The Meridian has more room on the copilot side than a stock M2. At 6'2 and 200+ it was quite the squeeze for me to get into the copilot side. I have heard that you can take out cabinets to help with that. The pilots side of the newer Meridians has a few more inches than the copilot side, so as said, if you are bigger, try the pilots side.

As far as the TBM, depends on whether your size is legs, torso or width. The Meridian/M600 cockpit is 2-3 inches wider than the TBM but the rudder pedals are fixed and there is a little less headroom. I am personally more comfortable in the M600 than a TBM 9XX, especially with the pilot door. In the TBM the cockpit is already narrower, the pedestal is wider encroaching the right leg, and the ladder for the door further encroaches on the left leg, leading to a ballsqueezing exercise.

M2 copilot: Hard to even photo it, because I am wrapped around the yoke.



Meridian/M500 copilot: Also tight but about an inch more room.



M600 pilot side: Very comfortable for me.



TBM 910: Fine. Definitely not more comfortable than the Piper once in place. Just preference.



And another Meridian. My wife and I were demoing an identically painted Meridian and TBM910. She chose the cabin in the Meridian, without knowing the sticker prices. Kind of relieved. Said the seats were more comfortable.

Weight and payload sell more planes than easy access to the front seats. Most pilots (the guys who usually ride up front) would be willing to crawl through a window for a chance to fly. Non-pilot family members and other passengers not so much but they can ride in back where it's easier to ingress/egress.

Mostly depends on who is writing the check..

From attending a TBMOPA convention, I know the TBM owners either love or hate theirs.

The pros are ease of access to the cockpit and being able to close the cabin door from the outside, instead of feeling like you are twerking for your passengers.

The big downside, though, is that it apparently gets pretty cold. A lot of folks have either custom or makeshift covers for the pilot door to help keep things warm. There's also a small weight penalty.

As Andy said, you can’t take full fuel.

That was my point- seems inconsistent.

I’ve seen many leave Albuquerque in the summer at 5300ft field elevation...

We did takeoffs, approaches, and landing all the time.

Not inconsistent at all. A twin jet is certified to different parameters than a single jet. For example, single engine airplanes have a max stall speed of 65kts, and require energy absorbing seats and other safety features if their stall speed is above 61knots. The VisionJet is 67kts, so I am thinking they got an exemption based on certain data. Don't know for sure. Maybe airbags?

This speed is based on survivability in the event of a force landing. Higher speeds see an exponential increase in deaths from accidents. So, if you lose an engine at rotation speed, you may go off the end of the runway, but at a speed which increases the chances of you and your pax surviving.

In a twin jet, you can have a much higher stall speed. If it is 80 knots, then a runway overrun at that speed or higher has a much greater chance of causing fatal injuries. So, instead we determine the runway needed to accelerate and stop the airplane in the event of an engine failure before V1, or accelerate and continue the takeoff if the engine quits after V1. The distance needed to accelerate-stop or accelerate-go is the same or balanced at V1. If our runway length is more than this distance, then we have enough room should an engine fail before or after V1. So, with two engines, your takeoff distance might only be 2,500 feet. But your balanced field length might be 5,000 feet. In a single, they would only list the takeoff distance.

Of course, this ignores climb requirements. You could meet the balanced field length requirements, but be unable to maintain the required climb gradient to clear obstacles. That is a different set of charts.

What the FAA really says is that cheaper airplanes don't have to be as safe. Single engine is correlated to being cheaper.

The pervasive underlying philosophy of FAA regulations is that more safety is required when there is (or perceived to be) more money available.

Someone flying a Cessna 152 can't afford much safety, so they don't get it. Someone flying a Gulfstream V can afford a lot of safety, so they are required to have it.

We want it to be that way, in fact, since one level of safety for all aircraft would destroy general aviation.

Mike C.

Interesting that he gives it a "Tie" in the safety category. I suppose that's fair, given that there's going to be a difference of opinion as to whether it's better to have two engines or a parachute.

For me, the Eclipse is more appealing. Lower capex, higher cruise, two engines. I respect Cirrus's focus on innovation, but the single-engine jet doesn't seem to buy you much, if anything, over a single engine turboprop.

Cirrus might really have something though if they make a twin version. Twin VLJ with a parachute and Safe Return would be hot. A lot of people who buy these jets for personal use might be getting up there in age and in the event of incapacitation these two systems, along with twin engine safety and higher performance, would be a big selling point with them AND their families.

The SF50 is all of the negatives of a turboprop (lower altitude, lower speed, noise) with all of the negatives of a jet (type rating, runway/braking issues, fuel burn). Keeping a jet low means short range.


Agreed, but that would violate the misguided Cirrus religion that says a single is easy, a twin is hard. A twin is a whole lot easier when it comes to handling an engine failure, and with no engine failure, it is no different than a single, so the religion is just wrong.

Cirrus is the only company who actually got a SEJ to market, all the rest floundered. They managed to do that due to the Kool Aid their piston pilots drank.

Mike C.

The SF50 is all of the negatives of a turboprop (lower altitude, lower speed, noise) with all of the negatives of a jet (type rating, runway/braking issues, fuel burn). Keeping a jet low means short range.


Agreed, but that would violate the misguided Cirrus religion that says a single is easy, a twin is hard. A twin is a whole lot easier when it comes to handling an engine failure, and with no engine failure, it is no different than a single, so the religion is just wrong.

Cirrus is the only company who actually got a SEJ to market, all the rest floundered. They managed to do that due to the Kool Aid their piston pilots drank.

Mike C.

The SF50 is all of the negatives of a turboprop (lower altitude, lower speed, noise) with all of the negatives of a jet (type rating, runway/braking issues, fuel burn). Keeping a jet low means short range.


Agreed, but that would violate the misguided Cirrus religion that says a single is easy, a twin is hard. A twin is a whole lot easier when it comes to handling an engine failure, and with no engine failure, it is no different than a single, so the religion is just wrong.

Cirrus is the only company who actually got a SEJ to market, all the rest floundered. They managed to do that due to the Kool Aid their piston pilots drank.

Mike C.

I'm sure every real jet maker sees SF50 owners as potential customers when they find out they don't have a real jet.

Thee are already a fair number of SF50s for sale with a couple hundred hours.


An SF50 chute after a MANPADS hit is unlikely to be functional, and neither are the occupants. Flying higher and faster would probably lead to more safety than having an SF50 with a chute, but that requires a real jet.

So far, zero uses of the SF50 chute, so no lives "saved". It may be quite a while before we have our first one.

One of the "benefits" of the SR20/22 series having unreliable engines is that Cirrus gets a lot of good publicity from that with the chute deployments plus more sales on replacement aircraft. Not a great thing when less reliability drives more revenue.

The SF50 is not providing the same "benefits" so far.

Mike C.

BT is a religion.

Mike C.