You do Tampa to Boston non stop in a 182?

Negative. I haven’t figured out how to update my profile, though I did try for three minutes the other day. M600, two cirrus SR22Ts, am Extreme Decathlon, an Extra 330LX, and an XCub since then. Currently own the 2018 M600 and a 2018 XCub.

If you want to get an SF50 that is reasonably optioned (300K additional stuff like radar and TCAS which is normal on most aircraft in this category). at this point between the CPI calculator and reasonable options is going to be around 2.5 mil. You can get a P100 or a Mustang for less right now. The SF50 is not as cheap as you keep touting Jason. Here are some of the options, which I think most people will get most of them: My aircraft has the Piper version of most of those options, and came in right around 3 mil, so 2.5 mil vs 3 for an SF50 versus M600 similarly equipped. The M600 is far more flexible and capable, far cheaper to operate, so the determination between the 2 is just going to be personal preference.

I think the SF50 doesn't make sense as a jet. It doesn't have the things I would want in a jet - starting with two engines, reliable dispatch into most weather conditions, and suitable for over-hostile terrain at night travel.

But, if you don't think of it as a jet, but as a single engine aircraft, intended for single engine rated owner-flown pilots, it makes more sense. Just forget that it doesn't have a propeller and compare it with the SETP's and pressurized piston single and it makes more sense. P210 or SF50? PA46-350 or SF50? Those comparisons are more reasonable. If there were such a thing as a new P210 - it would easily cost as much as an SF50. TBM900 or SF50? PA46-500/600 or SF50? PC12 - not really in the same bucket.

Yeah, you can buy a used Citation for less, but it will cost plenty to operate and there's the complexity of type ratings, multi-engine ratings, where to keep it, cost to maintain a decade or two old jet.

The SF50 fits in a lot of T-hangars. Most of the SETP's don't. Plenty of places where no large box hangar can be had, or where there's years of waiting list to get one.

It has a place, just not in the typical world of turbine aircraft. It opens up a new slot on the ladder, well below the rest of the turbines, if you like.

Personally, if I want to pay kerosene bills and set fire to $100-bills everywhere I go, I want two jet engines.

The SF50 requires a type rating, just as a Citation would.

Now of course insurance is going to likely drive some sort of recurrent training for a SETP such as the M600, but there is a difference between recurrent and an actual DPE-issued check-ride. Is it worth the hassle? I'd say yes if the capabilities of the aircraft massively exceed what a similarly priced SETP can provide. I don't believe that is the case with the SF50, it would make a lot more sense if it was a SETP (Read: "Actual Turbine Pressurized Bonanza").

Given how easy the SF50 is apparently to operate, one would think perhaps the blanket FAR related to turbojet annual check ride language may need to be altered to something like multi-crew aircraft or aircraft over 12,500 lbs, but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath

Having to decide between an M600 and an SF50 would be a great problem.

If someone wants twin turbine power then neither of the aircraft under discussion apply.

Having spent 36 years in single engine piston aircraft, I’d be happy to enjoy a turbine single.

Just my 2 cents.

You won't have to hold your breath for long because you don't have to take an annual check ride if you're part 91. I haven't taken an "official" check ride in the Mustang since I got typed. Taking a couple days for a recurrent once a year isn't a big deal.

As far as basic med, the M600 is the ultimate plane. Today I was doing 240 knots TAS on 330 lbs (49 gallons per hour) at 12,000 feet. Given that you can easily stuff 1,800 pounds of fuel into an M600, that means you could go 1,100nm and still land with an hour of fuel. Fuel burn at 17.5k and 16.5k would be even better.

Ok so I made up my mind against the SF50. Jason is right it has its place. I might want it if I had other plane's. But as my only utility wedge it won't cut it. I have been thinking lately the cost of ownership for a used TBM 850 would actually be similar if not lower than the M600. The extra speed would allow me to much more easily convince my wife to not fly commercial on the 1300 mile trips. It is massive overkill for my typical mission to the Bahamas from Miami but using it on the long trips a few times a year would be great.

The way I see (correct me if I am wrong) a slightly used or new M600 will depreciate 200-400 thousand dollars over the next five years. A used (G1000) TBM 850 for 2.5 million plus some money to upgrade to G1000 NXI with ESP would probably only deprecate 0-200 thousand in the same timeframe. The lower depreciation would more than cover the higher MX and provide me with a faster plane. Any thoughts on this? Typical annual cost of a 8 year old TBM 850 anyone?

On the other hand I feel the M600 is more approachable coming from flying a piston single with low actual IFR time. Most of my time to date has been island hoping VFR (I have 600 hours). Is the TBM a more intimidating or dangerous transition than the pipers? If so maybe I should get a Meridian build experience and then save up for a used TBM 930 in a few years?

Depreciation will be by far the biggest expense of ownership in a TBM or M600. To avoid depreciation but a used PC12NG. Keep it forever. I bought my NG in 2013 for $3.2MM and I could sell it for that or more right now?

I transitioned into the Meridian with 450 hours of total time. I'm at 1,800 hours now, most of that in the Meridian.

There was a lot to learn and it's definitely not a transition to be taken lightly. That being said, most of what you have to learn is aircraft independent.

When you are jumping across multiple weather systems, operating in the flight levels and trying to eek the maximum performance out of your aircraft (whether it's speed/range/payload or some combination of the three), you need to consistently make excellent decisions. I think you get there through a combination of excellent (and regular) training, excellent mentors/advisors and a professional approach to flying.

The Meridian is certainly a simpler aircraft to fly than the 850, but the differences between the Meridian and the TBM will be entirely dwarfed by the above. If your mission can use it and you can afford to feed a TBM 850, get one. My back of the napkin math is that it's roughly twice as expensive as a comparable Meridian to maintain, but it's also a much more capable airplane.

How do you get around FAR 61.58? I've always interpreted the language to be that any jet engine powered aircraft requires an annual practical test (i.e. checkride) from a DPE? Is there some clarification in an AC or somesuch that supercedes this for certain jet aircraft such as a C510? That would be welcome news indeed!

Second Patricks statement. These planes are far more capable than most of us pilots, and consistent;y the achilles heel has been pilots losing control of perfectly good planes or flying them into the ground. Along those lines, the M600 does have full envelope protection as standard equipment. So if you do get disoriented and try to put it into a death spiral, or try to fly it into the ground the envelope protection will at first nudge you in the right direction, and if you still aren't getting it, automatically engage the autopilot and level the aircraft with visual and aural notice that it is taking over.

Pilatus has done an excellent job of controlling supply (almost a pre-IPO Ferrari-like "sell one less than what the market demands" type of approach).

That in conjunction with just how versatile and commercially-viable the aircraft is, makes them hold or even appreciate in value for well-maintained examples. The biggest issue becomes tying up the capital in one given the price and opportunity costs, but if it is in budget I don't think there is a better choice from a depreciation perspective.

I want one. I want one desperately.

How so?