BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2019, 21:28

Its not the Fadec but a completely new engine from Pratt that is more efficient running at higher pressure and higher temps.
Look at the efficiency that as been done on jet engines over the years for sure turboprops can be improved.

Username Protected wrote:

I wanted to see the new PT6 offering with Fadec on this one but I think its still a few years away. I heard 20% improvement in fuel efficiency but I need to see it.

FADECs don't improve fuel efficiency in turbine engines. The efficiency is set by the thermodynamic properties of the gas path.

50 GPH dumped into the combustion chamber yields the same output whether that fuel flow is controlled by a FADEC or a old fashioned mechanical fuel controller.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2019, 23:47

Username Protected wrote:

I think, like others with TBM's and wanting to own folks, feel the biggest benefit Daher could come out with is more range. A new engine with the same or minor improvement in BHP but with 20 % more fuel efficiency came to market it would be a huge winner.... :bow:

Makes many more flights that are on the edge very doable.

Is that a GE engine or TPE (doubtful). Sorry for those who are hopping on the Denali bandwagon but look at GE's financial situation and decide whether they and Textron are going to keep moving forward together. I hope so but GE is not the cash cow today like yesterday.

In my case I stop usually in winter heading west ~900nm's for fuel against winter head winds. I have made the trip on long range cruise settings but that slows the TAS to KA/Pilatus speeds :duck:

of 240-250KTAS. Give me a new TBM traveling at 330KTAS burning 45-52GPH and range is dramatically better. Currently in the Legacy 850 Max Cruise is ~302-308KTAS and fuel burn for the trip is 58 GPH door to door. New TBM 9XX would then be able to carry you 1650 nm possibly, in 5 hours, with (IFR) plenty of fuel reserve. Just think Midway to Henderson KHND (Las Vegas) in 5 hours 16 minutes non stop against 70kt headwinds. Give some cheap jets a run for their money. :dance:

My preference for most flights is max 3-3.5 hours. Give me range and the same 305-330 TAS and makes a speed demon have even better legs... Now the engineers can tell me how that is in the mix design wise. :sad:

Range? My friend Dierk just did this :-)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KHPN/LFPB
-de

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 00:31

Username Protected wrote:

Range? My friend Dierk just did this :-)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KHPN/LFPB
-de

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 00:40

Username Protected wrote:

Range? My friend Dierk just did this :-)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KHPN/LFPB
-de

Awesome accomplishment. But he did have ferry tanks.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 00:41

Username Protected wrote:

Range? My friend Dierk just did this :-)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KHPN/LFPB
-de

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 00:55

Username Protected wrote:

I think, like others with TBM's and wanting to own folks, feel the biggest benefit Daher could come out with is more range. A new engine with the same or minor improvement in BHP but with 20 % more fuel efficiency came to market it would be a huge winner.... :bow:

Makes many more flights that are on the edge very doable.

Is that a GE engine or TPE (doubtful). Sorry for those who are hopping on the Denali bandwagon but look at GE's financial situation and decide whether they and Textron are going to keep moving forward together. I hope so but GE is not the cash cow today like yesterday.

In my case I stop usually in winter heading west ~900nm's for fuel against winter head winds. I have made the trip on long range cruise settings but that slows the TAS to KA/Pilatus speeds :duck:

of 240-250KTAS. Give me a new TBM traveling at 330KTAS burning 45-52GPH and range is dramatically better. Currently in the Legacy 850 Max Cruise is ~302-308KTAS and fuel burn for the trip is 58 GPH door to door. New TBM 9XX would then be able to carry you 1650 nm possibly, in 5 hours, with (IFR) plenty of fuel reserve. Just think Midway to Henderson KHND (Las Vegas) in 5 hours 16 minutes non stop against 70kt headwinds. Give some cheap jets a run for their money. :dance:

My preference for most flights is max 3-3.5 hours. Give me range and the same 305-330 TAS and makes a speed demon have even better legs... Now the engineers can tell me how that is in the mix design wise. :sad:

Range? My friend Dierk just did this :-)
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KHPN/LFPB
-de

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 01:08

Username Protected wrote:

But he did have ferry tanks.

