On this flight, we came into the aerodrome (towered) descending at near 300 knots GS out of FL190, slowing to 200 KIAS before entering the Delta airspace (speed limit is 200 KIAS in delta) Kept 200 KIAS all the way to the extended right base. Pulled the power back, let the speed bleed off to 170 which was gear speed, 147 flap speed, and did a normal Vref landing at 85 KIAS. Watch the speed drop (yellow) while still descending (green). So going down and slowing down is a non-issue in a turboprop. The performance envelope is astounding, but would not recommend flying like that right off the bat, until you have significant time in a TP. They will fly quite well at piston aircraft speeds as you get used to it, giving you plenty of time to set up for a stabilized pattern and approach.

Of course that is correct if David is looking for logical, objective, and practical solutions. IME, those three descriptors are not key elements in determining choice of aircraft for most of us. We buy 'em because we want 'em!

In his very first post, he said: "I need help. Should I wait a few years to buy the vision or just pull the trigger on an M600 now." There are only two possible roads to travel here..

This.

In addition, a turboprop for the short mission you describe would be a lot more efficient. And land short, etc, as others have said.

The hangar size issue might be a legit reason for the SF50 if you can’t get a bigger hangar. It is compact.

"Welcome" to BT, lurker! Joined over a year ago and one post, LoL!

You have a enviable (for many) decision to make. I think the others have pointed out some good alternatives. However using totally a left brain approach, and with 85% being the 190 miles (each way), it sure seems like the M (now) is a smarter play.

But for a skill that largely relies on the left side of our brain, the right side tends to make a lot of emotional decisions for us.

I hope you let us know what you decide.

Seems like an M500 would also work for you. For the 1400 mile trip you're going to want to stop either way, and that's just a couple times a year. For the bread and butter trip I don't think you'll see any difference in the M600 vs the 500, the cabin is the same.

Side note: Piper needs to hire someone that can count. Lol

Why not a King Air ?

I wrestled with the turboprop decision for a couple years and finally pulled the trigger this year on an M600, after a lot of thought. It really comes down to your mission. With about 900 hours in SR22Ts, I Considered the Vision Jet first. Unfortunately, after talking with a Vision Jet flight instructor I learned it couldn’t get out of sub 4000 ft runways in the summer in Florida. That pretty much eliminated it right away. Additionally, I wanted to be able to make Tampa to Boston and back, regardless of wind, non stop. Also, I was hoping to make Santa Fe to Tampa non stop, both ways, in the summer when the wind really doesn’t favor one direction or the other. A couple weeks ago I made Santa Fe to Tampa with 10-20 on the nose at FL270 burning 255lbs per hour in 5:20, landing with 360lbs. That was with my wife, daughter, and my father and light bags, and a camping toilet in the back for the girls. By going non stop I was able to avoid the low IFR in the middle of the flight and beat the convection in the Southeast. I also fly a lot of short flight, like Tampa -Miami where the plane is very fast down low, with the higher VMO, and economical. I really couldn’t be happier with my choice. Good luck with whatever you choose.

For the short missions and even the occasional long mission the M500 is the least expensive factory turbine to acquire and operate. Something to be said for that. I owned a G1000 Meridian and an M500 so can speak to them. The limitations are well known, but there are no gotchas on that airframe. It is well vetted and does exactly what it is designed to do day in and day out. For that 200 nm trip, the M500 can carry over 1150 lbs in the cabin, making it a true 6 seater as well with IFR reserves.

With 85% of your trips under 200nm, the TP is the obvious choice. I think the jury will remain in deliberations for quite some time on the SF50. Jets are great, no question, but I still view the SF50 as a risky acquisition.

I fly an M600. I also have 1.2 hours on the SF50. If you care about range, load and runway performance, you have to get the M600. If you care about cabin size, comfort and speed but not load and range, you should get the SF50. So I would say the most important consideration for you is going to be mission. And understand that a more capable plane will change your mission profile. All of a sudden, you can reach way more destinations in the same amount of time as your old plane so keep that in mind as well.

The SF50 isn't nearly as inefficient as people claim down low so I bet in the end, ownership costs between the two will be close enough that depreciation will be the determining factor. I would not pick the M600 just because it has a lower fuel burn.

Most importantly however is that you can't wait. Life is too short and change is inevitable. Waiting two years for a plane is a terrible idea if you are ready for one now. I'm sure you can figure out a way to get either plane within six months but if not, the M600 is your only answer. In two years you can sell it (buy a used one) and get a used SF50.

