I have to decide. I need help. Should I wait a few years to buy the vision or just pull the trigger on an M600 now. Cabin in the vision is a huge selling point. I will be flying family mostly. I can stop for fuel so I am not sure the extra range decides it. I tried to wade through the 400 page SF50 page but couldn’t find much analysis. Mostly just Mike C saying cirrus sucks and doing a good job!

One thing I note is 85% of my trips are 190 miles from Miami to Marsh Harbour Bahamas probably 15-20 trips a year. Ducking under the bravo to KTMB. How terrible is the SF50 fuel burn down low? I wonder what it adds up to in extra kerosene on a per trip basis for these short hauls. I would just assume stay vfr and fly 17500 also as it’s empty out there and I like not having to talk. But for a few gallons of fuel I could climb higher and file IFR.

My other missions are the maybe 2-3 times a year I go 1000-1400 miles long often with my small family maybe 600lbs for us all. I need to step up because I am scared flying my small children over open water to Bahamas with my piston and I have enough AMUs so it seems foolish to keep doing so.

Please don’t talk about used more expensive planes. Keep it simply focused on M600 or M500 vs SF50.

If I had any doubt on this decision I’d go the least expensive route (possibly even a used Meridian, M500, M600) and see how it goes.

How long and in what condition is the runway at Marsh?

Regardless of that answer if it were me I would go for the M600 even if the vision were available today.

190 miles is a pretty short trip, no matter which airplane you have..

I have a few hundred hours in an M600. The plane has been amazing from a utility standpoint. I do a very mixed mission. VFR, IFR high low, short long, the M600 does them all well. Range is more than just being able to do those 1500 nm trips non-stop, it is a safety factor as well. If the middle of your trip is a mess, you can widely circumnavigate the area making the trip very nice, versus a shorter range aircraft being forced to more or less straight line it over or through the weather. Also even a moderate range trip into an area of widespread LIFR may mean having to have a legal alternate that exceeds the range of many planes, whereas having a 1500 nm range plane means even picking an alternate in severe clear several states away.

But for the general aviation pilot that wants to go most anywhere, most anytime, hard to beat a turboprop. High, hot and short, the performance is awesome. The redundancy is better than the SF50, but modern avionics are pretty reliable, so 3 of everything versus 2 of everything only matters for the ultra paranoid. The range payload is the beauty though. You can fill all 6 seats with real people and still travel as far as you can likely get 6 people to sit in a plane without a lavatory. 1200 lbs, 1000 nm is doable making it a long range 6-seater.

VFR is also sweet in a Turboprop. Did a 1 hour trip VFR today at 17,500. 260 KTAS on 49 gph. Sure you can save fuel by flying higher, but the simplicity of VFR, with pressurization, and turbine reliability, seems pretty cheap. Especially with Jet A running between $3 and $4 at most of the locations that I pick up fuel. TAC air in Denver yesterday was $2.95/gal so I tankered a couple hundred gallons of it . The M600 is far more capable, and more efficient, and is available now. It does carry a higher price tag, and does not have the unique cabin of the SF50. Compromises.

I would love to have an SF50 in the hangar, but it would not be the go to bird when the mission was super challenging. We fly a lot, and personally I appreciate the capability and efficiency. Staring out a big window at FL280 seeing only haze and undercast will lose its luster after a couple of cancelled or not taken flights that would have been taken if the SF50 had a little more range, a little more useful load, or the ability to get into the airport that you wanted, but it was too hot, too high, too short or too contaminated for the SF50. :-)

+1 for the M600.

All that Chuck said.

Rgs

Patrick

Fly both, then decide. Load family in both.

With small kids, club seating can be really nice.

Piper hangar requirement bc of wingspan could be an issue depending on where you are based.

TBM 700C2 or 850?

Point of information:

Have you confirmed with Cirrus they don’t want your money today?
Have you confirmed with Piper the lead time on a 600?

And yes, put your family in both, which each company should be able to provide today.

Now vs. Wait a couple years????

NOW!

If you want to solve the problem in a short time frame then it has to be the M600. There are many people in front of you for he SF50 and your wait time will be significant---Even if you cold buy someone else's slot.

Plus everything pointed out above by an actual M600 owner seems to make it a pretty easy choice....just my 0.02 and it is probably worth a half pence

Matt

For the mission described, if you don’t want to fly your PA32 single, the obvious choice is a piston twin. An Aztec or 310 or Baron 58 will have the same or better room and the redundancy you want. And no more capital cost than your PA32.

These are good VFR trips over the water, in my experience, so really if you have two engines all the IMC redundancy is not an issue. You can get radar in the nose which is a good thing in Florida. If you want huge payload, get a Navajo.. you don’t need pressurization for that flight and the Navajo is the roomy heavy hauler for short overwater flights.

For the couple of 1500 mile trips, it would be more cost effective to charter a jet, even at $10,000+ a trip, than buy a jet or turboprop with that kind of range /payload that is only needed a couple of,times a year.

But whatever you do, don’t be the guy that waits 5 years for the dream paper plane to become a reality.... and then loses his medical in the meantime. Life is short, fly now!

One great advantage of the turbo prop is the prop as a speed brake. The ability to slow down quickly on final or on the ground is wonderful. In the Caravan, I can fly 160 kias all the way to short final and still land where I want. I am sure the M600 will do the same. The SF50 will be much less forgiving on speed. This is a real consideration for a pilot transitioning from piston. I think you will find the M600 cockpit much more familiar as well. VFR flexibity and no type rating all weigh in favor of M600.

Go for it.

Why didn’t you add the TBM to your shortlist?

Caravan or Kodiak possibilities? Not nearly as fast as the SF50 or M600, but a lot more utility. On your milk run to Marsh Harbour the time diff in the big turboprop fixed gear single won't be that big of deal, and you could easily find a pre-owned one now......