Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TBM900 - the perfect airplane

So following the other thread. Interested in why @achimha thinks this is the perfect airplane.

I think it has very good range, quick for a turboprop, middling load capacity and very expensive to run.

For 1000nm mission (very long for Europe), what is the perfect aircraft?

Last Edited by JasonC at 10 Nov 22:11
EGTK Oxford

Well, perfect … or affordable?

Of course the C-510 is a better airplane in almost all respect than the TBM, but the TBM should be MUCH cheaper to operate.

From MY perspective a Meridian would be fine. The max 1000 miles are more than I would need. The routes I’d like to fly more often over the weekend would be Munich-Split (under 400 miles, northern Germany or the south of France). Yes, the TBM is better, more solid, better range and payload – but it’s really too expensive. A used Meridian would be fine for me.

Like this one:
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-MERIDIAN/2004-PIPER-MERIDIAN/1376431.htm

At the moment one of the main reasons that prevent me from starting to look for one I like is the lack of CAPS (please no discussion again, at least not here) … It’s simply that you get used to the additional layer of safety.

I think for what I do with airplanes the Cirrus is pretty good. But there’s really no “perfect” airplane.

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 10 Nov 22:37

I am not meaning to compare with a C510.

More pistons and turboprops. For touring pilots looking to do long trips. 400nm is not really the right range. At 1000nm the speed makes a significant difference.

Last Edited by JasonC at 10 Nov 22:32
EGTK Oxford

I put that wrong: Yes, I’d do 1000 NM flights (i do already), it’s just not my main preference.

I think the Meridian and the JetProp are what I could need, followed by the Malibu and the Cirrus. The Cirrus has the great advantage of really modern avionics and the CAPS, the Malibu has a real cabin and of course pressurization.

This is surely down to

  • how much money you have
  • mission profile

If you like to get good photos, there is nothing which is pressurised which will be much good, simply due to the optically poor windows in pressurised planes.

If you like to fly at low levels, even occassionally, no turboprop will be anywhere near economical. On FR24, one sees certain homebuilt TPs flying all the time at VFR levels, presumably to look “VFR”, but they are paying a heavy price in fuel.

If you like to do some of the above and you want a highly weather capable plane, and you have decided it should be a turboprop, then you have to run two planes.

Any pressurised TP will totally outclass any unpressurised SEP for mission capability. For example a Jetprop will totally outclass any Cirrus. You are instantly elevated to 260kt TAS, FL260, +3000fpm, weather radar, and no messing with oxygen.

There is thus a large gap between the top SEPs and the TPs. The piston PA46 is the odd one out… I know of pressurised twin pilots (421 type) who will make a similar argument for theirs but their operating cost has proved to be very high (largely due to avgas).

Is the TBM expensive to run because it is expensive to run or because most/all owners are the types who take it to a dealer, leaving the keys and a signed blank cheque on the seat? We did previously discuss Part 91 operation of a TBM and the objection was that it would reduce its resale value. But that isn’t a great argument for throwing money at €10,000 services if you are looking at long term ownership. With short term ownership you will lose money no matter what.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

s the TBM expensive to run because it is expensive to run or because most/all owners are the types who take it to a dealer, leaving the keys and a signed blank cheque on the seat? We did previously discuss Part 91 operation of a TBM and the objection was that it would reduce its resale value. But that isn’t a great argument for throwing money at €10,000 services if you are looking at long term ownership. With short term ownership you will lose money no matter what.

I think that stereotype is over the top.

I think the cost of operation is down to high fuel consumption for the class, high maintenance costs if you follow the manufacturer schedule and higher IFR enroute charges. Most just don’t run it on condition even under Part 91. It is generally maintained more like a jet in that way. The PA46s are different in that respect.

EGTK Oxford

Hate to sound like a broken record, but a Turbo Commander will burn less fuel, go further, fly higher, carry more, in cabin class, and cost less to operate than a TBM. Any TBM, not just the 900. The only thing the TBM 900 will do is go 20kts faster. So if you save money and beat almost every TBM performance with a twin, why not have the second engine along? It’s riding for free.

