You guys are killing me. I can’t think of very many better ways to dispose of €100 notes…
I tell you what, it might use a lot of fuel but Jet-A1 is a lot cheaper than Avgas!!
I still love the whine of a PT6 spooling up, or the dual Williams FJ44s on my current ride. Once you taste turbine power you don’t really want to go back…
I’m so glad my boss feels the same way! :)
Let’s face it, a turbine is just better. 
Please, look at the mirror shot (at 7:00 min) in this little Mexican video.
Does anyone still remember Jack Nicholson’s plastered nose facing a car mirror in Polanski’s “Chinatown”
Nice one, ANTEK! (excellent movie)
(thank God you didn’t mention The Matrix…)
A few thoughts on the SE…
First off, I get the impression that most people who say “this is my dream machine” have never flown one, but figure that the SE would be the cheapest way to get a “personal airliner”.
However, there are always two sides of a medal.
I guess I can be somewhat neutral about it, as I don’t own one, but have put one through its paces on a longer trip.
PROs:
-the sound
-for those used to the SEPs: almost no more vibration. Very good for your comfort.
-turbine reliability and jetfuel availability: priceless
-weather capability and pressure cabin
-fuel economy is good. At FL200, SEs ususally do about 205 KTAS @ about 22GPH (I understand these numbers vary a little bit from one to the other, depending mostly on the condition of the turbine). OAT is also important, obviously. I once calculated that in Europe, an SE can cost less in fuel (even per hour!) than a C182 flown at 75% ROP.
-good short field performance
And here’s the CONs, in my experience (muelli might not agree with all of them ).
-you will get 35 year old airframe, made basically from a 1960s design. It is simply old stuff. Ergonomics are poor. Getting in and to the back seat (one door only) is a bit difficult.
-the cabin is not very wide and feels somewhat claustrophobic. I think this is largely due to the small windows. In fact, at least on the back seats, when flying IMC or under an overcast, it can can quite dark in the cabin (due to high wing plus very small windows). Just not a nice “Raumgefühl”. However, with the 6th seat out, one person can stretch his legs nicely
-no good for taking photos
-rear passengers freeze all the time
-all the three examples I flew or sat in had a more or less strong odor of jetfuel in the cabin
-the fuel system layout is slightly awkward (obviously, the 210 was not originally designed with turbine in mind)
-being a complex and old airframe, there is always something to repair
-the flight handling is that of a truck; mind you, some trucks might feel more responsive than the SE.
-due to the rather small wheels, not too good for soft fields (just like all Cessna retracts).
-not good for “bimbling”
So, just like all other aircraft, it is a compromise and it has its strengths and weaknesses. But yes, it’s a nice one.
You forgot one con:
I cannot afford it :-)
I think a lot of those points would apply to the TBM also. Not the smell of fuel, I would hope! The fuel cost per mile is about the same as the TB20!
no good for taking photos
That is a very unfortunate thing which I have seen a lot. Is there no way to install a proper optical glass side window? It would have to be single glazed.
Peter,
the cost per mile will be the same for fuel only … doesn’t mean much.
I have installed a photo window in my Warrior, there’s a kit by a german company (Plexiglas Weiss) in Munich. I am now thinking of dong the same in the Cirrus.
