banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 21:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 12:15 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 2901
Post Likes: +966
Company: SkewTLogPro
Location: Tampa, FL (KVDF)
Aircraft: 1984 Bonanza A36TN
Why are these early TBMs so cheap? $750K for 300 kts on 55 gallons per hour seems pretty darn good for the money. Many of them are approaching TBO so can they continue running Part 91 beyond TBO without requiring something like the MORE program?

http://www.caijets.com/tbm/cost.htm

I was searching through previous posts and someone mentioned the 700 will not do 1,000 nm which contradicts the specs I'm seeing in the above link and fltplan.com's profile which are showing closer to 1,500 nm with full fuel. What is the real world range on these early TBMs?

_________________
Friends don't let friends fly commercial.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 15:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
I looked pretty hard at these. The range, bc they are not RSVM seemed to be about 1200nm unless you pull it way back.

They are not 300knot planes if you are going far. Seemed like you needed an 850 for that. FlightAware tracks confirm this.

Payload was limited on pre - c2 planes too, though I did look at one very early serial number that had about 650lbs payload at full fuel. I think t depends on how nice the interior is and if the plane was ever weighed. It’s crazy how wrong weight and balances can be in turbine land. I looked at many planes where I found errors. The whisper from owners selling planes was that people routinely fly early planes over gross bc the only reason the useful load was low was to hit he single engine stall speed. I have no idea how accurate that is, just what I was told. I personally would never fly a plane over gross. Cannot imagine how ugly that could make things if anything bad happened!

They are awesome planes, very stout. I find the cabin narrow but I think planes fit everyone different so YMMV.

If they could have gone 1300nm I probably would have bought one.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 17:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/04/08
Posts: 1818
Post Likes: +1404
Location: MYF, San Diego, CA
Aircraft: A36
I understand that running past TBO is now feasible. Are there calendar items beyond annuals? This site suggests there are, http://www.n700vv.com/costs.php .

Ashley


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 17:33 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8415
Post Likes: +8303
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
http://www.newavex.com/tbm-learning-cen ... re-models/

_________________
Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120
Never enough!


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 18:46 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5521
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
You can not put the TBM's on MORE. Different engine type certificate.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3003
Post Likes: +5595
Location: Portland, OR
Aircraft: Prusinski'ing
Username Protected wrote:
I personally would never fly a plane over gross. Cannot imagine how ugly that could make things if anything bad happened!


Not trivializing your remarks, but I'm not sure I'd characterize it as ugly. You carry extra airspeed, which, in an engine out scenario means you are carrying exponentially more energy to the "landing site", which hopefully will be a well-selected one, since you loaded the plane with extra eyeballs to help you look. :D 61kts isn't really all that slow as it is, so 66kts may feel just as rotten if you put your plane into a tree.

These planes intrigue me too. Are there oddball 91 operators (Ag or other) who routinely run this class of PT6 over TBO with good results?


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
You can not put the TBM's on MORE. Different engine type certificate.


Part 91 you don't need more, bullshit program at best.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
Are there oddball 91 operators (Ag or other) who routinely run this class of PT6 over TBO with good results?


All the time, cue Craig C to answer you question of mystery and intrigue

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 20:50 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 12/22/14
Posts: 125
Post Likes: +16
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL (KFXE)
Aircraft: 1980 Bonanza F33A
what Anthony mentioned...

Payload with Max fuel relative to costs and capabilities of other TBM models and competitors for your specific mission.

Also maintenance over longer/ oldest aircraft in the fleet, despite desgn integrity - as they are the oldest you maybe fine but facing unknowns with time and aging.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 20:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
The 700's have some version 1.0 issues (low useful load, smaller cabin door, probably some less-than-optimal systems) But I bet they're pretty competitive with like price P46T's.

The big knock on TBM vs P46T has always been maintenance costs. As I understand the TBM (and Pilatus) market has long expected that aircraft be maintained in accordance with mfr maintenance plane like a twin turbine and a/c not doing so are penalized. Which leads to some $$$ maintenance decsions. I suspect a TBM bought well near TBO and then run in accordance with part 91 and nothing more would make a pretty economical plane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 22:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
I personally would never fly a plane over gross. Cannot imagine how ugly that could make things if anything bad happened!


Not trivializing your remarks, but I'm not sure I'd characterize it as ugly. You carry extra airspeed, which, in an engine out scenario means you are carrying exponentially more energy to the "landing site", which hopefully will be a well-selected one, since you loaded the plane with extra eyeballs to help you look. :D 61kts isn't really all that slow as it is, so 66kts may feel just as rotten if you put your plane into a tree.

These planes intrigue me too. Are there oddball 91 operators (Ag or other) who routinely run this class of PT6 over TBO with good results?


By ugly I meant lawsuits and insurance. Not flying characteristics. I am sure a tbm700 flies just fine a few hundred lbs over gross

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 22:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
The 700A model are lighter and will do 280-285 kts on 50 gph. No wind range are 1100-1200 nm with IFR reserves.

If you intend to fly on the N registry and part 91 you can go pass tbo and no need to follow Daher recommended maintenance.

A lot of these earlier A models are maintained this way and are not up to date on the recommended maintenance and thats why you see the lower prices.
If you intend to maintained it part 91 and keep it long term then do it but the market is smaller when you sell.

They are very solid aircraft with not many ADs. They can be RVSM approved with dual AMT 250 or the G600 STC / AMT 250.
The first ones didnt even have any Shadin engine recorder so engine data history may be inexisting.




Username Protected wrote:
Why are these early TBMs so cheap? $750K for 300 kts on 55 gallons per hour seems pretty darn good for the money. Many of them are approaching TBO so can they continue running Part 91 beyond TBO without requiring something like the MORE program?

http://www.caijets.com/tbm/cost.htm

I was searching through previous posts and someone mentioned the 700 will not do 1,000 nm which contradicts the specs I'm seeing in the above link and fltplan.com's profile which are showing closer to 1,500 nm with full fuel. What is the real world range on these early TBMs?

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 00:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/25/15
Posts: 218
Post Likes: +191
Username Protected wrote:

By ugly I meant lawsuits and insurance. Not flying characteristics. I am sure a tbm700 flies just fine a few hundred lbs over gross


Based on the PC12 accident in Montana, I don't think overgross is a big issue with lawsuits nor insurance.

Guy had 14 people in the plane and took off 600lbs overweight, with a ton of other contributing factors. But lawsuits went towards Pilatus for designing a "dangerous" fuel system...


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 09:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/24/08
Posts: 2718
Post Likes: +1012
Aircraft: Cessna 182M
Username Protected wrote:

By ugly I meant lawsuits and insurance. Not flying characteristics. I am sure a tbm700 flies just fine a few hundred lbs over gross


Based on the PC12 accident in Montana, I don't think overgross is a big issue with lawsuits nor insurance.

Guy had 14 people in the plane and took off 600lbs overweight, with a ton of other contributing factors. But lawsuits went towards Pilatus for designing a "dangerous" fuel system...


Simply an example of Rule One of tort litigation:

Sue people with plenty of gold.


If the pilot happened to be wealthy enough, or have enough insurance, he/she also gets sued...so if you are gonna fly overgross it is better to be poor.

RAS

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 10:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
But lawsuits went towards Pilatus for designing a "dangerous" fuel system...


If the pilot had listened to his fuel system he would not have crashed...........not having prist, unbalanced wings because of ice'd up fuel, his indicators screaming......and with 14 folks onboard..........simply unacceptable, especially if he was a paid pilot.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next




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

Jump to:  

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 2007-2024

.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.