Peter wrote:
EASA copies nearly all FAA ADs.
And vice-versa based on their agreements.
Exactly… which means if the FAA get’s a bit antsy with their AD’s it could turn into quite a mess.
JasonC wrote:
So those flying slower planes with less range are OK to ridicule?
No – but you made the point that the aircraft is less expensive than a TBM, and I just pointed out why people would accept to pay more for a TBM, instead of all prospective TBM owners now buying the Cirrus Jet (although I am sure some will).
Both are great aircraft, for slightly different missions.
Gentlemen,
In my opinion, there is little connection with the AOA issue on the SF50 and its relative lower price compared to a TBM.
I am sure Cirrus would have rather avoided this AD but it has been well managed and airplanes are now flying again.
I see no disrespect from anyone here perhaps some small misunderstanding between members.
It will be interesting to review maintenance cost, price adjustments to real production volumes and depreciation on this new aircraft as history builds up.
Acquisition cost is only one element that some seem to focus on rather than seeing the complete picture.
As far as aircraft performance, these 2 machines are quite different indeed. Having flown both, I am able to compare. Here again, I am not sure price is the most relevant deciding factor. The smart choice is a mission driven one and for each profile there is a price: No more than 4 people for 2 hours (long runways, light AND not bulky bags) is the SF50 one but there is a little more to know of course and this knowledge comes from flying experience that some buyers many not have acquired yet such as turboprop capabilities if they are moving up for a SR22….Think High Wycombe to Ibiza direct with 6 POB at 330KT on 60 USG an hour for example…Nothing but a TBM will do this.
Besides stellar reliability, range, speed, payload, runway performance and margins in every corner is what a TBM delivers.
All the best,
David
davidfabry wrote:
Besides stellar reliability, range, speed, payload, runway performance and margins in every corner is what a TBM delivers.
Well yes. For an astonishingly high purchase cost though. My problem with the TBM is it is still a small 6 seat turboprop. A bit quicker and more capable than a Meridian (the new version of which is a stupid price as well) but essentially comparable.
On your example you could head up the road a bit and fly from Oxford to Ibiza in a Citation and save several million dollars.
Hi Jason,
I know these 2 products quite well as I represent both brands.
My example: Fairoaks to Ibiza with 6 POB at 330KT is to account for a small runway, a fairly distant destination and non restrictive payload.
Apply this to anywhere else you want of course and to in any combination. I guarantee you nothing else will do this.
You are also only talking about acquisition cost of a Mustang (which suffered heavy depreciation so for some that bought before it tanked it is paintful)
It will cost way more to maintain and fuel.
Money is cheap, maintenance is free for 5 years and TBM resale values are good so you are not saving million dollars….but if you need to convince someone else who is not flying, I will back you up: You can count on me anytime.:):)
I just flew from the US with a Meridian and was on the edge of payload and range with 3 POB and 70 KTS slower. A bit more headwind and I would have had to wait it out but it is cheaper so again choice should be mission driven but the TBM proposition is very strong when you need or want capabilities. I happen to like margins and performance.
Until soon!
davidfabry wrote:
You are also only talking about acquisition cost of a Mustang (which suffered heavy depreciation so for some that bought before it tanked it is paintful)
I wasn’t talking about a Mustang but we can if you like. Mustang values held up well and recovered after production stopped. TBMs cost more than an M2 and a good used CJ4 can be obtained for not much more than a new TBM. And for someone spending close to 5mn on a TBM, I doubt fuel costs are their major concern.
They are well-built aircraft I grant you. But I would take a PC12 if I needed the short field and payload and accept it takes a bit longer to get there albeit in much more space and comfort.
And I wasn’t defending the new Meridian, at nearly 3mn, that is also absurd. At least the TBM has some better performance and range.
Hi Jason,
You stil loose short runways with a Mustang or CJ4.
A CJ 4 is a 9M aircraft…and it will cost you a lot more to run compared with a TBM plus all the hassle associated with jets such as part ncc, etc. One with 2000 hours and almost 10 years old is still more expensive than a brand new TBM.
We are not comparing similar equipment here at all and of course new to used changes a lot in costs.
A Mustang will not fly to Ibiza with 6 POB even from Oxford.
A new TBM is 4.1M not 5M. A M500 is 2.2M and an M600 is 3.2M
A PC 12 is 5M but will cruise 70 KT slower so you pay 20% more to buy one, your running costs are 20% higher but you put 2 more people. It is a different proposition very well suited for numerous passengers. I am more keen to ride in the front, have the speed and 1M extra then.
I think we have to fly a TBM together and a steak dinner to elaborate…:)
Kind regards,
David
Mo’ money, mo’ problems :-)
