Inertial separator would be the only real difference. TBM has a better ride.[/quote]

Built like a brick sh#t house too. Flys like a Mooney, it is.

I have never flown a TBM so was just reporting this pilot's observation about his transition experience from an M600 to a TBM 930. He said that it was a higher workload for the pilot in the TBM vs. the M600. The inertial separator is presumably part of that but he wasn't specific about the rest. The avionics are the same (both G3000) so it must be systems- or procedures- related, I'm assuming. He was pretty emphatic about it at the time, which I found interesting.

I've flown in M500 and M600 and can't see anything different other than the IS

Does the TBM have a fuel preheater? M600 appears not to by virtue of always needing prist.

Does the TBM have a fuel preheater? M600 appears not to by virtue of always needing prist.

Or in a TTx

I used to turn on every electrical system possible, turn off an alternator, and flip on cross tie on demos. Only way you knew you were on one alternator was by pulling up the engine/systems pane on the G2000.

That redundancy was also quite nice because of the number of gear-driven alternators I chewed up…

My sincere belief is that Air Conditioning, manageable like today's auto, is the reason that SWMBO liked the SR20 and SR22 when we looked at them nearly 11 years ago. The safety of her being able to pull the chute was another thing. When they get Autoland in them, that will be another. Presently, we spend most of our time in the back of airliners or 135 birds and in the Land Cruiser.

Both of my kids have ADHD and will *never* be able to be Private OR Commercial pilots. They can't even fly something as docile and safe as an SR-20 or 172. An LSA like a C-162, which is harder to fly than an SR-20 or SR-22, *might* be in the books. The EU is much more flexible with their LSAs and ADHD doesn't seem to have quite as many diagnoses in EU versus US.

Unfortunately, that kind of limits the time I can putz around at the airport now and certainly can't take them with me. We used to go every weekend but when the 2nd child got diagnosed with ADHD, SWMBO cut off aviation. My kid's psych has told us that she has had to, unfortunately, kill a lot of flying dreams from really bright kids and even adults.

If Cirrus made a pressurized piston powered 6 seat aircraft I’d be interested (vs my A36 Bonanza).

The 4 seaters simply are not suitable for my mission.

The Cirrus Jet costs a LOT more money and therefore is not suitable.

Cirrus may make nice aircraft but they don’t make any for the market niche I want.

Would you really though?

This is a never-ending rabbit hole to go down Jim, but if you expand on that a bit you're basically talking a C421. On the low end a new one would cost $2M up front and a $1000/hour to run.

Would you be interested in that or would you open Controller and find a really, really nice King Air/ long body MU2/Commander 1000/Citation?

Isn’t that what a PA-46 is?

That’s about the only plane I realistically could see upgrading to for my flying and even that’s probably a stretch.

That is a the PA-46, and it has sold reasonably well.
Question is UL/Range. When you load it up with six, the range gets rather limited.

Tim

An 8 seat aircraft is required for 6 people.

It would be interesting if there was a market to complete with the M600. However, last I checked, the M600 was more expensive than the SF-50.

…and that thread already exists on BT:
viewtopic.php?t=156865

Looks like Cirrus are trying to expand their facilities. They have to be the only piston manufacturer doing that right now.

https://www.startribune.com/cirrus-plan ... 600149792/

Yes, I would.

I would already own a Piper Malibu if I could get it to fit in my hangar. I think I’m going to get on the hangar ‘swap’ list so if a larger one opens up I can upgrade.

I can afford to to buy and operate a Malibu now, but they can be bought and operated reasonably (meaning not that much more than a TAT TN 550 powered A36).

I fly extensively in the Sierras and Rockies. Large mountains. I don’t have built in O2 (I have a small portable tank with the O2D2 system which works well) but pressurization would without a doubt be a game changer in a positive way.

I only need 6 seats for short flights (say under 300 NM) so a Malibu would work just fine.

For our really long trips I only need a couple of seats and luggage, so again the Malibu would work very well indeed.

Using O2 I flew my A36 from Atlanta (PDK) to Santa Maria, CA (in sight of the Pacific Ocean) in just under 12 hours from first lift-off to final touch down. That was in October, 2016. Stock 80 gallon tanks. I refueled in North Texas and Arizona.

Using the supplemental O2 I felt super refreshed and sharp even though I spent literally all day at 12,000’ - 12,500’ MSL.

I believe pressurization would have a similar effect on my remaining fresh and alert, although I don’t know exactly what cabin altitude a Malibu might have at say 12,000’.

Plus on longer flights I often fly very high. Going east 17,500’ is typical. With pressurization I’d definitely file IFR and get up in the flight levels.