28 Mar 2024, 20:21 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 12:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.htmI 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 17:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 17:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8415 Post Likes: +8303 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:09 |
|
|
|
|
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. 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 19:44 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 22:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 19 Nov 2017, 22:33 |
|
|
|
|
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.htmI 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 20 Nov 2017, 00:28 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 20 Nov 2017, 09:19 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 700 and 700A Posted: 20 Nov 2017, 10:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|