The first step toward recovery is admitting that one has a problem.

You sound old school practical, to bad there aren't more like you out there. IMO this trend is the result of a generation that never worked in a shop, great Solidworks skills, but they can't fix a lawn mower.

I'm not that old.. Graduated in 2001.

I can do CAD/CAE but also go to the shop and whip up a crude prototype thingamajigger to test if I have to. But then again, I can weld, machine, wire, work as a truck mechanic, fix pretty much any oil field equipment, and change broken blades on a helicopter. And drive the truck and fly the helicopter.

But yeah, I'm kind of an anomaly among engineers. Probably why I'm no longer working as one.

Got sick of having to report to PEs who couldn't change a lightbulb.

"You sound old school practical, to bad there aren't more like you out there. IMO this trend is the result of a generation that never worked in a shop, great Solidworks skills, but they can't fix a lawn mower."

THIS!

I'm not that old either, I'm 41. When I was in grad school I swept up a lot of chips for a few old salts in the engineering department and in return they taught me how to weld, run a mill, run a lathe...the CNC stuff is science, the other, art.

Like everything else these days. Not enough respect for the old ways to learn them before you go out and find a "better" way. Mastery is history plus innovation, seems like we've forgotten that.

It is beneficial if you think they don't.

Engineers understand the stereotyping of us exhibited here is a coping mechanism for people who don't or can't understand what we do. We make allowances and move on.

Engineering, at least as my company practices it, is an intensely social exercise conducted among humans with a great deal of awareness and empathy with the stake holders.

In the end, bashing engineers doesn't change the fact the SF50 is crippled by a disconnect between the "vision" and reality. The bashing is just a reaction to not having adequate logical arguments to present.

Mike C.

Here I was thinking lawyers were running the world and thus responsible for the mess.

If it is in fact engineers running the world then I suppose responsibility lies with them...... [/quote]

We are running the world but, like most of society, never responsible for the mess we make.

Hard to market what has not been invented. Also, futile to invent/engineer what is not desired. Historically, at some point, these two cultures converge for the general benefit of the rest of us. Or, we just buy what is available or what we think we need.

I just wish the two would meet to produce a platform that would carry 900 lbs for 1k nm at 200 kts or more for under 1m.

Mark

That platform is call an MU2.

Meant to specify a platform that is currently being manufactured. I look at 421s and MU2s, among others, but can't get around the age.

You can get any three in a Cessna TTX or SR22T, but you have to give up either payload or range. Both are under $1M.

Piper Matrix might be closer, right at $1M.

You are gong to get only a piston single for that money.

If you don't need new, then you got plenty of options, which might be why there are so few new ones.

My plane does 1200 lbs, 1200 nm, just under 300 knots (long range cruise), bought for under $600K.

Mike C.

This was a testable assertion, so I tested it.

I asked my insurance broker to price insurance for me in two airplanes, a $500K SR22T and a $500K T182T. I asked for full in motion hull coverage and for $1M smooth liability.

Here is his answer:

Hi Mike,

Although both are SE piston aircraft with the same estimated hull value, the Cirrus premium is going to be higher. This is primarily due to higher/more expensive losses on the Cirrus (general statement). As you can imagine, a tried and true C182T is a well-liked aircraft from an underwriting standpoint (simple, stable, easy to fly).

I would estimate the premium on a C-182T to be between $3,800 and $4,700 a year. It's going to vary between companies. Some may be a little higher for a smooth limit. Based on your experience in a C-182, they may require a checkout in the aircraft.

The Cirrus could range between $5,800 and $7,500 a year. They may not be willing to give you a smooth limit until you complete a CCIP approved course and log a certain number of hours in the Cirrus. Again, the devil's in the details and each carrier looks at them differently.

Using the middle of his ranges, Cessna T182T is $4,250, SR22T is $6,650.

The Cessna is quite a bit cheaper, easier to get higher liability limits, and required less training.

Now his response is just an estimate, and some of you will pounce on that aspect and say it isn't valid, but ultimately you know I could have him spend the time to get the underwriters to produce firm quotes. You can't be having so many hull losses and fatal accidents and not be having an impact on the premiums, that is just the way it works.

My MU2 is insured at $600K hull, $5M liability, for $9,400 ($5,400 hull, $4,000 liability). If I scale that back to $500K hull, and reduce liability to $1M, premium would be about $6,400. This includes engine FOD insurance as well.

A $500K SR22T, maybe not even $1M liability, might come in at $5,800 to 7,500, average $6,650, and includes no engine insurance of any kind.

Does that seem right to you?

Mike C.

New is new, but in some ways, old is better.

With new avionics, engines, props, paint, interior, you can have a practically new airplane if you find a good well maintained airframe to build it on.

Being old, you can modify the airplane to suit your tastes instead of being locked into a factory configuration. Many older airplanes have less rules about life limits.

Being old means the type is well understood. If you buy a 421, say, you are unlikely to be surprised at what it does. If you buy an SF50, nobody really knows what the issues are with it yet.

Some folks are trying to market "refurb" aircraft, like the Renaissance Commander or the Platinum MU2:

http://www.air1st.com/platinum-series-mu-2-2.html

You might be able to pick up something like that near $1M. Won't be "new", but it is pretty close, and it easily beats your numbers for load, speed, and range.

An old airplane is a successful airplane.

Mike C.

Cliff notes version of this thread for those that don't want to read 70+ pages:

Even though the no one has flown and most have never seen an SF50 in person, we KNOW the following:

They were designed by small piston minded fools whose ideas suck
The performance numbers suck
The chute is a crutch for pilots who suck
The aircraft will never make it to market, never meet the deliveries, never meet expectations, sucks for buyers
Technology in newer aircraft sucks
Ciri in general cost more to insure and that sucks
Ciri crash a lot more than most anything else, sucks for the families
One engine, well you guessed it, SUCKS!

If a pilot were to fly as an alternative, say, oh I don't know, maybe an MU2? Well then we KNOW the following:

The pilot has an amazing mind, logical, clear, razor sharp, with mad skills of course
MU-2 SFAR class comes with a complimentary MENSA membership
Bring a potential client out to the ramp and they see you have an MU-2, game over.
Watch women ditch that G-V zero and get with an MU-2 hero, pure Jet-A pheromones
Owning an MU2 is a like a 1968 Ferrari 356 California, the choice of a connoisseur

Those with the means have a simple decision, embrace the suckage or join the aviators of legend. That should bring most everyone up to speed.

You forgot the ten pages about how Cirrus and Cirrus pilots are immoral.

Btw, the mits may be the only plane Ive ever seen that I would consider truly fugly.

If what I said was all lies, it wouldn't irritate you so much.

Mike C.