'd not be shocked if it was upwards of 30-40%.

I'm guessing that the engine is the single most expensive component on the aircraft, aside from maybe the airframe itself.

Applies to piston aircraft as well.

Do you really think a IO-550 costs $40k+ to build, even with respectable profit margins built in? I'm sure Continental would love to sell them at $20k if the volume increase would net them a better profit on slimmer margins, but the liability cost drives it up.

No way to win that bet as there is no point in time when it couldn't be true.

That would be like betting "The SyberJet SJ30 will be a success". 30 years later, well, it still could be true, so no point in time when you lose.

Apparently the concept of a testable bet is beyond your comprehension, or you know better than to define a bet that you can lose.

Mike C.

My bet is crystal clear. No takers yet.

JC has asked you to define the terms of a bet. Are you going to, or just quibble?

91.123(b) trumps all:

"Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

ATC said 230 to marker, I gave them 230 to marker.

Mike C.

Counter?

No it doesn't. If a controller told you to maintain 270 to the marker and you did you would be in violation. It is a well established fact that ATC is not the administrator.

Cirrus claims it will have delivered 220 airplanes by that date, which is delusional.

I predict you are probably pretty close. I think it can be certified by that date, 3 years from now, assuming they don't cancel the project or radically change it. FIKI might not be part of that yet, and one should discount any provisional certification stunts like Eclipse did.

There is nothing about the SF50 that can't ultimately be certified. This issue was never about that. It was about making a crippled jet using false piston thinking.

Mike C.

Bet me then

No it doesn't. If a controller told you to maintain 270 to the marker and you did you would be in violation. It is a well established fact that ATC is not the administrator.

Then your company has approval from the administrator to do that, just like military fighters can break some speed limits for operational necessity. ATC cannot approve an aircraft breaking the speed limit. There was a test some years ago, in Houston I think, where the speed limit was raised in the terminal area. Never heard what came of that.

Wrong again mike

AIM 4-4-12(i)

i. Pilots are reminded that they are responsible for rejecting the application of speed adjustment by ATC if, in their opinion, it will cause them to exceed the maximum indicated airspeed prescribed by 14 CFR Section 91.117(a), (c) and (d). IN SUCH CASES, THE PILOT IS EXPECTED TO SO INFORM ATC. Pilots operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL who are issued speed adjustments which exceed 250 knots IAS and are subsequently cleared below 10,000 feet MSL are expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a).

Did you inform ATC that you were going to exceed the speed of 91.117(c)?
Keep digging.

I strongly concur.

Imagine the pitch Cirrus made to Williams:

"Hey, instead of selling TWO engines that go on a business jet, please sell us ONE engine to put on a single jet that will be flown mostly by former SR piston pilots."

The change in liability exposure is extreme.

It would not surprise me in the least if ONE FJ33-5A is the same price as TWO PW610Fs.

Even if the FJ33 turns out to be slightly cheaper, the extra systems work in the SF50 AND the extra liability Cirrus takes for being a single will make that advantage evaporate.


I'm absolutely certain the basic airframe (less avionics, landing gear, systems) costs less than the engine.

Mike C.

I've done 180 to the marker in the Bonanza and 200 in the S/II. Never had a request for 230 (Obviously they wouldn't in the Bonanza, but never got it in the S/II either).

If you can shoot an approach and keep it in the bubble, it's actually not that complicated, everything is a little more touchy at higher speed. It's like the difference between shooting an ILS at 90 in a 172 and 120 in a Bonanza amplified a bit more.

The real trick is slowing down once you get to the marker. In the jet, it's easy because you already have half the flaps out and are using power to make that speed. Cut power, drop gear, last 10 degrees and you're golden. In the Bonanza, it means pulling back somewhat aggressively to get to gear speed, dropping the gear, continuing to pull back to flap speed, dumping them all in and then slipping to the runway so you don't get the speed back.

I wouldn't consider the maneuver beyond the abilities of any current instrument pilot in either airplane.

They sell all that are already ordered and it becomes a pivotal part of the company.

Hell, according to Ciholas it won't even make it to market.

Then your company has approval from the administrator to do that, just like military fighters can break some speed limits for operational necessity. ATC cannot approve an aircraft breaking the speed limit. There was a test some years ago, in Houston I think, where the speed limit was raised in the terminal area. Never heard what came of that.