I can honestly say the most shocked I've been as PIC was how well a piston twin flies with an engine caged.

Yes, I was expecting doom and gloom and an airplane that could *barely* be flown with two hands...instead I shortly had something that could be trimmed for straight and level flight.

Ya think? Early on, I looked into stepping up to a similar-panel Baron, thinking it would be an easy transition from my Bonanza. Figured I'd train in it for the rating, then some more CFI time would satisfy the insurance co. But noooo, my agent said they wouldn't insure any Baron I owned no matter who was flying it. They wanted me to buy some old Apache, a plane less capable than the single I already owned, to stooge around in for a couple hundred hours before they'd consider it. Not appealing.

The point is, the ME rating is a bigger hurdle from below than is appreciated by you guys looking at it in retrospect. The only young pilots I know who are interested in getting it are those who plan to fly professionally. If you only want to fly your own plane, naah. With the SETP having taken over the spot in the step-up progression that used to be held by the cabin-class piston twin, the first step where a twin really offers more capability than you can get in a single is the last one, into a jet, and few get that far. So for those staying on the SE ladder, the SF50 adds a new rung.

It is in the PTS for a type rating:

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/te ... tp_pts.pdf

Basically, a type rating check ride is judged using ATP standards.

Mike C.

Maybe.

The issue is the SF50 is certified for more than 6 occupants. Thus, out of the box, it doesn't qualify for BasicMed *even if* the plane is currently outfitted with 6 or fewer seats.

However, you can still get the plane qualified through an STC or TC amendment.

From the BasicMed AC:

For example, an aircraft type certificated to carry more than six occupants may be altered to carry six or fewer occupants. In order to make such a change, that aircraft would have to obtain a new design approval, such as an STC or an amended TC.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... C_68-1.pdf

So, someone can get an STC (which should be trivial to get, one imagines) that limits the plane to 6 seats, then it qualifies for BasicMed operation.

The plane is already limited to 6000 lbs, and 250 KIAS, which are also BasicMed limits.

You'd be limited to under 18,000 ft operation. Hello fuel flow!

(edited)
Just for comparison, the Eclipse EA500 would also qualify for BasicMed. It already qualifies on seats (6) and weight (5995 lbs). It would also be limited to under 18,000 ft, and you have to fly 250 KIAS or less. No paperwork needed.

Mike C.

I had a similar experience.

With a newly minted ME rating, I flew an MU2 on one engine and was amazed. Trimmed up, you could literally not tell you were on one engine.

That was the moment I went from "uh, maybe" to "gotta get one" on the MU2.

I have since had other pilots, some not ME rated, in the right seat, simulated OEI, trimmed it up, and let them fly. Some of them are so freaked out at first. But then they relax and realize it flies quite nicely.

Mike C.

Maybe.

The issue is the SF50 is certified for more than 6 occupants. Thus, out of the box, it doesn't qualify for BasicMed *even if* the plane is currently outfitted with 6 or fewer seats.

However, you can still get the plane qualified through an STC or TC amendment.

From the BasicMed AC:

For example, an aircraft type certificated to carry more than six occupants may be altered to carry six or fewer occupants. In order to make such a change, that aircraft would have to obtain a new design approval, such as an STC or an amended TC.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... C_68-1.pdf

So, someone can get an STC (which should be trivial to get, one imagines) that limits the plane to 6 seats, then it qualifies for BasicMed operation.

The plane is already limited to 6000 lbs, and 250 KIAS, which are also BasicMed limits.

You'd be limited to under 18,000 ft operation. Hello fuel flow!

Just for comparison, the Eclipse EA500 would also qualify for BasicMed *if* it had an STC to lower Mmo to 250 KIAS (presently 285 KIAS). It already qualifies on seats (6) and weight (5995 lbs). It would also be limited to under 18,000 ft.

So there are potentially two jets that can be operated under BasicMed, but each needs a small "paper only" STC to make it legal.

Mike C.

I think you can Mark if you don't go above 18,000 or exceed 250 knots. If you get one, I'd sure like to fly with you, put I'll have to pass on buying the fuel.

You are right, I am wrong, you don't need to STC the Mmo, just operate under 250 KIAS and 18000 ft.

The max seat thing, however, has to be STC'ed down to 6 for the SF50.

Odd that.

Mike C.

or maybe they are too busy flying to waste a lot of time talking about flying. Every cirrus i know of flies a lot. On a typical saturday the t-hangars with cirri and experimentals are the only ones open

or maybe they are too busy flying to waste a lot of time talking about flying. Every cirrus i know of flies a lot. On a typical saturday the t-hangars with cirri and experimentals are the only ones open

Clearly, you're the smartest of your buddies.

Where does the "double" come from? SF-50 burns around 60 gph in cruise, I hear. Does M500 burn 30 gph? I doubt. Even if it did, it's only 30 gph difference, which is anywhere between 60 and 90 bucks at contract prices.



SF-50 lands at Bonanza speeds. I have no problem flying a Bonanza in rain or during the winter, even on fairly short runways.

As for training: that's just pure fun. I am far away from being able to afford an SF-50, but I am thinking of getting the type just for fun one of these days. I can't imagine someone altering their plane purchase decision because of the training it requires.

If they did, no one would ever buy an MU-2.

Tim (poking Mike C.)

Williams program is estimated at about $170/hour for the SF50.

I'd guess the PT6A-42 in the M500 is around $75/hour for HSI/OH life cycle costs.

Roughly $100 more an hour for the Williams.


In the Williams world, it is a wash. The value of the plane is reduced, dollar for dollar, whatever it costs to put the engine back on program.


Cirrus said the SF50 is 69 GPH at FL280.

The M500 is 36 GPH at max cruise.

About double.

There is the thing called the Internet where you can check these numbers.


Nobody buys jet fuel at $2.

A good average now is about $4, even on contract, as prices have crept up with higher oil prices.

35 GPH more is thus $140/hour more for the SF50.

With the engine costs, now $240/hour more just for propulsion costs over an M500.


Ah, clearly a Bonanza tells us all we need to know about landing a jet.

Not.

The Bonanza has a draggy prop to slow down. SF50 doesn't.

SF50 has residual idle thrust. Bonanza doesn't.

SF50 weighs 6000 lbs. Bonanza doesn't.


Then getting an ME rating is not an issue. Duh.


That was the thesis of some who have posted here. Basically, the SF50 has to be a single because the potential buyers are afraid or too busy to get an ME rating, yet are happy to get a type rating. That argument made absolutely no sense.

Mike C.

It is in the PTS for a type rating:

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/te ... tp_pts.pdf

Basically, a type rating check ride is judged using ATP standards.

Mike C.