Fly-off: TBM 910 vs. SF50 Vision Jet

[@oddsends6048]

What about useful load, fuel consumption, mpg, ride comfort, maintenance costs, # seats, cabin volume....

[@FlyingNDriving]

Got to have a part Deux!

[@brandonadams7837]

Have never once heard someone refer to aircraft fuel consumption as mpg.

[@cageordie]

Right, fill the seats in a Vision Jet and it isn't going far.

[@CyberThe1st]

Here are answers to all of your questions: TBM 910's maximum certified takeoff weight is 7,394 lbs, with a standard useful load of about 2,400 lbs. SF50's maximum certified takeoff weight is 6,000 lbs, with a standard useful load of 2,453 lbs. | TBM uses about 37 GPH. SF50 uses about 59 GPH. | The TBM 910 is comfortable, but is also said to be very cramped when seating passengers. The SF50 is said to be very comfortable to fly, and ride along in. | Costs for the TBM come to about $762,000 (Annual Budget). For the SF50, it is $573,000 (also Annual Budget). | The TBM 910 contains 8 seats (Pilot & Co-Pilot). The SF50 contains 7 seats (Pilot & Co-Pilot). | The cabin volume of the TBM is still louder than a jet propelled aircraft, but is still decently quiet. The cabin volume of the SF50 is quieter in current models than in older models, but is still a bit on the high side for a jet, apparently it's not loud though. I hope these were good answers, just did some research.

[@jccloud9]

@@jmrotsaertSo, dispel their input with factual information. You’re making yourself look like a commonplace troll who’s objective is to add no value and cause disruption. Be better than that or save us all from your ramblings.

[@FlyingNDriving]

Part 2: cockpit volume, cabin volume, 4 adult range, time to alt, baggage showdown, golf club/large item packing. 250mm,500nm, 800nm mission breakdown

[@themaverickproject4577]

Can we compare the two between useful load and fuel consumption?

[@scarybaldguy]

Wish I could afford either of them.

[@FELiPES101]

im taking the tbm...can land/takeoff from unprepared fields and I would imagine there are far more a&p's that know how to service a pt6

[@rodsilva80]

Maximum cruising speed on TBM is 330kt and 300kt for the Cirrus.

[@uberanalyst]

And 333 knots for an Epic E1000 😀

[@Shadow__133]

Yeah, but approach speed and landing distance is zero on Cirrus if you pull that red handle on the ceiling. 😂

[@glenndahl9935]

I have owned both of these aircraft and flown them both hundreds of hours. The TBM will destroy the vision jet in climb performance and endurance at gross weight.

[@87solarsky]

Looking forward to Beechcraft Denali VS. Pilatus PC-12 !

[@brandonadams7837]

Denali is not even certified yet.

[@overcastfriday81]

I'm sure the denali saved development costs using existing fuselage designs but man that thing is ugly.

[@steveo1kinevo]

Interesting video! Both airplanes are a blast to fly.

[@superchargedpetrolhead]

the cirrus performed really better than i thought it would...just reading the spec sheet, you would think the tbm would wipe the floor with the cirrus...but the cirrus performed really well...

[@alk672]

You can really see who the target audience of AOPA really is these days.

[@richyrichk]

Klingons gumming up our Oshkosh. Pfffft.

[@JB-nt5lu]

Yeah.... not us.

[@galactictomato1434]

I loved the video so... Me?

[@cageordie]

Try the Epic E1000 GX.

[@vandalMav]

As a Epic Owner/Pilot, I would have smoked them both on all events--GRIN

[@jeffmelcher2908]

Would not have even been a con test, even though most of these were designed to allow the Cirrus to win. I have to wonder how much Cirrus is paid to have this test done

[@Dan_C604]

@@vandalMavoh, you own an Epic? Wow, that is an amazing aircraft! Forget the vision and the tbm. Epic is epic!

[@WilliamDauriaInvestor]

That was fun to watch!

[@northernandyboy]

Very interesting. Would be good if you used the commonly used terminology for the maneuvering. I.e. climb at VX. Clean stall etc.

[@jayfleegle9455]

Great Video, “ if” I had the money I would purchase the TBM

[@dhaferalqarni9291]

I did not expect that!

[@dcxplant]

The tricky part to these aircraft is getting the owners to understand, accept, and practice the concept of risk management.

[@jonasbaine3538]

Should compare high altitude cruise speed replicating an actual cross country flight. Which one cruises faster?

