10 Nov 2025, 04:30 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet  Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:12 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3853
Post Likes: +2413
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah, you have to admit, it would have been a lot better with a parachute system. A lot better than what? No engine failures?
The PC12 have suffered a number engine failures and subsequent damage or loss of the aircraft, and some 60 substantial accidents and 76 fatalities by my count.
How many lives could have been saved with a parachute?
SF50 has one.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:13 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
The PC12 have suffered a number engine failures and subsequent damage or loss of the aircraft, some 60 substantial accidents and 76 fatalities by my count.
How many lives could have been saved with a parachute?
SF50 has one.
Please post a link to your numbers
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:51 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/02/15
Posts: 4187
Post Likes: +2902
Location: Fresno, CA (KFCH)
Aircraft: T210M
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 2:30 PM.. Flightaware:
63 PC12 Pilatus PC-12
26 SR22 Cirrus SR-22
18 BE36 Beechcraft Bonanza (36)
9 C340 Cessna 340
9 C402 Cessna 402
9 CNA Cessna 402
8 BE58 Beechcraft Baron (58) 17:50 EDT 23 TBMs inflight
_________________
1977 Cessna 210, with "elite" turbocharging.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
17:50 EDT
23 TBMs inflight
Very nice To keep it going: 65 PC12 Pilatus PC-12 34 SR22 Cirrus SR-22 17 BE58 Beechcraft Baron (58) 10 C402 Cessna 402
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 18:24 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3682
Post Likes: +5453
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
I agree with all you said, but will point out that from SJC OAL BLD you’re never more than 45nm from an airport. The Meridian can glide that distance from an altitude of only 15,000’. From 30,000’ you can double it. Winds have a big impact, but I’ve flown that route many times in all sorts of heavy winds and haven’t been out of glide range yet. The first 30 seconds after rotation are perilous, but from there after I plan to put her down on a runway.
Well that glide is from 15000 AGL.  the typical routing for IFR for most turbocharged and turboprop planes would be: KRHV BIH LIDAT BTY.FUZZY8 KHND. Some of that terrain is over 14000’. Amazing and beautiful, but hostile. If you set down on it successfully, no one will be coming to rescue you.
I fly a lot of night, IMC, LIFR, Mountains, and have come to the conclusion the only high probability of survival solution is to land on a runway. I am almost never ever out of glide range to at least one suitable airport in the Meridian. Using fore flights glide range rings, you can keep a pretty good eye on your options. But few places are you ever out of glide of several airports. You are exhibiting piston think.  The Meridian/M500/M600/PC12 are amazing gliders.
Even in the Rockies, so many options if you just file airways (which are collocated with low terrain and airports). Every else in the country.... Not an issue at all.
Attachment: 1 (102).jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 18:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3682
Post Likes: +5453
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
If memory serves, its worse that that. The FCU is a pneumatic computer that schedules fuel based on air pressure in different parts of the engine. That's why they are slow to spool up because the FCU is designed to limit the fuel unless there is sufficient internal airflow to allow additional fuel without damaging the engine. The manual override skips that "logic" and dumps fuel directly in proportion to the position of the external control. A PT6 mechanic friend of mine said that when the MOR is used, there is nearly always internal heat related damage done to the engine. His words were that if you had to resort to the MOR, you would trash the engine but under the right conditions it might be worth it.
This is not true. Many instructors teach MOR use in the plane, each year to give the pilot confidence, and dispel those myths. Those engines aren't cooked, or we would have heard about it, and instructors would have stopped doing it. Personally, I only do my MOR work in the Sim, but haven't cooked the Sim either. Spool it up slow, and if you ever really need to spool it up fast to save your life, who cares.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 19:19 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12190
Post Likes: +3074
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: get back to 850's and SF50s' But that is boring. Everyone already knows the SF50 is a crippled plane, and the TBM is overpriced. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 21:03 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 35812
Post Likes: +14256
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think my Meridian could depending on airspeed at the time of engine failure. Yesterday I was practicing engine out gliding. At 145 knots I pulled the power and then pitched for best glide speed. I gained 1700 feet before the speed bled off to Vg. So hypothetically that would put me at 3700agl. If flown perfectly the Meridian has a 17.4:1 glide ratio. From 3700agl that is 10.6nm of run. 145 is a little fast to be maneuvering for an approach though, I’ll have to try from 130kts and see how much altitude is gained.
Incidentally most approaches seem to be a 3.5* glide path. A 17.4:1 glide ratio is equal to 3.29*. So once on the glide slope/path you should be able to make it to the field. I agree that it's (remotely) possible to complete an approach while gliding with the engine off under ideal circumstances. But in real life I'd be willing to bet few if any SETP pilots could pull this off. First there's the "startle factor" to get by and then you'd have to manage airspeed almost perfectly while sweating bullets, feathering the prop, and securing the engine. Finally at some point I'd think you'd to lower some flaps and maybe the gear so your landing speed is lower and you could retain directional control on the runway. Also it wouldn't take much of a headwind to convert your optimal 3.29:1 glide angle to something more than 3°. I'm also wondering if you weren't getting some residual thrust in your experiment that wouldn't be there if the engine really died (vs rolled back to flight idle thrust).
