My main concern is whether the G1000 is harder to fly because of its greater complexity?

Thanks Chip. Presumably the 6-pack time came first? How long did it take to feel comfortable with the G1000? More importantly, does your comfort degrade faster with the 1000 when you take time off?

Just realized 900 hours on the simulator! Is that how you don't lose familiarity? Do you feel the need for 1.5 hrs of sim time for every hour flying? Is that home-pc based?

Not Chip. Started in round gauges for PPL. Moved to G1000, Mooney, for Instrument and flew ~950 hours behind it. Sold and went backwards to a 2006 EFIS 40 system with round gauges in panel. It took a few hours to get my scan in the EFIS system, about 11 then nearing 25 felt very good. EFIS was in a SETP and everything happens faster there too.

Initially for me the move from round to G1000 was not hard but during the 45 hours of instrument training I became very proficient and comfortable with it. Probably was 10 or so during that training to become comfortable.

Since then I've bounced back and forth in planes with glass and round. Have to be careful and either fly it or hangar fly it while touching and scanning to familiarize myself.

Easy to bounce now between planes I've flown a number of hours in. Hope this helps. G1000 is great from my perspective. It will all end up at your finger tips with the right book to read and instructor. Enjoy.

My main concern is whether the G1000 is harder to fly because of its greater complexity?

Thanks Chuck and Tom. Ashley

Or down, for that matter.
But it can be, such as landing gear. Though it is more forgiving to be late with the separator than the gear.

I am going to take a look at an M600. Just for me and my wife, might be better than getting a TBM940. Have 900 experience. Less airplane might be okay.

My main concern is the difference in pressurization.

Anthony the images below reflect what I've been taught (from Pratt's "Know your PT6" material). The overhaul interval is calculated with with torque settings in mind such that you get to OH being able to still maintain torque without exceeding engine temp limits. Ideally a gentle HSI on the way, too. Riding temp limits will hasten engine degradation, and you potentially never make it to OH making sufficient power and torque drops along the way.

Begs the question how much longer TBO could be for "extended-life" torque settings, assuming not too cool for sulfidation issues.

Or down, for that matter.
But it can be, such as landing gear. Though it is more forgiving to be late with the separator than the gear.

I am going to take a look at an M600. Just for me and my wife, might be better than getting a TBM940. Have 900 experience. Less airplane might be okay.

My main concern is the difference in pressurization.

Totally fair question. I think the loss in range will then force me into a fuel stop doing a Florida trip. Often times (unless a tailwind) my friend with a 900 has to slow down to improve his range so that he lands with a decent reserve. This is 1100 nm. He is slowing down to 285 plus or minus and down to 55 gph.

At normal cruise, the M600 does great. It can consume 38 to 43 gph depending on setting and isa. But it has a 260 gallon tank. The TBM a 292 gallon tank.

So I think I am up at FL280. The M600 I think gives a 9,600 ft cabin altitude compared to the TBM with 7,600 ft cabin alt.

However, that all said, the TBM can haul an extra 220 pounds with full fuel. Is so much roomier too. But you pay for it.

I don't like life at 9000 feet so much. And as I type this I realize a big part of that is concerning myself and dealing with the weather issues one can get at that altitude in the winter? Mayabe Charles can chime in with how he feels after five hours at FL280. Without weather issues, it might just be okay?

Wait, why does your friend with the 900 have to slow down? I thought that was a 1400nm plane??

I think that is how he gets his range. He often taking 80 kt wind on the side.

So he slows down until he can see at least one hour of fuel over destination.

In our M600, cabin altitude is 9820 at FL280 and 9410 at FL270. With the new STC, cabin altitude will be 10,600 at FL300 or thereabouts, according to people who have implemented it. 1100 trips are pretty easy nonstop in the M600; I have flown Houston to San Diego and Las Vegas, and Houston to Philadelphia, for example, each nonstop no problem. However, westbound in the winter can change that pretty easily.

7600’ would be better but I used to fly my Cirrus routinely at 10-12000 so I find the cabin pressures comfortable. You pay an extra $1 mm for the extra knots, altitude and pressure in the TBM. The guy who sold us his M600 bought a used TBM 930 - both he and his wife told us that they preferred flying in the 600. But everyone is different.

We looked at a used TBM 850 before buying the M600. We found something interesting; while the TBM carries more fuel, it also burns more fuel ... when flying a normal/recommended cruise settings, you burn about the same amount of JetA in the TBM and the M600 getting from point to point (at least on 800 nm plus trips); you just get there a little faster in the TBM.

Cheers

Neema,

Thanks for posting that graph. I have been looking for it within various presentation slide decks, and had forgotten it was in the PT6 booklet.

For those advocating use of setting power by ITT, what happens if one of the ten probes fails? The indicated ITT is an average of those probes, so total failure of one probe will be 10% (this could be different taking into account the trim stick and other factors) or so.

Joel, thanks for your information.

Tom, you learn something new every day. Didn't realize there were that many probes involved in measuring ITT. Hello from Fresno!