I only have one piece of advice regarding using Gatorade bottles for this purpose... If they have been previously used to sump 100LL DO NOT let your "equipment" touch the rim of the bottle. It gives the Johnny Cash Ring of Fire lyrics new meaning..... And it burns for a LONG time.....

Wow, heckuva thread derailment I just caused!

This equipment is beyond my pay grade, but I'm nonetheless curious about something: Why would someone pay a 25-30% premium for a new TBM over a Mustang that has similar performance and seating, but also a potty and a second turbine? I get that the operating costs for the turboprop are reduced, but I believe I could buy a lot of Jet-A for the difference. Don't tell me short/soft field performance - I don't buy that owners are landing their nearly-$4m planes on grass. Curious to hear thoughts on a topic I've wondered about for years now.

Well, it does have superior range to the Mustang. But agreed, I would never pay that much and not have a lav. For that money I can get a HondaJet, which is a much more modern aircraft.

Not that I would ever have the issue of how I would spend $4m on a plane but some guys who money is no issue just might want the simplicity of a single engine plane.

Kurt Russell has a TBM -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fOKnQWZR3g

Short field performance. By the way, not all short fields are grass and not all grass runways are short. Also, short and soft fields are two completely different things.

Another advantage is the greatly reduced maintenance costs. Being immune from the requirement to follow the manufacturers maintenance schedule for US based planes is also a huge plus.

I looked hard at King Airs and the mustang before buying our TBM. Most of the time it's just the 2 of us in the plane. My wife is also a pilot. She hates, hates taking check rides.
Refused to get her multi rating. Decision was easy ........TBM. I think the Pilatus is a great plane. Just too much plane for the majority of our missions. The couple times a year we go skiing in Montana...... yea the Pilatus with its range and payload would be nice.

Kurt Russell also had the only TBM700 with a factory approved potty. Golde would not not fly with out one.

How does the TBM compare to the piper product (Malibu?). Not that I could afford anything with a turbine, but curious.

If you search this topic it's been thoroughly discussed on BT. The Meridian is a great airplane if it fits your mission. The TBM beats it in many categories BUT it's almost twice the cost in acquisition and operation

Kurt Russell also had the only TBM700 with a factory approved potty. Golde would not not fly with out one.

If you search this topic it's been thoroughly discussed on BT. The Meridian is a great airplane if it fits your mission. The TBM beats it in many categories BUT it's almost twice the cost in acquisition and operation

Got a PTT in the Lav ?

-Pascal

I don't get a $4 million TBM. Too many better/cheaper choices out there like an Epic, Eclipse, Mustang, CJ, etc. I cannot imagine too many of these are selling NEW. I love the TBM but it's still a TP single. Nobody is using these for short fields although the range argument is very good.

So, I could see myself in a TBM for the following reasons:

- Gets in and out of my home base, KSQL (2600')
- Fits in my T hangar (large T hangar)
- Speedy enough (300 kts)
- Don't need that much useful load
- Pretty good range
- Decent operating economics

All that said... I too can't spend $4M on one. For the more than $3M I save in capital cost I can fund my entire year's costs for the Mits.