No concept of balanced field length if you have a single engine.

To be fair, the Mustang is with an engine failure at V1. With all engines, the runway requirement is much less than the number given.

The SETPs are with no engine failure, obviously.

To put it in clear terms:

With no engine failure:

Meridian - 3,600'
M600 - 3,400'
TBM 850 - 3,100'
SF50 - 5,500'
Mustang - 3,400' (estimated)
PC12 - 2,350'

With an engine failure at liftoff or V1:

Meridian - unable
M600 - unable
TBM 850 - unable
SF50 - unable
Mustang - 5,250'
PC12 - unable

One has to understand the underlying conditions of the measurement to judge which planes are actually doing better or worse. The Mustang is being held to a far higher standard than the others.

The poor runway performance of the SF-50 is clearly evident in this list, about 2000 ft worse than all the others.

Mike C.

Are you sure about this number? That seems like an accelerated-stop distance and not a normal takeoff distance.

5500, even for a 4400 elevation field, is nuts.

Robert

Jason..BT is much better whn you contrinbute. Just saying

No such concept for a single engine airplane.

The SF-50 has long runway requirements. At sea level, ISA, is it 3192 ft, but as temps and elevation increase, it gets far worse.

Another aspect is that the penalties for tailwind are extreme:

Tailwind: Add 40% to the ground run and 35% to the total distance for every 10 knots of tailwind.

Denver (KAPA, 5885 ft MSL) on a 25C day (like it is right now), looking at 6,400 ft total distance. Do a 10 not tailwind takeoff, that's 8,640 ft. The thrust to weight ratio is about 31%, which is decent, but the poor engine configuration and aerodynamics rob the plane of performance.

SF-50 pilots will need to be VERY attentive to changes in wind direction and speed. A wind shift during takeoff could be a big deal.

Mike C.

Something to keep in mind when looking at the Mustang and SF50 is that the numbers you are referencing may be the equivalent of a 'balanced field (since they aren't Part 25, they don't call them that), which might be either stopping on the runway at v1, or climbing to 35 feet with a loss of an engine at v1 while still being over the runway. I think the turboprop aircraft simply deal with clearance over a 50 foot obstacle - although I have not reviewed their POHs, so I am not sure.

Jason..BT is much better whn you contrinbute. Just saying

No concept of balanced field length if you have a single engine.

To be fair, the Mustang is with an engine failure at V1. With all engines, the runway requirement is much less than the number given.

The SETPs are with no engine failure, obviously.

To put it in clear terms:

With no engine failure:

Meridian - 3,600'
M600 - 3,400'
TBM 850 - 3,100'
SF50 - 5,500'
Mustang - 3,400' (estimated)
PC12 - 2,350'

With an engine failure at liftoff or V1:

Meridian - unable
M600 - unable
TBM 850 - unable
SF50 - unable
Mustang - 5,250'
PC12 - unable

One has to understand the underlying conditions of the measurement to judge which planes are actually doing better or worse. The Mustang is being held to a far higher standard than the others.

The poor runway performance of the SF-50 is clearly evident in this list, about 2000 ft worse than all the others.

Mike C.

Are you sure about this number? That seems like an accelerated-stop distance and not a normal takeoff distance.

5500, even for a 4400 elevation field, is nuts.

Robert

That pic with your dad is awesome. Being able to share that experience with him is probably about as good as airplane ownership gets.

That fuel burn though! You sure there wasn’t a hole in the tank?

I don’t always agree with your comments about the SF50, but I’ll agree with you on this one! That’s a lot of runway...

Robert

That's unusually fast, perhaps a bit of overconfidence.

There's a lot you don't know yet. Try not to get too much of an education at any given moment.

The MU2 is not hard to fly, but it is very unforgiving of inattention and sloppiness. Everything happens fast, so make sure you fly the plane and not that the plane flies you.

Mike C.

For what it’s worth, we have a C90A Blackhawk in our company and also a MU-2B-25 with -10 engines. The Mits is 40 knots faster, and can land shorter, but it is louder in the cabin and takes more time to transition from arriving at the aircraft to being airborne and vice versa than the King Air. This is especially true if you need to plug the Mits in when it’s cold (which you don’t need to do for the KA). The KA Freon air conditioning system trumps the Mits (Air Cycle) when on the ground, but they are equivalent when airborne. Maintenance on these two particular planes has been quite different for us...the KA (‘85) has been more than twice the annual cost of the Mits (‘74). The Mitsubishi flies like a brick, not elegant, but you can count on them...it seems they rarely have issues. We looked at small Citation Jets and the Eclipse. For our relatively short/multiple legs daily, we couldn’t make the Citation operating costs work financially and the Eclipse couldn’t take off in the summer. Everything’s a compromise.

Do you have the big batteries in the mits?

Somewhere between a WAG and a computation. Uses takeoff and landing data in the AFM to estimate the V1 point, and then the two engine gradient from there.

Mike C.

Not during an approach.

I'm 20-25 knots faster on final than a Citation.

I hope you are, too.


Go to the sim and run through the various emergency procedures until they are easily handled.

Engine out and split flap are the ones you can't really train in the airplane for properly.

Mike C.