You mean like Paul Moller and his flying car? We need more of that?

Look up the history of the Gulfstream Peregrine. The SEJ is NOT a new idea. This is not new territory.

The SEJ is not a "gamble", it is a bad idea, knowably bad before you start.

If Cirrus had started with a piston single that flew 100 knots at 25 GPH, would we be praising them for advancing aviation into the future?

Mike C.

I totally don't understand those who label others as "haters".

That is an emotional defense mechanism to avoid thinking about what they are saying, make it entirely their problem why they disagree with you.

Mike C.

I totally don't understand those who label others as "haters".

That is an emotional defense mechanism to avoid thinking about what they are saying, make it entirely their problem why they disagree with you.

Mike C.

Why is it a bad idea? The FJ33 is a pretty efficient engine and the SETP market is doing well, why not a single engine jet?

So Cirrus is knowingly betting on something they know is going to fail, are they just plain dumb and don't see the obvious or what is "knowably" a bad idea?

Here is my current take on it.

Mike C is very logical. Like Mr. Spock, but with his army of robots.
His engineering analysis is sound.

But, planes are not sold solely on logic. Emotion in many forms plays into it.

Those who only offer technically superior consumer products with no understanding of the emotions of their target market sometimes get surprised when their superior product doesn't sell as well as the provably inferior product that appeals to the emotions of someone involved with the purchase.

+ 1

Also, comparing a Brand New product to 40 year old legacy products completely ignores the very real & emotional choice to buy NEW not USED.

Sure. But whose money are you talking about?

As I understand it (mostly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50), the SF50 depositors put down about $40MM or $50MM. That wasn't enough money to go into production and the project foundered for lack of additional capital. The company was eventually sold to the Chinese firm CAIGA in 2011 for $210MM. CAIGA (wholly owned by the PRC) has fronted the SF50 development costs since then.

Hmm. Can you give an example of this happening in aviation?

Anyway, I don't think the marketing-trumps-product effect happens very often in technically complex products. Cheap-and-simple often beats expensive-and-better. But that's different, and I'm not sure that's what the SF50 is. It has features (like the chute) that nobody else has. And the costs aren't that much lower: the capex isn't that much lower than traditional VLJs, opex per mile is probably on par, training costs (substantial when you measure by time) and insurance are probably identical. Maybe it turns out fitting in a 40' hangar is the key to cracking open a new market. But I kind of doubt it.

The other thing is it's rare to see the same company execute on a product innovation strategy and a cheaper-is-better strategy at the same time. The SR22 is a *great* airplane, with many interesting technical and non-technical innovations, and not at all cheap. Even their new bit about offering customized interior trim on the SR22 is new and novel. You'd expect to see the same strategy across the rest of their product line.

Beech Starship comes partially to mind.

You can't decide to bet on a horse after it leaves the starting gate. Jason can be evasive until the time period expires and then accept or reject the bet with no risk.

Still no quote from me saying it can't be certified. The SF50 can be certified. In fact, it is by far the most reasonable of SEJs when it comes to certification requirements, being the only one which wasn't going for high ceiling. The low ceiling is what dooms the airplane to be slow and inefficient.

Mike C.

I totally don't understand those who label others as "haters".

That is an emotional defense mechanism to avoid thinking about what they are saying, make it entirely their problem why they disagree with you.

Mike C.

One thing I do not follow.
Single engine piston planes were always outmatched against twins for 40+ years. But over that time, SEL have added backup alternators, batteries, FIKI.... everything that was once the domain of twin engine airplanes only.
For jets; I have yet to anything which changes the logic. Why is two engines better than one?

Nothing in this thread has answered this basic premise.

And all the arguments about is more efficient seem to ignore where the planes fly along in the busy class A. VLJs are stuck low, and the slower the plane the lower they are stuck. I recall a a really interesting blog about a guy who owned a Citation Mustang and Eclipse. The exception was to fly in 30s, most flights were between 26-30K because the plane was not fast enough for the really busy airspace above.

Also, they comment about redundant systems was the exact same argument about piston twins versus single engine planes. Those issues were generally easier/cheaper to solve on a single engine then paying for a second engine to feed. What about a turbine is unique that this does not apply? Further, this also applies to TP. This is why SETP have been taking market share....

Tim

Mike has addressed this eloquently in prior posts. A couple of highlights.

1) two small jet engines don't cost meaningfully less than one larger one
2) mounting one jet is aerodynamically inefficient (n/a to setp)
3) certification requirements for jet efficient altitudes require a redundant pressurization source, second engine is the cheapest way to achieve this.