It's meaningless with every airplane.

That line of thinking leads to cars with a 2 gallon tank.

For turbine aircraft, the climb and descend are major fuel and time investments, so the more you can cruise, the better it can be for going somewhere.

Mike C.

Note that when you weight this for miles flown and not per departure, the average increases a lot.

That is, more miles are flown on longer legs.

So let us say your trip mix was as follows:

80% are 400 miles
15% are 800 miles
5% are 2000 miles

The distance weighted average trip is then 540 miles, and 41% of the miles flown are on trips of 800 miles or more.

It doesn't take that many long trips for a lot of the miles flown to be on long legs.

Mike C.

New York to St Louis is definitely not meaningless. That would require a fuel stop in the SF50 using the winds for the given day.

Mike C.

The normal advice is, get a plane for 80% or 90% of your flights.
So depending on who you listen too, the SF50 is perfect for you described profile above. Anything else, you are buying more plane than you need and paying a higher price for it.

It was earlier in the thread, but a quick search cannot find it. Someone posted some information about average flight distances for TBM, PC12, Phenom, Mustang... It was something super short; like 300 miles.

Tim

Mike,

I'm curious. What exactly is it that causes you to fight what is clearly a desire on the part of Cirrus Customers to buy an airplane with a pretty significant step up in performance from their SR22 that happens to be powered by a jet?

Everyone knows that Cirrus could have built a turbo-prop with longer range and better fuel economy, but clearly their customers wanted a jet, and seem to be willing to sacrifice range and economy so they can say they fly a jet...

Very few customers need a 6000 mile G650, but Gulfstream is selling them like hotcakes. Why don't you have the same level of animosity towards Gulfstream for building a product that is what their customers want instead of what they need?

Why aren't you mad at Cessna because they quit building the -441 that has more range and will out perform a C-500 on almost any mission and most C-525s on many missions?

I drive an F-150 and seldom haul anything in the back. I have a truck because I want to drive a truck, not because I need a truck. Ford has made billions selling trucks to people who do not need a truck.

I have read much of this thread and tried to figure out what is driving your relentless attack on this airplane? I can't figure it out...

Just curious.

Oh Doug, I figured it out a few days ago. It’s simple.
Mike sold his plane. He now lusts after a Vision Jet, but he doesn’t really want to lust after one because the rational side of his brain says the numbers don’t work for him....

Doug,

About 300 pages ago in this thread, I asked that question.

The answer is .... 'cause he wants to, and 'cause he is, in fact, persistent and relentless. That's Mike.

We have to learn to love him just as he is...

The Aerostar is a piston plane that was designed for jet engines, and in this case can run with the SF50 on the short flight, and outrun it on the long one.

Tim

I know lots of pilots with Meredians that have the same performance. They are all quite happy with it.

Cirrus gets you a radically bigger cabin and a chute. I don’t care about that but every singe non pilot passenger I bring up asks me if the mu2 has a chute.

I hope Cirrus sells a ton of then.

I can see how this fits a lot of folks, but doesn't have the range I need for my monthly trips. They are normally about 800NM. The P-Baron, A-36TN with tips and the C90 all make this non-stop unless there are extraordinary head winds. Yesterday, returning from South Carolina, there were 40 knot headwinds and I made it non-stop with about 1:30 remaining in fuel. I think many purchase a plane for the trip they need the most seats and range for on a regular basis. If I stepped down, it would be to something with longer legs.

No, because it's new, not 30+ years old, with all that implies: warranty, dealer support, etc. And a chute, of course. Same reason people buy new SR22s when they could get the same performance for less from an older Bonanza. If they were being made today an Aerostar, Mu-2 or any of the other used bargains people compare it to would be even more expensive than the SF50. Compared only to other airplanes for sale new today, just on a price vs. performance basis the SF50 comes off very well, regardless of what powers it.

I believe that is a quaint idea left over from the days that you could easily rent a plane for the other 10%. Not the case any longer among pistons, there isn't much available to rent on short notice. Maybe in the case of an SF50 the idea still holds if it means chartering for the 10%.

Much of our population embraces stupid ideas. That so many people embrace them doesn't make the ideas any less stupid, nor does it make Mike wrong for pointing out that they are stupid.

It has certainly not been established that the SF50 is a "stupid idea."

And, yes, Mike has been preaching the anti-SF50 gospel for 378 pages.