[@uberanalyst]

Something's wrong with this comparison: Could Matt in the TBM have been too conservative in his use of throttle to avoid elevated ITTs? Or still had the TBM's inertial separator ON? Cirrus jets are well-known to have relatively poor climb rates: ATC dislikes them because they keep getting in the way of other jets flying arrival or departure procedures. They've joked that the reason it's called the "Vision" Jet is because it only imagines that it's a jet. If you wanted a real competitor to the Cirrus Jet or TBM, you should hold a "grudge match" with a certified Epic E1000 GX turboprop (which new costs in the same $4M range as the TBM and Cirrus). The Epic would have had to throttle back to avoid busting the FAA's 250 knot IAS limit below 10,000 feet while blowing past both other aircraft in takeoff, climb, and drag race comparisons.

[@FlyingNDriving]

The cabin volume and price in the epic is basically in a whole different class

[@uberanalyst]

An Epic costs less than a TBM, but more than a Cirrus Jet. So it's priced right in the middle. It's also a 6-seater.@@FlyingNDriving

[@FlyingNDriving]

@@uberanalyst have you been in one, it's huge, regardless of the number of seats. MSRP and actual market price will be very different in this day an age

[@mattjdesch]

No, inertial separator was off, and was at 100% on TQ. I think part of the issue was we were at low altitude. Not sure what the optimal climb speed is for the TBM; probably picked the best angle rate rather than best climb rate...

[@RusscanFLY]

This is a pretty cool shootout. I’ve always wondered what their performance would be like to head.

[@buckbuchanan5849]

Would like to see fuel burn comparison on maybe a mission length of 500 miles, with comparable payloads.

[@tbm910guy8]

Great video Matt and Amanda! Both aircraft are amazing and great to fly!

[@terrarecon]

I realize this was about performance, however, one thing you should have covered was passenger room and comfort.

[@lukebelvin4900]

I'd take the Vision Jet, CAPS is an amazing thing to have and I just love the visibility

[@daviddefelice6997]

I'm surprised at the TBM's relatively modest rate of climb. I thought that they climbed at more than double what this fly-off showed. I just checked online and the climb performance in the video pretty much matches what it's supposed to be. However, the 960, which is probably what I was thinking of, has a 4000' per minute ROC. I wish fuel burn would have been compared.

[@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403]

Great video. I think either plane is great, but if I could afford either, I'd probably go with the TBM. The much shorter landing distance means there are more airports it can land at. The drag speed race to me is kind of inconclusive, because they were both done around 10,000 ft, which isn't where either of these planes are going to fly.

[@aymanabaza6475]

for safety I really like the Cirrus Jet with the full frame Parachute System

[@georgewashington9058]

Until you have to repack it, it is not just a backpack, paint and body work has to be done. what does it cost

[@ssmokinu]

If it saves your life it’s priceless

[@alanb.4660]

having flown the TBM and loved it....I would take the jet just to not have the soot all down the airplane after a flight.

[@LimaFoxtrot]

Would like to see this against a TBM 960 with a 4,000 ROC

[@briangman3]

Nice video well made

[@flywithaopa]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@petergab734]

And by the way, the fuel consumption of the SF50 is just horrendous!!!!!

[@Jimmer-Space88]

It’s 8% more than the TBM in an overall 700NM Xcty

[@petergab734]

@@Jimmer-Space88 when I flew it with 4 adults and 200 gallons, it climbed at less that 1000 fpm!!!! It took us for ever to get to cruise!!

[@petergab734]

I would never buy this plane. I am sure cirrus is working on a SF55 with more power or something.

[@Jimmer-Space88]

@@petergab734 Hey Peter, assuming you’re referencing the SF50, then yes, compared to many high-performance single engine turboprops, it is lacking. However, many of their buyers (SF50) I’ve come to know over the years, don’t really care about the performance other than a few grumbles, it’s all about the cabin. Secondary to that, mouthing the words “my jet” at the cocktail party does well to stroke the TYPE A personality and associated ego, if you know what I mean? The TBM 9XX is hard to beat in the small turboprop class, however, it has its pitfalls as well. Air conditioning is the worst of the worst; fuel tank leaks are an issue; cabin is crowded and more. This is why I leave it up to the buyer to give whatever catches their eye and budget a try. If it doesn’t work out, there are buyers for both models ready to take it off their hands. Bottom line for me (and all of these comments are opinion-based in nature and I’ve owned both aircraft, btw), the only SF50 I would remotely consider is the G2+. The only TBM I would consider is in the “9” series and with that being said, I think the 960 is severely over-priced in this market and not worth the $5.55M list price. For the pilot leaning towards the turboprop as the better choice, a well cared for 940 is best overall value.

[@petergab734]

@@Jimmer-Space88 I agree. That’s why we decided to go with the PC12 NGX. When we bought it in 2020, it was a little more than the TBM.

