The VAST majority of pilots fly planes that are around 40 years old or older now because the vast majority of planes flying are from prior to 1984, particularly piston planes. So what you say isn't true otherwise most pilots would not be flying at all.

TBM was first sold in 1990, 32 years old. It was derived from work done in the 1980s by Mooney, so has 40 year old DNA in it. The "M" in TBM is for "Mooney". Ironically, the MU2 was first sold by Mooney in the late 1960s, so some connection there.

So "new" isn't as new as you think any more, and "old" isn't as old either.

What matters is how reliable the plane is and how supported it is. The MU2 scores well for those concerns. How the plane has been cared for matters more than the number of years.

One thing that is counter intuitive is that newer airplanes can cost more to maintain. They have more intensive inspection programs, there's no secondary aftermarket suppliers for parts, and little to no used parts in the market. The older airplanes have more choices, have more access to alternate parts sourcing, and they have more relaxed inspection programs.

I can do things on my Citation V that no CJ4 owner can do, for example, like buy a used hydraulic pump for $200 that's works great.

Mike C.

Brent, come fly it, you will like it. I might be able to hook you up! The 180-185 knots is a game changer but I simply need more room…sadly it may not be but for a few years but what do you do. I flew it almost w hours today almost across Kentucky and back… had a 20 not tailwind and saw 200 plus GS.

Brent,

if you want to move up look at a Senneca III I flew a turbo Saratoga for a long time and moved up to the Seneca. faster and you can have known ice. and most importantly it is as easy to load and carries as much as the toga. The baron is really nice but with the load you carry you will need something bigger to carry as much.

and by the way turbocharging adds a whole new capability even in the flat lands. you won't believe how much nicer it is to fly when you can go up to 10 or 12,000 with no problem. much smoother air and easily get above the clouds most times.

A 3 hour flight at 12,000 ft will leave you fatigued the rest of the day.

If you want a true cross country machine, get pressurization.

Mike C.

I did not read all 6 pages, BUT I transitioned from a twin Cessna to the TBM and never looked back. even though it is a single, it's way safer than a piston twin. It carries more, and it has way more power to get through wx and ice. systems are more robust on turbines.

training is easy. Simcom the first 2 years, now we do in-airplane training. IIRC, I needed 25 hours of "mentor" time, which we did in 3 days.

the only thing I don't like about the TBMs is the cost of maintenance- but it is an airplane that never goes AOG- so maybe i'm undervaluing that.

Mits would be cheaper, is as robust, probably requires the same or more training.

I think the 700C2 is the sweet-spot on TBMs, or perhaps a legacy 850. we have a 2,650lb useful load.

BTW-

I had the exact same training requirements in my 340. once you go pressurized cabin-class, the insurance company gets you.

I find that with enough O2 to keep my blood saturation up, high altitude (up to at least 15K) doesn't seem to tire me. But I do need considerably higher than "normal" flow to keep good saturation.

Could vary a LOT with the individual. (Without O2 I feel great at altitude but get really stupid - always use it above 10K)


A 3 hour flight at 12,000 ft will leave you fatigued the rest of the day.

If you want a true cross country machine, get pressurization.

Mike C.

Maybe. Depends on pilot competence. If the piston twin pilot did yearly type school like the turboprop pilots get, I bet the safety would be similar. In other words, the ecosystem of training expectations might be making more difference than the plane itself.

TBMs do seem to have more accidents than, say, a PC 12.


I've heard it is not cheap. What makes it so expensive?

There are turboprop twins which can probably be maintained for less.


I would agree generally.


Aren't those selling for, say, $2.5M each? That's a lot of coin given today's interest rates.


What is your full fuel useful load left, plus range with reserves?

My MU2 was 3670 lbs useful load, 1218 lbs full fuel. It was 1218 lbs flown 1200 nm, in round terms.

My Citation V is 6875 lbs useful load, 1075 lbs full fuel. It is 2700 lbs flown 1200 nm, or 1075 lbs flown 1800 nm, in round terms.

Mike C.

With supplemental O2, no problem, works pretty well up to 17,000 ft.

But not usually a workable solution for passengers and an annoying consumable to have to refill on the road (or even at home).

Pressurization is also about good cabin temperature control as well. Unpressurized cabins never seem to well regulated and lacking drafts.

Nobody who has ever had pressurization desires to go without it.

Mike C.

"Way safer" is a stretch due to huge variables (pilots, training, maintenance, etc).

"Carries more" is just flat out wrong. It has two fewer seats than many twin cessnas and much less baggage capacity.

I have a few flights in a TBM, great plane, just a bit cramped for us.

how's that? it does carry more than my 340, and has the same number of seats. but in the TBM I can actually put 6 people in those seats and go somewhere. last weekend we had 5 normal adults, 200lbs of baggage, and made an 770mi trip in 2:40. the trip home was 2:20.

and the 850 carries the same baggage as the 340. 120lbs in the nose, and 220lbs in the rear.

I never claimed it was as large as a 421- it's not bigger. but is is faster. and safer.

MTBF is mean time between failures. Larger is better. So I think you meant the MTBF of a turbine is HIGHER than piston.

A single turbine engine will fail less often than a single piston engine. But a single engine turboprop will have loss of all thrust more often than a twin engine piston airplane losing all thrust since having both engines fail at the same time is going to be very rare.


Then your "statistics" only apply to you personally since that's not generally true of the fleet. You simply can't separate pilots and planes since each affects the other.


How much useful load is left with full fuel?

Mike C.

about 700lbs with full fuel. but I've only filled the tanks 2x in the past 3 years; just don't need that range. some rough range examples (IFR):
1500nm with full gas (gives me 700 useful) (it'll go farther if you fly slower),
1100nm gives me 1100# useful,
900nm gives me 1430# useful. this is my typical fuel load. 200gal, climbs fast and gives me 304-315TAS.

Mike- you type too fast!

As a single engine turboprop, you can do an "annual inspection" and you don't have to do phases or some inspection program the OEM puts out. That said, the phases may be beneficial, it just depends on how they are structured.

91.409(e)/(f) does not apply to you since you are single engine. This is an arbitrary thing in the FAA rules.


If it is an overhaul, part 91 doesn't have to do that. You can do it on condition.


I am pretty sure an MU2 is significantly cheaper than a KA90 to maintain.

This gets even better if you look at it on a per mile basis, too, since the KA90 is not very fast.


That's one of the best I've heard for a TBM, some are down to a 2 place airplane full fuel.

Mike C.