http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/17518/docs/ ... 9855388303

I guess it might have made sense to halt this program at the time, but it seems like it would be a popular, profitable, airframe now. Piper's own, along with all the other very popular, turboprops' acceptance seem to support the idea of a single engine jet; obviously the Cirrus as well, but the Piper is way cooler.

Who knows, if the Vision finds acceptance, Piper could resurrect this program one day.

When they were pursuing the PiperJet project I owned a 1970s model Cherokee. I considered the PiperJet a high risk/reward project for Piper and wondered if it would sink the company and affect parts cost / availability for my Cherokee.

I think the M600 project was a more manageable size for Piper.

The M600 was a homerun for Piper. Pretty much fly whatever you can stuff in the cabin about as far as passengers can travel at 270 KTAS before needing a break. That plane will easily return the R&D. As said above the Piper Jet was a bigger risk. Piper was torn on dropping the project, they had a flying prototype which garnered a lot of interest. The economy at that time was just not going to support very light jets, and really even today still doesn't. So they guessed right. Cessna, Embraer and Eclipse are selling very anemic numbers of these little jets, probably below sustainable levels and they are all good planes, but without buyers.

The Cirrus Jet is interesting. They seem to have a lot of interest out there, with a jet that is priced (right now) in the SETP range. I expect the inflation on that model will be quite accelerated for Cirrus to get return on their investment. Why that jet has so much interest is a little mystery to me. There are TP's and light jets out there that beat it in speed, range, ceiling, and or efficiency, but nothing that has garnered as much enthusiasm.

The Piper jet had usable range projected ?1300 nm. That would be nice for some more interesting city pairs. The Eclipse Canada is going to be about the only jet in the VLJ category to have such range. We will see if it takes off

The range would have been the selling point of the Altaire. Don't remember whether it had a potty.

I agree and you forgot to add Honda to your list of new jets.

Piper jet didn't have CAPS. That's a huge pitch to the SF50.

As to "why would anyone want an SF50 when there are SETPs with better numbers"?..... Because it's a jet.

If you're not a pilot and that's most folks, it's all about "jet". I have a friend buying a Hondajet which I agree with you is "anemic" and he couldn't be more excited. He doesn't know anything about airplanes. He's been waiting years for delivery. He could have had a Citation years ago. He doesn't know.

After the SF50 is in the market for 5 years and not a single person got hurt from an engine failure, the case for the chute will be even less compelling than it is now. PC12 and TBMs have been flying on one engine for 20 years and engine failures have not been a measurable part of the safety picture. The concept has become such a big share of the TP market that Cessna is coming out with their own.
It'll take the SF50 to prove to concept of the single engine light jet. 20 years from now, there is a good chance that the SF50 will only be a small part of that market and some folks will look back and says 'do you remember, back then people actually said it was a crazy idea and wouldn't work'.

This aspect cracks me up - I've encountered people who are all lit-up about Honda building a jet, as if somehow all the jets built thus far are junk, and finally someone's going to build a *good* one.

The Honda name carries a great deal of weight; people credit their cars with being flawless, even when they break!

I was at dinner with a group of guys the other night, none pilots. A couple of them I didn't know. The topic of me being a pilot and having an airplane came up. One of the guys I didn't know immediately says "you have an airplane or you have a jet"? I said "I have a non-ducted turbofan". They just looked at me.

You say this like it's an argument that matters :-). People *love* the idea of a whole plane 'chute, whether or not there's a rational argument for it. There are going to be a LOT of SF50s sold to non-pilots.

That is an awesome response. I have found passengers think there are two types of planes. Ones with propellers and ones without. They Seem to like the ones without more.

Unless/Until they have to pay the bill...

Non ducted turbofan. I like that. I sneak around in a Gti 90 in the coal mining industry in Australia so none of my clients think I'm making to much money and fly a jet or even a 200 or 350. Funny in Australia everyone hates people that do well.

I'll continue to sneak around at 270 TAS even though it may well be cheaper per mile in a jet.

That is an awesome response. I have found passengers think there are two types of planes. Ones with propellers and ones without. They Seem to like the ones without more.