[@fiedlertimify]

Oh to be the person who is watching this thinking, “this video made my decision so much easier.”😂

[@FlyingNDriving]

Be nice to know when the sf50 catches up and starts out climbing the tbm from a SL takeoff, prob around 8k if i had to guess based on looking at the first two tests

[@gol3tron]

Seems like this video could have been a chart.

[@doncharleslundell]

Yeah, but the video was fun 😀✈️

[@timothycheuvront8284]

Odd comparison but...Birds...In the TBM it's gonna get shredded, In the Cirrus it's engine out.

[@space1commander]

How about comparing a C-152 and Grumman AA1?.

[@lionelf4781]

Would have been interesting to know the take off distance ...

[@moreelosilva9407]

WauwW.. fs50 is beautiful on the in side.. beautiful control panel/dash❤ and the price on it is a cool mil cheaper ...tbm has in my opinion the better looking frame.

[@chrislovett6120]

Cool comparison

[@LowandFast357]

This was kind of a weak comparison. Who really cares about first indication of stall. Take that bad boy to the edge of VSo and hold it. That would have been much better. Roll rate? So what. Drag race...They would have been better off dragging from slow flight. The whole things was just meh.

[@kohersh]

That was fun to watch.

[@calvynvandenberg6943]

Both are nice aircraft. TBM is a personal preference for me though!

[@diegojon8267]

Either one and I’m good.

[@Brettdyt]

That Vision Jet is going to have much higher fuel and maintenance costs and it is going to have a less operational time because it will require more frequent and more complex maintenance.

[@galactictomato1434]

False. The TBM is more expensive to maintain.

[@immanuelo.9548]

Haha i love this video🤣

[@NikosWings]

For a million $$ less and a parachute, for my kind of mission, I take the SF50 all day any day. Maintenance costs about the same on both.

[@nxfedlt1]

Yea, but then you have to deal with cirrus and the ridiculous price markups on service….i say this as a g3 and g6t owner. I would skip the sf50 and go pc12 or tbm. The corporate treatment from cirrus to its customers is so poor and now that they are public on the Chinese exchange, I expect it to get worse.

[@paulo7200]

Fuel consumed by each?

[@CyberThe1st]

37 GPH for the TBM 910, and 59 GPH for the SF50.

[@mattjdesch]

@@CyberThe1st Don't know where you're getting 37 GPH for the TBM. The fuel burn is roughly similar for both. 55 - 65 GPH.

[@CyberThe1st]

@@mattjdesch Just looked it up, it is saying 37 gph for the TBM 910 model. Looks like other models do consume more fuel (57 gph range) Edit: I may be incorrect, so please do correct me if I'm wrong!

[@TheDennisTodd]

I was hoping to hear what each aircrafts takeoff rolls were???

[@God_has_spoken]

About the same both can land/take off in 3000ft

[@galactictomato1434]

​@@God_has_spokenNo.

[@aymanabaza6475]

I loved it..

[@jesuslivesforeverthelordof5023]

Do a comparison of a Grand Caravan 208 EX and The Kodiak 900

[@scottfranco1962]

A face off of the most expensive small aircraft out there.

[@davidnewton8756]

Which airport? I saw a Grumman Albatross :)

[@sawxpatscelts]

One has more safety redundancies than the other. Simple answer if you care about living.

[@mmeyers111]

How about Kitfox vs. Just Aircraft Highlander?

[@scottfranco1962]

Yea, I would take a turbine AC just for the landing and takeoff performance.

[@flymrd]

what about best glide?

[@overcastfriday81]

Can the SF50 get in and out of an airport like St Barts? Yes, just barely, and don't be surprised if the underwriter cancels your policy after you upload a video doing it. Can the TBM? No. Sure it can roll out faster but lift off requires more distance. Turbulence happens, even for planes cruising at 30K. So who can fly higher? Both are tied at 31K which gets you out of 90 pct of the uncomfortable weather. Assuming the pilot operates at NORMAL cruise, who will reach the destination first? The TBM gets there quicker. Yes, payload and range matter, but don't upset passengers like altitude, cruise speed, and takeoff distance. Passenger would much rather the plane be capable of 41K while flying over nasty weather. As for range, they want to get out and stretch their legs anyway.

[@overcastfriday81]

If we were comparing airliners, we'd drop short field minimums from the list of key specs; the reality is, if you have a 737, you'll be able to land everywhere there is a major passenger terminal, and none of the dude ranches that GA planes are famous for accessing.

[@christopherhand4836]

Both too expensive

[@rainerzufall689]

For what? For you?

