Exactly, though many in this thread have argued otherwise saying folks will buy the SF50 purely on emotion.

In the "personal pressurized turbine airplane" market, we have these numbers:

SEJ = low utility, 2013 shipments zero. If there was some utility to it, it would have been done by now.

TEJ = high utility, 2013 shipments 678, far and away the lion's share of the revenue (really should consider only the single pilot jets to be fair, probably around 250 of those).

SETP = high utility, 2013 shipments 139 (65 PC12, 40 TBM, 34 PA46T).

TETP = high utility, 2013 shipments 137 (135 King Air, 2 Piaggio).

The planes that do exist fill a role, have utility.

Mike C.

Not really, Socata will produce only what they sell.
It's called supply management, every smart company knows this.

It was a test to see if he believed what he was saying. I wasn't the one who brought up taking a bet, BTW.


Clearly.

Mike C.

Well...my wife is my partner, both in life and in business. Whenever I make a purchase whose value (not to mention operating costs) is on the same order of magnitude as our house, she certainly has a say.

She happens to be paying for all my flying expenses but this would be true even if she wasn't.

Glenn

I think the individual piloting the airplane should choose the aircraft. It's his/her responsibility to carry themselves and the pax safely to the destination. The passengers can choose to get aboard or not, I'll buy what I think makes sense to keep my pax as safe as possible.

Also, I'm going to edit my earlier post because I can see how it potentially conveys a sexist message, and that's not at all what I'm shooting for. What I'm trying to say is that I can't fathom buying an airplane predicated on the opinion of a passenger, especially a non-pilot, regardless of gender. That's the kind of crap you have to do if you work for someone who's calling the shots. To each his own.

Why not? My wife spends almost as much time in my airplane as I do. Her non-pilot opinions certainly influences what we fly.

Look at it this way. Say you are a pilot working for a company that is in the process of getting an aircraft. Why shouldn't the opinion of a non-pilot CEO (or owner or operations manager) influence the decision.

Glenn

I agree. If she has a say, then she has an attachment to the airplane like you do. After all, most of the time she is legally half owner of it.

When my wife wants to go somewhere in the airplane, then I am very happy to take her. It is partly her airplane after all and she needs to benefit from it. At that point, she is the VIP and I get to play corporate pilot. Ever since getting the MU2, she has more places she wants to go. :-)

One of the fundamental problems in personal aviation is that there are not enough women buying and flying airplanes. Things would be much better if there were and the activity would have broader appeal and political support.

The first thing we could do is eliminate the "macho pilot" stereotype. That's just a smoke screen perpetuated by insecure pilots. In fact, the best pilots are the ones who look like there was never any need to be macho at any point in the flight.

Mike C.

The CEO is at the top of the chain of command in any business. He calls the shots, for better or for worse. If you work there, he's the boss.

In a personal relationship, you're peers. You have a skill set and a background. So does your peer.

I don't know much of anything about teeth other than I have them and I brush them and I chew with them. If she told me I had a cavity, I would take her word for it; she's qualified to offer that opinion. When it comes to flying, I did ask her if she preferred the long body to the short on the MU2 because that was a decision revolving around a non-safety item, namely a toilet. She didn't care, so I got the Solitaire. I didn't ask her what she thought of the twin vs. single debate. I didn't try and sell her on a parachute. She's not qualified to make those decisions. In her office, she's PIC. In my airplane, I'm PIC.

My airplane is my airplane. I picked it out, bought it and paid for it. But I gave a lot of weight to what my wife found comfortable and felt safe in. Your mileage may vary but I'd suggest that a macho attitude about these things is more than likely counterproductive to a long, happy and mutually satisfactory partnership or marriage.

Ok, just to make sure I wasn't missing something, I just showed this to my fiancee. She agrees: if I was the type of person to let unqualified people decide on what airplane to fly, she'd question my judgement and be less likely to want to travel with me at the stick. At the same time, she very much appreciates that I consider her in non-airworthiness items, like cabin size, potty, color, etc...

This is a well educated woman with a NJ attitude. Trust me, she's not taking any macho crap off anyone, lol. She does find it patronizing that many of us seem to feel like selling a person who is supposed to be a peer some bit of data to get them to "sign off" on a purchase is ok.

Nicole is happy with my view. That's good enough for me. I'm out.

In my plane I'm PIC but my wife is SIC. Good CRM would suggest that I listen to her when I make a decision.

On her own, my wife is not qualified to make decision on what airplane to fly but she's smart enough that with input from me she can form an educated opinion. When she has a different opinion than I do, especially since they are usually based on my inputs, I pay attention.

Everybody's relationship is different...whatever works for you is good

Glenn

Because the Eclipse won't get you there faster than a PC12.

A few items for Mike C to consider:

• Jet engines can be tuned for any altitude. Currently, no civil jet engines are tuned for lower altitudes. This is a fundamental issue, and if the SF50 is successful, you will see Pratt, RR and Williams address this gap. However, until the market is proven, no engine company is going to spend the money to make it happen.
• For many owner pilots, there is a secondary factor. That is the comfort level of the passengers. This is where the parachute and jet engines have a huge play. Regardless of what pilots think or know. For example, I can recall my wife seeing an Eclipse and saying that is better then a KA 350. Some of us actually care about making our passengers comfortable.
• Cessna has said repeatedly, the SETP makes sense, but the market is not large enough for them to insert a plane in the gap between the piston line and the jet lines.
• There are places all over the east coast and west coast where the high flying Eclipse is going to be stuck down at the same altitudes as the Cirrus jet. Try getting a higher altitude leaving the NY Area. Good luck. Same thing in San Diego. There north east, and the south west are where the majority of high income disposable money in the USA is located, and where Cirrus will likely sell most of the planes. In those locations, non-commercial aircraft get pushed down and stuck low.

Tim

Agreed burning 45gph in an E is a pipe dream, more like 70 block to block in the real world ATC, very costly to climb too in a jet.

Exactly, though many in this thread have argued otherwise saying folks will buy the SF50 purely on emotion.

In the "personal pressurized turbine airplane" market, we have these numbers:

SEJ = low utility, 2013 shipments zero. If there was some utility to it, it would have been done by now.

TEJ = high utility, 2013 shipments 678, far and away the lion's share of the revenue (really should consider only the single pilot jets to be fair, probably around 250 of those).

SETP = high utility, 2013 shipments 139 (65 PC12, 40 TBM, 34 PA46T).

TETP = high utility, 2013 shipments 137 (135 King Air, 2 Piaggio).

The planes that do exist fill a role, have utility.

Mike C.