And 100-150 knot tailwinds.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 02:25

Perhaps a better and more meaningful safety record discussion than TBM vs PC12 would be TBM vs Mustang.

They are both 6 seat, typically owner flown (as opposed to PC-12).

Mustang goes faster, goes higher and until recently there had never been a Mustang fatal. The one fatal was professionally flown by a crew of 2 in Europe.

Take that one out and there have been zero fatals by the predominately owner flown Mustang. TBM (last I heard 64 fatalities - 1 that comes to mind was professionally flown).

There are more TBM's but not enough to make the safety record even remotely close.

Thoughts??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 03:59

Username Protected wrote:

Perhaps a better and more meaningful safety record discussion than TBM vs PC12 would be TBM vs Mustang.

A twin jet will be intrinsically safer than a turboprop single.

Quote:

TBM (last I heard 64 fatalities - 1 that comes to mind was professionally flown).

About 930 TBMs have been built, about 480 Mustangs.

There are 19 TBM fatal accidents.

There is 1 Mustang fatal accident.

On a per capita basis, the TBM is about 10 times as dangerous as the Mustang, which falls pretty much inline with the turboprop versus jet general difference in fatal accident rate.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 08:13

are the crashes from torque-roll? ie., inexperienced pilot getting slow and firewalling the power?

I imagine that engine would flip the airplane over in short order if you unloaded the wing and torqued it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 08:50

Username Protected wrote:

are the crashes from torque-roll? ie., inexperienced pilot getting slow and firewalling the power?

I imagine that engine would flip the airplane over in short order if you unloaded the wing and torqued it.

I don't have a dog in this fight (sorry PETA) but I think the whole torque roll thing is generally oeverstated. While I don't have any TBM or Mustang time, I do fly a 1400hp single and a "torque roll" just doesn't play into the equation.

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 08:56

[quote="Mike Ciholas"
On a per capita basis, the TBM is about 10 times as dangerous as the Mustang, which falls pretty much inline with the turboprop versus jet general difference in fatal accident rate.
[/quote]

My guess (and I can't quote data to back this assertion up) is that if you take 121 jets out of the equation there's nowhere near a 10x jet vs turboprop difference. I just don't buy that there's an order of magnitude difference between jets and turboprops flown by the same pilots.

Does anyone have any data on part 91 or part 135 (i.e. Exclude 121) jet v turboprop safety records?

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 09:14

Username Protected wrote:

I suspect that in general, you'll have higher value hull and liability limits on PC12s than TBMs. This drives up training requirements from insurance companies. For example, my insurance requires sim based training each year (training cannot be done in the airplane) and I have 1400 hours in type.

Currently underwriters seem to group all SETPs together (and possibly all METPs). Training and insurance requirements are getting tighter for all PC12 operators, but yet the PC12s have one of the best safety records.

I think the TBM's flight envelope protection is a huge safety benefit and that's high on my wish list for the Honeywell Apex. 2 of the recent PC12 fatals were loss of control.

The economy is hot. Folks are buying airplanes. It's a sellers market. Insurance companies can pick and choose who they want to insure. The insurance market changed a lot in the last 5 years.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 10:46

Username Protected wrote:

A twin jet will be intrinsically safer than a turboprop single.

Yes, I agree the jet is a bit safer, but the more substantial difference is safety...

A twin jet pilot will be intrinsically safer than a turboprop single pilot.

.....because of the additional training requirements for a type rating, and insurance mentor requirements.

I’m betting if the TBM pilots ran through the same training as the Mustang pilots, that 10x difference would be much different.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2019, 10:56

Username Protected wrote:

A twin jet will be intrinsically safer than a turboprop single.

Yes, I agree the jet is a bit safer, but the more substantial difference is safety...

A twin jet pilot will be intrinsically safer than a turboprop single pilot.

.....because of the additional training requirements for a type rating, and insurance mentor requirements.

I’m betting if the TBM pilots ran through the same training as the Mustang pilots, that 10x difference would be much different.

TBM 940