[@christopherhand4836]

@@rainerzufall689 no for the leprechaun 🤣🤣🤣

[@DanFrederiksen]

Fun test. I expected the visionjet to lose at most since it's the slowest jet around. The visionjet was supposed to be 1 million dollars, only a handful of years ago it was 2 million and now you are saying it's close to 4. Good thing it's not greed based. That would be awful. You could test a turboprop vs the Eclipse. I consider the Eclipse to be significantly superior to the visionjet and it's similar price. About double climb rate and 10-15% better fuel economy than the TBM

[@galactictomato1434]

All planes have gone up tremendously. A new Cessna 172 is $400k.

[@tropicthndr]

This test is dry weather landing perf. SF50 landing on any wet or snowy runway is a near death experience especially at Aspen in winter. You buy a turbine to get you there in one day and without a thrust reverser they are a complete waste of money.

[@davem5333]

What is the point of the time to climb to 10,000 ft? These aircraft are going to guzzle fuel at that level. Both of those aircraft are probably better at the mid 20,000 level. Roll rate test is silly.

[@smacfe]

So what about fuel burn, fuel load and range trade off for passengers, useful load, maintenance costs, insurance costs etc

[@wilzboyz]

Of course they didn't touch on the most important information--classic. Time to climb (i.e. 28 or 31k feet), Short field detailed statistics (did a mediocre job here), useful load with full fuel and 3/4 tanks (3h flight + reserve), etc. Who cares about a drag race at 9500'? Pointless. The 900 series TBM will do 315kts TAS at 30k on typical days, not 330. A 700 series B model will do 285ish and a C2 275-280.

[@georgewashington9058]

This not an apples to apples comparison.

[@yackson4804]

Drag racing 8.2 million dollars

[@CharlesMarriott-c7z]

Hernandez Brian Martin Nancy Clark Jessica

[@SuperHerbie5353]

What about a porta potty. Lol.

[@kyliedepaterson7524]

Lopez Carol Thompson Ronald Hernandez Kenneth

[@Charon58]

The TBM is a lot roomier and actually has a toilet option and a dedicated pilot door

[@JoslynJane-bv4is]

Clark Gary Martinez Sharon Anderson Jeffrey

[@vincerussell7121]

Which one wins the fuel burn battle?!

[@FedericoOliphant-i2n]

Lopez Kenneth Young Mary Martin Michelle

[@thepilotconnor]

PC-12 does it better

[@marvinralphs9630]

Moore Laura Taylor Mary Rodriguez Carol

[@JonsAxipte]

White Eric Brown Elizabeth Young Paul

[@FLYBOY123456789]

and which one had that parachute...uh huh....

[@xaviergautier6972]

Stall 😂

[@CraigieNorma-w1k]

White Sarah Anderson James Thomas Deborah

[@edcew8236]

Stall warning when already on the ground? Less than useless... And considering all the factors of aircraft ownership, this comparison was fun but not much more than that.

[@RR-zq3mk]

Both are just machines for the privileged nuff said

[@cessna177flyer3]

I think if you own and fly a personal airplane today - any airplane - you are privileged. And I say that as a Cessna Cardinal owner. I count my blessings every day.

[@galactictomato1434]

You're on an aircraft youtube channel....

[@petergab734]

Wow!! This is the most biased review ever skewed towards the SF50!!! I would like to see this test done in real life situations like 90 degree weather with a full load and on a 1000 NM trip. The cirrus is a joke!!

[@brandonadams7837]

Not everyone needs a full load and 1000nm. If it suits your mission, it’s a great aircraft.

[@petergab734]

@@brandonadams7837 I have flown the SF50. I don’t fly the TBM. But I do fly a PC12 NGX which is double the size of a TMB or SF50 and we burn 400 lbs per hour ( 60 gallons). That’s half of the SF 50. Sometimes I carry 11 people total on the plane. I was just stunned at the poor performance of the SF 50 when I flew it. It could barely get 1000 ft per minute with 4 adults. It was just terrible. And we were burning over 100 gallons!!!

[@galactictomato1434]

​​​We get it. You're a TBM fanboy. Chill.

[@BertieNydia-f8w]

White Lisa Taylor Laura Jackson Karen

[@calburnIII]

Well, the Cirrus definitely wins in the oogly department!

[@glennllewellyn7369]

I somehow like a prop in front of me. AA5B.

[@SailFlyTri]

As predicted, TBM folks losing their minds 🤯 #Facts 😂

[@galactictomato1434]

People have an irrational hatred of the Vision Jet.

[@ThsGuyhazapenus]

Rich people doing rich people things. One day!