Another thread where Mike reiterates that he does not understand basic human nature.

My life is more enjoyable that I fly an ultra modern plane that almost never needs maintenance and when it does I can call somebody and say fix it, and there’s always a decent supply of new parts to get it back in the air quickly. With few supply chain exceptions. Same with my car. Barely drive anything more than three years old, and when it gets a rattle or squeak, it’s going to the used car lot. :-). I don’t mind you flying a planosaurus Rex with a frankenpanel or driving a 1973 Chevy pick up truck, because it’s super cheap, compared to a 2026 Raptor. I don’t understand why you have a problem with people willing to spend money on more advanced more modern aircraft?
Some of this tongue in cheek, but why do you care so much?

Amusingly, the new planes have parts issues, I don't.

Case in point: hydraulic engine driven pumps on CJ and CJ1. Some planes have been AOG since 2024 waiting for parts only Textron can supply. 41 aircraft are on the AOG board. If you are unlucky enough to have a -1 or -3 pump, you have to buy new -2 pump, $39,000. But you might wait a year for it.

I bought a used hydraulic pump for $200 about 3 years ago. Had it in 2 days. At least 5 salvage yards had it in stock. There is no part I can get for my plane in a few days.

Ask CJ4 owners about windshield frame corrosion and downtime that caused. Ask any CJ owner about intercoolers, a life limited part with inadequate supply.

The theory "newer means parts are easy to get" is often wrong when it comes to planes.


It is a service to point out how much impact capex has on overall cost of ownership. That impact is seemingly not acknowledged or understood. Somebody says "I won't buy a legacy Citation because it is too costly to run". Meanwhile they buy a costly newer airplane and the total cost of ownership is significantly higher due to capex.

Cars and airplanes have very different ecosystems. The newer the plane, the more onerous the inspections, the higher the cost of parts, the more OEM closed the ecosystem is, and the more risk of single source parts causing AOG events. OEMs have increasingly leveraged FAA rules to generate revenue. A clear example if the SF50 where you must talk to Cirrus for almost everything, parts, service, training, etc. You don't so much as "buy" an SF50 as you "rent" it from Cirrus. Airplane as a service.

I am happy there are people spreading the misconceptions that newer means less costly to maintain, cheaper parts, more available parts, etc. That allows the rest of us to buy lower cost airplanes that are actually cheaper to own. If the true value of the older planes became known, they would go up in price.

Mike C.

It is not a myth. My plane came with free parts and maintenance for 5 years or 1500 hours, including annual maintenance. I really wanted to buy a new airplane and get back into that culture, but year 6-7, slumming with the legacy pilots now . And boy are our expenses increasing. Plus I get the feeling if someone needs a flux capacitor of which there is only one in the world for their new M700 and I need one for my legacy M600, I will be in the waiting line.

Willful blindness seems to be the most common coping mechanism for dealing with the financial impact of capex for an aircraft. The focus on operating cost ignores the often larger impact of capex on the total cost of ownership.

My life is more enjoyable because I am aware of the capex impact and I fly a plane that would otherwise be beyond my means if I didn't take that into account.

Mike C.

The Eclipse 700 program was well on its way to being exactly that. My read on ONE Aviation's biggest mistake which led to the 2nd bankruptcy and killed the 700's chances was that it was too small of a company to be trying to certify 2 new airplanes at the same time; the 700 and the Kestrel SETP, and it broke them.

Free doesn't mean available.

Many of the CJ parts problems are customers on the parts programs. Some of them have found salvage parts to keep flying while Textron sorts out the supply problems.

Mike C.

No, they aren't. They are pilots who have been brainwashed to think two jet engines is a problem because two piston engines certainly is. But jets are not pistons, though Cirrus doesn't really know that.


A second jet engine is the key to going higher, faster, further, safer. Why is denying them those benefits a good thing?


Exactly what limit is exceeded by a twin jet?

Why did Eclipse owners not run into these supposed limits?

Read the first three paragraphs of:

https://www.twinandturbine.com/vision-c ... ype-rating

---
“Fire, fire, fire!” I was climbing through 10,000 feet in the Cirrus Vision Jet, having just departed Knoxville (KTYS) and joining the SWIFFT TWO arrival into Nashville (KBNA). I moved the thrust lever to idle, pitched to 120 KIAS, and waited 15 seconds to see if the FIRE light extinguished, indicating a bleed leak rather than an engine fire. No such luck. At 15 seconds, I still had the FIRE alarm sounding so next was Fire Acknowledge Switch activate and push one of the two fire extinguisher buttons. This canceled the alarm, but I still had a problem: gravity.

