Because it looked futuristic, a drive of the post war era, and maybe it was thought to have some performance advantages.

I think the 35 series was the only V tail aircraft Beech ever produced, so the idea didn't obviously pan out to be better generally and is rarely seen on aircraft. SF-50 has it due to the jet engine location precluding a conventional tail.

BTW, the 35 Bonanza design team was led by Ralph Harmon. It isn't clear Walter had anything to do with selecting the V tail design feature.

Mike C.

As much as I like the v-tail bonanza, personally I think the Diamond D-Jet was the right way to design a single engine jet.

Seems like FOD would be much more of a concern with intakes hugging the ground on a small motor at small fields.

Bingo.

Both Eclipse and Cirrus crushed those dreams by making major high level mistakes that were completely avoidable. Their religion got in the way.

Mike C.

For grins and giggles I googled Eclipse 550 price. From what I have found, the base price is now 2.8 Million, and typically equipped at 3.5 Million.
Roughly 50% more than the Cirrus SF50. I do not consider a 50% margin when discussing seven figures to be the "same".

Tim

When Dale Klapmeier read Mike's opinion of his new jet, he announced his resignation.

The second engine adds 50% to the price. A Mustang guy once told me, “A Mustang is $1MM on the right, $1MM on the left, both mounted to $1MM in the middle.”

Not to mention inlet icing issues and loss of power from the inlet ducting.

There are also safety concerns with fuselage buried jet engines. Much safer to have a problem out on a pylon.

And then there would be the noise, something the SF50 suffers from as well.

Integrating a single jet engine into an airframe is a mess of compromises.

Mike C.

The idiot Cirrus engineers made so many "high level mistakes" and yet somehow the idiot jet buyers are ignoring the "mess of compromises" and are lined up to buy SF50's. How could this possibly be happening?

A consequence of its construction being optimized for high volume, so it was very expensive to make in small numbers. The avionics and the construction method were the fatal flaws of the EA500.

At this stage of delivery, the EA500 was priced about the same as the SF50.

If we could combine the elegant twin engine planform, Cirrus expertise in composites and manufacturing, Garmin in avionics, and two PW610F engines, we'd have a winner. It would score very low on the innovation index, but very high as a personal jet.

Mike C.

Marketing and brand loyalty.

Mike C.

My first post on the SF50 was 4 years ago. Took him a while.

It did cross my mind that the next guy might build a twin...

Mike C.

Marketing and brand loyalty.

Mike C.

A consequence of its construction being optimized for high volume, so it was very expensive to make in small numbers. The avionics and the construction method were the fatal flaws of the EA500.

At this stage of delivery, the EA500 was priced about the same as the SF50.

If we could combine the elegant twin engine planform, Cirrus expertise in composites and manufacturing, Garmin in avionics, and two PW610F engines, we'd have a winner. It would score very low on the innovation index, but very high as a personal jet.

Mike C.

When I was at P&W; when developing a platform for a new aircraft, our No. 1 goal was: "AVOID INNOVATION".

Really. The last thing you want is untried technology on a commercial program whose financial life is at stake.

The "Perfect" 'New' aircraft would use existing avionics, existing environmental and existing engines that have over a million fleet hours.

P&W had (has) research and development money to drive innovation without the risk of the loss of thier status in commercial aviation. GE is the same way.

This means you have to have vision and an understanding of where the future may be headed. Certainly economy/efficiency is the top priority in innovation R&D. Its what has gotten the industry to this point. Massive twin engine jets with conventional plan-forms and huge cabins.

At this point the only innovation is the economics of scale and that's driven by materials and manufacturing efficiency.
====

The SF50 may never get to the upper 300/400 flight levels since they are still using piston aircraft fuselages. They will have to develop higher strength materials to withstand the flight forces as well as the cyclic forces of pressurization. There is a lot of design risk in that alone. The Eclipse was pushing the design envelope with thier fusion welded aluminum structure. I dont think a simple (read: thin & light) composite structure has been developed for such a small aircraft. The weight penalty would be too high even for an advanced carbon structure.