zippinbye

I know this is late coming, but I'll give an analogy regarding the SF-340. I have about 4500 hours in both seats, last flown 26 years ago. I grew up flying 100 to 200 horsepower SEL Beech, Piper and Cessna airplanes, with a bit of informal time in SES DHC-2 Beavers. As most might recognize, the Beaver has a rock solid feel compared to the aforementioned. Can you say "structural integrity?" You could say the same about it's grandchild, the DHC-6 Twin Otter, which was my first turboprop. Perhaps a more commonly-experienced transition (at least for old farts like me) was the first flight in a Bonanza (or Debonair in my case). The mighty Beech 30 series felt as solid as a rock with yoke in hand, compared to anything I had flown before. The Saab provided the same sensation to me after perhaps half a dozen other turboprops and a few cabin class twins. It's built like a brick $*ithouse! Ever hear of parts falling off a SF-340? Nope, cause it's not a "thing." They have integrity to the extreme. While not sporty, over-powered or "snappy" in control response, they are solid and comfortable and predictable. Very easy to become one with the airframe after some time in the seat. I never flew the Brasilia, but have plenty of friends who did. It is faster, no doubt - something on the order of 20 knots in cruise. SF-340 is the same speed as a B-200 King Air. EMB-120 barber pole is 272 vs. 250, so you actually have to consider your speed passing through 10,0000 feet. They are both fine aircraft. I would not choose one over the other unless all else were equal, then it's the Saab. If pay, schedule, quality of life or risk exposure can be differentiated between jobs featuring one or the other, that's where you should focus your consideration. The SF-340 is quiet for a turboprop, but it is noisy even though your seat is considerably forward of the props. if I could have gone without a clamp on my head and moved a decimal one place to the right on my paycheck, I would have been happy flying the SF-340 forever.