How so?

What's next for you Patrick?

The recurrent is a progressive check, not a pass/fail check ride. Yes, you need to satisfy each maneuver/procedure to ATP standards, but if necessary you get multiple attempts unlike a pass/fail test. Much different than a check ride. Furthermore, a recurrent is typically completed over two or three days, whereas a check ride is a one shot, start to finish, test.

I'm aware that the SF50 does require a type rating.

But how does that compare to getting a Citation, or any $2M used-jet type rating? The SF50 is a far, far, simpler aircraft. It is very similar to the SR22 in terms of panel and layout, vs. the variety of systems in various models and years of CJ's or other similar planes. It just isn't as demanding.

Honestly, I'm not sure that something like the SF50 *should* require a type rating. I can see why a Falcon does, can't see why an SF50 should. It does by virtue that the regulations say anything with a "turbojet" engine requires a type-rating.

There's really nothing, "similarly-priced" that's also brand new that lets the owner say, "let's take my jet." Especially if that owner only holds a PP ASEL + IR and several hundred hours in a SR22.

Nor is there a brand new SETP in that same price range either. There are used ones, but used is used and of course, "it isn't a jet."

It is in its own little niche. More like an SR22 on steroids than a "jet" or a setp.

That is much better. I had thought it was a a scenario of take an annual checkride and if you bust then who knows when the examiner may be available for a re-take, meanwhile you are grounded.

So (after initial pass of real type rating checkride) it is closer to insurance-mandated recurrent for the SETP people, but it's just regulatory in the jet world.

Thank you Clint, very informative!

This is true, I feel like what you wrote below is, in effect, the sales pitch and, if one can call it a value proposition, it is the value proposition of the SF50. If we aren't talking about putting it up against a SETP, and what you wrote below is the rationale for purchase, I find it hard to argue against it

Sometimes there isn't a product in a market segment, because analysis shows it wouldn't do well for any number of reasons. One could argue Diamond and Piper came to this conclusion.

Sometimes it's because someone hasn't figured out how to package and market something fitting in that segment in such a way that it might just work. Cirrus figured it out.

I think of something like a Bentley Bentayga, Lamborghini Urus, etc. Why?!?!? Range Rover has this market covered! Yet... I would not be shocked if Lamborghini sells a ton of the Urus. It's not a perfect metaphor but it is the first thing that comes to mind regarding a brand trying to exploit an odd gap in a marketplace with brand power and marketing.

I think Cirrus will through sheer brilliant packaging and marketing make the SF50 work, at least as long as economic conditions allow.

If the inertial separator and slight other operational differences make you believe you will be safer in m600 vs tbm you probably shouldn’t be flying either. Ham fisted pilots have no place flying either, regardless of nanny features.

Both are hyper capable planes that will probably never hurt you if you fly in a methodical way, make smart weather decisions and train an appropriate amount. I am sure envelope protection is nice to have, however, I don’t think it is nearly as valuable on a plane like this vs a Cirrus sr22. Different flying regimes.

Go fly both and report back. Both are personal space ships that can make you virtually never have to fly airlines again.

Depreciation on tbm may be more than you think bc of things like m600, Cirrus Jets etc hitting market over the next few years.

As an aside, when m600s eventually become cheapish in 10-15 years, what a great buy that will be! I hope piper makes a ton of them.

Charles,

Thanks for your explanation.

I see there are some what I'd consider to be fairly minor things in your description which I can see are easier in Piper. For example, you move the prop (blue lever) control to max before engine start and leave it there until shutdown (with the exception of the preflight feather check) so if we're making a big deal out of the M600's simplicity in comparing to that we're making mountains out of mole hills. With that said if you can't manage those, given how much easier an SETP is to fly than a complex piston, I'd say you should stick to a 172.

With respect to torque roll I don't believe that's an issue in the TBM either. Mark may have a comment but I too have tried that in training with no issue. Does the airplane require right rudder with the throttle advanced? Well, it is a propeller driven airplane. But the torque, even when the throttle is advanced rapidly, doesn't roll the airplane over.

