In complete agreement sf50 will sell well and destroy the meridian market and possibly the tbm market if they can increase the range

Lol.
I dont think so. I fly a TBM because I want to use shorter fields in all condition, ice, snow, rain. Not deal with a jet type rating, land in CYTZ or other airports were no jets are allowed.

Why fly lower, go slower in a sperm whale that burns more fuel and as less range?
They have no payload and you want to add more fuel to get more range?








In complete agreement sf50 will sell well and destroy the meridian market and possibly the tbm market if they can increase the range

C'mon Luc, you're just using that age excuse to keep you from writing the check!
Haven't you heard, 65 is the new 40.

You know you want it. More importantly, Nancy deserves it.
Send Cirrus a picture of Red Bo, tell'em you want your Cirrus Jet to look just like it.
Maybe they'll take Red Bo as a deposit. With any luck you'll be taking delivery on your 67th birthday, you young whippersnapper!

George

One of the great things about older airframes like the "Klingon" is that they are upgradeable. Integrating avionics/autopilot with airframes = planned obsolesence. There will be no 50 year old anything flying around if the TC is in part based on an avionics platform. That part about these new planes is really flawed IMHO.

No kidding. Furthermore, I’ll bet very few SF50 owners buy a TP for their next plane. Once you get used to not having a paddle beating the air outside, you develop an aversion to props.

I don't think that is valid. The SF50 is sexy and appealing to the SR22 pilot upgrading comfortable with the Cirrus life. But at some point mission capability will become an issue. The SF50 is very range and payload limited, and is on the lower end of capability in the turbine world. Some will not embrace those limitations, and when they start looking around they will have plenty of options to review. If they want a more mission capable aircraft, some of the better options won't be another jet, at least at reasonable cost. The Cirrus SF50 won't do the short, hot, high contaminated duty of a Meridian, and it doesn't have the range payload of an M600 or TBM. To get that capability, it is going to be hard to overlook the turboprop. The next step up in the jets are a big jump in complexity, acquisition and operating costs. Plus I also suspect that when the SF50 driver looks to upgrade, they are not going to want to go back to old school avionics. That are going to want to stay in the new tech, that is only satisfied by the G3000 experience. They are now used to touch screens, envelope protection, fully coupled single lever go arounds, the latest in integrated avionics. That leaves the M600, TBM 930, M2 and Hondajet So your price points are 3 mil, 4.5 mil, 4.7 mil and 5.4 mil. There you have your line up.

I do know several jet owners that have gone to Meridians. 2 out of Mustangs and one out of an Eclipse that is now back in a Mustang, that was mostly driven by his partner. If you have a true jet mission, then jets are great. If you have a typical small GA mission, the turboprop is almost always going to be the more appropriate aircraft. more efficient, more versatile, more suited to the mix of airports and conditions that a GA pilot may want to enjoy. TP's are also easier to manage with respect to initial and recurrent training. 2-3 week Type ratings and 61.58 yearly check rides sound super-awesome, but probably not for everyone. [/quote]

______________________________________________________________________

Very insightful; thanks Chuck, very good analysis.

When is the last time you heard of a twin business jet experiencing Vmc upset?

I suspect it is "never".

One positive for a twin is that you have thrust if an engine fails, thrust that is close enough to centerline that asymmetry is not an issue.

The asymmetric thrust, Vmc roll over thing is piston think. Twin jets simply don't experience it.

Mike C.

Won't happen.

We've already had jets that sell for less than TBMs and TBMs keep on selling.

Different markets.

The range, speed, altitude, runway limitations of the SF50, plus the requirement for a type rating, will make it sufficiently noncompetitive with the TBM that TBM sales will not be affected.

I don't see it having much effect on M600 sales, either.

The SF50 is an unproven and exotically unique airplane whose faults and issues are yet to be exposed in service. The TBM and M600 have a large amount of fleet history behind them making them a reliable choice.

Mike C.

When is the last time you heard of a twin business jet experiencing Vmc upset?

I suspect it is "never".

One positive for a twin is that you have thrust if an engine fails, thrust that is close enough to centerline that asymmetry is not an issue.

The asymmetric thrust, Vmc roll over thing is piston think. Twin jets simply don't experience it.

Mike C.

Once you get used to "toy jet" performance, you develop a desire to get "real jet" performance the SF50 cannot offer.

I predict there will be a class of SF50 buyers who upgrade 3-4 years after getting the SF50 for that reason. I think the SF50 will have high turnover in the used market which will kill new sales in the future.

Mike C.

When is the last time you heard of a twin business jet experiencing Vmc upset?

I suspect it is "never".

One positive for a twin is that you have thrust if an engine fails, thrust that is close enough to centerline that asymmetry is not an issue.

The asymmetric thrust, Vmc roll over thing is piston think. Twin jets simply don't experience it.

Mike C.

Find examples of business jets "cartwheeling down the runway".

I haven't found any.

Here's a V1 cut in an Eclipse (similar weight and power to SF50):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOURy5XlVQo

I note a distinct lack of cartwheeling.

Now if someone tried this in a piston twin, pull an engine back right at liftoff, it would be considered a death wish, but it is easily handled in a twin jet.

Now, fail the engine on an SF50 at liftoff, that is *super* dangerous.

Mike C.

Find examples of business jets "cartwheeling down the runway".

I haven't found any.

Here's a V1 cut in an Eclipse (similar weight and power to SF50):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOURy5XlVQo

I note a distinct lack of cartwheeling.

Now if someone tried this in a piston twin, pull an engine back right at liftoff, it would be considered a death wish, but it is easily handled in a twin jet.

Now, fail the engine on an SF50 at liftoff, that is *super* dangerous.

Mike C.

So where are the accidents from *real* engine failures at V1 that lead to loss of control?

You claim these exist, I don't think they do. You need to provide some evidence for your statement to be credible.

Mike C.

So where are the accidents from *real* engine failures at V1 that lead to loss of control?

You claim these exist, I don't think they do. You need to provide some evidence for your statement to be credible.

Mike C.