Originally Posted by
Bell_ringer
Not exactly a fair comparison that,
My comment was more toward the “wealthy amateur” implication that somehow wealth breeds an inferior pilot. I’ve always believed the person makes the certificate and not the other way around.
I would be amazed if you think a new, experimental model is in any way safer, or more reliable.
Never said it would safer or more reliable, only that it would
equally safe and reliable based on my experiences with experimental and certified aircraft and what I've reviewed with the HX50 progress. And it was that experience that led to being asked to review the HX prior to money being spent on a production slot.
How many of the bottom 50% who own only 2.5% of the total household wealth own Cirrus or Pipers or Cessnas?
None. You’ll find aviation itself, regardless of aircraft type, is too expensive for the lower 50% percentile even in the US. Most Part 91 recreational aircraft owners come from upper 50% of the income earners with the average around the 75% level or about $85,000/year income. And the Cirrus or new Cessna owners come in around $100,000+/ year group.As to defining wealthy that has been politically defined for years at $400K+ /year or the top 1.5% earners. And people at that level and above tend to be flying around in their personal PC-12 or C208 or TBM instead of a Cirrus.
Splitting hairs once more.
Not at all. Merely stating the facts that were left out. And had you researched it, you would have also learned that the cuffed wing on the Cirrus was designed in part by NASA to “greatly reduce” a spin during a stall. No haircut required.