Some of the automated features you mention on the Piper, like automated pressurization control is present on the G1000 and later models of the TBM, and the 900 series integrates engine controls. It's important, I think, not to overly generalize the automation capabilities of the TBM against the M600 as there has been a continuous improvement in those by Daher over the years.

You mentioned the Milwaukee accident and that was not caused by a control issue on go around as you allege but a prop strike which destroyed the composited propeller. I was particularly interested in this accident as the girl attended my son's high school in MA. and the pilot was on the trustees there. We covered the accident in detail in my last recurrent. It appears from the physical evidence that the propeller struck the runway surface a number of times (5 IIRC) and that it likely came apart during the attempted go around with a subsequent loss of power resulting in a stall/spin. The tips of the propeller are very close to the ground on the TBM and a porpoise on landing can be a very serious problem as in this accident. It's not something to be particularly concerned about but proper pilot technique on landing is important.

Actually, I think it is brilliant marketing. It isn't based on numerical analysis of what you can do with it, the value is how the SF50 makes you feel.

As a transportation airplane, it is hard to justify.

As a fun machine, that's pretty good at going places, and has the cachet of, "my jet" there's a bunch of people with the necessary ratings and the necessary wallet to make it work, without all the hard work that keeping up a CJ rating needs.

I think the other VLJ, single jets, missed because they tried to be too much airplane and not enough fun.

Tony, thanks for the update on the Milwaukee crash, never followed up on the final, but the plane inverted making me suspicious of a torque roll. The later aircraft of course have strakes to help with that as well as the HP limitations on take off and go-around (again just a little more complex ) But they are minor issues I agree, but complexity does occasionally bite good pilots under pressure. The New Jersey TBM icing fatal the pilot did not have his windscreen heat on which the windscreen being the largest unprotected surface on the TBM would have added a lot of drag given that it was rough ice. Additionally did not have the inertial separator open in severe icing which may have led to compressor surges, stalls or some other loss of performance which the NTSB report fails to explain in the pilots transmission

Seventeen seconds later, he said the plane was experiencing “a little rattle” and asked to be cleared to go to a higher altitude “as soon as possible please.”

I suspect that was induction icing doing something bad, otherwise not sure what a rattle is in a TBM going through ice. You don't have to worry about turning on the IS in a Meridian/M500/M600 as it is always active, the icing performance tables are the same as normal tables, minus any effects of airframe icing.

If you fly any plane in this category, it is important to match the capability of the plane the capability of the pilot and the mission. What a complex formula that is, and I have no grand insight there. But if you do read about one of these birds coming to grief, pretty safe bet that it was not the planes fault.

Isn't that what the guy who landed upside down in the swimming pool did? Tried to use conventional soft field technique in a meridian.

I still maintain if you are not smart enough to open an ice door, turbine flight level flight is not for you.

I am curious for you guys who are trying to torque roll SETPs.

Have you tried not just being in landing config and slamming the throttle, but maybe also over pitching and basically having an incipient stall at the same time while feet flat on the floor and yaw damper off?

I have heard about being careful on the TBM at high alpha in landing config and slamming the throttle on go around, and I'm wondering now as it sounds like maybe it isn't as tricky as advertised?

I don't know if that sounds smart in any high powered plane. When I was alluding to torque roll, I was referring to rolling it while inputting appropriate controls. I do know a high time TBM pilot that has had 3 TBM's. On one pick up across the pond he had the opportunity to do a checkout ride with one of the Socata test pilots. He was able to do a full power on stall. He was briefed beforehand that he would become inverted, and it sure performed as advertised. I don't think he monitors this board, or would encourage him to share the rather exhilarating story.

Charles,
If your idea of a complex plane is opening the seperator maybe you should stick to the Piper product. Enjoy the warmer and less efficient running engine.