Listen, I like the TBM a lot and think it’s a beauty, but the single TP makers (PC12, Piper) have really bamboozled people into thinking there’s some kind of huge economical benefit to be had. It’s nonsense. Any Garrett powered twin, MU-2, Commander, Conquest, King Air B100 will blow them away in operational savings. I’m not talking acquisition here (which would be doubly unfair), but pure running costs.

Garretts cost $225K to overhaul. 5400hr TBO. That’s $42/hr. PT6 in TBM will cost at the very lowest $350K, but probably closer to $400-450K to do. 3600hr TBO. That’s $97/hr at the lowest price. So you’ll be saving $9/hr by having a Garrett powered twin compared to a PT6 single. Add the 20-30% lower fuel consumption on top of this and it’s easy to see that a TBM will cost many hundreds more per hour to operate.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 11 Nov 06:26

Flyer59 wrote:

Of course the C-510 is a better airplane in almost all respect than the TBM, but the TBM should be MUCH cheaper to operate.

You’re missing the most important point here: range. The Mustang is a short distance airplane. If you need TBM like range in a jet, you’re in the CJ2+/Phenom 300 class, not Mustang or any of the other small VLJs. An almost new Mustang is cheaper than a TBM with a lot of hours, you surely get much better deals there but if range is important, the Mustang is not an option. Second most important reason (for me): airfield accessibility. With the Mustang you hop from one airport with handling to the next, basically where CAT can bring you. With a TBM you can access (almost) all airfields you can with a Cirrus.

The PA46T (especially Meridian) is short on range and payload. A different class. By significantly overloading a JetProp DLX and putting a cabin tank in (like a lot of people do), you get a very capable machine which has much lower maintenance costs and which is a simple plane where a standard A&P and clever owner can do everything but that’s not to everybody’s taste.

There simply isn’t any other SET that combines range and speed. On the MET there are a few options but the Turbo Commander again cannot be compared to a TBM because it’s an ancient aircraft where you will always run behind a 2 meter long squawk list. On top of that the Garretts are not easy to operate in Europe, truly exotic.

I think that stereotype is over the top.

Not really, as I hung out at a TBM service shop for about 10 years… The customers “just pay”. It’s a great business to be in. There is nothing even remotely like it in the piston business. Even an SR22 dealership won’t have such a % of customers who “just pay”. As you have put it: “Most just don’t run it on condition even under Part 91. It is generally maintained more like a jet in that way. The PA46s are different in that respect.” I would ask “why”. The reason given to me by the shop was that they are in business to make money and making the parts supply margin is a key part of that. You can’t run a shop only by charging for labour of the people working there. In the TP world, parts supply is wonderful because many parts cost 5 figures and you make the dealer margin on that. So on a €10k part you make €2k-3k and all you need is a guy in a chair ordering it. But that doesn’t answer the question of why more TBM owners don’t take control of their maintenance. If I bought a TBM (and I could do an old one, especially 50/50) I would run it on Part 91 without question. Buy you probably cannot find a TBM dealer who will be willing to go along with Part 91 because you will strip out most of their earnings. Actually I looked into this recently and it can be done but I would need a hangar where I can do the work, and spend serious money on some tools. A big hangar too, because a TBM is a huge plane in terms of hangar floor space. If you pay for hangarage, it will be 4x the TB20 rate and then gets inflated because it can be, so you are looking at 20k-30k. Where I am based that is completely impossible; even an oil change is a major exercise.

but a Turbo Commander will burn less fuel, go further, fly higher, carry more, in cabin class, and cost less to operate than a TBM

Can you buy a brand new one?

One TBM/KA dealer told me I should buy a King Air because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to run and you get the 2nd engine for free – just like Adam says. But only if you buy an old one.

With a TBM you can access (almost) all airfields you can with a Cirrus.

It easily does 500m tarmac. With the usual caveats it will do 700m grass. The zero fuel range is some 1800nm. Shoreham to Crete is about 1450nm…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

You’re missing the most important point here: range.

We were talking about 1000 NM. The Mustang has a range of around 1200 NM and the Meridian has around 1000. The M600 has 1300 NM.

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 11 Nov 07:51
89 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top