banner
banner

27 Apr 2024, 02:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2024, 13:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3112
Post Likes: +2227
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Turbo commander is an excellent airplane. 441 costs a bit more and can have better avionics. I think the toilet is better positioned and the nose baggage is very useful in the 441. Legacy citation costs a bit more than a 441 and is even better. Depends on what you want to spend I think.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2024, 14:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/02/15
Posts: 2730
Post Likes: +1710
Location: Fresno, CA
Aircraft: T210M
Username Protected wrote:
The Turbo Commander has now taken the lead in the run up.

Get a big hanger and avoid turbulence.

Mike C.


Also: don't show your wife a picture before closing the purchase.
_________________
Tom DeWitt
Previous: TBM850/T210M/C182P
APS 2004


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2024, 17:55 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 01/12/18
Posts: 150
Post Likes: +34
Location: KILM (Wilmington, NC)
Aircraft: Mooney C
Quote:
That is one gripe I have with the DA62--every couple of months I have a little something that needs to get repaired, and then I have to fly it down to Ft. Lauderdale and airline back. Once a year would be fine, but every couple of months is getting tiring.

Interested in reading (another thread?) regarding your experiences with the DA62...


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2024, 18:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 565
Post Likes: +319
Location: KFAT
Username Protected wrote:
Interested in reading (another thread?) regarding your experiences with the DA62...


Oooooo I'm already rolling up my sleeves. We should make a new thread.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2024, 21:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/13/20
Posts: 195
Post Likes: +112
Location: KLOU/KJVY
My step up into the turbine world was a meridian, mu2, and now a 501. The last two planes are thanks to threads on here that Tarver and Ciholas have put so much time into. LOVED my mu2, but not gonna miss the tpe331 hot section costs and spinning those props after every flight. Got a great deal on my mu2 knowing it was almost time for hot sections on both, and each cost around $110k. Looks like hot sections on the 501 will hopefully run around $25K. Affordable Used and serviceable parts are plentiful on the 501, not so much on the MU2, unless you go to Chuck. I was happy with the meridian as well. I've done 2-2hour legs with 6 adults and no one got snippy haha. But I sure the love safety of two jet engines and being able to go high over the weather. Plenty of in depth threads here on the forum about all of them! I sit in a TBM every year at Oshkosh and they are amazing. But I'd rather have my $600k 501. I did full Garmin glass on it and it's getting paint and interior next month. Will look like a brand new jet for under $1M all in.

_________________
-MU-2
-C501


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2024, 22:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3112
Post Likes: +2227
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:
LOVED my mu2, but not gonna miss the tpe331 hot section costs and spinning those props after every flight. Got a great deal on my mu2 knowing it was almost time for hot sections on both, and each cost around $110k.


Who did the hot sections? Per two maintenance shops and one overhaul facility I called during the purchase process, and a couple of owners since, that is at least three times the average hot section. One of our engines ate a bird with a previous owner, and even that bill was substantially less than that. Were those overhauls?

It seems like some owners turn the props, some don’t. I’m a little confused logically with that, as on shutdown it must spin hundreds of times on the way down. I’m not sure what a dozen extra will do, but sometimes I do motor the props (much faster than I could do by hand) if it’s hot out a few minutes after shutdown, especially if I plan to start in the next 45 mins. Not sure if that is needed otherwise, I suspect it is something that sounded good in the 60s when the engines were being developed. Certainly the APU versions don’t get the benefit of this, and I don’t see West Star do this after flights. I was told the shaft bow is only an issue on new engines where tolerances are extra tight.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2024, 22:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/13/20
Posts: 195
Post Likes: +112
Location: KLOU/KJVY
Intercontinental Jet did the first, Arkansas Turbine did the 2nd. Not overhauls.

_________________
-MU-2
-C501


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2024, 02:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 565
Post Likes: +319
Location: KFAT
Not all 331s are maintained the same. -1/-5/-6’s are generally costlier hot sections. -10s are modular and significantly cheaper to maintain and repair.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2024, 10:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/13/20
Posts: 195
Post Likes: +112
Location: KLOU/KJVY
Username Protected wrote:
Not all 331s are maintained the same. -1/-5/-6’s are generally costlier hot sections. -10s are modular and significantly cheaper to maintain and repair.

Mine was a -6. HTH.

_________________
-MU-2
-C501


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2024, 17:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3112
Post Likes: +2227
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:
Not all 331s are maintained the same. -1/-5/-6’s are generally costlier hot sections. -10s are modular and significantly cheaper to maintain and repair.

Mine was a -6. HTH.


That would probably explain it, there are also differences in the -10's. The later -10N has laser drilled holes and Technicair said they see the most inexpensive overhauls with those. I don't think $20k is unheard of.

I have not seen any 441s for sale that have anything other than a -10N. If they did they'd likely be survey planes and not anything you'd want to buy.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2024, 17:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2900
Post Likes: +3616
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Meanwhile in the realm of a TBM vs. M600 thread, the M600 continues to fly without drama. My 140 nm milk run today in 37 minutes burning just over 200 Lbs of fuel door to door. Would be less but had to shoot the ILS, adding some distance and time. Plus I was running late and it was cold so max performance most of the trip burning more dinosaurs than normal. :D

Attachment:
IMG_2259.jpeg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2024, 13:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 565
Post Likes: +319
Location: KFAT
I started some training in a TBM900. Nice machine. Interesting to compare to our old Meridian and Epic LT.

Hard to believe it but can't find any mach limitation. Vmo of 271 KCAS at 31000' is mach .73. Doesn't seem right to me.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2024, 17:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2900
Post Likes: +3616
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
That is a pretty high Vmo up that high. But if the airframe will do it?? The Meridian doesn’t have a mach limitation either. Piper went with a straight Vmo limitation. But the Vmo is pretty low to begin with. I rarely get near the Vmo or Mmo in our plane 251/0.55. Have to be going downhill pretty steeply. The Epic has a much bigger engine.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs. M600
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2024, 19:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 565
Post Likes: +319
Location: KFAT
Username Protected wrote:
That is a pretty high Vmo up that high. But if the airframe will do it?? The Meridian doesn’t have a mach limitation either. Piper went with a straight Vmo limitation. But the Vmo is pretty low to begin with. I rarely get near the Vmo or Mmo in our plane 251/0.55. Have to be going downhill pretty steeply. The Epic has a much bigger engine.


It's a little sporty for every day flying

You'd only do it in an emergency. Fire or loss of cabin pressure. Emergency descent mode bugs 260 KIAS I'm told but can't find the AP's parameters in literature except 90° off course and leveling off at 15,000 feet.

That's still over mach .70 passing through FL290, assuming you build ~70 knots indicated in a dive starting from FL310. In non FADEC planes during EDM, power lever would still be in cruise position. You're coming down hot/shallow.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4




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

.wilco-85x100.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.