I haven't witnessed the takeoff of the Vision Jet but it has flown at least twice. According to the witness it took off from the overrun and was airborne by the compass rose then it climbed at a steep angle so the noise should be short duration due to rapid climb.

The three PC12s don't have enough runway for accelerate stop. I don't ask questions about insurance. The real runway hog is the P Barron it uses all the over run and most of the runway.

What plane can accelerate stop in 2000'?

St. Barth 2000'..... easy in PC12.

What plane can accelerate stop in 2000'?

St. Barth 2000'..... easy in PC12.

Yeah.... I have no idea. Not sure how this came up in the first place.

An "accelerate-stop distance" is irrelevant in an SE airplane. If one engine fails on TO roll, the airplane is going to stop-period.

I don't know about irrelevant. I use it as part of my planning when deciding how short of a field I feel comfortable with. I add the published takeoff ground roll to landing distance (rollout) to approximate the accelerate stop distance.

I'd love to snag a ride in a TBM. If you have one and are willing to take me up on my self-invitation, drop me a line. Seriously.

I got 1.2 hour of dual instruction in the SF50 over the weekend in the left seat. I get it, the good, the bad.

I don't care what the numbers say, I would take the SF50 over a PA46 all day long. My experience in the PA46 (which I really wanted to love) boiled down to clamboring into the cockpit to be treated to two hours of having my knees firmly pressed into the bottom of the panel the whole time.

The SF50 was very easy to board and comfortable for both me in the pilot seat and my wife in the back seat. Visibility was excellent for me and her.

I hand flew it and all in all, nice machine.

It's not a "jet". It's a small airplane that happens to be powered by a small turbofan engine.

It would be best owned by 3-4 owner-pilots who made 300-600 mile traveling flights. Not a good burger getter. Not for 1000-mile+ trips on a regular basis. It's not a get above the weather fire-breathing business jet.

Like a SETP, I'd also forego some flights I'd make in a multi-engine aircraft.

I can't compare it to the TBM, since I've not flown in one. But let me invite myself on yours, if I may.

I agree with your logic, but the terminology applies to multi-engine airplanes.

If you're using a 2000' field.... skip the math. There's nothing to calculate. Ha

I just flew Atlanta to Cabo San Lucas round trip in the PC12. 1500NM each way. 6 plus bags on board. It was a big group of guys and most flew Commercial.. We beat the guys that flew Commercial by half a day. We left later than they did and got to the hotel before they did. Coming home with the tail wind we beat them by even more than half a day. This is my 3rd 1500NM round trip in March. Easy.

You don't know what you don't know.

I'm 6'3" 200lbs. I don't feel uncomfortable in my Meridian. Yes, it sort of requires a half crawl to get in and out of the cockpit, but once I'm in there I feel very nearly as comfortable as I do in an A36 or CJ3.


I think the SF50 is super cool and I love that Cirrus is offering a good value proposition. But, the runway and climb performance at 6,000' elevation on an 85* day is relatively terrible. I don't know what the charts say on a contaminated runway landing, but I would think with wheel brakes only it's also pretty horrible. 50% of my flights are in and out of KTRK so I think I'm "stuck" with a SETP. PC12's are awesome, but on 50% of my flights I'm the only occupant, hard to justify dragging all that cabin around behind me (not sure I could afford it anyway). In my opinion, the Meridian/M500/M600 straddles both the serious travel machine and recreational flying worlds pretty well. I don't feel guilty making hamburger runs, and I can also cruise at 265kts when trying to get somewhere. Maybe I'm just still in the honeymoon phase (only had the Meridian for 4 months), but I love reading about airplanes and comparing their performance capabilities to my mission, and the turbine M-class keeps winning. The TBM looks great in the performance charts, but I can't justify the 50% premium a comparable TBM commands over the M-class. 10-15% more speed isn't worth it to me. I'm not sure, but the airframe might also be a little less forgiving compared to the M-class as well (complexity, etc.). The M600 is really calling my name, but I need the SF50 to take a bite out of prices first.

I would like to hear from those with M-class and TBM experience what their perception is of the safety between the two should anyone care to share.

In my opinion, one major advantage the SF50 has is the parachute. I know others disagree, but the SF50's parachute would allow me to make flights I wouldn't otherwise make in a single engine (maybe even in a twin turbine). Mainly night flights.

What single engine airplane has a published accelerate stop distance?

Yes, the PC12 is impressive, but to expound a bit on these two points:

All three are single engine. Turbine, yes. Reliable, yes. Capable, yes.

For that matter, my single piston engine doesn't know when it is night, or over water, or hostile mountainous snow-covered inaccesible terrain.

Sometimes, even the best of engines, stop working. Usually, from lack of fuel... But they do indeed, stop working sometimes.

For my risk/outcome matrix, engine failure is relatively low in the risk column, but the consequences can be high.

For that reason, I will not take a single on flights where "uncommanded shutdown" would result in certain, near certain, or highly likely death.

I pick routes for singles with that in mind, as well as weather and other considerations.

The parachute is a two-edged sword in my mind. Does it make the same mission risk safer, or does it let you accept greater risk? In my way of thinking, the benefit happens when the risk envelope stays the same, meaning, not taking additional risks that I would not take absent the parachute.

I totally agree, but I know that if I had a parachute I could rationalize making some trips I might not otherwise take. I too try to plan my trips with a single engine mindset and so that I’m never out of glide range to an airport. Having a 17.4:1 glide ratio helps (most of any non-glider airframe, I believe). I use the Foreflight glide ring when in flight and in my 40 hours of flight time in the Meridian I’ve only been out of glide range of a field twice when ATC brought me down early (other than the first 700’ on takeoff). The TBM and Pilatus also have very good glide ratios (16:1 or better as I recall). The SF50 is 14.7:1 glide ratio. Not bad, and better than most.