But definitely you can understand both the technology and all maintenance aspects without being a mechanic.
That sounds like the people at EASA that draft regulation. See where that got us 
If European jet flight rarely goes above FL300, I don’t understand why any private owner would buy a jet instead of a TBM850.
I suppose the reasons for jets might be
What other reasons are there (seriously 
) ?
The jets are faster. The only fast Turboprop we have is the TBM700/850 and it has a rather small cabin.
I wonder when other companies will finally enter the TBM market, right now it has no competition at all.
The Jet will sound even better when I listen to it from the airport fence and somebody else pays the € 150.000 per year :-)
Well the PC-12 has a large enough cabin, and it’s fast enough too. And I could fly it to Bopfingen :-)) With the Jet i could only make a low approach
If European jet flight rarely goes above FL300, I don’t understand why any private owner would buy a jet instead of a TBM850.
Neither do I.
a good used Citation can be bought for half the price of a new TBM
But you will recover the difference within two years on maintenance costs alone. With fuel, insurance, training, airway and landing fees you will be equal in one year…
What other reasons are there (seriously ) ?
- Two engines versus one.
- A lot of people (especially wives of aircraft owners) are afraid of anything driven by a propeller or even two propellers. Trying to explain the difference between piston and turboprop is useless.
The jets are faster. The only fast Turboprop we have is the TBM700/850 and it has a rather small cabin.
“Some jets are faster”: On a typical 300NM trip (say Stuttgart to Hamburg) an Eclipse or Mustang will gain less than 5 minutes over a TBM 850. At more than twice the hourly cost. And an Eclipse cabin is not bigger than a TBM one.
And travel to a place with a short strip the PC 12 is three times as fast the Jet :-)
Yes of course I forgot about the 2 engines, which remains relevant for private use.
The extra speed can’t make any significant difference in Europe (unless constantly flying UK to Crete, which is completely understandable) and if the TBM allows you to land nearer the destination, on a short runway…
You can also buy a King Air “cheap” – not much more than the value of the engines. From some of what I have seen, much cheaper than I would have expected. A guy I know who is heavily involved with both KAs and TBMs says there is no contest on operating costs between a KA90 and a TBM (the KA90 costs less). But he is talking about doing the entire Socata MM on the TBM, so it’s perhaps not a fair comparison.
BTW, the zero-fuel range of a TBM appears to be in excess of 1700nm. It is just rarely quoted that way.
I have to say having compared the Meridian to light jet travel times on 300-400nm trips, I think that the difference even there is small. Cruise of 270 tas is slower but not that much.
I actually think that for me a TBM has almost no added value (a little more range or load but not both). PC12 or King Air only really useful if you need to carry more people or load – no faster than a Meridian.
I am not think of changing but if I did I really don’t think you can do much more to move a Max of 4 people around Europe other than spend more money.
You can also buy a King Air “cheap”…
But only the KingAir 90. The useful ones (200 and 350) are quite expensive. The KA90 is too slow for a twin turboprop. We had one on our fleet until last year and in the end, it had square tires from standing in the corner of the hangar. For every trip more than one (jet) hour away – which is something like Stuttgart-Bastia – the CitationJet 1 was cheaper. Unless someone needed to go to a short runway or get around night flying restrictions for jets, the KA was almost never booked.
