Ah, the dream. Shoooosh and you are there.

Exactly what "simplicity" do you think the SF50 has? Are you falsely associating "single" with "simple"?

The SF50 has all the complexity of a twin jet without the redundancy in thrust or systems.

Mike C.

Mike,

What does the SF50 burn at 17,500?

People like twin jets because they don't get into fatal situations hardly ever.


If the autopilot has enough control and smarts to get you in the chute envelope, then you don't need the chute at that point since the plane is under control.

Mike C.

Even new plane is simpler to fly and provides more situational awareness than an old plane. Every new model has "less to go wrong". It's not just engines. Everything in the plane is easier.

Go take a demo flight in a new SR22 and the light will go off. Flying isn't that hard.

Actually, they can fly higher, and the TBM is definitely faster, and both are lesser fuel flow and bigger cabins than the SF50.

It is a jet with none of the jet advantages. No redundancy, no speed, no altitude, no range, no reduction in training requirements.

Mike C.

heh. what?

Higher than FL280? RVSM? The size of the SF50 is an advantage in many cases. A hangar for a TBM at my field is $1,800/month.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... H/tracklog

Not following...

Auburn,

I don't find your pointing out the airplane's shortcomings at all insulting. People do disagree and that's not at issue. What I objected to was insulting the intelligence of someone who might disagree with you (SF 50 buyers). I think you understand my point but choose to ignore it as you must realize that part of your post is indefensible.

It's humorous to me that one who insults the intelligence of another is unwitting enough to fail to see his own misspellings. It's reminiscent of the parable of the log in the eye don't you think? I'm very glad to learn of your ancestral history. Its unfortunate that the legendary politeness of those ancestors has apparently skipped a generation.

I do accept that your criticism of the airplane itself, humorous as it is, has a validity from the point of view of many. What remains to be seen is whether, and to what extent, that point of view prevents the airplane from being a commercial success. Or not. The SF 50 is not for everyone. Certainly not for me. If I wanted to go that slowly I believe I would prefer the Lodestar myself, as you do. Or perhaps a King Air.

Perhaps we can agree that airplane lovers are an unusual group of people with very excitable passions and who individually have widely disparate tastes and desires. Some think the lavish care and expense required to fly an antique twin is a foolish waste of resources. I think it is noble and enviable. Some think a single engine jet is a similar waste. I am glad the choice exists. Intelligence, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with either choice in my opinion.

Yes, both PC12 and TBM can be RVSM and fly higher than FL280.

PC12 ceiling is FL300, TBM is FL310.

Mike C.

Don't know exactly, I don't have FJ33 performance data available at that altitude. By extension of FJ44 of similar thrust, it will be about 110 GPH at MCT at 17.5K.

VFR and jets don't go together.

Mike C.

Auburn,

I don't find your pointing out the airplane's shortcomings at all insulting. People do disagree and that's not at issue. What I objected to was insulting the intelligence of someone who might disagree with you (SF 50 buyers). I think you understand my point but choose to ignore it as you must realize that part of your post is indefensible.

It's humorous to me that one who insults the intelligence of another is unwitting enough to fail to see his own misspellings. It's reminiscent of the parable of the log in the eye don't you think? I'm very glad to learn of your ancestral history. Its unfortunate that the legendary politeness of those ancestors has apparently skipped a generation.

I do accept that your criticism of the airplane itself, humorous as it is, has a validity from the point of view of many. What remains to be seen is whether, and to what extent, that point of view prevents the airplane from being a commercial success. Or not. The SF 50 is not for everyone. Certainly not for me. If I wanted to go that slowly I believe I would prefer the Lodestar myself, as you do. Or perhaps a King Air.

Perhaps we can agree that airplane lovers are an unusual group of people with very excitable passions and who individually have widely disparate tastes and desires. Some think the lavish care and expense required to fly an antique twin is a foolish waste of resources. I think it is noble and enviable. Some think a single engine jet is a similar waste. I am glad the choice exists. Intelligence, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with either choice in my opinion.

There are a few turboprops that are faster, most are slower. This won't hold up traffic any more than a early KA90 or a loaded up Beech1900.

Just the fact that we're now talking about a 300 knot airplane holding up traffic shows how utterly senseless this thread has become. BTW, no slam at you Florian. You didn't take this there.

Actually, people who REALLY are lacking intelligence are the ones comparing a 75 years old piston twin to a brand new jet.