As it relates to the TBM here, speed, short fields capabilities and payload are the definitley the main performance indicators.
Others are reliability and resale value but as Peter said, data is not all…
When in Europe, range is not to be discounted because even if you can fly from Biggin to Marrakech, you might not do it every weekend but range allows you to save a lot of time not having to refuel on a day return for example. It happened to me many times that after a long work day, it is so nice to simply be able to hop on the airplane and go home rather than having to deal with refueling delays, payment, etc…
I find planning tools such as Jeppesen Flight star to be extremely accurate when it comes to wind forecast. It is to the minute even on long legs and more remote areas.
That’s curious since FS (I have it too) uses GFS wx data, republished by Jepp. I have seen this to be way out sometimes (not saying there are better sources, and anyway GFS is the only free one for Europe).
it is so nice to simply be able to hop on the airplane and go home rather than having to deal with refueling delays, payment, etc…
Especially at the prices charged for landings, parking, etc by the time you are into that size/weight bracket. Any stop you don’t actually want to do is usually a big waste of time and money.
Flyer59 wrote:
210 KTAS
That’s laughable. You wrote that not everybody wants to do 7 hours flights and yet you also wrote this. 
Cirrus_Man wrote:
I estimate that more than 90% of GA flights are less than 3 hours and probably 95%
I also prefer flights under two or three hours. Which is why speed is important – it allows me to casually reach more places. What does it mean? The destination is suitable for a daytrip, the overhead must be reasonable and three hours (one way) is already pushing it IMO (and overhead isn’t just the flight time). Range comes into play for me mostly in more exotic missions. One milestone for me is being able to cross North Atlantic via Azores. Another is direct crossing (probably Canada – Ireland). Pacific would be next in line (not flying via Alaska and Russia). And I must be able to do it at a decent speed.
Peter wrote:
There aren’t any civilian certified SEPs that do 200kt in non-oxygen (actually non-mask) altitudes.
You are mistaken. You might want to look into machines powered by IO-580 “family”.
From the IO-580 wiki:
Martin: I was in a position to do these long legs (Canada to Ireland and the southern Transatlantic route) a few times with a TBM and favorable winds but did not have HF…clearly on my list of future exotic ones as well!
Extra and XtremeAir birds are certified and should do 200 knots under 10k feet. There is also an STC for a Commander that implements a 580 (called a Super Commander) but I’m not sure about the performance.
That’s laughable. You wrote that not everybody wants to do 7 hours flights and yet you also wrote this.
Sorry, but what is your point? You can chose: 500 miles at 300 knots with 6 people (enough range for most flights) or 210 KTAS if you really need the 1000 NM.
For me that’s a good trade-off, for me.
Recent image of Cirrus Vision Jet cockpit roof with “Quick Don” oxygen masks. cool.
That looks nice.
Is there a final picture of the panel/cockpit? Couldn’t find one ..
Flyer59 wrote:
Sorry, but what is your point?
First, if I wanted to cruise at 210 knots, I wouldn’t buy a jet (that’s what the first sentence was about). And second, I don’t like cruising for too long so 7 hour flights don’t sound enticing to me and I’m not interested in making a flight unnecessarily long. That’s why I wouldn’t normally consider a 210 knot cruise in a 300 knot machine. Just as I wouldn’t fly, say, a Mirage at 150. (1) Why not quote range at an even lower speed?
(1) There are exceptions. Like crossing an area where I can’t refuel. Then it becomes vital to the mission for which the bird probably isn’t well suited.