Now the fun began. I fly gliders, and while the jet has a reasonable glide ratio, it wasn’t a sailplane. Knoxville was close, so I started to load the RNAV 23R back at the airport. My instructor, Joe Logan, then reminded me, “You do know you don’t have two engines.” Oops, I forgot I wasn’t flying a multi-engine jet. I was at the Cirrus Vision Training Center in Knoxville for my SF50 type rating.

I zoomed into the map on the Garmin G3000 map page and headed to Monroe County (KMIV), hoping to be at high-key at 3,000 AGL with low-key at 1,500 (abeam the touchdown). My delay would cost me valuable time and altitude, but I was determined not to try to stretch the glide with potentially disastrous results. On final it was clear I wouldn’t make it, however, the grass before the runway was smooth and after landing on it, I rolled up on the runway. At least the simulator didn’t indicate a crash with the red screen of death.
---

Why do you think teaching pilots to handle a dead stick landing is within their "limits" instead of just easily flying on the remaining good engine?

My type rating did not involve any dead stick maneuver. Geez, that would be so stressful!

Mike C.

I think the "Cirrus" didn't do anything special crowd made your point, albeit, there are over 700+ CVJ's later.

That's the current result, will be 800+ by end of 2026 and probably 1000 before you know it.

Eclipse jet: 260
Citation Mustang: 479
CitationJet (525): 2000+ all models since 1993
Citation V (All Models) - Less then the Cirrus since 1989

Doesn't mater what anyone says, numbers don't lie. People are buying. Once Cirrus got past 250 it was viable, once past 500 it was validated, 700+ it is a hit.

The Citation V is the ideal airplane.

The Phenom 300 is the ideal airplane.

The Cirrus SF50 is the ideal airplane.

All three things are true at the same time.

My clients and other jet buyers are not brainwashed and they are not stupid. There is a decision tree that goes into every aircraft purchase. If you don’t know the answers to the first steps, you can’t possibly know what aircraft is ideal for someone.

Brokers sell what they like.

We help people buy what they need.

As a buyer’s rep we have the opposite mentality of a broker, to us the only real difference between an SF50 and a Challenger 3500 is what the buyer wants / needs.

If you listen instead of tell, you’ll learn quickly why buyers make the decisions that they do. You’ll also discover that when provided with good, unbiased data, they usually make solid decisions.

It probably should, there has been a not trivial number of dual flame outs in twin jets. Including the recent ?Challenger fatal. Whether related to weather (ice crystals/hail) fuel contamination, fuel, starvation, or like the Challenger just bad luck. One benefit of single engine turbines, is they are usually engineered to handle it off field landing. Lost all speed, most have a several hundred poind battering ram upfront to clear obstacles. That’s why in 14 million hours in the PC12, TBM, Piper fleets, he really can’t find much in the way of engine related fatals. Might be some that were suspicious, but not coded as a loss of thrust by the NTSB. I think there might’ve been a couple in the TBM, but in the end, both of those were Pilot related. 1 inch run away where the pilot had power but cut it too soon, and one Wirth the pilot flew uncoordinated so long that it unported the fuel tank. But if you’re a pilot of a single aircraft, you need to be an expert glider pilot. Or in the case of the SF50, you always have the parachute, although I would still take an easily available runway over landing vertical at 20 miles an hour with a ton of fuel in my tanks knowing the gear might breach those tanks. But hopefully, with a reliability of a single turban most pilots will never have to deal with it. I say that as I’m about to cross 200 nautical miles of water on my way back to the states today. Hopefully didn’t jinx myself.

But it’s warm water, the PA46 is a good ditcher, and I have a raft with survival equipment. I don’t lose any sleep over it.

The capex argument Mike makes is actually quite misleading.

1. He doesn’t take future resale value into consideration. Yes, the stock market has doubled, but so have the prices of many jets.

2. Like paying rent on an office, travel has a cost associated with it. That cost is deductible for business travel and the majority of jet operators are very good at taking business trips.

3. Initial tax advantages, if you buy a $4M airplane instead of a $1M airplane, that is a HUGE difference in tax savings. If you need the write-off that is a factor.

4. Nice and new equals expensive. We’re all big boys that understand that. No one is foolishly spending $4M ignoring the impact of capex! They don’t need to be told they are making some kind of a mistake! If they were that stupid, they couldn’t buy a $4M jet to begin with.

The fact is you just can’t compare a jet built in 1990 with one built in 2020. The guy with a limited budget who is comfortable with the older airplane is going to buy the older airplane.

The guy who has the money for newer is going to buy newer, at least 90% of the time.

I did, it was added to the outcome for my SF50 example, $1.8M sale price.


The loss income from the $3M vastly outweighs the tax advantage.


TBM, PC12, SF50 owners tell me they can't afford Citation when they are flying around in a $3M+ airplane.

That is precisely ignoring capex since they are spending more per year than I am when capex effects are included.


You absolutely can, they both do the same job.

Mike C.