_________________
-lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 21:21 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7811
Post Likes: +2475
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Why the LOL ?
Because I was literally laughing out loud? Clearly you have the ability to make such rules. I don’t. 
_________________
ABS Life Member
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 09 Apr 2019, 21:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 909
Post Likes: +726
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think my Meridian could depending on airspeed at the time of engine failure. Yesterday I was practicing engine out gliding. At 145 knots I pulled the power and then pitched for best glide speed. I gained 1700 feet before the speed bled off to Vg. So hypothetically that would put me at 3700agl. If flown perfectly the Meridian has a 17.4:1 glide ratio. From 3700agl that is 10.6nm of run. 145 is a little fast to be maneuvering for an approach though, I’ll have to try from 130kts and see how much altitude is gained.
Incidentally most approaches seem to be a 3.5* glide path. A 17.4:1 glide ratio is equal to 3.29*. So once on the glide slope/path you should be able to make it to the field. I agree that it's (remotely) possible to complete an approach while gliding with the engine off under ideal circumstances. But in real life I'd be willing to bet few if any SETP pilots could pull this off. First there's the "startle factor" to get by and then you'd have to manage airspeed almost perfectly while sweating bullets, feathering the prop, and securing the engine. Finally at some point I'd think you'd to lower some flaps and maybe the gear so your landing speed is lower and you could retain directional control on the runway. Also it wouldn't take much of a headwind to convert your optimal 3.29:1 glide angle to something more than 3°. I'm also wondering if you weren't getting some residual thrust in your experiment that wouldn't be there if the engine really died (vs rolled back to flight idle thrust).
Regarding getting the glide right, you are absolutely correct. It isn't easy to do; it's quite difficult actually. Which is why I was out training for the possibility. I'm trying to get proficient at calculating (or rather using the GTN 650 to calculate with winds taken into consideration) the distance needed to travel so you end up at the airport at the right altitude, quickly entering waypoints so you can fly that distance and adjust as necessary, learning how many feet the aircraft descends in a standard rate turn, a hold with one minute legs, etc. It's equally or more so demanding than practicing V1 cuts. Physically the V1 cut is more difficult, mentally the glide is way more difficult. If you're good with math and train to proficiency gliding to an airport can be a high likelihood event. I'm pretty decent with math, but I'm nowhere near proficient at gliding. The good thing is if you're up at altitude you have a lot of time to run the calculations. This past weekend I started my glides from 6000agl and it seemed like an eternity coming down.
In the Meridian we actually need a fair amount of thrust to replicate a feathered glide. With the power at idle that big flat bladed prop creates a lot of drag (great for 3000-4000fpm descents). Depending on Vg for your weight the Meridian glides at about 600fpm give or take 25fpm, so it requires about 150#'s of torque to replicate that.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2019, 00:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3853
Post Likes: +2413
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
The PC12 have suffered a number engine failures and subsequent damage or loss of the aircraft, some 60 substantial accidents and 76 fatalities by my count.
How many lives could have been saved with a parachute?
SF50 has one.
Please post a link to your numbers
You sure?
You know, I'm never wrong about these things.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2019, 06:38 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/19/12
Posts: 399
Post Likes: +308
Company: North Air Flite
Location: Greenbush MN
Aircraft: 80 V35B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: On the safety of a SETP, related to engine failure, it is a nothing-burger. If you ever die in a SETP, chances are 99+/100 that you killed yourself with a perfectly good engine under power. That is napkin math from what I know of the TBM, Meridian, Jetprop, M500, M600 and PC12 data with over 9 million (with an M) flight hours in those birds. So I would just remove that from the equation as irrelevant and in the getting struck by lightning line of luck, and get back to 850's and SF50s' I've had 3 engine failures in a SETP one a cracked can in an old -20 and two related to the P2 line, I was able to land without incident all 3 times, and I've had 2 engine failures in piston planes, one cracked cylinder in a 1340 and a carburetor maintenance issue in an O-360. Another pilot I know had 3 failures one year with a SETP one was extreme enough it spit out parts of the turbine wheel and started fires along a grass runway. Another Plane I had been flying was in the serial number range to have its turbine wheel replaced do to stretching and rubbing on the burner can, after another pilot took it out west had Pratt scope it and signed it off ok and within 20 hours had a catastrophic failure and ended up having it put it in Hells Canyon after a catastrophic failure.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2019, 07:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be willing to bet You use this term constantly in this thread. It doesn't mean you are right. Every time you say that just know I'm in for $100. Then post some numbers to back up your story like I have done.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
I was starting to feel bad I bought one. 
