Has been my issue for 30 years heading up extremely talented engineering and design teams.
Unless rigidly boxed in with cast in stone design and cost parameters, you often end up with what I call the golden screw. Doesn’t add value, costs a bomb and nobody wants it. You typically have to give away all your margins to sell it. But boy is it clever and pretty and engineered.

Yes, they disagree on ‘Venn’ to begin production. :-)

I’m having trouble getting passionate about this topic.

I was at Camarillo Airport perhaps 8 months ago when Cirrus showed up with 2 brand spanking new jets for an airborne photo shoot.

They parked out on the ramp in front of the restaurant and drew a massive crowd while they refueled and waited for that perfect light the photographers like as the sun sets.

While they waited we (as in the large CROWD of pilots and mechanics) were allowed to circle the aircraft, ask questions, get inside, etc. They were BEAUTIFUL.

But sadly they are out of the price range that most of us mere mortals have for aircraft. C’est la vie.

They’re bigger inside than one might think. They’re beautiful in person, regardless of what a photo might make one think.

Obviously they are selling well. Good for them. I guess if I had a couple million to spend on a personal transport (aka Toy) I’d give them a serious look. Sadly I don’t.

Oh well. Good luck to them and to their buyers.

Jim

They are debated for the same reason we argue about how bad the Stealers are, and why they should never have made the playoffs. Or go with the perennial hated Patriots.

Tim

No, I won't waste it trying to invent stuff.

I will simply design and build a good straightforward airplane with the least innovation possible.

You buy engines from PWC.

You buy avionics from Garmin.

And so on for each system.

There's not one thing you have to invent to build this plane.

You can do that for $500M.

Mike C.

The problem with that theory is that Cirrus spent extra design time (and missed the shipping date by years) because it was a single instead of a twin.

You guys are still stuck in the mindset that a single engine jet is somehow easier and faster to market. Ain't so. Building the first SEJ is much more work than a twin, both for being first and for the complexities being a single introduces in system design and the side effects of the engine mount position.

Mike C.

I am specifically arguing for LESS engineering.

All this "do less engineering" sentiment is EXACTLY why you want to build a twin. Cirrus had to do MORE engineering to make it a single, and got a worse result.

Mike C.

Are they?

I mean, are they selling NOW? That is, how many contracts has Cirrus signed since the planes have actually EXISTED so you knew what your were getting?

It feels like nearly all the "sales" were people buying the brochure, and not the actual plane itself. Now that the plane truly exists, are there a pool of buyers waiting to see the real product who are now putting money down on them? Doesn't feel like that is happening.

It was years after introduction before you saw a used Mustang or Eclipse on controller.com. Presently there are 3 used SF50s on controller.com. Why aren't those selling?

Mike C.

No, I won't waste it trying to invent stuff.

I will simply design and build a good straightforward airplane with the least innovation possible.

You buy engines from PWC.

You buy avionics from Garmin.

And so on for each system.

There's not one thing you have to invent to build this plane.

You can do that for $500M.

Mike C.

I asked that same question of Mike C for the last 2 years in this thread. He won't answer it.

This airplane Mike C wants to build already exists and doesn't sell very well. Go buy a Honda Jet or an M2 or a Phenom 100. SF50 is outselling all of them and has been on the market the least about of time. M2 and HJ cost 2X what the SF50 costs.

I asked that same question of Mike C a couple years ago in this thread. He won't answer it.

This airplane Mike C wants to build already exists and doesn't sell very well. Go buy a Honda Jet or an M2 or a Phenom 100. SF50 is outselling all of them.

Be cheaper, smaller, lower cost to operate. A personal jet.

Eclipse planform, Garmin avionics, and a structural design compatible with industry norms.

Mike C.

Doesn't today.


I bet more purchase contracts were signed for each of those types than the SF50 in 2018, thus the SF50 is not outselling them presently. That's apples to apples.

You are comparing brochure sales made 10+ years ago against real actual planes today and you've stated that information from 10 years ago is meaningless.


Which is why my proposed plane doesn't exist today, not in the same class.

So far, the entrants into the personal VLJ have all been crippled by self inflicted wounds of engineering ego of one form or another. The plane doesn't need to be a gadget or be exotic, just be ordinary and functional.

Mike C.

I'll bet you $100 this time next year the SF50 is still outselling the M2, Phenom 100 and Hondajet.

Here 2018 through the 3rd quarter:
SF50 41
Phenom 100 8
Hondajet 21
Citation M2 22

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/20 ... portQ3.pdf

This is called "armchair QB".