So don't fill it up.

The tanks in my PC12 are never even half full unless I'm headed out West.

Mustang is 750. They quote their stats with a 200lb pilot.

Chip-

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... e-sf50-jet

Production certificate awarded

Wise pilot once told me that any plane that can carry more than a skinny pilot with full fuel does not have enough fuel ...

Many planes can't take much in the cabin if you put on full fuel. The SF50 is like that too. It will, however, haul ~1000 lbs ~600 miles at ~300 knots. That's not bad.

Comparisons: the Baron G58 can haul 330 lbs with full fuel, the Citation Mustang full fuel payload is 550 lbs, and for the Piper M600 it's 525 lbs.

I'm happy to fly an old plane that has a higher full fuel payload capability, but I pretty much never fly with more than me and 1 or 2 other people (or 20-30 dogs), so that limitation never comes into play.

No Mike, I was there. We didn't just fill markets, we created markets. There was really nothing like the Mac when it was put on the market, nothing at all. I had a hand in the iMac, iBook, iPod, iPhone and then some.

People sneer and what not, but I was there, went to the meetings and built the products when no one was sure they'd sell or not or the market really existed. We took a lot of chances in those days.

Before the 'i' line of computers, PC's had devolved into indistinguishable beige boxes (even Apple's) with only one market, B2B.

iPod was originally intended as a means to evangelize Firewire, (ie, 1394) which was a technology mostly developed by Apple and at Apple's behest with other partners.

Before iPhone, the "experts" claimed there were absolutely no market at all for smart phones. Seriously, the only market was for B2B devices like Blackberry because they had their own way to get corporate email. Palm was on the swirly list (as well they deserved). Only once iPhone turned into a major hit that anyone even thought there was a market for consumers for anything other than "feature phones" that could text.

We (Apple when I was part of it) opened up entirely new markets, especially with consumers who really weren't considered at all part of the market for IT devices at all.

The SF50 is a new market segment. I don't exactly get it either, since pretty much, I can go nearly as far, nearly as fast with nearly as many lbs of people and stuff in my Columbia, for a whole let less money.

But it is a new world of buyers, like the SR22 opened up. Right or wrong, lots of people bought the SR22 who wouldn't have purchased anything else.

I saw the SF-50 at AOPA Camarillo last weekend. I poked around a little, but mostly eavesdropped on the conversations the rep was having w/ other folks. It was super interesting.

There are some ergonomic considerations I hadn't appreciated. For example, the door is designed such that the pilot seat slides way forward allowing everyone else to get in, then the pilot slides the seat back and gets in and closes the door. This feature was a big deal for one person getting a tour. No crawling / sliding past each other. Civilized.

Another potential buyer was sitting in the command seat and remarked that it was a thoughtful touch to put the quick don oxygen masks right up in the ceiling for "easy access."

I came away feeling like this is basically a "hobbyist passenger experience" product more than anything else. I can't think of anything else in the market that feels like this. The Meridian and TBM are for awesome pilots. The jets are for Serious Pilots.

The SF-50 is different. There's only one lever! There aren't any buttons for the "amateur pilot" to mess up. The sheer (lack of) size of the plane is a strength. It just isn't scary.

While I think a single engine jet with a chute is a fairly dumb engineering design point, it makes more sense in this context. For a trained jet pilot, engine failure is NBD -- just means you land single engine. And of course passengers on United want more engines. But for a passenger of a hobbyist pilot, dual engines sounds complicated and scary! The pilot is going to try to land with a broken engine!? Hell no they're not. If something goes wrong in this thing, we're just pulling the chute and calling it a day. That feels more reasonable.

Now I've no idea how large that market is, or if pilots will tolerate the type rating requirement, or if having gotten rated they'll conclude they'd rather be in a more capable machine. The engineer in me thinks they could have accomplished all of this with a traditional design. And what fascinates me about this whole approach is the gap between the reality of what is easier/safer and the perception of what appears easier/safer.

I'm now super curious to see how this goes.

You did it? When? When do you get the new plane? We need details!

Bingo!
Perception is reality now.

Bingo!
Perception is reality now.

Bingo!
Perception is reality now.

It's not new...but perception used to be curbed by truth.

No.
I've owned three SR22's. I'm a Cirrus fan.
When the SF50 has 2 or 3 more seats I'm all in.
Edit: I'm hoping it has 2 engines at that point ...

Exactly. Looking at a low full-fuel payload as a negative without considering what the range is with a reasonable cabin load just penalizes a design that has great flexibility.

So the "captain" has to be the first to abandon ship after a crash?