OK. Let's look at accidents for both planes since 2005. While were doing that. How many Mits are even flying compared to PC12? I never see a Mits. This is truly a silly comparison.

I love the Mits. I'd love to take one on a trip. I'm not bashing them. But they don't make them anymore. The market has spoken. Some folks like to buy planes like that and squeeze the last bit of life out of them and I respect that knowledge and desire. But I run my PC12 over 300 hours a year. 4-6 flights a week. I hangar at the Pilatus Dealer. I need that baby to run. It's a tank. No issues. No AOG. I don't have time to fool with a Mits.

Because it's a JET. See my post above. Seriously, this thing exists because little boys who wanted to be maverick or iceman grow up to be fat, bald 52 year old guys whose wives sleep in another room and this makes them feel 16 again.

Dont rule out the fun and aesthetic factor, we will call it emotions of airplane purchases. Twins are fun to fly and a twin jet is a real kick in the pants. I also find twins attractive. Not saying a tbm or pilatus doesnt look cool but the Eclipse is like taking out the sports car. Something tobe said for that.

I think the cirrus jet will sell on looks alone.

And the problem then is that basically every twin-engine pilot thinks he/she is that "superior" airman. In reality, half of us are below average.

And the problem then is that basically every twin-engine pilot thinks he/she is that "superior" airman. In reality, half of us are below average.

The Sf50 doesn't use much runway. Not sure what other jet could get into the airport where I fly so easily.
I think these will be hugely successful. They look cool. They are relatively cheap. Most non-pilots prefer jets. They have a chute. They are new. Cirrus is a solid company, and a great marketer. What's not to like?

I realize that one can work the numbers to get a desired result of a personal agenda but the numbers have to be considered.

Here are some stats on SETP vs TETP:

Full report using data through 2012:
http://www.westair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012_Breiling_Report.pdf

[Accident rate] and Fatal accident rate/100K hours
KA 200 - [.91] .28
KA 300/350 - [.31] .06 (requires type rating, basically everything else equal to KA 200)
PC12 - [.74] .30
MU2 - [3.69] 1.58 (realize this isn't fair considering new training requirements)

TETP fleet average [1.95] .67
SETP fleet average [1.88] .72

Noteworthy:
- comparing the KA 200 & 300 data shows the benefits of quality training can have. KA200/300 is basically the same airplane. Additionally same point with the MU2 recent data since the SFAR training.
- the fleet averages are interesting noting that none of the SETP require a type rating and several of the TETPs included in the average do.
- The PC12 requires no type rating; what would it's safety record be if it did require the same training as a KA300 or MU2?

Separate from this data but PC12s have never had a fatal accident due to an engine failure.

My emotional decision (based on a little data) is to take my savings in gas and invest in training and a 'simple airplane' (a PC12) to improve safety.

It will be interesting to see the SF50 data in 10 years with a turbine and parachute.

I'd love to be flying a PC12 or a TBM or even a Meridian, rather than the dinosaur I drive now...but if I only have $400 to $500K with which to buy an airplane, what other choice do I have other than an old Twin Cessna? Or, I'm scared to say, a Rice-Rocket?

I believe Jason's argument that SE turboprops are better than twins - I guess I just need to make more money so I can buy one.

Why, pretty soon they'll be paying you to buy it!

Why? PC12's have been around since 1994.

Hey.. I'm younger than that!

Why? PC12's have been around since 1994.

Am I the only one who thinks the SF50 looks hideous? Bulbous big nose, like a sperm getting pushed through the air with a V-tail at the back.

I hope it does well of course, but I won't be buying it. I might be the only one who thinks the HondaJet looks great.

I have a fair amount of time in single engine turboprops ... just over 1,000 hours. Similarly, I have about 1,000 hours of twin engine turboprop, and about 3,000 hours of multi engine jet.

I wouldn't say anything bad about any of the airplanes, but common sense, IMO, dictates that the "safer" airplane will be one with two engines. I know that the Pilatus (and probably TBM and Cessna Caravan to a lesser degree) dealers put a hard sell on single engine reliability, and how the engines "never" quit. But the reality is, they do. Certainly not as often as a piston, but still engine failures happen.

Multi engine aircraft don't just bring you to the scene of the crash quicker, contrary to the saying. A competent, well trained pilot is capable of safely handling an engine failure in a multi engine aircraft, and landing the aircraft safely, assuming the airplane is capable of doing so. All of the multiengine aircraft we are discussing here have that capability.

When an engine failure does happen would you rather be in a single engine and have no engines left, or a twin engine, and have one engine left, and be able to select the airport to land at? I think the choice is obvious. Furthermore, I think anyone who says a single engine is what they'd prefer is only fooling themselves.

In closing I just read last night in AOPA magazine that Barry Schiff says he will no longer fly a single engine on a night cross country. It's interesting that those that have done so, and have since gained a significant amount of time in multiengine aircraft will now put restrictions on the types of flights they'll do in a single engine. On the other hand, those that fly only single engine and haven't been exposed to hundreds or thousands of hours of multi engine operations seem to have no problem flying their single around. Could this be experience and lessons learned talking?

It does kind of look like a sperm.. but somebody earlier said that it makes your schlong 3 inches longer. I think that's a reasonable trade off.

Besides, it's a V-tail, that's sexy in and of itself.