Steve Jobs wasn't an engineer.

And that's precisely the point .

If it is I, for one, don't get it. Mike said he would rather live in a world where engineers market rather than marketers engineer. He cited Steve Jobs as his example implying that Jobs, as an engineer, produced great products which were market successes. The implication is, that Cirrus' SF50 is a marketing product not an engineering one and therefor inferior.

The problem is, as I point out, that Mike didn't pick a good example to support this point inasmuch as Jobs was not an engineer.

You have it backwards.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer yet made all these amazing products.

Jason,

I think this point is essential. And it really is what underlies the debate of this 165 page thread, which is going in increasing unending and pointless circles.

Mike, and those that support his view, look at this product (SF50) primarily from the engineering point of view (is it the best expression of what Cirrus could have used its resources to create and the strong feeling that it did not). Others see a recognition on Cirrus' part that there is, or will be, a market demand for the product they are actually creating.

So, both groups have bias and the bias causes them to view the product in very different ways. The bias also prevents each group from seeing certain aspects of the product which are in a neutral view undeniable. This is the way life works and in this case we have an example of the classic irresistible force paradox.

There is no solution here. This thread will continue to run in circles with nothing accomplished until the participants lose interest, or the Jeffs shut it down.

I agree. You should watch the video I posted on the previous page. Covers the topic well.

Innovation doesn't come from analyzing data. It comes from one guy denying the data and doing what he wants to do.

It's a fascinating video. It reminds me of a show I saw recently about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii. No one saw it coming and almost no one understood the danger and so refused to flee (change) while there was time.

So we've reached the point where the SF50 proponents are acknowledging that the SF50 performance is crippled by being a single, but they say the power of Cirrus marketing will make it a market success none the less. Owners will be convinced, at least initially, they are flying a great airplane even if it isn't.

I suggest those of you in the "marketing will win" camp go back and read the innumerable threads started by prospective buyers on analyzing aircraft performance, cost, features, etc. They don't spend time discussing the marketing program. Airplanes are not like perfumes or clothes where the customer value is all perception, airplanes have to perform with hard numbers.

At the end of the day, the value of an airplane boils down to what it can do for the money.

Mike C.

If you are referring to me then no. In the first place I'm not a "proponent" merely an interested bystander with money in my pocket waiting to see how things turn out. I also don't acknowledge that the plane will be a "cripple" by being a single. What I acknowledge is that we've arrived at irresistible force paradox and one in which the circular arguments and stubborn clinging to position is no longer even merely entertaining.

High fuel consumption, limited altitude, limited speed, limited range are not circular arguments. Those a numbers ultimately based on physics, not marketing.

You can deny them if you wish, try to make them sound invalid or just based on stubbornness, but that doesn't change them. The numbers will ultimately determine the success or failure of the airplane.

Mike C.

High fuel consumption, limited altitude, limited speed, limited range are not circular arguments. Those a numbers ultimately based on physics, not marketing.

You can deny them if you wish, try to make them sound invalid or just based on stubbornness, but that doesn't change them. The numbers will ultimately determine the success or failure of the airplane.

Mike C.

Mike C.

How did Cirrus sell so many SR20 and SR22?
They are crippled compared to the Bonanza, less efficient (gear drag), burn more fuel, smaller, less useful load....

Tim

THE CHUTE!



Mg

The only thing I'm acknowledging is the same thing I acknowledged on page 1. It's the least expensive turbine there is. Want faster? pay more money. This isn't rocket science. I don't know why you argue it so much.

A PC12 is crippled compared to a Challenger 300. But it's also a fraction of the price.