Thanks for taking the time to put that post together. It was very informative. I hope the SF50 statistics are positive. It will require a type rating and I'm sure Cirrus will have a thorough training program that comes with it.

Nobody has ever died in a Pilatus due to an engine failure...... EVER! 20 years. What other brand can you say that about?

If what you write is true there would be more twin engine airplanes being built.

I do, it looks goofy.

Everyone I know who as bought a Mustang is looking at the M2 or updated Citation so they can get more range and speed.
If im buying a jet I want a real jet capable of flying 350 kts and RVSM to FL410 with range.

You aren't the target market. If you care about speed or range compared to another turbine aircraft, it's not for you.

You aren't the target market. If you care about speed or range compared to another turbine aircraft, it's not for you.

Jet range is terrible wish the eclipse had another 100 gallons. Mustang doesnt work for me either!

I really dig the lancair evolution too.

I think the new Epic once it is certified should be brought up. Very fast, hauls alot. Their website says 325 TAS, FL340 ceiling, 1,120 lbs payload with full fuel. Id take one of those in a heartbeat over the SF50.

I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.

I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.

I think the looks thing is transitory. I can remember some cars I hated when they first came out and then grew on me. With respect to the SF 50 I'm not that crazy about the panel, which is what I care about most, it's too clean. The outside? Meh. The panel is the thing a pilot wants to look at.

Having said that the Aerostar is ugly. I've tried to like it but it just is missing something. Like a big chested woman who turns around to show her fat rear end. Some is good but the whole package is off. And, virtually 99% of them have crappy looking paint jobs. The Mits? I think the tip tanks look terrible and the plane looks like a fat bow legged chick from the front. But that's just my opinion...

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I hope it happens but am not going to hold my breath.

Does the epic have a parachute? I know they were talking about it but don't know if it's going to happen

That chute is gonna sell the SF50. The SF50 is gonna pull sales away from everyone

Whats' the reliability of the Williams engine used in the SF50? Any reason it would be much diffeent than the PT6? No reduction or prop should be a plus. As per Jason's comments - that would may a chute pretty much unneccesary. Just something to provide warm and fuzzy feelings. (But I expect many folk will want that with a single engine jet)

By now Cirrus and chute are pretty synonymous. Every Cirrus will have a chute....

I wouldn't buy the airplane for the chute because of reliability of the engine. I would buy the aircraft because my wife would want the chute in case something happens to me. Everyone seems to miss that the chute probably has gotten more spouses/significant others/kids into small airplanes than anything else. Candidly, I never hear much from my passengers (both in my plane and others) about mechanical reliability - it is all about something happening to the pilot during flight. Now, I don't have stats, but I think that is very low probability, but it is an irrational fear that is now addressed perfectly.