Fly-off: TBM 910 vs. SF50 Vision Jet

[@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

[@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.

[@Crushal812]

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.

[@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.

[@Matthew1Rawling]

Cap

[@Ram0n20]

I wish I had enough money to say that I have owned both of them too. lol… Jokes apart hats off to you, I’m sure you have worked hard to get where you are at.👏👏👏👏👏

[@KuostA]

what do u do? which do you enjoy flying more?

[@GulfCoastTim]

​@@Ram0n20You don't need a lot of money to own them. I own both those planes, and a Citation Mustang, plus Citation CJ4 and several other aircraft...in flight simulator 😄

[@Darryl_Frost]

That's what I expected to see here, If I had to choose it would be the TBM.

[@themaverickproject4577]

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

[@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

[@kalashnikovdevil]

It's one of the more common turboprop engines.

[@scarybaldguy]

Wish I could afford either of them.

[@joellouisfire]

You will, bud!

[@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 thing was just meh.

[@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...

[@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.

[@08turboSS]

Basically the same plane.

[@87solarsky]

@@overcastfriday81 Textron stated in 2015 at the start of the Denali's development program, that it is in fact a clean sheet design, ergo not based on any previous aircraft designs.

[@jonasbaine3538]

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

[@steveo1kinevo]

Interesting video! Both airplanes are a blast to fly.

[@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. 😂

[@moteroargentino7944]

@Shadow__133 And it only costs you the entire plane! What a bargain!

[@Shadow__133]

@@moteroargentino7944 That's a minor detail.

[@northernandyboy]

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

[@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?

[@joellouisfire]

This was entertaining! Will you guys do a part 2 with the other practical tests for each plane?

[@jayfleegle9455]

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

[@lukebelvin4900]

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

[@buckbuchanan5849]

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

[@RusscanFLY]

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

[@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

[@WilliamDauriaInvestor]

That was fun to watch!

[@dhaferalqarni9291]

I did not expect that!

[@tbm910guy8]

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

[@fiedlertimify]

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

[@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...

[@aviation.satire]

Definitely need more of this

[@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!

[@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.

[@space1commander]

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

[@baigish100]

This was a good/ fun video. Thanks for doing this. I wish that analysis on operating costs. The stall speed was a superfluous metric, IMHO.

[@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

[@LamborghiniReven1000]

I love the footage from Flight Simulator. Crazy how similar it looks to real life!

[@lionelf4781]

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

[@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.

[@LimaFoxtrot]

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

[@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.

[@timothycheuvront8284]

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

[@calvynvandenberg6943]

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

[@chad1755]

In my mind nothing beats the sound of 2 IO-540s coming to life on the ramp. So I'll pass on both of these and take a Navajo thanks.

[@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.

[@davidnewton8756]

Which airport? I saw a Grumman Albatross :)

[@diegojon8267]

Either one and I’m good.

[@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.

[@kohersh]

That was fun to watch.

[@benparadude2028]

300 hours of flying the Vision G2+ , I would take the TBM.

[@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.

[@terrarecon]

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

[@jesuslivesforeverthelordof5023]

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

[@chrislovett6120]

Cool comparison

[@dcxplant]

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

[@flymrd]

what about best glide?

[@gol3tron]

Seems like this video could have been a chart.

[@doncharleslundell]

Yeah, but the video was fun 😀✈️

[@bigstyx]

Also, the 50 just looks better and has a cool factor

[@scottfranco1962]

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

[@kalashnikovdevil]

Pretty sure the TBM's got a PT6A-66D under the hood, that's 1850 HP engine, not 850. A thousand horses is a lot of horses. Great engine though, can't go wrong with it for a turbo prop.

[@hansadler6716]

do the same fly off between the SF50 and the Epic e1000 GX

[@scottfranco1962]

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

[@paulo7200]

Fuel consumed by each?

[@Crushal812]

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

[@mattjdesch]

@@Crushal812 Don't know where you're getting 37 GPH for the TBM. The fuel burn is roughly similar for both. 55 - 65 GPH.

[@Crushal812]

@@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!

[@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.

[@GridConnections]

Now do the Epic E1000 GX 😎

[@aymanabaza6475]

I loved it..

[@mmeyers111]

How about Kitfox vs. Just Aircraft Highlander?

[@CarlosLopez-fr8ui]

I wish I could fly both of them and fly one of them broke dreamer problems

[@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.

[@waynesilva3129]

For me, the TBM. Speed isn’t everything. The TBM is faster getting out of the annual inspection. Lastly, I’d rather take the TBM from Albuquerque To Europe for the summer. More camping gear can go into the TBM along with a couple of folding bikes.

[@immanuelo.9548]

Haha i love this video🤣

[@sawxpatscelts]

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

[@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.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

@@galactictomato1434 Which is absolutely insane.

[@christopherhand4836]

Both too expensive

[@rainerzufall689]

For what? For you?

[@christopherhand4836]

@@rainerzufall689 no for the leprechaun 🤣🤣🤣

[@yackson4804]

Drag racing 8.2 million dollars

[@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.

[@toddw6716]

The prop is way better than the jet all around.

[@ThsGuyhazapenus]

Rich people doing rich people things. One day!

[@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.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

They're both jet engines in the end.

[@cooperbeggs]

Yeah but when your non-pilot friends see the TBM they think it is just a prop plane. SF50 looks like JET lololol

[@toddw6716]

AOPA is all about the millionaire.

[@topofthegreen]

the newer TBM would destroy that vision jet not only that the TBM is much better looking.

[@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.

[@Mamo878]

Wow, this review lacks a ton of real-world info.

[@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

[@briangman3]

Nice video well made

[@flywithaopa]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@AJ_76421]

If this man don’t start pronouncing “turbine” correctly imma have a stroke

[@georgewashington9058]

This not an apples to apples comparison.

[@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.

[@petergab734]

@@galactictomato1434 obviously you didn’t read my comment. I have never flown a TBM. So not sure how you got the idea I am a fan of the TBM

[@KuostA]

@@petergab734 what do u do?

[@SuperHerbie5353]

What about a porta potty. Lol.

[@Charon58]

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

[@thepilotconnor]

PC-12 does it better

[@vincerussell7121]

Which one wins the fuel burn battle?!

[@KuostA]

incredibly disappointing comparison lacking actual real world practical comparisons that actually matter, instead of completely arbitrary random comparisons................. you guys really blew actually making GOOD content with these aircraft at your hands. Seriously, for AOPA and professionals, very disappointing, embarrassing work on this video.

[@xaviergautier6972]

Stall 😂

[@FLYBOY123456789]

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

[@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.

[@calburnIII]

Well, the Cirrus definitely wins in the oogly department!

[@glennllewellyn7369]

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

[@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....

[@KuostA]

@@cessna177flyer3 congrats to you! what do you do?

[@cessna177flyer3]

@@KuostA I'm an airline pilot.

[@KuostA]

@@cessna177flyer3 makes sense. congrats to u for living the dream!

[@SailFlyTri]

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

[@galactictomato1434]

People have an irrational hatred of the Vision Jet.