Thank goodness you aren't the king of the world, Mike. There would be no new anything, and we would all be relegated to fixing broken ass hoopties for eternity........ Not even sure I should have used green there.

Another element is that money gets a lot cheaper for folks shopping in that price bracket. I just checked and I can get sub-5% on an equities-backed margin loan right now, and I'm at the absolute bottom end of the premium banking barrel. That's still a substantial annual interest payment but it's a hard number you can plug into Excel, and you don't have to forgo the gains in the underlying equities. I got 2% on a short-term margin loan 5 years ago, when money was basically free, so anybody that bought or refi'd back then using a similar approach is doing pretty well.

From the outside looking in, I don't particularly aspire to own an SF50 - I don't see the bang for buck in performance terms and I don't need that new airplane smell - but to sell 700 copies of a $4m airplane seems like you'd need to rely on more than finding a bunch of really dumb multi-millionaires. And if they truly have found a bunch of dumb multi-millionaires, fair play to them and shame on Beechcraft for missing the boat.

I dunno, honestly, I see the SF50 and the PA46 turboprops as sharing the same rung on the ladder. Between the two, I find the SF50 far more comfortable.

Neither of them compares to a twin jet, big, medium, small, or really small.

On the age thing, I have pilot friends who will only buy new, period. I wish I could do the same.

I don't have millions of dollars burning a hole in my pocket. I also don't have millions of dollars worth of transportation needs either.

If I were in position to justify the buy of an SF50, I probably would. I think I'd enjoy flying it. I did enjoy the left seat time I got in it.

But I'm happy enough in the Columbia for now.

Might be surprised to find the cabin width of the SF50 is wider than a CJ4+ and there is literally no comparison in cockpit comfort. So there is that. Otherwise the CJ4+ is a great performer for 3-4 times the cost. Even my tiny PA46 has more copilot leg room than an M2. I can’t turn the yoke full deflection sitting in the M2.

But heck, those of us slumming in the cheap seats are still living pretty comfy. There are some great deals out there on older planes/jets, and I commend Mike for what he has been able to do with so little capital outlay. My day job takes most of my time and energy. Adding managing an older plane seems daunting.

From somewhere at 26,000 feet thanks to Elon.

Could eclipse be raised from the dead?

Ironically I just bought a 1981 501 but I’m more on the team new plane than team Ciholas here. My GA flying is basically just for personal/family use (we have a Longitude for work trips) and I’m a W2 shmuck so I have no tax benefit from owning a plane so I had to keep the budget reasonable. But if I could justify it, I’d be in a 2-3 year old Phenom 100 or M2 and I happen to be typed in both and have time in them. I think the 501 will work well for our family but I am wary of the more active management it will require, the fuel burn is high and the lack of integration is not a positive IMO.

At the end of the day, it’s great that we have these choices though - aviation is awesome but it is too expensive - especially in the FLs and very few can afford the brand new CJ4s and P300s that I would so love to have!

If you are reading Beechtalk there's a 90% chance a Cirrus is not for you.

I live in the Green Bay, WI area. Green Bay is 150k people and the "metroplex" is maybe 250k. Not small town, but not real big either. Thus when the local flight school announced they were buying a new SR20 and becoming a Cirrus approved training center I was worried. At the time the plane was $250/hour (twice a 172) and the instructor was $500/day...and you had to buy a whole day per Cirrus. As you know, when you learn to fly those first hours you can only fly 1 hour/day so effectively that plane was $750/hour. I was certain the flight school was going to go bankrupt and lose the plane.

After 6 months they had to put on a second plane. By the end of the year they had a third. In the ensuing years they've helped sell a couple dozen planes in the area and have a steady stream students flowing through. I took the owner out to lunch, apologized for doubting him, and asked just what the heck? He said it's doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc... They've always been here, always had an interest, but were turned off by 70's era spam cans with 7000 hours, cracked plastic interiors, and oil stains down the cowl. Cirrus sold them safe, modern transportation system. Cirrus sold them a lifestyle. And Cirrus sold them an ecosystem to make it all happen. The cost was irrelevant. These people are buying time, and an exclusive experience.

So look at the SF50 through that lens. There's always a less expensive way to do it. There's always a faster plane, or a bigger plane. Cirrus customers don't care. That's not what they want.

You get it Dennis!

And I was right there with you. I was very skeptical, but success is success and I will give credit where it is due. What Cirrus has done has been quite impressive.

In fact, I used to think just like Mike, that’s how I know the fallacies in his arguments.

I was a broker, a broker who wanted to sell airplanes, and to make as much money as possible. I knew that I couldn’t make money on newer aircraft, the margins are too tight. If your business is putting lipstick on a pig, you gotta have a pig to start off with.

Mike is basically a broker with one aircraft for sale.

But hey I’ll hand it to him, with the help of Beechatlk he caused a legit resurgence in the MU2 market! Success is success, I’ll give credit where it is due.

That's basically correct, Cirrus built a jet with turboprop capability.

Going the other way, Piaggio built a turboprop with jet capability.

One is misguided, the other is an achievement.

If Cirrus had built a turboprop, it would have sold just as well if not better and would have likely been a superior product in that space. It certainly would be less costly to operate and more suited to single engine piston pilots.

Mike C.

The airframe was too expensive to make, the friction stir welding and the spar machined one solid chunk, for example.

But the basic idea is right. Build a nice airframe, metal or, if you can make it light enough, composite, put two small jet engines on it, the PW610F are good enough though they could use some refinement, and then a Garmin panel.

That would be winner at the $3-4M price point. It would put the SF50 to shame in flying faster, higher, further, carrying more load, using less fuel, flying in less weather, and having no zone of death from engine failure.

Mike C.