That's just an article. I have a contract on my desk for a new G58 from the factory $1.1MM.

OK, wow, tells you where the twin market is. Not a bad number at all. I see there is a 2007 with 1000 hours for $800 on Controller. New sounds like a better deal. Let us know.

Well that changes things.

SF50 or not, I think we all like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l037bbnZR0

Chris,

I was going with list. I had a price list that was passed on second hand a little over a year ago for the Baron. With all the loaded options it was just under $1.6 Million.
Interesting the difference between the contract and the list prices. Also makes it very comparable to a PA-46 Mirage.

I hope you buy it, I liked them.


Tim

I was listening to some Pink Floyd earlier today too!

Tim

Including the Wright Brothers.

In fact before them, and since Leonardo DaVinci, most people felt that heavier than air flight was a complicated problem which was impossible to solve! That attitude undoubtedly made it a lot more difficult to solve, for those who did solve it.

Truthfully, nobody except Mike C. knows what the future will hold. Although he has made excellent points.

But I am happy that Cirrus is trying to push the envelope a little further, bringing some excitement into general aviation. Maybe even a new airplane! The odds are against them. Even if they fail, it may still become a success for aviation in some way we don't even know yet.

How does the insurance industry deal with the moral hazard the chute offers?

Turns out, they did, in part.

The anti icing systems consist of all three major approaches:

Boots on wings and tail.

Bleed air for engine inlet.

TKS for windshield and nose.

I find it interesting they felt the need to deice the nose. I wonder if this is to keep the radar clear, or if it is to prevent build up of ice on the nose that could release into the engine. I don't know of any other FIKI aircraft which deices the nose, so I suspect it has to do with engine ice ingestion.

The windshield/nose TKS reservoir is 3 gallons. I don't know how long that lasts.

Mike C.

Leading to Lord Kelvin's famous quote in 1895 (just 8 years prior to the Wright Brother's first flight):

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

Kelvin was wrong on a lot of things. A LOT of things.


They are specifically refusing to push the envelope. They are, in fact, accepting of an airplane that is mundane in all of its capabilities.


Do we need yet another failed project in aviation?

I don't really understand this theme of characterizing Cirrus as somehow going on a voyage of discovery to unknown places that will benefit us all. They are not going anywhere unknown. My whole point is that where they want to go is known. Those who did discover things (like Lear) saw no point in the place Cirrus wants to go.

It would be like praising Lewis and Clark for driving I-80 today and wanting to stop in desolate Nevada. And a second engine and we can reach the Pacific!

Mike C.

And then raise the rates.

Mike C.

And then raise the rates.

Mike C.

Turns out, they did, in part.

The anti icing systems consist of all three major approaches:

Boots on wings and tail.

Bleed air for engine inlet.

TKS for windshield and nose.

I find it interesting they felt the need to deice the nose. I wonder if this is to keep the radar clear, or if it is to prevent build up of ice on the nose that could release into the engine. I don't know of any other FIKI aircraft which deices the nose, so I suspect it has to do with engine ice ingestion.

The windshield/nose TKS reservoir is 3 gallons. I don't know how long that lasts.

Mike C.

In the 20/22 I would disagree. They brought composite, fixed gear, glass cockpit, speed, lean of peak ops, and a chute all in one bird. They obliterated the competition. You can say what you want about the finer points of bad airmenship, poor decision making on the ground etc. etc. but when that only f'n engine quits in broad daylight on a VFR flight and I got a whole bunch of bad news below me I like options mate, as many as the deck will stack in my favor

You raise some very, very good points with regards to technical matters in the SF50 to which I have absolutely no clue. Not my forte

I'm willing to toss my hat in at the same wager as Jason that they build the jet.

Fraud is paid for by owners through increased premiums.

The chute gives an owner an almost guaranteed way to total the airframe at little risk to themselves personally.

Other types without chutes don't have this moral hazard.

Couple that with "pull early and often" guidance (the effect of which can clearly be seen in the uptick in CAPS deployments), it seems there will be a high rate of hull loss for the SF50 versus other types.

I think the chute increases insurance costs.

Mike C.