I flew the SF50 last week. I have also flown an Eclipse, a Mustang, a TBM, a M500 and currently own an M600. With the exception of the Meridians, my time in the other plans were just demo flights. The Eclipse was more of a cross country from San Diego to Salt Lake City and I have about five hours in the TBM.

You guys really need to fly an SF50 to understand it before making some of these comments. For a piston step up plane, it's incredible and easily beats the competition. It is dirt simple to fly. I'm not talking about stick and rudder stuff - frankly once the engines are going all these planes are pretty easy to fly. I mean everything about it is simple. From start to landing to avionics to check lists, to training to maintenance, it is by far the least complicated plane to fly in this class. This is going to appeal to every piston pilot, especially Cirrus pilots and Garmin glass guys that are ready for more but are scared a twin jet is too much. It also has lower operating costs than either the Eclipse or the Mustang.

The interior of the SF50 is better than the TBM, the Meridians and the Eclipse. It's bigger with more cargo room and petter pilot comfort. I liked the Mustang a little better on the inside but I prefer facing seats in the back. The visibility and windows on the SF50 are staggeringly big.

Unless you need the range (which I do) or runway performance of a TP, I'd rather have a SF50 over a TBM or any Meridian. The TBM and M600 beat it on load too which can be a deal breaker for the SF50 buyer.

I agree flying at FL410 makes weather flying a lot easier than FL280 but new vs. new the SF50 is at least a million less than an Eclipse or Mustang and is much easier to learn. Soon enough we'll be able to compare used vs. used and I bet the SF50 will do really well against the used competition when that day comes.

Cirrus is gong to sell a bunch of these. They have done a better job of making the leap from piston to turbine much more approachable than any competitor.

Paul,
Thanks for the objective, first-hand info. That is refreshing.

Are you considering placing a deposit?

TPE 331 operators can have engine ice protection with no loss of speed, climb or power.

You're always calling people out on the FAR/AIM and I'm always getting calls from the FAA because of a complaint on their "anonymous tip line".

Be careful crossing Mike C.... he's tracking you.

I didn't say "I never use ice protection".

In almost 4000 hours of flying in the last 10 years I have NEVER used ice protection.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean Mike isn't out to get you!

Mike C.

Glad we got that straightened out.

Mike C.

400 pages and here is what we know...

Cirrus Jets are flying...
Like every other clean-sheet airplane, it falls short of the initial projections...but people who have actually flown it think it's pretty cool.
And Mike C is relentless...

400 pages and here is what we know...

Cirrus Jets are flying...
Like every other clean-sheet airplane, it falls short of the initial projections...
And Mike C is relentless...

I have yet to read a post where the "SF50 falls short of initial projections". Everyone that has flown one states that it exceeds initial projections.

Nah, it falls short of what it should be! Just think what a second engine can do! You avoid the bend in the airflow, you can climb much higher, the engines cost less.... All of which makes the plane more efficient, more useful. As it is, the SF50 is a crippled jet which is limited by the regulations and engineering realities of applying "piston" thinking to a jet. The physics change when dealing with jets (I am still not sure how the airplane's airfoil knows the power source, but I digress).

Tim