Just as a side note, been considering the M600 as it can be flown using BasicMed, for my future plans that are likely coming sooner than I expected

Wouldn't you be limited to operations below FL180? How big of a hit is that in fuel burn?

Wouldn't you be limited to operations below FL180? How big of a hit is that in fuel burn?

Doesn’t that also limit you to <6,000lbs? Is that plane under 6?

Max ramp weight for my Meridian is 5134. Not sure what the M600 is but likely below 6k.

This goes back to my point of the "Cult of Cirrus", and I totally agree with you (and by extension if what you say below is actually what JC is trying to say then I agree with him too).

That isn't a great argument though for why one should buy a SF50 over a M600, which I would argue are absolutely "competing" products. In fact I would argue the only reason to buy the SF50 is due to "Cult of Cirrus" + "Jet Elite" factors which are ridiculous (although the latter is understandable )

To JC's point about how Mustang/P100/HJ are not SF50 competitors, this is true on a new vs. new price comparison, but I would argue that in *theory* if you want a fan powered plane, you really need to get something that can do FL4x, it's the only way they will make any operational sense vs. a turboprop of similar nature (i.e. something KA 350ER or smaller in same class, not to even mention the P180... hat tip to Adam! )

Max ramp is 6,050, max takeoff is 6,000... I'm sure this is not a coincidence (although perhaps it is more geared to European fees than BasicMed?).

It certainly begs the question which one (ramp or takeoff) weight "counts" for being qualified for BasicMed drivers...

M600 vs. SF50.... buy what you want. Pro's and Cons both sides.

SF50 vs. $2MM Mustang..... apples to oranges comparison. A $2MM Mustang probably won't be under warranty and will be $1K an hour to operate. It's 2 different animals.

SF50 is at the pressurized, turbine Bonanza everyone has been wanting for so long. Nothing more. It's an 800 mile plane and it's great for that. It doesn't need to go to FL4XX. There are many cheap old jets that can do that if you want.

There's an SF50 in my hangar now. Owner has a G650 also. He flies the SF50 every week to his polo farm 200NM away.

One may want to watch this video, skip to 10:40 for SF50 numbers on program (+ some extras), he is saying $800/hr direct costs. So not any cheaper to run than an Eclipse 5x0 but slower with less operational flexibility, and 20% cheaper than an "old" Mustang to run:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0VAyaXVlFE

I agree with your sentiment of buy what you want and light the fire(s), but I just don't see a turbofan beating a turboprop of like-class in any kind of objective measure as long as we exclude the desire/capability to get above almost all weather. I know you in some part agree given what you happen to be flying right now

I just flew non stop Atlanta to Wyoming with 6 plus bags on board. 5.5 hours. There was a storm I and every commercial 737 flew around. I don’t buy into the altitude theory like a lot of you guys. Somehow I’ve done hundreds of 1300nm+ flights without being affected by weather. I’ve also never come across a big storm cell everyone wasn’t flying around.

A CJ3 can do the trip I just did but with only 600lbs for people and bags. I have 1200lbs for people and bags. The CJ3 saves me 1.5 hours if I go non stop. With 6 on board today I’d have had to stop for gas in the CJ3 so it would’ve been a wash.

Not all turboprops are the same. Not all jets are the same. I’d take an sf50 over the M600 but just because I like them.

If the SF50 is $800 an hour to operate then an SR22is $250 an hour to operate. The SF50 knocks an hour off a 500nm flight so it’s not a whole lot cheaper to run the piston plane.

I like the Vision jet too, but to say you’d take it over the M600 without defining the mission seems silly. I came from the cirrus world and am pro jet, but it has short legs and couldn’t perform my mission, plus it needs more runway than I often have. As you know, the first step in picking a plane is defining the mission, and budget.

The thing with the PC-12 is the payload, range, and landing/takeoff distances are such that you can take a bunch of people/stuff, just fly around the weather, even at lower altitudes (with reasonable fuel/speed penalty) if need be, it may not be fast but with no need to stop the door to door time isn't all that bad.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but this is why until you go P300/PC-24/CJ-4 I'm just not sure the extra speed and topping capability can be justified by the numbers in a jet vs. turboprop bake-off, unless there are mission specifics that really heavily favor the jet (in a huge hurry in a moderate leg length all the time).

Nothing wrong with choosing the SF50 because you like it, it's actually the best reason of all to get one for personal use

I agree with you. My Misson is Atlanta. Atlanta is within SF50 range of a lot of great destinations. If I live in NYC I wouldn’t be buying an SF50. The fuel stops would get old.

For many of us the airplane defines the mission, not the other way around. We buy the airplane we like and can afford, then we figure out what we can use it for.

Fuel stops were the thing I always sweated in my piston Cirrus. I didn’t want that in the new plane. One of my requiremts was non stop Tampa to Boston, regardless of wind. That narrowed the field pretty quickly. I love your Pilatus, but most of my flights are solo so it was hard to financially justify, otherwise it would be my first choice.