It doesn’t compare in any respect to a TBM. it’s shorter legged. it’s slower. It’s lower (28 vs 31). I think it’s less comfortable. It requires an annual 61.58 ride (more dollars). I’d never pick it over a TBM.

My Citation kind of does both. Easy to fly, 420 knots.


Things do a get lot more complicated to go faster than my plane, for example, swept wings.

The SF-50 is slow because it is altitude limited because it has only one engine. Thick air prevents it from flying fast.

Mike C.

I would imagine it would always be the same as my 421 was, if I could just go another 1,000 feet higher I would be in the clear.

I had a chance to right seat a Cirrus jet this past weekend and walked away pretty impressed.

Decent speeds, compelling avionics, auto throttle, autoland, parachute, and internet for 3.5mm (and as I understand from my owner friend, reasonable insurance for a jet).

4 adults and 2 kids+ bags and far more space than an M600 or Epic. Not to mention the insane field of view/visibility.

Are there planes with better speed and range? Of course. Are there any with this balance of safety and capability for a single pilot?

Looks like they took down the video. Maybe Cirrus threatened to sue?

Hmm. Sometimes the truth hurts.

1-The video is now private.
2 - …because it has only one engine and everyone knows twins are faster, safer, and better!?
…maybe that should have been in green!

I didn't get to watch the video before it went private, but as we know Austin has an Evolution. I had an interesting chat a few months ago with another pilot who sold his Evo to buy a Cirrus Jet, flew it for a year, then leapt at a chance to buy back his Evo and sold the jet for more than he paid for it. His wife was mad, she loved the Potato Jet, but he hated it.

Cirrus really hit the sweet spot for a turbine upgrade, especially for pilots transitioning from the SR22. There is plenty to criticize when you compare it to the competition which in many ways are more capable However if you want a plug and play aircraft that seems to be pretty safe and very comfortable it fills a nice nitch. I like my M600 over the SF50, simply because I regularly fly in a very harsh environment. Some of my best memories are carrying a lot, a long way, and high hot and contaminated runways are normal and not exceptional in my day-to-day flying. But the Cirrus has a nice niche that it fills.

I'll try to summarize for those who didn't see it.

1) The plane is too wide for it's length, it's inefficient because it has too much frontal surface area creating too much drag
2) The engine is too small and doesn't move enough air mass which is inefficient and therefore it burns much more fuel for the amount of thrust generated vs the turboprop.
3) The wing is too thick and jets should have swept wings because they can get closer to mach 1 to take advantage of super charged air at the engine inlet which increases efficiency.

Other points... useful load is half the turboprop, take off and landing distance is twice the turboprop, fuel burn is twice the turboprop, range is poor unless the seats in back are empty.

No wonder the waiting list is years long.

Personally, I think the Cirrus Jet is an ideal step-up for the SR-22, Bonanza, or RV-10 owner who wants to go faster, higher, and farther. I'd love to have one.

It is big and comfortable inside and rather enjoyable actually to travel in.

Not a speed demon, and like all things aviation, doesn't make any kind of sense.

I happen to own N842X, formerly Austin's Columbia 400.

Good summary, although you missed the exaggerated references to being a Chinese company.

Spent a lot of time in them at Osh last summer and was convinced it was a solid option for me until I spoke w a couple of owners.
You summed it up correctly.
Very limited useful and hot and high performance sucks.