For those familiar with range rings, if you want to see what the range rings look like scrolled out to max distance.... This is what they look like. Pretty much throw a dart anywhere on a map of North America, and you can go there from Utah non-stop. Can't even see where you can actually go unless you scroll the cursor around, because you can't seem most of the range rings

me too.

I am 5' 9" and 168lbs. I'm pretty flexible. I got in one at OSH. I was surprised how tough it was to get in and out. It was really tough. poor forward vis. really disappointed me.

Maybe Charles can set me straight, but for a while I thought it was the answer to my prayers...

Now you're just showing off that fancy panel!

Daang! That is some awesome range. With plenty of water and travel johns you can go the distance.

I wish the KA 90 had those legs.

Rgs,

Patrick.

A bit of thread drift, but what thread doesn't...

With the advent of the M600, I felt (and still do) that Piper should offer at least a derivative of the M500 in a 2+2 configuration (M504, maybe?). There'd be ample leg room for the second row passengers with seats that recline nearly flat and a lot of baggage capability in a pair of partitioned spaces in back. I'm sure they'd have to engineer a way to move the seat closest to the door out of the way, but they have smart folks down in Vero.

I just feel a 4 place, roomy M500 could carve out a niche for itself. It wouldn't appear quite as payload limited as the 6-place (if nothing else, it saves the weight of the back seats). If I had the financials, I know such an offering would be attractive to me.

Bruce

Not for me but I agree.

A good rule of thumb for the M600 is that it can take 500lbs 1,500nm with a reasonable IFR reserve at normal power settings flying 260 knots. For each 100lbs more of cargo, reduce range by 100nm. The point is, the range is pretty similar to a TBM and probably a PC12. I'm sure there are outlier cases where one does better than the other. These planes are all in a very different league than the SF50 but if you don't need the range or runway, I'd rather have the cabin of the SF50 than the TBM or M600.

For the guys commenting on PA-46 cockpit size. I am 6'5" and 245lbs. I fit just fine. You get used to the shuffle to get up there.

The only issue is its harder for me when someone is in the co pilot seat but still not bad. It took a bit to get dialed in on the approach to the seat but now its one fluid motion and smooth.

I use Clarity headset so I don't have the big headset on my head that hits the ceiling.

The cockpit of the SF50 was for sure larger and easier to get into but the cabin was not nearly as comfy and large as the PA-46. Visibility was amazing in the SF50 but in a way I think thats bad. I like how in IMC I can totally focus on the panel and not see much outside but when I need to see out side I see all I need to.

I liked the SF50 but I would still pick the M600 over the SF50 personally.

Mike

I'm 6'4" 220 and found it extremely tight. In turbulence my head would hit the ceiling for sure. No room to move legs or stretch them. Did you have a custom seat cushion made? I found if I pulled the seat cushion out and sat directly on the hard seat frame it was more workable height wise.

That’s interesting. How long would the wait be? Are you implying that they don’t have the backlog they claim or is it that many on the waiting list near the top would like to sell their positions?

I'm 6'4" 220 and found it extremely tight. In turbulence my head would hit the ceiling for sure. No room to move legs or stretch them. Did you have a custom seat cushion made? I found if I pulled the seat cushion out and sat directly on the hard seat frame it was more workable height wise.

Kind of a lopsided thread. Hoped someone would throw out some SF50 data. The SF50 POH and weight and balance data (on a real plane with options like tires and ailerons) is the closest guarded secret in our lifetime . Can't even get power tables or POH excerpts on the Cirrus site if you are not an owner. Seems weird, I can get a POH for pretty much any other small GA aircraft currently made. I have heard some weight and balance numbers thrown out there, but no actual WB sheets that I have been able to find. Paul is the only one here that has flown all the aircraft, so would defer to him. He likes the SF50, and it seems to be selling well. Would seem to me the optimum profile for that plane would be intermediate length legs with good climb profiles where you can get up to the efficient air pretty quickly. That FJ33 engine can suck some fuel. Here is a screen shot, the plane is cooking at 230 KIAS, but if you zoom in to the fuel flow that is 101 gph or 677 pph at 11,500 feet. So you can burn some fuel busting it down low.

Ok, Charles the M600has more range at 250 knots than I want!

As to SF50 data/discussion - there are already 400 pages of that. (Well a couple of hundred anyway if you remove Mike C’s repetitive posts )

So much SF50 data out there. Charles I think you're mentally blocking it out. Old news.

Could someone who read it please summarize or repeat it? That thread was a monster....

This should help: SF50 Thread