Please don't show them the error of their ways. If you do, it will get hard for the rest of us to buy jets at reasonable prices.

Mike C.

I think your average new SF50 owner is motivated to show his golfing and business buddies that he’s a jet captain and they fly to a golf course 200 miles away on a clear day. And it’s so easy, three years ago I was taking lessons in my SR20, and then I moved up to the 22 turbo and now here I am.
And this country, we think the people who have a lot of money are magically smarter than the rest of us that’s why they’re rich. But that’s not always true

One is a Nascar race car driver who has owned multiple aircraft.

The other is a corporation that operates two King Airs.

These decisions are complex and multi-faceted, but if you guys think that someone is spending over $7M for a King Air because they’re stupid, I have news for you.

Think of what kind of jet you can buy in that price range (or less) a new M2, a CJ3+, a CJ4, a Phenom 300, an XLS, yet every year 40 people buy brand new King Airs instead.

Why?

Well, you would have to ask them.

With the two clients I had who bought new… I did.

It's unfortunate that these attitudes toward Cirrus drivers get perpetuated. It's more nuanced than that. Yes, there some that totally fit that stereotype.

The SF50 is a great aircraft! If you haven't flown one, you should try to hitch a ride. It's got a great side stick with similar feel to a Cessna TTX or Diamond DA40 (stiffer but connected). A docile airplane designed to give us piston drivers a path to jet aviation.

The cabin is immensely spacious and super comfortable for anyone that isn't a GA flyer. Stepping up an airstair door into the spacious cabin changes the whole perception of GA flying for non pilots. Add in CAPS and Autoland, makes a great personal aircraft if you can afford it.

I have flown more non pilots in Cirrus aircraft, because CAPS and now Autoland. Those safety features make them feel comfortable and in control. Perception is reality, Cirrus changes the perception and it works.

I am not a Cirrus owner. I was an Archer owner; moving to a T206.

Lastly, remember, SF50 pilots have to get type rated and then annual recurrent check rides. That's not free and takes commitment.

If that's true, it should be easy to name 1 or 20 such greed driven recommendations on a jet. Can you start with one?

It is hard to describe the average SF50 pilot. Pretty diverse group. There are a lot of attributes that attract people. The technology, automation, and comfort go a long way. Flying a legacy jet is a handful. There is a lot to know, a lot that can go wrong, and they are not very forgiving. Emergency procedures are more complex, and the whole thing is less integrated. Nothing against these legacy jets, but I would not take one if given to me. I would not feel safe in it. At least not doing the kind of flying that I do. I wouldn't have the time to do the necessary training and fly enough to obtain and maintain the skills needed for such a complex airframe, flying single pilot IFR.

For an owner pilot, the more the airframe can do to help the pilot and increase situational awareness. The more the airframe can do to intervene on the behalf of the pilot when things break down, the safer that pilot is in their avocation. I think that is what atrracts most people to the modern turbines. Otherwise, spending a lot of money for some reason.

Overhauling first run Pt-6 engines at 3600 hrs is one Bruce. Then charging them 1.2 million per engine.
In 2004 that was 240k adjusted for inflation that’s 475k. Double or more? Pure Greed

At least at Garrett goes to 5400 hrs

Overhauling first run Pt-6 engines at 3600 hrs is one Bruce. Then charging them 1.2 million per engine.
In 2004 that was 240k adjusted for inflation that’s 475k. Double or more? Pure Greed

At least at Garrett goes to 5400 hrs

Overhauling first run Pt-6 engines at 3600 hrs is one Bruce. Then charging them 1.2 million per engine.
In 2004 that was 240k adjusted for inflation that’s 475k. Double or more? Pure Greed

At least at Garrett goes to 5400 hrs

Where is the nuance? Why is it a binary decision? Can you not start with a HSI and if it shows signs of significant wear upgrade to an overhaul, but if it's in good condition perform the HSI only?

Williams FJ44 engines off program have 4000 hour TBO.

Williams FJ44 engines on program have a 5000 hour TBO.

They receive no different care. Indeed, you can take an off program FJ44 right up to the impending 4000 hour TBO and Williams will let you buy into the program at that point and magically your engine now has a 5000 hour TBO. How in the world does the metal in the engine know it can last longer if you write a check?

This is crystal clear perversion of FAA requirements, in theory based on sound engineering assessments, being leveraged for business purposes by the OEM.


This is incorrect. The engines receive no different care on program than off, and an off program engine well into its life can get on program and magically be extended.

Mike C.

Being selective on optional maintenance is not the same as being unairworthy.

Airplanes are generally over inspected. The constant tear down and rebuilding introduces massive opportunities to wear out parts prematurely and to introduce maintenance mistakes. Both the FAA and the OEM think of inspections as risk free and they are clearly not. Neither of them pay for it, so they set the rules for too much inspection.

Which hour of flight is more dangerous, the one before the inspection or the one after? That is absolutely clear.

My plane is on an extended inspection program where the big inspection now only happens every 6 years and the medium one every 3 years. 2 out of every 3 years, I am not tearing my plane apart. This is a huge cost and wear saver. It also reduces down time a great deal.

I think the "annual" interval should be increased to every 2 years. There's no reason a 172 needs to be torn apart every year.

Mike C.

No. You leave out important considerations. Modern engines on programs are closely monitored. If you’re on the program, they are calling you when then see a minor shift in performance. If you’re not on a program, you don’t have to send your data to Pratt or Williams and they aren’t calling you with preventative engine maintenance warnings. And if you’re not on the program, they may well require inspection to get on the program.

I don’t worry about turbines that have been inspected but I do have a serious qualms about the accessories that are attached to them. Newly overall ones are much worse than ones that were overhauled 20 years ago. There’s been a huge brain drain in this accessory overhaul industry.

With the atrocious quality of accessories that are coming out of these accessory overhaul shops, I would be quite scared to overhaul an Engine completely in this environment. What I found is, it’s not the actual engine that breaks on a turbine, it’s the fuel controller, oil pump, or fuel pump.

Unfortunately, if you choose to overhaul your Turbine, you have to overhaul all these accessories, even if they are working perfectly. I feel that is actually much riskier than not overhauling them.