Choices are good.

That pics looks like my 2008 Bonanza.

I like the side windows Chuck, but look at those front windows. In that pic you look like a sniper holed up in a bunker. Their are things to like about the PA46, but the cabin is just too cramped.

That pics looks like my 2008 Bonanza.

From the pics it appears that Chuck has plenty of headroom. I like the numbers of the meridian linup also but the space just did not work for me up front. Way to tight to get into and hang out for max range flights. Excellent platform for whom the space is adequate.

Someone who wants to spend less money operating their airplane and doing less training to pilot it, plus wants to operate from shorter or wet, icy, snowy runways.

The Williams engine program makes that much difference by itself.

The fuel burn will be double, too. That's probably $200/hour just by itself.

Brakes won't be cheap, either.


If you want to fly in winter, it matters.

If you want to fly in the rain, it matters.

If you want to use turf runways, it matters.

If you don't want to get a type rating, it matters.

I find it odd that part of the SF50 argument is that pilot's don't need to be multi engine rated. Yet they require a type rating. An ME rating is almost trivial to get, can be done literally in two days. Yet a type rating is not. So not needing an ME rating is basically irrelevant to the training requirement to fly an SF50.

Mike C.

Does it have Apple CarPlay like my F150 Raptor?

The Williams engine program makes that much difference by itself.

The fuel burn will be double, too. That's probably $200/hour just by itself.

Brakes won't be cheap, either.


If you want to fly in winter, it matters.

If you want to fly in the rain, it matters.

If you want to use turf runways, it matters.

If you don't want to get a type rating, it matters.

I find it odd that part of the SF50 argument is that pilot's don't need to be multi engine rated. Yet they require a type rating. An ME rating is almost trivial to get, can be done literally in two days. Yet a type rating is not. So not needing an ME rating is basically irrelevant to the training requirement to fly an SF50.

Mike C.

My observation leads me to believe that the owners who burn jetfuel on BT are above average when it comes to 91 owner operators seeking utility.

Many of our members seek out more exotic/difficult to fly aircraft (mu2, aerostars, lancairs, Merlin's) just to go a few extra knots on a few less dollars. The Cirrus jet really isn't targeted at that (our forum's) demographic, more towards the 'path of least resistance' types. These people typically don't burn hours of free time analyzing aircraft data on an internet forum.

Sounds like people who don't have time to get and maintain a jet type rating.

Mike C.

SF50 can't fly in the rain? SF50 can't fly in winter? I love landing on snow covered runways and spend most of ski season in the rockies and even I only get to land on about 1 a year. There are like maybe 3 guys using turf runways that can buy a jet.

I haven't heard ANYONE say they bought an SF50 so they wouldn't have to get ME rated.

Sounds like people who don't have time to get and maintain a jet type rating.

Mike C.

The SF50 is phenomenal looking inside, but those front windows will be a convection oven. Do they have built in shades for those?

If you don’t like the windows of the PA46, then you won’t be happy in most jets. PA46 actually has better visibility than I would have thought. I still find myself blocking off the side window (sniper hole) when the sun is in that position.
Kevin

Big kernel of truth/accuracy stated above. The Cirrus pistons are also targeted towards the
"path of least resistance types", and they are enormously, commercially successful. Textron/Beech could learn a lot from aspects of the Cirrus model.