Having said that the Aerostar is ugly. I've tried to like it but it just is missing something. Like a big chested woman who turns around to show her fat rear end. Some is good but the whole package is off. And, virtually 99% of them have crappy looking paint jobs.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I think the looks thing is transitory. I can remember some cars I hated when they first came out and then grew on me. With respect to the SF 50 I'm not that crazy about the panel, which is what I care about most, it's too clean. The outside? Meh. The panel is the thing a pilot wants to look at.

Having said that the Aerostar is ugly. I've tried to like it but it just is missing something. Like a big chested woman who turns around to show her fat rear end. Some is good but the whole package is off. And, virtually 99% of them have crappy looking paint jobs. The Mits? I think the tip tanks look terrible and the plane looks like a fat bow legged chick from the front. But that's just my opinion...

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I've been following along the SF50 development with interest. This year I took the wife to Oshkosh. After sitting in the SF50 mockup I asked her if she'd rather go 300 knots with that interior or 215 knots in the 421. No hesitation said 215 in the 421.

No way.

You guys knocking the SF50 or any airplane on looks don't know what you're talking about. The PC12 is the ugliest airplane ever built and it outsells all of them. The uglier the airplane, the more utility it has. I don't know what it is about aeronautical engineering but that seems to be the case.

They take a special course in college to teach them that skill - its required and then they test them on it. It's a two part test, it has to look awesome in a concept and then by the time they make a production model it has to look ugly. Automotive engineers by and large suffer the same thing.

No way.

You guys knocking the SF50 or any airplane on looks don't know what you're talking about. The PC12 is the ugliest airplane ever built and it outsells all of them. The uglier the airplane, the more utility it has. I don't know what it is about aeronautical engineering but that seems to be the case.

Hey, in the ugly department, there's always the Shorts 300.

But you could mount a stripper pole in the middle and make it fun!

Maybe it's just me but I like the way the PC-12 looks, I also think the Aerostar is a good looking airplane. (I prefer it's looks to the Baron)

A certified Epic would be the ticket all around. My problem with the experimental is the idea of forking over $1M+ for something that would be (I believe anyway) very hard to sell.

Of course, once it's certified, the price will go up to $2M, speed down to 260 and full fuel payload down to 25lbs.

Sorry, no chance, baron is simply one of the sexiest airplanes ever built.

That's how it got it's name......derivative of Bardot

No way.

You guys knocking the SF50 or any airplane on looks don't know what you're talking about. The PC12 is the ugliest airplane ever built and it outsells all of them. The uglier the airplane, the more utility it has. I don't know what it is about aeronautical engineering but that seems to be the case.

I sat in the SF50 mockup recently (it was just sitting open with no one around at KSQL a few weeks ago... what was I to do?).

Front seats comfortable. Back seats, distinctly not. It's just not roomy back there at all. Also unclear where the baggage can go, I realize there is a tail compartment but I couldn't look in it (it was locked, IIRC) and it's not obvious that it would have a lot of room.

Here's a whole hangar full of ugly.

I sat in the SF50 mockup recently (it was just sitting open with no one around at KSQL a few weeks ago... what was I to do?).

Front seats comfortable. Back seats, distinctly not. It's just not roomy back there at all. Also unclear where the baggage can go, I realize there is a tail compartment but I couldn't look in it (it was locked, IIRC) and it's not obvious that it would have a lot of room.

I wouldn't buy the airplane for the chute because of reliability of the engine. I would buy the aircraft because my wife would want the chute in case something happens to me. Everyone seems to miss that the chute probably has gotten more spouses/significant others/kids into small airplanes than anything else. Candidly, I never hear much from my passengers (both in my plane and others) about mechanical reliability - it is all about something happening to the pilot during flight. Now, I don't have stats, but I think that is very low probability, but it is an irrational fear that is now addressed perfectly.