So awesome. I want one.

Bingo!!!

It almost performs as goods a 40 year old TP!

I don't WANT a 40 year old TP.

Then get a something that performs better than. 40 year old TP.

A 70's Nova will run a 1/4 mile faster than a new Accord. I'd rather drive the Accord for a daily driver.

A 70's Nova will run a 1/4 mile faster than a new Accord. I'd rather drive the Accord for a daily driver.

Pure performance is not the only measuring stick.

Comfort, reliability of all systems, avionics, chute, etc., can all be motivators.

We ALL know you don't like anything Cirrus. But that's what makes a market.

My earlier point was this will appear to the best market available - the large Cirrus fleet pilots that want to move up. This will also take the intimidation factor completely away.

Right or wrong, they know how to market.

And it's a V tail.

I agree with everything you said except, I don't dislike Cirrus?

I have purposefully stayed out of cirrus threads because there is no arguing the chute with the cirrus zealots.

The jets a bad idea for multiple reason but that has nothing to do with cirrus.

I do not understand the intimidation factor?

I assume a significant number of SE piston pilots would feel intimidated with the thought of jumping to a jet. That video showed a VERY familiar environment to us SR pilots.

Honestly, I've got just over 1k hours, IFR rated, no twin time, and I would feel a bit daunted by the move to A jet. But that video made me really comfortable with the idea.

I'm not saying my feelings are justified. They are what they are. I think it will appeal a lot to many that have the money to make the move.

Don't sell it short, it's a 50 yr old TP...

Hey bro!
How could that airplane not be appealing?! So many things similar to the SR22, they just do it 'right'. If Cirrus made an 8 place (true 6 place) airplane it would be hard for me to look anywhere else.

I agree. Plus cost.

Comfort is vastly superior in my Solitaire. The seating for 7 in the SF50 is only for elves, near as I could tell when I had the chance to sit in the demonstrator. And my useful load and range is better, so I can also get all 7 plus their actual stuff to destination.

Reliability might be better in the SF50, though probably not a whole lot since I don't have a lot of issues. And that's probably only after a year or two of teething issues in the new model. I have had an occasional autopilot servo go, which I grumble about, but once I replace the servo, life goes on (pretty reliably). Pretty much flies from annual to annual.

Avionics are bigger screens in the SF50 - the G3000 is cool. When push comes to shove, I have similar information display with my G600 and GNS units. I am having a hard time thinking of information they have access to which I do not. But... bigger screens is nice. And getting rid of analog engine gauges is also nice.

I'll give you the chute, which I obviously don't have. But over the Atlantic it is nice to have another engine instead, so I could actually get back to land in the case of an engine out. The multi engine thing is definitely dependent on a well trained pilot though.

Total cost of ownership is probably a fair bit less in my old TP. New airplane parts, especially jet parts, are just expensive. Would be interesting to know how much the inspections will cost in the SF50 for "typical" maintenance items. Insurance will also be interesting and could be advantage to the SF50, though hull values being higher may cancel out any rate advantage it has. Some fixed costs like taxes and cost of capital definitely are better with the lower hull value.

I'm all in favor of manufacturers building new airplanes. But this particular one just doesn't strike me as a value proposition. If I want a jet, I want it to perform like one. If I want performance (and cost) like an old turboprop, well, those are available already.

Jon - you seem to think your plane and the jet are ever being considered together. They are not remotely the same market.

You've got a great plane. Much more capable than mine.

Given the opportunity, I wouldn't think twice about which I wanted. SF50. Not even close.

Different customers.

Eclipse is lower per hour, lower per mile.

Eclipse has longer range on 45 less gallons.

The low altitude of the SF50 is a tremendous penalty.

Mike C.

About 55 nm assuming it happens at its ceiling of FL280 and the airplane has a typical 12:1 glide ratio for jets.

Mike C.