Here ya go.

David,

Obviously you live in South Florida as I do. I recently sold my Meridian. so I can easily speak to owning a Piper turboprop product here. I have a couple of comments.

My concern is ease of service that goes well beyond the airplane specifications. It is the entire ownership experience. The fastest airplane isn't very fast sitting in a hangar. I absolutely love Sun Aviation (Piper Service Center) in Vero. They are very competent, super experienced, and extremely well priced. They are total aces as well as nice people. I also trusted their advise and recommendations for non-required services.

Maybe it isn't a big deal to service an SF50 in S. Fl., but it is new to any shop here at a minimum, and I hate downtime sorting out new problems. Sun Aviation is quick, they always hit schedules, and annuals were always completed within the same week. They can tell you almost to the penny what repairs will cost. Also, recurrent training can be done in Vero at Legacy on a simulator while you're getting your annual. Living near Vero makes owning a M500/M600 pretty easy.

Secondly, my old boat Captain installed an aluminum rail system for my Meridian with a separate, removable rail outside my 44' door that easily guided me in without any wingtip damage. He has since opened up a construction business and has installed a number of these M500/M600 rails in S. Fl. since then.

Rick

Great feedback! I have been reading a lot of posts prior to this and appreciate you all weighing in. Special thanks to Chuck and Jack as it is great to hear from M600 owners.

The flexibility to fly low and out of short airports probably seals the deal for me also Jack. I would love to know the facts about how bad the SF50 is down low. Paul is right that the cost of the fuel is a rounding error once you look at the cost of everything else. But it does effect the capabilities alot. I read that the takeoff fuel flow is 130 gph? The M600s is around 50? Essentially a turbofan creates a situation where if you descend you need to land or climb in a much more dramatic fashion than a turboprop. Is this overblown? It seems like fuel emergencies can creep up on a thirsty plane like that easily if your not diligent in your planning process. That effect creeps into the utility of the plane because you are always having to hold more substantial reserves than a more flexible/efficient design. Dive or drive seems a bit dramatic for me.

I agree anthony that with small kids a tighter cabin with club seat social arrangement might even produce a happier wife than the pregnant guppies enormous belly. I had not considered that at first. She loves the club seating in our 6X.

Jason and others are right about the need to fly now and dream later. I should have been more clear. If the SF50 is really the game changing airplane I want to buy, then my plan is actually to buy a 2015 Meridian, and resell it in 2-3 years. At that point the SF50 will have matured, been tested, and can be purchased easily. I would essentially keep my (extra AMUs) powder dry so to speak. If the M600 is my ultimate plane then I would just pull the trigger on that now and be done with it. So really I am deciding between purchasing a short term lightly used Meridian or the long term M600 once and for all.

From a financial practicality standpoint a M500 would probably be all I need. But something about G3000, more power, more useful load, a clean sheet wing, and hypoxia mode has me wanting to reach the extra bit if I am already this close. Having owned both Chuck I welcome your input. It is a lot more money. It takes me to the top of what I would consider spending. I have no experience at the flight levels so the automatic descent feature seems comforting to my uneducated mind after having read some headline stories in the past. Perhaps overly so with some training. Long term ownership of a slightly used M500 is an option I would love some input on.

Brent, I had the Kodiak/Caravan/GA10 Airvan as my first choices (Kodiak specifically) when I began the search. My main need is just a short haul with PT6 reliability. Although a small part of my flying is long flights, the capability to free myself from the airlines is very appealing I see more utility in the occasional long fast flight than the occasional 8-10 passenger short flight to the Bahamas. I don't think the mx costs are much higher on a M class vs a Kodiak (maybe lower). Additionally with the capability to fly long distances I could work enough business use in to keep the accountants happy.

If I am going the M600 route there are 3 used ones on controller right now. They would fit my budget more easily. I don't plan on closing until January so I wonder if buying a 2019 model is worth the extra $$$ or if I should get a used early serial number for much less. Do you M600 owners think there are improvements being made at the factory that have not been advertised (other than the ADs) or that no rough edges really existed for piper to smooth out?

Last time I tried to sit in a M series I had issues with headroom. I’m only 6’ tall but have a long back. Has Piper addressed this on the newer planes? Otherwise I would be leaning toward a TP, would suggest checking out a TBM and MU2 also.
My 2 cents...