I wonder how that would work contractually? Does the G2's cost more?
I'm sure Cirrus spelled out very clearly in its contract what the terms were for changes along the way, as I would imagine they expected that.
Not really.. The TBM930 is about 20-25 KTS faster and $1.5M more. It's real closest competitor is the PA46 M600 which the SF50 beats by 40KTS, a larger cabin, higher certified ceiling, smaller hangar footprint, more modern design, etc. The M600 will outperform it on range and short field performance though and (the biggie for a lot of wealthy older hobbyist pilots, no type rating required).
Right now, I'm still leaning towards a C510 Mustang because it is actually 35+ KTS faster, has engine redundancy, FL410, slightly better range and a nice used one can be had for $1.5-1.8M but OpEx is higher and now I'm comparing new vs used (in my personal decision matrix). I will likely upgrade to a Mustang in the next couple of years but if I don't, I will certainly take a look at depreciated used SF50s by then.
I'm seeing more and more people "skip steps" like what you're proposing with similar reasons. The typical progression in the past has been fixed gear piston single, complex piston single, complex piston twin, pressurized piston twin, turboprop twin, twin jet.
A few things have changed that landscape. For one, you see a lot of areas where you can buy a version of a "skipped step" for a similar price with better capability for the step you normally would've gone for. This is also caused by the differences in what's being produced (essentially piston singles, turboprop singles, and twin jets with the only real GA twin turboprop now being the King Air) and those customers generally wanting something newer. And, of course, comes insurance.
I'm personally a fan of the old way of doing things. It's the path that I've taken (although I'm in the turboprop twin world, and I don't think I'll ever go to twin jet). What I especially like about it is that you add one major aspect at a time, making each subsequent step easier. Master one thing and move on to the next. Less required instruction/babysitting when you move up, get up to speed faster. When I moved into the MU-2, even being an MU-2, all I needed to do was the required initial training. After that, I was cut loose. Not many people who move into MU-2s can say that.
Additionally, you get a more complete education on aviation at all levels that way. I think a lot of times people who jump from a naturally aspirated piston single into a pressurized piston twin or turboprop miss out on the fun of low level real weather.
However, skipping steps makes a lot of sense if you can afford it, have the mission needs, and can get good mentoring to help you with the transition.
One of my friends recently skipped the turboprop step in favor of a CJ2 after owning a Cessna 340 for a number of years. He's enjoying it and the speed, although "Unable - we're a Citation" will become part of your ATC vernacular.
Something I'd suggest for consideration as you look at your personal decision matrix. As we all know, winds tend to get stronger as you get up in altitude. Within each altitude range there are some aircraft that are the fastest. I've always had the theory that flying the aircraft that's one of the fastest for its optimal altitude range is a good thing, because it means when you have really rotten headwinds, your relative ground speed loss isn't as bad. This is part of why I like the MU-2. Its real optimal altitude is low flight levels (although I'm normally flying it FL200-250), with 250-275ish KTAS for baby engines. The worst headwind I've had so far has been about 90 kts which, while really bad, I'm still doing no-wind ground speeds for what I saw in the 310. Really, it's pretty rare for me to ever see under 200 ground speed in cruise on the MU-2.
You won't have that in a C510. Your optimal altitudes will be right in the "Windy AF" realm, and you've got an aircraft that's "slow" for those altitudes. Said friend above was seeing 200 kts GS coming home the other night, 150 kt headwind right on the nose.
The 414 had the advantage that, being a piston, you didn't get penalized for low altitude flying with respect to fuel burn. I had one trip where the winds were so bad, I flew home from NYC to KC at 2,500 ft the whole way. However the TAS went down significantly still. In the MU-2 the lowest I've chosen to cruise was around 14,000 ft for a super windy day, but I still ended up at FL240 (and cursing the entire time) to stay above clouds/icing. But in spite of that my ground speeds were still what I would see in the 310 on a good day heading that direction.
The Cirrus Jet is real! Pretty cool airplane. Saw it for the first time on the ramp in Denton. by Ryan Short, on Flickr
